What Motive?

Originally posted by Kano
(...)Surely the discovery of any form of life on Mars would be a massive boost for them and their budgets?(...)

Do you think that there are any relations between so called public or scientific community opinions and NASA budget? Most of shuttle payload mission�s details are classified. Most of observations are not published. There is even no proof that published raw images are not pure, comprehensive and internally logical fantasy. How scientists receiving data may verify that signal is coming from rover camera not from solid state memory chip in rover computer etc. Connection with Mars may be eavesdropped as well. Yes it is straight way to paranoia...

Most important - global equilibrium of powers is based on common doctrine and even shade of doubts will be silenced. I see no source of funds to provide entertainment for the public with alien life proofs�

But not forever�

Knowing that there is life on Mars could destroy the foundation of the controling dialectic.

If we thought we were not alone we might get along and ruin their system of control.

Other potential reasons that have been cited, and seem at least partially reasonable explanations for NASA/JPL/Cornell altering colors (not my own, but some that I have noted along the way):

1) Funding concerns. The current exploration team that is getting funded now is populated heavily by geologists and robotics experts. So long as Mars continues to be portrayed as "dead", their cash cow is safe... they keep getting funded. Seeing strong evidence of life shifts funding towards biologists and manned missions instead. No one wants to lose funding for their OWN camp, even if other camps get more money.

2) Dodging conspiracy theorists. If the terrain and sky look remarkably Earth-like, that provides fodder for conspiracy nuts to say that the probes aren't actually on Mars. Adjusting colors to make it look alien keeps the noise from the kooks down to a dull roar.

3) Dodging long-term accountability / maintaining credibility. If the Mars exploration teams have been showing Mars as "too red" all along (since Viking), revealing the truth now opens up a can of worms regarding how long the deception has been going on. Very pointed questions start getting asked, and jobs might be on the line.

4) Preconception. If current team members are driving what the pictures "should look like" based off of previous data (which may have been suspect), then they might simply be making adjustments that are "obvious" to them, without being scientifically justifiable.

5) Pressure to meet deadlines / poor planning. Expediency may be driving the actual data gathered, as opposed to gathering the data necessary to present the images as originally represented ("you'll see Mars in its true colors"). If they didn't plan to take L4 images and they are required, they might just be slapping together whatever they have and just hoping that folks don't notice.

6) Pandering to ignorance. If the public has been "taught" already what the surface is supposed to look like, they might be unsatisfied with pictures that are nowhere close to that expectation ("These don't look like Mars... OK, where are the REAL pictures?"). Ironically, this could lead to exactly the same sort of conspiratorial chatter that they might have been seeking to avoid.

And, of course, there is the most obvious of all... simple incompetence.

(Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.)

I find it quite difficult to swallow the comparison between the pictures of Adirondack, Sushi and Sashimi on the January 19th press release, which they claim were calibrated and used L4-L5-L6 (and we've all heard ad nauseum that they get all of the exposure data along with all of the other technical bits that they don't release)...


.



with the most recently released "calibrated" images including the sundial (for which they have failed to post the raw data for at least nine days... conveniently preventing anyone from checking their work).







There is a pretty radical shift in color between those two sets of releases. It's not a small difference.

I don't think both can simultaneously be reasonably considered to be "competent work" when it comes to representing what the terrain looks like.

QED.

Your opinion may differ, of couse.

Frankly, I don't really give that much of a rip as to WHY they would be doing it.

If they are doing it, they should be made to stop, IMO. There is no room for coverups and spin-doctoring in a public agency that is supposed to be open and honest.

The two different versions of PIA05015 alone should be reason to call someone out on the carpet, and plenty of evidence that they are playing fast and loose with their colorizations.

Do you prefer to take the position, Kano, that all of the releases have actually somehow been accurate portrayals of what the surface really looks like?

If not, I think we need to accept that they simply are producing contradictory "color" releases, instead of creating smoke screens regarding speculations on their "motives" for doing it.

When did motive become necessary to determine that something is wrong?



[Edited on 2-9-2004 by BarryKearns]

[Edited on 2-9-2004 by BarryKearns]

[Edited on 2-9-2004 by BarryKearns]

[Edited on 2-9-2004 by BarryKearns]

Originally posted by BarryKearns
Do you prefer to take the position, Kano, that all of the releases have actually somehow been accurate portrayals of what the surface really looks like?

No, but each is an approximation, taken at different times in the Martian day, on different days (with different dust levels), and processed by different operators in different places. I would expect a variance in the images we are getting back.

If not, I think we need to accept that they simply are producing contradictory "color" releases, instead of creating smoke screens regarding speculations on their "motives" for doing it.

When did motive become necessary to determine that something is wrong?

We know that plenty of the approximate color images have had differences in the colorations of the surrounds. Even with the large brightness differences, the basic colors do not seem to change a great deal.

I obviously am not proposing motive is necessary to determine anything. But I am curious as to peoples reasons for believing so strongly that we are being lied to. As you will notice from many of the posts earlier in the thread, many people simply have no good reason, or extreme ones, for holding so strongly to that point.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Here is the whopper!

Since we are specualting why not one that makes sense?

[fantasy_mode]

NASA began it's Terra-Forming project decades ago. It began with the very first probes. Their real purpose was for them to know the conditions on the surface.

Later probes carried genetically engineered blue-green algae. NASA told us that these probes failed, but really they worked perfectly. They circled mars, and dropped their payload of tiny little landers carrying the seeds of life.

The algae grew and flourished on Mars in the CO2 atmosphere.

The landers are in an area known to have been seeded. They were sent to check the progress of the project.

They are transmitting data other than what is being shown to the public. There really are patches of blue-green in the images, but NASA does not release the data for that.

[/fantasy_mode]

Best answer give the man a cigar (hope you smoke, well you don't smoke cigars anyways!).

Yeah I like this one and it all makes sense. Do you think the probes crashed into mars as a way to seed the algae?

Originally posted by Kano
We know that plenty of the approximate color images have had differences in the colorations of the surrounds. Even with the large brightness differences, the basic colors do not seem to change a great deal.

Both the "new calibration" pic above and the Sushi-Sashimi pic are obviously taken at near-noon conditions, and both have sharp shadows indicating fairly clear conditions... yet the soil is (to me at least) a pretty radically different color.

That rather begs the question of what you think would qualify as "seem to change a great deal", if not the differences we've seen?

Compare the Cherry Kool-Aid release to the Sushi-Sashimi pic above. Do you honestly think these are basically the same color scheme?






[Edited on 2-10-2004 by BarryKearns]

Originally posted by BarryKearns
Both the "new calibration" pic above and the Sushi-Sashimi pic are obviously taken at near-noon conditions, and both have sharp shadows indicating fairly clear conditions... yet the soil is (to me at least) a pretty radically different color.

The difference in the hue of the ground (not the rocks/shadows) is still only 20� from the First panorama to the Sushi/Sashimi images (~10� to ~30�) The calibration sundial pic actually lands right between the two at ~20�. Thats not all that big a spread, especially considering the Cherry panorama pic was using a different filter for the red channel.

A single shift of say 25� or more from the sundial calibration pic (~20�) would be something to take note of. Or say a constant spread of 35� or more.

If the images are getting modified, why would they not just adjust all the images so they look very similar and thus avoid any of these questions? Its not particularly difficult, even in photoshop.

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by Kano]

Originally posted by Kano

If the images are getting modified, why would they not just adjust all the images so they look very similar and thus avoid any of these questions? Its not particularly difficult, even in photoshop.

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by Kano]

Please don't mistake my intent, or confuse it with the direction that others may be taking this... I don't think (at this point) that there is anything particularly sinister going on, and I don't believe that they have "modified" ANY of the raw data from these missions.

I think that the raw data that has been presented is an accurate representation of (a subset of) the actual data received.

So from that perspective, I don't think there is any real "modification" going on.

That being said, there is plenty of "wiggle room" to meet some hidden agenda (which might be utterly pedestrian or banal) based on how they choose to PRESENT the data, and choose to tweak the results.

I don't see a conspiracy here... a see a fundamental breakdown in processes and controls.

I find it extremely troubling that they are releasing "color" images without releasing the underlying raw channel data used to produce those images... especially when they have obviously had it for at least ten days. I find that nearly inexcusable. An honest scientist generally allows their work to be checked by making the underlying data available... what is accomplished by hiding data they clearly have?
Negligence is hardly a good reason.

As to the "degrees of separation" argument, it matters little to me the precise number of degrees apart the particular hues are... it seems patently obvious to me that anyone with adequate color vision can look at those two images (Cherry vs Sashimi) and say that they cannot both be considered reasonable representations of what a human would see when looking at the same terrain.

Yes, we know that the final answer won't be EXACT "true color". I don't think anyone is demanding the exact answer, and stating that the RGB implementation of computer screens provides limits is a non-answer in my book... it's just finessing the question to avoid answering the substance.

There is reasonable, and there is unreasonable.

I contend that it is unreasonable to expect people to believe that both the Cherry and Sashimi releases are BOTH reasonable representations of what a human would see standing there.

I recognize the obvious, glaring difference between a light sandy yellow and a picture that is absurdly pink. Apparently, so does NASA, since they have two distinctly different versions of that shot, both filed under the same catalog number (PIA05015), and one is much, much less pink than the other. But for some reason, there are people out there that don't see that as a problem.... they release a hot-pink version to the press (and keep it there) and file a much more tame version in the archives, with nary a word of notation on the still-posted press version that the colors are different if they look at the archive.

No one would accept a photography student's picture of an Earth beach that they had visited (which had, say, the colors of the Sashimi release when you stood there) if it were shown as pink as the Cherry Kool-Aid shot... but I guess if you don't just "go along" with the bait-and-switch, you're to be characterized as somehow unreasonable... do I have that right?

What am I missing here? The problem seems both obvious and blatant to me... yet if I bring it up, the "answer" that seems to keep coming back sounds like an old Jedi Mind Trick:

"There's no problem...." (hand-wave)

"The colors are reasonable..." (hand-wave)

"These aren't the images you're looking for..." (hand-wave)

"You can go about your business..." (hand-wave)

I'm sorry, that's not good enough to satisfy me. I want answers to the tough questions:

1) Who authorized the release of the Cherry Kool-Aid version of PIA05015, while filing a different version under the same name in the Photojournal archive... and why does the discrepancy continue to exist to this day?

2) Who has continually failed to post the raw data used for their most recent "definitive" color mixes, despite obviously having them for 10+ days?

3) Who acts in a supervisory role to vet the job of color balancing being done (by alleged "different technicians") before publicly releasing color images... and when was that person's last color vision eye exam?

4) What standards and controls are in place that allow such vastly different color mixes to be released, while consistently calling them "approximate true color"?

5) What does Cornell consider an acceptable margin of error for something to still be considered "approximate true color"? Is there any color scheme so off that it doesn't qualify?

6) If we assume that the most recent images are the most accurate, why has it taken this long (and with so many differently-colored intervening releases) to come up with a consistent balancing? They have always had the exposure levels sent down with the images, so why not simply always adjust them back down and then just mix the channels?

7) Who made the decision to take full-frame shots in L4-L5-L6 of near-zero-science-value things like the signed plaque and the Lego Astrobot (with no terrain in-frame), but zero frames for WEEKS that included the calibration tool and the terrain in the same full-frame shot in L4-L5-L6?

8) If they've now figured out how to properly balance the colors, why not provide corrected versions of the previously inaccurately-mixed releases?

9) How many people out there would expect that THEY would still be employed if they had performed work and used judgement of this dubious quality, in such a high-profile and public-facing role?

I don't expect Kano to provide those answers... these are open questions that I think NASA / JPL / Cornell should answer... but I would hope that at least SOME people out there would recognize that these are fairly reasonable questions that go to the heart of the matter of control, supervision, decision-making, judgement, accountability, and competence when it comes to the job of handling these color image releases.

I question the quality of ALL of these factors to one degree or another, and the recent behavior of NASA / JPL / Cornell has done little (that I've seen) to address these particular issues.

I want to know how something like this is allowed to happen in the first place... so that we can stop it from happening tomorrow and in the future.

That's not wild-eyed conspiratorial rambling... that's asking for openness and accountability from a publicly-funded organization. I think we deserve nothing less.



[Edited on 2-10-2004 by BarryKearns]

I will have a go at answering some of the questions posed here, some I simply do not know the answer to though.

1) Who authorized the release of the Cherry Kool-Aid version of PIA05015, while filing a different version under the same name in the Photojournal archive... and why does the discrepancy continue to exist to this day?

I don't know who authorises any of the releases, however I suspect the reason there are 2 versions of PIA05015 is that the first one was pretty much the first images from Spirit, and in L256 and someone overcorrected for the L2. This was noticed and remedied for the archival shot. The press shot, having already been part of a press-release, cannot really be changed.

2) Who has continually failed to post the raw data used for their most recent "definitive" color mixes, despite obviously having them for 10+ days?

Don't know.

3) Who acts in a supervisory role to vet the job of color balancing being done (by alleged "different technicians") before publicly releasing color images... and when was that person's last color vision eye exam?

Again unsure, perhaps Dr. Bell. But still it may be a matter of showing different balances dependant on what the subject matter is. Perhaps the Sushi/Sashimi rocks are lightened to give more detail to the image.

4) What standards and controls are in place that allow such vastly different color mixes to be released, while consistently calling them "approximate true color"?

5) What does Cornell consider an acceptable margin of error for something to still be considered "approximate true color"? Is there any color scheme so off that it doesn't qualify?

Not sure of these two. I'd guess if the pictures were coming out much further south than the Cherry pic someone would have to do something.

6) If we assume that the most recent images are the most accurate, why has it taken this long (and with so many differently-colored intervening releases) to come up with a consistent balancing? They have always had the exposure levels sent down with the images, so why not simply always adjust them back down and then just mix the channels?

I suspect this is basically what is occuring in the single frame shots. The panoramas obviously have a lot more mucking around to achieve continuity.

7) Who made the decision to take full-frame shots in L4-L5-L6 of near-zero-science-value things like the signed plaque and the Lego Astrobot (with no terrain in-frame), but zero frames for WEEKS that included the calibration tool and the terrain in the same full-frame shot in L4-L5-L6?

Again I dont know. At least things have changed a little now.

8) If they've now figured out how to properly balance the colors, why not provide corrected versions of the previously inaccurately-mixed releases?

I believe thats what has happened in the case of the Cherry panorama from Spirit. Being the worst of the bunch. I think its probably a little too busy down at jpl to have much time to go back over images that were pretty close to the mark. I believe this is going to all be collated and fixed post-mission. Along with the release of the full mission data.

9) How many people out there would expect that THEY would still be employed if they had performed work and used judgement of this dubious quality, in such a high-profile and public-facing role?

Such a leading question Barry

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by Kano]

Originally posted by Kano
I will have a go at answering some of the questions posed here, some I simply do not know the answer to though.

1) Who authorized the release of the Cherry Kool-Aid version of PIA05015, while filing a different version under the same name in the Photojournal archive... and why does the discrepancy continue to exist to this day?

I don't know who authorises any of the releases, however I suspect the reason there are 2 versions of PIA05015 is that the first one was pretty much the first images from Spirit, and in L256 and someone overcorrected for the L2. This was noticed and remedied for the archival shot. The press shot, having already been part of a press-release, cannot really be changed.

The fundamental problem with that explanation is that both versions appear to have been posted and released simultaneously... which means they had both versions before releasing anything.

If so, why include the Cherry Kool-Aid version in the press release at all... unless you're trying to create the impression that the surface is redder than warranted?

I'm referring in particular to this webpage, which was put up when the press release came out.

The in-line and medium resolution images are the Cherry Kool-Aid versions... if you click on the High Resolution link, you instead get the much more reasonable version.

That page hasn't changed since it was initially released... they knew on Jan 8th when they built the page and put out the press release that there were two different versions, but they bridged them together via this page and said not a word about the discrepancy... then or since, as far as I can tell.

If they are getting the exposure data, why would they be "overcorrecting" ANY of the channels? Why not simply amp them back down as indicated by the exposure and mix? Isn't that the recipe for an ACCURATE rendition of what the camera saw?

7) Who made the decision to take full-frame shots in L4-L5-L6 of near-zero-science-value things like the signed plaque and the Lego Astrobot (with no terrain in-frame), but zero frames for WEEKS that included the calibration tool and the terrain in the same full-frame shot in L4-L5-L6?

Again I dont know. At least things have changed a little now.

Have they, really?

How many full-frame (EFF or EDN) shots from Spirit have you seen where the L4-L5-L6 raw images were released which had the terrain and the calibration tool in the same shot? (The same kind of shot used to construct the Cherry Kool-Aid panorama)

Any at all?


[Edited on 2-11-2004 by BarryKearns]

Here is another thought.

Problem - Reaction - Solution

Problem: NASA screws up

Reaction: FIX IT!

Solution: Fire people!

...And replace them with ones who are owned by the same people who own Bush.

Creating a situation where scapegoats are outed and replaced with insiders is the easiest way to take over an open system.

Sometimes you must project into the future, and see the results to understand WHY.

This has the added benefit of discrediting anyone who might expose them. After being fired for incompetance who will publish, or even listen to the scapegoats?

REACTION to their claims of wrong doing is belief they are lying, bitter, or trying to place the blame on someone else.

Now watch and see who is fired and/or discredited for this, and try to find out if they are Masons, or not...

Barry, I believe the 8th January is the date the image was taken. The cherry one was an obvious cockup and thus the fixed image was released very quickly after. The colors would have to be adjusted a little to make up for using the L2 instead of the L4, the landscape images come out with less red when taken in L2. I agree this really should have been avoided. But hey, first image back, rush to get it out etc. The error was noticed and corrected quite fast.

I also notice you were right, the Press-Release image has been corrected, I hadn't noticed that.

There are quite a few L456 images that include the sundial and the ground now. As after the Rovers have left their landers, all sundial pics include some ground. I don't know if or when any more panorama images are planned, perhaps when Spirit arrives at "Bonneville" (or if she sees anything extra special along the way). Or when Opportunity drives up out of the crater.

Originally posted by Kano
Barry, I believe the 8th January is the date the image was taken. The cherry one was an obvious cockup and thus the fixed image was released very quickly after. The colors would have to be adjusted a little to make up for using the L2 instead of the L4, the landscape images come out with less red when taken in L2. I agree this really should have been avoided. But hey, first image back, rush to get it out etc. The error was noticed and corrected quite fast.

That's simply not the case, Kano. It was the press release that came out on January 8th. I know, that Thursday was the day it all changed for me.

That's the day that I felt like my space agency had first kicked me in the gut (when I saw the difference between the "medium" and "high resolution" color schemes), and then kicked me in the teeth seconds later (when I downloaded the TIFF file and saw the calibration tool). That's the day this "adventure" started for me. That's the day I had to start questioning whether I should keep encouraging my kids to follow the mission... which I had been doing right up until that day.

This also wasn't the first color image at all, or even the first color mosaic. Those came out on January 6th, and were not the Cherry color scheme that came out on the 8th. They were the far more reasonable schemes given the limitations of L2-L5-L6 capabilities.

They had already met the rush and the clamor to get the "first" color image data out there (and had about a billion web hits and 15 terabytes of downloads to prove it)... and it was a full two days later that the Cherry Kool-Aid release of January 8th came. They knew how to do it reasonably well two days before, but we're supposed to believe that two days LATER they're unable to do it right due to "rushing"... when all the while they actually HAVE the reasonable version (as pointed to by the "high resolution" link).

They put out not less than EIGHT color images (including a reasonably large mosaic billed as "first") before that release, and they all had consistent color schemes... before January 8th hit.

No, there's something that stinks to high heaven here.

There are quite a few L456 images that include the sundial and the ground now. As after the Rovers have left their landers, all sundial pics include some ground. I don't know if or when any more panorama images are planned, perhaps when Spirit arrives at "Bonneville" (or if she sees anything extra special along the way). Or when Opportunity drives up out of the crater.

Yes, and without fail those all seem to be the tightly-framed ESF frames... less than 10% of the area coverage of a full frame.

I've been unable to find a counterexample yet from the Spirit archive... one with a full-sized frame that contains the tool and the terrain. So I think in that respect, my point still stands.

I did, however, notice that they FINALLY have the Sol 26 data publicly posted... about 11 days after they used that raw data to make images for their own PR purposes.

What do you suppose drove that decision to not post the data for that long?

I'll see if I can find some time to check the raw data versus the posted composites, to see if I can determine what mix they are using.

the problem with the goverment covering up proof of other life, to me, does not stem from funding or even an underhanded desire to "control" the public opinion.

the problem lies with the blissfully naive population of our society - which by the way largely outnumbers the populaiton of intellects in our society.

the way i see it, there are two forces pulling against themselves. on one side, there are the intellects who can almost feel the alien presence around them. Their argument is that we, in our hunt for knowledge and the truth, deserve to be enlightened with any knowledge available, including any information pertaining to alien life.

on the other side, there are the masses. the blissfully naive who live their lives everyday (which by the way, includes the jobs that keep our country going, they provide the foundation so that the intellectuals can concentrate on learning) happy knowing that when they die and if they were good they will go to heaven.

By informing the public on the presence of alien life, two things will definitely happen. The intellects will be thrilled and technology will increase as we try to contact, visit, study, etc the alien life. On the other hand, the masses will lose their minds. Their happiness depends on the fact that they can depend on their beliefs in God and the afterlife. By introducing something as earth shaking as alien life to the general public, all that this country has built itself up to be will be destroyed.

If the masses lose their faith, they lose their desire to work, maybe even to live. I know this is pretty much baseless, but I honestly feel that the structure of our society depends on keeping this information as secret as possible. Maybe one day the masses will be ready to accept and open their minds to ideas such as alien life, but at this time, 2004, I think the consequences will be too great for the government to justify releasing alien contact/life information...

Ah so it was, I was wondering why I couldn't find the Cherry Kool-Aid pic on jpl's site, I was looking at the 360 panorama by mistake. It appears the data for this image was processed and released almost immediately.
Spirit landed on Jan 3rd, the Panorama images were taken on Sol 5. Which would be the 8th Jan. The same day of the press-release it was contained in.
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
(All of the images there are still the red ones).

I continue to consider this just a cockup on JPL's (more probably Cornell's) behalf. That was remedied by the time the larger images were processed and uploaded. (This is typically done after the smaller images). The very fact that all images before and after this one did not have such a red color scheme suggests to me that there was no subversive reason behind this.

As far as the Sol 26 raw data, uploading and making sure the raw data sets are complete doesn't seem to be all that high a priority for the teams at the moment. I actually asked Dr. Adler about this a few days ago. When asked if he knew why the Sol26 raw data was not online, his response was:

Beats me. I don't even know how to access the raw data from outside JPL (since I can do it from the inside).

I explained what we were looking for and he was going to check it out. But I'd guess the majority of team members would be in the same boat.

Back to the whole discovery of other life thing. What about that rock that was found in the Antartic (was it from there? i can't remember). When it was on the news and being talked about having come from Mars, it didn't seem to bother anyone. No one panicked as far as i know. Not a majority anyway. Either no one really cared or just didn't think it was that big of a deal. Sure it was very primative life forms, but still, it was life none the less.

I do think if aliens that were more advanced came and landed here and just started wandering around openly, you'd have divided groups of people. Some would no doubt want to make contact (i myself would like to meet an alien) and then you'd also have people who'd be affraid of them and feel threatened. This could be partly due to there religious beliefs (although i come from a religious background and it doesn't bother me in the slightest) or perhaps there have been too many hollywood movies depicting aliens as being the bad guys. I'm serious about this too, not saying it's the major cause, but it could be a factor. With almost 80 years of movies and lots of them depicting creatures that look differnt from us and being bad or evil. I think maybe that just gets into our mentality, if it acts and looks differnt from us, it must be evil!

But with more primitive forms of life i don't think people would get worked up about it that much. Say if it were bacteria, plant life, insects or even small mammal or reptile like creatures (or what ever equivalent you could have on Mars). I really don't see a majority of people getting worked up about that. I can imagine some people not even giving a # about it. So i don't see why NASA would hide such things.