Originally posted by Condorcet
NASA could be selective in how it handles data, distributing sanitized photos to the public and retaining the more interesting photos for military
intelligence. The cameras could be designed for this dual-purpose agenda.
Yes, they could... and my point is that there are many other configurations besides the Pancam layout that would have been much BETTER suited to
trying to accomplish that kind of dual mission.
ArchAngel's theory is intriguing, in my opinion, especially since credible people like Gilbert Levin have raised concerns about how NASA data
is handled.
I've raised many questions about NASA's handling of the data myself, and been quite pointed in many of my observations of their less-than-stellar
performance on this count.
On the web somewhere there's an astronomer's review of the Clementine Lunar Mission CD-ROM which the reviewer purchased at great cost and
found several discrepancies on including missing photos, duplicate or damaged photos, conflicting time/photo signatures, and whatnot. Of course
Clementine was a military mission, but this type of thing might lead people to suspect something is being hidden.
You don't even have to go back that far. I can still point to data from this particular mission that they obviously HAVE, yet have never bothered to
release. I have always found that particularly troubling, and have had no reservations expressing that fact.
BTW. this is an odd place to criticize a poster for discussing conspiracy theories. ArchAngel deserves a Way Above award for collecting so
much technical information. Imagine what ATS would be like if all posters went to this much effort.
My position on this is not to criticize due to "conspiracy theories". I'm certain that a great number of conspiracies actually exist, and I know
for a fact that NASA has data from this mission that (for whatever reason) they have chosen to not release to the public.
My criticism, as it is, is based almost ENTIRELY on the fact that ArchAngel pulled a "bait and switch" with his argument.
I have no issue with the argument that NASA may be failing to release some data, and might have their own agenda for doing so. I consider that a
fairly plausible argument... but that's not the argument that ArchAngel made.
What I have an issue with is ignorance about the abilities of the Pancam being masqueraded as "evidence" that the Pancam itself was jury-rigged to
prevent data from being seen. We don't do service to LEGITIMATE conspiracy theories when we go off half-cocked with only a tiny amount of erroneous
data, and use that to present an argument that is easily demolished.
That does a dis-service to the entire community. Legitimate conspiracy theories will NOT contradict known evidence... they will instead focus on the
motives that might explain the likely choices that are being made.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if ArchAngel had framed his initial argument as "it's possible that NASA might be suprressing some of the data
being gathered, to prevent us from seeing what's up there", I doubt I would have said much at all.
Instead, I end up investing many hours correcting fundamental misconceptions, only to have the corrections ignored and the argument changed after the
fact. That ticks me off, frankly.
If you want to understand a subject, you ask questions, not make blanket proclamations on subjects where you are obviously weak. All that does is
invite ridicule, and make the community look bad.
Far better IMO is to reconcile what we know, with what we see happening, and ensure that the theories we put forth stand up to scrutiny. If they
cannot, then they are simply not solid theories, and should be abandoned.
No theory that is so riddled with holes is going to be taken seriously... it strains the bounds of credulity.
Do I think NASA has some image data that they haven't posted yet? I'm CERTAIN of it. Do I know their motivation? Nope... but I'm also not ruling
out that they might have an unsavory motive for doing so.
Do I think the Pancam is rigged for a "dual mission"? Almost certainly not... because I understand that capabilities of the tool, and understand
how much easier and more effective that "dual mission" would be with a different payload.
If you start with legitimate questions (instead of poorly-directed ignorant attacks against useful tools), or simply ask questions about capabilities,
and are willing to LEARN from what you are shown, you'll get no flack at all from me.
But when you try to pull a bait and switch after I've invested this much time in trying to clear things up, and you ignore the information that is
presented and its implications... stand by to hear about it.
That's the crux of my objections in this thread... plain and simple. Not that ArchAngel is offering a conspiracy theory... it's that AA chose to
not be HONEST about his agenda in the discussion, and instead tried to misplace the blame on the tool's capabilities without actually understanding
the tool's capabilities, instead of where it belonged from the beginning: on the operators using the tool.
[Edited on 2-17-2004 by BarryKearns]
