Again, let's go back to the first post on this thread on this board. It is an image of "White Rock" on Mars processed by an informed amateur from publicly available data -- you could do it yourself if you wanted to. And you would probably come up with something different, but you would not come up with a rendering of the "White Rock" formation that appeared to be anything other that "white" unless you deliberately distorted the data.

The title of this post is "White Rock" is white -- DUH!</font color> and it is that for a reason.



One of the reasons, I'm sure, is that the "whiteness" of "White Rock" has recently come under some dispute.

You can argue that the processing of the image in the first post is bogus, but you don't do that. Instead, you infer that until and unless Isenberg publishes his processed images in peer reviewed scientific journals, you will pay no attention to them. And you cite the Ruff paper -- which has essentially nothing to do with either the first post or Isenberg's rendering -- to support your contention in support of Nick's claim that "White Rock" isn't "white." Or did I once again misstate you?

What is the issue again?

Why should anybody care whether you pay attention to Isenberg's -- or anyone else's -- renderings or not? Nobody is forcing you to look at things you don't want to see. As for the Ruff, et al, paper... so? What has that got to do with Bob Clark's initial post?

The paper is interesting and is relatively well known, but it is a diversion. Where, for example, has anyone on this thread made any claim about the origin of "White Rock," its composition, its erosion history or anything else about it, except "color?"

And the only reference in that paper to the "color" of "White Rock" is derived from TES data which says

White Rock is not anomalously bright relative to other Martian bright regions

a claim which is not germane to the topic at hand -- because it sidesteps the issue of whether or not "White Rock" is "white." (Leaving aside the inadequacies of TES).

It seems to me that you and Isenberg have "issues" you two need to deal with.

Any other questions?

Cheers, BFelix