[Aztlan] Space photos critique from Roger Mehr

[David Hixson]

While I appreciate the comments by Roger Mehr, I want
to make sure everyone is clear on what I was
criticizing.  (BTW, I have worked with NASA on this
same issue, and did do my homework before penning my
critique of that caption).

Bill and his NASA colleagues have done great work,
however the recent press releases about the use of
remote sensing data in the San Bartolo region have
often been mildly misleading.  As everyone knows, most
press releases get ALMOST everything right.  But we
must remember that they are not academic papers and
minor errors should not reflect upon the work of the
researchers.  I was simply trying to point out flaws
in the presentation made by the journalist / press
representative / web site author, not the research
done by Bill, Tom, or the rest of the NASA team.

Roger is correct that with every remote sensing
project, one must begin with the "known" (such as
Tikal) and extrapolate to the "unknown" (unsurveyed
areas).  I used the exact same technique to prove that
multispectral data can be used to locate undiscovered
sites in NW Yucatan.  But to place the photo of
reconstructed Tikal above that particular blurb (while
technically not false) was misleading - or at least
poorly chosen from a communications perspective.  The
"impression" it leaves the reader is that this is the
quality of the data returned from remote sensing of
previously unknown ruins.  While perhaps I am being a
picky copy-editor, I am not trying to slight the work
behind the copy.

-Dave

--- michael ruggeri <michaelruggeri at mac.com> wrote:

> > Heya All,
> > Seems I feel the need to redress some uninformed  
> > misunderstandings.  The photo link posted by Mike
> Ruggeri and his  
> > associated comment were 100% correct and
> indisputable.  The photo  
> > is a Space Image of helping archaeologists (namely
> Dr Sever and  
> > Co.) find ruins near San Bartolo.  It is not (nor
> is it claimed to  
> > be)an image of 'lost ruins' at San Bartolo.  If
> anyone bothered to  
> > read the original article they would discover that
> it is an image  
> > of a KNOWN set of ruins of Tikal, Guatemala.  Mike
> Ruggeri never  
> > claimed it was an image of 'lost ruins' merely
> that this image was  
> > being used to find lost ruins and it is.  It is
> through analysis of  
> > satellite (and upper atmosphere aerial) False
> colour imagery of  
> > KNOWN locations that vegetation discoloration
> patterns have been  
> > identified.  It is these patterns that are then
> sought in images of  
> > unsurveyed areas in an attempt to locate
> previously lost ruins.   
> > Through the application of information gathered
> from analysing this  
> > image (
>
http://www.neatorama.com/2006/07/15/lost-mayan-ruins-found-
> 
> > from-space/ ) and others like it, new sites have
> been located.   
> > Images such as this (
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/ 
> >
>
content/139046main_9-47_false-color_IKONOS_821x1016.jpg
> ) show  
> > clear examples of the type of information being
> analysed in order  
> > to locate potential Maya ruins.  If we could all
> analytically read  
> > the posts of others and offer constructive
> criticism or additional  
> > information to the topics under discussion, we
> could possibly  
> > advanvce the discipline of Archaeology rather than
> getting caught  
> > up in irrelevant arguments and asides.
> > Thanks for listening
> > Roger Mehr
> >
> > PS A nice summary of the story with full pics is
> available at  
> >
>
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2006/
> 
> > photos06-018.html
> >
> >
> >
> >> Listeros,
> >>
> >> Here is a good photo taken from space helping
> archaeologists find   
> >> ruins near San Bartolo.
> >>
> >> Mike Ruggeri
> >>
> >>
>
http://www.neatorama.com/2006/07/15/lost-mayan-ruins-found-from-
> 
> >> space/
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com