<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?



You know, this is really tiresome. For the last time, I NEVER STATED THAT WHITE ROCK WAS NOT "WHITE." How do you think it got the name (from Mariner 9 imagery) in the first place? Duh?? I hope this sinks in and you abandon this strawman argument.
Frankly, "Isenberg's analysis," whatever that means, is irrelevant. I can play with any image processing program and make White Rock appear dazzling white or pitch black. The only problem is that I would have to explain why in some plausible manner that is also consistent with other observables. Since neither you nor Isenberg apparently do this, then I am free to dismiss it as, in your own words, "amateur" work. Put it this way, I can take an image of a scoop of chocolate ice creams and make it "white" in Adobe Photoshop. Everyone would say, "Gee, it sure looks white to me. The first image showing a darker color must be due to some chicanery." Of course, a skeptical person would ask, "Why did you make it white(r)?"

At any rate, you are, intentionally or not, succeeding in being overly argumentative and willfully ignorant. I had hoped for a more intelligent discussion, but all I get is the same standard anomalist/conspiratorial fare.
What I am trying to do, in vain I suspect, is to disabuse you of the notion that the visible imagery to date is a complete description of White Rock's "color." In fact, in multispectral views (i.e., TES and THEMIS), which are more indicative of an object's color, White Rock is distinctly non-white. Its albedo is certainly higher than the surroundings, but, as Ruff et al. note, not anomalously so.

Got it?

P.S. After two requests, which you have conveniently ducked, I guess it's obvious you don't have anything substantive to say about White Rock's spectral analysis.