why is NASA editing these images??

this is a blatant lie that NASA has done to the people of the USA and most assuredly to the World.
Why .just why would they do this ? what purpose does it serve? and what does
this tell us about the company to begin with. As I have stated before and many times I didn't trust NASA. as I see it now I was RIGHT.
here is the Link http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK.htm
see for your self. and ask yourself WHY did they do this ? and why didn't they put all the SOLS on line ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Terry Lynn Sadler wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He is just trolling :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Dibb wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris S. wrote:

Surely he does have a point. These two pictures are from NASA's own site.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1 p/168/1P143097697ESF3221P2595L7M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1 p/168/1P143097760ESF3221P2595R1M1.HTML
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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris S. wrote:

Its very human to make mistakes. None of us mentioned conspiracies except yourself. Why is that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

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.
>>e7 wrote: >>>Totally unacceptable fakery.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris S. wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK.htm and http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASASKIES.htm
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>

NASA
secretly
I
seem
having
threads
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

man
in
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
E. Lee Dickinson wrote:

In the US, yes, but in the UK the terminating punctuation goes outsite the quotes, where it should rightfully be ;)
Will.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Your"
from
Ah. Well, I always did think that made more grammatical sense. Though I think our way looks better. :) ::shrug::
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is it as simple as that? UK vs US? And that's it?
Wikipedia actually includes some information on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

from
UK and

For
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:49:55 +0000 (UTC), "Spam Magnet"

I'm fine with your opinion, of course. But can you cite some (any) authority on this -- either as a matter of conclusion or one of theory? Just curious.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, in article
snipped-for-privacy@easystreet.com "Jonathan Kirwan" wrote:

Mostly, yes. In the UK it is usual practice to place punctuation within the quotation marks if, and only if, that punctuation is part of the quotation. So Tom's original text, which quoted simple words or phrases rather than something which included punctuation as part of the quotation, was entirely correct from the UK point of view:
2) To show a contraction from "You are", you would write "you're". "Your" shows possession.
and Lee's correction (the unattributed bit you quoted above) was (AIUI) entirely correct from the US point of view (except that he accidentally put a spurious ' right at the end).
Finding a single canonical source for "rules" such as this is, of course, rather tricky; however, works such as Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ (in its original or updated versions), or the Oxford University Press's _Hart's Rules_ (now superseded by the _Oxford Style Manual_) could perhaps be regarded as reasonably authoritative.
To quote from Burchfield's _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_ (itself borrowing the OUP house style as set out in _Hart's Rules_):
All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed /according to the sense/. If an extract ends with a point or exclamation or interrogation sign, let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise.
His examples of this include:
'The passing crowd' is a phrase coined in the spirit of indifference. Yet, to a man of what Plato calls 'universal sympathies', and even to the plain, ordinary denizens of this world, what can be more interesting than those who constitute 'the passing crowd'?
But I boldly cried out, 'Woe unto this city!'
Alas, how few of them can say, 'I have striven to the very utmost'!
He then goes on to say:
In regard to other marks, when a comma, full point, colon, or semicolon is required at the end of a quotation, there is no reason for perpetuating the bad practice of their undiscriminating inclusion within the quotation marks at the end of an extract.
and gives several example of the UK style in use, finally noting the difference between the UK and US ways of doing it.
The _Oxford Style Manual_ rather pithily observes:
In US practice, commas and full points are set inside the closing quotation mark regardless of whether they are part of the quoted material. The resulting ambiguity can cause editorial problems when using material from US sources in British works.
As with anything, though, recommended practice often differs from reality as practised by the sort of people who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're".

I would agree with them, except that the example they have chosen is *not* "complete quoted speech"! Hal's complete words would not have ended with a comma; PeterS was quite right. An instance of "complete quoted speech", with its quoted punctuation within the quotation marks, can be found in Burchfield's second example above.
However, you appear to have missed out the previous section of the Wikipedia page:
The American convention is for sentence punctuation to be included inside the quotation marks, even if the punctuation is not part of the quoted sentence:
'Good morning, Dave,' said HAL. "Good morning, Dave," said HAL.
The British style is to have the punctuation outside the quotation marks for small quoted phrases:
Someone shouted 'Shut up!'. Also called "plain quotes", they are teardrops.
which (a) seems to sum up the differences fairly well, and (b) supports both Tom's original usage, and Will's "UK vs. US" defence of that usage.
[Aside: observe that Wikipedia use exactly the same sentence as an example of both "even if the punctuation is not part of the quoted sentence" and "complete quoted speech". This seems rather odd.]
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
snipped-for-privacy@twoplaces.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:21:10 +0100 (BST), snipped-for-privacy@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) wrote:

No, I didn't miss it. But my point wasn't that such didn't exist, only that there appears to be cases where there is a commonality. And the example I gave illustrates this. Or, appeared to.
Interesting, though. Thanks for your additions.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, in article
snipped-for-privacy@easystreet.com "Jonathan Kirwan" wrote:

Oh, indeed; sorry I misunderstood your point. Places where the punctuation is part of the quotation, rather than merely part of the sentence in which the quotation is embedded, should (!) be written the same way by UK and US writers.
A further wrinkle is that, in typeset works at least, the UK "rules" tend to favour single quotation marks '...' by default, with doubles "..." being used for quotations within quotations; but the US rules are apparently the other way around. However, this is a less universal rule in the UK (although Fowler and Hart both agree on it): I tend to use double quotation marks first, mostly because I find the single marks ugly in many fixed-width fonts; and I know people who were taught that the kind of thing being quoted determined the type of marks to be used (complete with value judgements about whether it was a quote, or merely an indication of a slang term which wasn't necessarily meant in a strict literal sense).

What a pity they chose an "example" which didn't illustrate their point at all! Sigh.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
snipped-for-privacy@twoplaces.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.