Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Can you care to explain what made them do this?
Can you provide more context regarding this photograph? Mostly I only find it on conspiracy sites. It gets shown a lot but that's about it. If it was
a 'cover up' why are they displaying it at a conference? It makes no sense.
I know from sources that the Mars sky can have shades of blue around the sun and at certain times of day. This shot could also have been presented for
all kinds of purposes. I don't understand what is sinister about it or why it would need slow disclosure?
Whatever happened to those lengthy explanations on filters used on the CCDs on the PanCam in that link you provided?
I don't understand the question.
The facts I appear to have are:
- NASA aren't quite sure exactly what color Mar's sky is, and it may be a little less red than we imagined but still a bit pinkish/redish
- There are photos owned by NASA that include some blue skies they have shown publically ... which doesn't back up the conspiracy theory
- Richard Hoagland endorses these conspiracy theories but I wouldn't trust this man processing a family snap shot nevermind looking at photos of Mars.
I believe firmly believe Hoagland lies 100%.
- Astrophotography often involves combining different plates/filters ... I've done some myself, and this seems to be in line with my previous
experiences ... Colours are not always accurate in space photography and often need correcting.
I suppose what I would like to see from the 'Mars is blue and NASA are lying persons' is a bit more than just a few questions that require a lot of
time answering. I want to see indepth
what the problem is rather than just being shown a photo and some vague opinionated commentary. IE ...
- Mathematical evidence or demonstration that NASA could be lying about this ... not 'surely they should have' or 'I would have' ... actual
mathematical evidence on the same level the skeptics are providing
- Referenced imagery ... If I'm seeing a photo of a conference or the planet surface, I'd like to see some commentary on it demonstrating knowledge of
where it's from, how it was processed, and WHY it's suspiscious ...
The problem I have with the theory is ... if NASA are lying, the photos would all look the way they do. If NASA aren't lying, the photos would all
look the way they do. Also, if NASA are lying, they frequently release imagery of martian archeology and blue skies by accident?
Help me understand this. I honestly just don't get it! Other than it being a Hoagland theory which instantly makes me approach it skeptically.
On a side note I think Keith Laney is slightly more trustworthy than Richard Hoagland. Keith and Richard fell out years ago but I think he is a
wishful thinker and a keen hobbyist when it comes to Mars imagery.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Pinke because: edit