why is NASA editing these images??

Why are you asking us? Wouldn't the folks at NASA be better qualified to answer? Regardless, I doubt this is the result of any nefarious agenda. This is most likely due to a clerical error, with some scientist's Photoshop tinkerings getting mixed up with the batch meant for the website. In any case, you should ask them directly, instead of posting vague allegations of conspiracy-theories on newsgroups.

He is just trolling :-)

We all know that NASA is hiding any accidental images of Martians, as corporations in the U.S. are, as we speak, negotiating with the Martian High Command to use their workers for outsourcing our IT programming and telephone technical support. Not only do they work for the equivalent of

85 cents per hour, but as the Martian day is 39 minutes longer than ours, they put in extra 162 hours of labor per year. Think of the productivity gains!

-- Gordon Author: Constructing Robot Bases, Robot Builder's Sourcebook, Robot Builder's Bonanza

Surely he does have a point. These two pictures are from NASA's own site.

Totally unacceptable fakery. If they have people sitting around adding a non existent sky to a picture all day long, then where does it stop?

Maybe right there...

Terry: Hey NASA, these images look weird. Are you sure they're raw? NASA: Oh sorry, those are sample output from some new imaging software we're testing. They shouldn't have been posted. We'll take them down. Thanks for pointing that out.

You should note I didn't deny the irregularities in those images, but stuffing sand down a rat hole in some newsgroup that no NASA official is ever likely to read is not a productive activity.

Besides, I think you give NASA far too little credit. If they really wanted to cover something up, the attempt would never be so amateurish and blatant, as these images hardly cover anything.

But I guess trolling conspiracy theories is more exciting than discovering the actual, if boring, truth.

Its very human to make mistakes. None of us mentioned conspiracies except yourself. Why is that?

Because most here are smart enough not to take this troll seriously. I, on the other hand, have way too much free time on my hands, so I used a tool called 'logical deduction'. I'd suggest you acquire the skill.

Terry Lynn Sadler wrote: > this is a blatant lie that NASA has done to the people of > the USA and most assuredly to the World.

I understand logic may not be your forte, or perhaps English is your second language, so I'll explain further. You see, he first charges NASA with purposefully lying. You yourself call it 'fakery' which literally implies the intent to deceive someone. He then announces his general distrust for the organization, going on to describe how NASA is 'covering up' the existence of geysers. To 'conspire' means to secretly agree to commit wrong-doing, which fits Sadler's allegation. However, I understand your confusion. The English language can be a difficult one to learn, with many subtle nuances.

Well this is it, you've gone even further now! :-) You dive into the language of conspiracies and you don't know why. I'm dismayed.

it is interesting to note that many think this is about a conspiracies and such but that isn't the case. its a fact .im not one to sit by and be a lamb to slaughter either but then that is your job. I hope you find things amusing shortly. as I will watch with interest. and its amazing one thinks im a male. oh well so much for your knowledge.

and if you have issues with what is posted there you might try emailing the man that made the site. not me ....but then no one said your smart. < tongue in cheek>

Here's a few tips if you want to get taken seriously:

1) Capitalise the beginnings of sentences. 2) To show a contraction from "You are", you would write "you're". "Your" shows possession. 3) Don't begin a sentence with "as". 4) Don't begin a sentence with "and" (unless you're singing the first verse of "Jerusalem"). 5) Don't begin a sentence with "not". 6) Commas are your friends. 7) Leave two spaces after full stops. 8) That an event has occurred and thus can be said to be a "fact", does not directly negate the possibility of it being the result of a conspiracy. 9) Try never to refer to events simply as "things" without further details, i.e. "I hope you find things amusing shortly BECAUSE...". 10) If you want to show possession, it's just "its", whereas if you want to show contraction then it's "it's". Scallywag. 11) "Tongue in cheek" is usually used to imply falsehood or sarcasm.

Terminating punctuation goes inside the quotes: "To show a contraction from 'You are,' you would write 'you're.' 'Your' shows posession.'"

Pourquoi pas? Example: "As I read this message, I couldn't help but wonder if there exists a lack of consistancy in the teaching of the English language."

Not to imply that Terry used propper grammer, I believe this rule is over-strict.

Yes, but they should be used conservatively. I would take issue with the use of a comma in this example: "That an event has occured and thus can be said to be a "fact", does not directly negate the possibility..." There is no subjectual separation between the first half of this sentence and the second. The comma is not necessary. I believe this to be more a matter of style than anything.

I was adamant about this rule until I learned the difference between monospaced and proportionally spaced fonts. Two spaces is an aesthetic throwback to the typwriter era and has no use on modern machines.

Anyway, I do thoroughly enjoy a good proofreading. :)

In the US, yes, but in the UK the terminating punctuation goes outsite the quotes, where it should rightfully be ;)

Will.

Ah. Well, I always did think that made more grammatical sense. Though I think our way looks better. :) ::shrug::

Please remember that some of the posters here don't speak English natively. On the other hand, this is one reason that I think that we should strive for good English without the grammer police.

This is probably the single most useful hint you have written. This helps us parse the text.

Old school. Now the general concensus is to leave only a single space and let the word-processor handle it.

Yes, but conspiracy only means that more than one person is involved. It could be two people deciding how to jaywalk.

Come on. Most English speakers get that wrong on occasion.

Actually I believe that it is supposed to imply humor.

-- D. Jay Newman

I always fight with the grammer police on this one.

For example, the statement You must use the command "rm *." is grammatically correct, but may confuse some people.

-- D. Jay Newman

Is it as simple as that? UK vs US? And that's it?

Wikipedia actually includes some information on this:

In there, you'll find that British (intentionally conflating the idea of UK and British in my own speech here) and US methods are the same on some scores. For example, Wiki points out that:

"Despite what is sometimes written on discussions of punctuation, British positioning is the same as American in complete quoted speech:

"'Good morning, Dave,' said HAL."

Jon

You spelled "grammar" incorrectly.

Which, of course, reads as nonsense. The sentence is "Good morning, Hal.", unlike a man, but exactly likely an island, is complete unto itself, and should end with a full-stop (period).

Just my tuppence.

PeterS

OK, I phrased this one badly - there are exceptions, but the sense in which Sadler used it was not such an exception, I'm sure you'll agree.

See above.

This was a genuine goof on my part. I rewrote half the sentence, but erroneously left in a bad comma that was previously correct. Thanks for spotting it.

Personally I've never encountered a font that looks "wrong" with double spaces, and since I sometimes work with old computers incapable of displaying fonts as advanced as that I tend to keep the habit. I'd say this one's more a matter of personal style than actual rules. I'll take your word that there are situations in which exceptions can be made but in the case of the previous post, where full stops were apparently used in place of commas, the double space would be the only other way of telling a genuine sentence end from a "disguised comma"!

Me too. Always good practice.