Hoaglands latest discoveries....??

More
22 years 1 month ago #2867 by Atko
I'm probably going to get kicked up the backside for saying this, but I can't entertain anything Hoagland says as fact. I've had an open mind on the possibility of artificial structures on Mars, and was initially attracted to his work, but some of the garbage The Enterprise Mission posts as "evidence", plus the National Enquirer/Sun style rantings and character assassinations (IMHO) that appear there have been a real turn-off. It's becoming difficult to sift through what is, and what is not, viable "evidence". Hoagland seems to leap from one theory to another as new "data" becomes available (the result of putting all theoretical eggs in one basket, I guess), but as I say, that's just my little personal opinion. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

As regards the latest data, I'm always wary of images which have been "enhanced" (= fooled around with), especially after some of the startling results which were achieved with the original "Face" image when compared to the later, more detailed NASA photographs.

Rob - I'd be interested to know what the procedure was for processing the image, using the ENVI software, as I find myself strangely attracted to the idea of tinkering with the pictures myself! Might be worth having a crack at some other non-Martian images as controls, to see if the same blocking effect is achieved - who knows, there may be Martian cities hidden under the Australian outback...

My mind's still open though, it's just a pity that Hoagland and his peoples' approach is so over the top.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #2868 by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<b>The stupid image in question:</b>

<img src=" www.artbell.com/images/hoagland2.jpg " border=0>

Now use any sofware to CMYK split the image and tell me if you can believe what you see in the cyan channel.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #2911 by tvanflandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>use any sofware to CMYK split the image and tell me if you can believe what you see in the cyan channel.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We don't use "belief" as a criterion in science. The cyan channel is clearly artificial. Given proved artificiality elsewhere on Mars, we are all wondering if this is another example of Mars artificiality or a fake.

I haven't used the software to re-create the image myself. But doesn't this rectangular patterning (whether real or faked) have to be visible in at least one of the input images taken at some particular wavelength? How can you get a rectangle by combining monochromatic images for which the rectangle is not visible in any of them?

My reasoning is: There is a discontinuity in the coloration across the edge of each rectangle. No matter how the input images are weighted, one cannot get a discontinuity at that place unless it exists in a least one monochromatic input image. My theory: one of the color channels is filled with some test pattern by default in the ENVI software. Rob, since you have the software, what can you tell us about the appearance of the input images? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #2869 by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
We don't use "belief" as a criterion in science.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Neither do I. I simply don't believe this "image" pertains to science.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #2870 by tvanflandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Neither do I. I simply don't believe this "image" pertains to science.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So you "believe" it's a fake. I for one would like to look at the evidence and see what we can prove. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #2871 by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So you "believe" it's a fake. I for one would like to look at the evidence and see what we can prove. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not so fast, please. I believe we need more pictures from the same area, but first we need to re-check both the hardware and software. My best guess of it - a non-event.

[edited in] My educated guess would be that some channels used in this composite image were working near the lower limit of their dynamic ranges, thus quantization artifacts were produced.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.257 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum