Esa shows images of green trees and forests?

reply to post by NGC2736

---

Click on the external image # 2 or #3 of the op's pictures. Then scroll all the way to the left and go up. Do you not see the green marks that don't belong there? Sorry to edit, but if you do see them can you put them up to see? I'm still trying to get the hang of doing stuff like that.

Sorry meant to the left not right.

[edit on 11/10/2007 by Solarskye]

[edit on 11/10/2007 by Solarskye]

reply to post by Solarskye

---

You have good eyes, young grasshopper.

Yes, I found it. Wondering if it could be blowing sand? It obscures part of the cliff face like water, but doesn't have the right consistency for that.

I can't see where that would indicate any airbrushing, as it seems like an odd place for anything that needed hiding.

reply to post by NGC2736

---

No!! Look down further than that. This green marks look like the paint brush on microsoft paint. It's not even the same color as the rest of the picture. You might have to zoom in on the left side of the pic to see it. Or I'm just plain seeing things my computer wants me to see.

Zoom in til you can't zoom in anymore, go all the way to the left and go down both cliffs and there it is!!

[edit on 11/10/2007 by Solarskye]

While there are so color changes, it's nothing I don't see on other parts of the picture. Maybe someone else can spot it when they stop by.

But I've never been able to spot these things till people point them out, circle them, draw me pictures, and generally come to the conclusion that I'm dense. But one thing about my lack of imagination in this area, if I see something in a photo, it must be really there for anybody to see.

Either you need a new monitor, or I need new glasses?

reply to post by NGC2736

---

When I save it to my pictures which is window and fax viewer, I have the option to zoom in with the + synbol. And when I zoom in a great deal and scroll to the lefy I see it. It's not part of the picture. It's added in or a forgotten edit that is messing with me right now.

OK let me get my shot glass out and sail with Captain Morgon and I'll get back to Ya!!

reply to post by Solarskye

---

I'm really proud when we members can figure out, and admit, when we have something wrong. That means we're looking for the truth, and have minds that are pliable enough to change as the facts and data change.

Good job Solarskye.

reply to post by NGC2736

---

Thank You NGC2736, but I still see the paint strokes in the external image of #2 & 3. The first image doesn't have it. But like I said, it could be my computer taking over my mind

reply to post by NGC2736

---

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on my previous post.

NASA has the technology and is using it since November 2006 in HiRISE.

The images used to make the colour photos (the ones using the Red, Green and Blue filters) from ESA's Mars Express, in the case of the images from the opening post, have a best resolution of 42.4 m/pixel.

The image I posted before from HiRISE has a resolution of 26.1 cm/pixel, more than 160 times higher than the resolution from ESA's images.

NASA is using those images to help them find a place for the landing (or is it Marsing? ) of the Mars Science Laboratory.

reply to post by ArMaP

---

Wow Armap, those Hirise pictures are really nice. They show lots of detail in the cliffs and dunes. I want to see some Hirise pictures of the moon if they take them with that much clarity. Thanks

reply to post by ArMaP

---

I got you now. OK, like most old geezers, I was complaining about a problem they already fixed. "It's about time them dag nabbed idjits got somethin' right, without me havin' to come down there and open a can of whopass."

And all this time I would shy away from the words "NASA HiRes" because I thought they were planning on moving us Natives to the Moon or Mars next.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by NGC2736]

Like ArMaP said, maybe you haven't seen the pictures from HiRISE, which is NASA's ultra-high resolution camera. HiRISE is part of the 'Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter' (MRO), which has been taking pictures for about a year now. HiRISE's images are far sharper and hi-res than ESA's pictures. NASA's photo's are quite spectactular.

Here's a link to the HiRISE website:
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...


EDIT:
Sorry ArMaP, I didn't see that you posted the link to the HiRISE website already...Thanks.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

---

I've seen them now. And they are much better than past photos. We need and deserve more of this type of technology being used by NASA, and freely made available to the public in a timely fashion.

reply to post by NGC2736

---

One thing most people that accuse NASA of not publishing their data do not know or do not remember is that NASA is the best organisation of the kind at publishing the results of their projects.

ESA, for example, publishes just a small fraction of their data.

And yes, those HiRISE photos are great, that is why I am collecting them, some of them are so big (like the 2,16 GB, 38829x117694 PSP_005581_1815_RED.JP2) that I cannot write them on a DVD with the ISO format because of a file size limit of 2GB, I have to write the DVDs with the UDF format.

reply to post by ArMaP

---

Again, you speak the truth. But because we pay them to do the best job possible, we have high expectations. You phrase your praise of NASA like the man who keeps his secretary, even though she steals, and uses the excuse that most secretaries steal twice that much.

reply to post by NGC2736

---

I can praise NASA because I am Portuguese and none of my tax money (as far as I know) is (mis)used by them.

reply to post by ArMaP

---

That's to funny. You're right Armap, but my taxes do and that's why we expect the best of NASA. I hope all those Hirise photo's they take are mapped and someday I can google mars and zoon in and look anywhere I want on that rock.