NASA Mars conspiracy stuff: Some help needed please!

[Donn]

I am not well educated in Science, nor am I on practised terms with Skeptical terminology and concepts. However, despite all that, I went ahead and roused the ire of a conspiracy-theorist who was sending me "interesting snippets" from Hoagland's site suggesting that the Mars landings have been faked in some way (they are looking at the 'red' colours of the returned images we see of the lander etc), by daring to send him some info about Hoagland's reputation and by saying that colour shifts happen... Just like sh*t happens!

His response was:

1) Certainly, colours shift as scenes change; however, there have been
thousands of pictures released of the Martian surface and, including colour
shifts, this artificial colouring remains. The example image that sent to
you certainly isn't the only one that has clear manipulations of colour in
it.
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/mercolor.jpg>

2) For the image I sent you: If reflection off the sand is to be responsible
for the red colours in the image of the lander then there could of course be
no direct reflection from the Martian surface on the objects that are facing
directly upward (i.e. the JPL logo and wiring).

3) If the red colour can be attributed to colouring due to atmospheric
reflection (e.g red dust in the air), then the diffuse atmospheric light
would have to be blue and not red (particles scattering red light in the
atmosphere would cause objects in the sunlight to appear blue, and NOT red).

4) Are all the NASA images ever released 'distorted' by the camera? I doubt
it. (Signal->dish cannot be distorted, it's digital, and analogue PC
monitors are capable of only 'so much' distortion.)

Being a painter and an artist, my only defence can be my own experience of light and conditions. It seems to me that the general reddish colour is because the bloody lander is on Mars. The colours are under the influence of the general reflection of red-light. No?
I don't understand his concept that objects in sunlight should appear blue.

Anyway - He has not spelled-out his actual 'conspiracy' yet, preffering to hint at arcane dishonesty by NASA.
I just wanted some real opinions and good, clean, logical silver bullets to shoot his way!

Thanks.

PS - Another hint of his is that NASA forbids any live web cam feeds from Mars or from the IIS. I have been googling for something and have not found any. Is there some good reason for not having web-cam views all the time?

[Donn]

Ok - this stuff is oficially over my head. He has pointed me to: <http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors.htm>

It seems the 'conspiracy' is that NASA is keeping the "real" nature of Mars a secret by hiding green (vegetation) areas.

Any takers for the defence?

[Marvel Frozen]

Check this site: http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html it has some good information on it about why the images appear reddish.

[Donn]

Thanks for that link - I am trying to understand it. What I get from it is that the colour component of the image is very complex but made up from three filters that are carefully calibrated to set standards for geological purposes and this explains a lot of the strange colours.

I still don't know how to respond to his argument about :
"If the red colour can be attributed to colouring due to atmospheric
reflection (e.g red dust in the air), then the diffuse atmospheric light
would have to be blue and not red (particles scattering red light in the
atmosphere would cause objects in the sunlight to appear blue, and NOT red)."

I thought an object looked (say) red because all other colours where being absorbed into it and only the red was being reflected, hence read dust should reduce blue light.

?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Donn
I am not well educated in Science, nor am I on practised terms with Skeptical terminology and concepts. However, despite all that, I went ahead and roused the ire of a conspiracy-theorist who was sending me "interesting snippets" from Hoagland's site suggesting that the Mars landings have been faked in some way (they are looking at the 'red' colours of the returned images we see of the lander etc), by daring to send him some info about Hoagland's reputation and by saying that colour shifts happen... Just like sh*t happens!

His response was:

1) Certainly, colours shift as scenes change; however, there have been
thousands of pictures released of the Martian surface and, including colour
shifts, this artificial colouring remains. The example image that sent to
you certainly isn't the only one that has clear manipulations of colour in
it.
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/mercolor.jpg>

2) For the image I sent you: If reflection off the sand is to be responsible
for the red colours in the image of the lander then there could of course be
no direct reflection from the Martian surface on the objects that are facing
directly upward (i.e. the JPL logo and wiring).

3) If the red colour can be attributed to colouring due to atmospheric
reflection (e.g red dust in the air), then the diffuse atmospheric light
would have to be blue and not red (particles scattering red light in the
atmosphere would cause objects in the sunlight to appear blue, and NOT red).

4) Are all the NASA images ever released 'distorted' by the camera? I doubt
it. (Signal->dish cannot be distorted, it's digital, and analogue PC
monitors are capable of only 'so much' distortion.)

Being a painter and an artist, my only defence can be my own experience of light and conditions. It seems to me that the general reddish colour is because the bloody lander is on Mars. The colours are under the influence of the general reflection of red-light. No?
I don't understand his concept that objects in sunlight should appear blue.

Anyway - He has not spelled-out his actual 'conspiracy' yet, preffering to hint at arcane dishonesty by NASA.
I just wanted some real opinions and good, clean, logical silver bullets to shoot his way!

Thanks.



It sounds like you are prejudiced, rather than skeptical.

You admit you do not understand, yet you just want to "shoot" his argument.

That, is neither skeptical nor rational.

It is *****.

[Hamish]

This can be difficult to grasp all at once. Having followed Marvel Frozen's link, I was almost overwhelmed the long and rigourous explanation - and I've built a CCD imaging device and I know some of the problems with wavelength sensitivity.

I built a device to measure the ammount of white light coming through a piece of blue film using a CCD device. The problem was that the film, although really dark to my eyes was practically transparent when I looked at it using the CCD. The problem was that the film was transparent to infra-red, my light source put out a whole load of infra red and I can't see in the infra red. When I put a filter on it, it was fine.

Now it takes a bit of reading and hard thought to get ones head around the problems with three colour channels covering the whole spectrum. Try to use the idea that the part of the camera which detects red may be more sensitive than the part which detects blue. Then, even with equal quantities of red and blue light in a picture, the picture still appears red.

That's somewhat oversimplified though.

PS - Another hint of his is that NASA forbids any live web cam feeds from Mars or from the IIS. I have been googling for something and have not found any. Is there some good reason for not having web-cam views all the time?

Yes, several. I am not a space engineer but, generally, what would be the point? It would use up a large portion of communication bandwidth, have a several minute delay due to the distance and only be available for a short period each day due to mars rotation and for what? To convince a bunch of conspracy theorists that mars is really red? They could just say that the poor quality of the intermittant feed and the several minute delay is further proof that NASA is doctoring the feed. Yes, it would be cool, but hardly cost effective.

[Donn]

Ok, red more pervasive in the camera - got it. Thanks.

I suspected that a "web-cam" from Mars may be too expensive (in $'s and bandwidth), but do the NASA folks get some kind of constant feed?
If they do then could a single web-server not be set up to send from the data that is already in the computers on the ground?

Also, why no live feed from the ISS, also forked from the ground (so to speak).
Seems odd - I may be wrong, but I have not found anything interesting via google yet.

In reply to that other rude chap, Lucianarchy, I do not simply want to shoot him down for the sake of it. I have better things to do.
It is because he sends me a lot of this 'pseudo' stuff that I have been reading more and more skeptical info. (I should thank him!)

The time has come for me to start rebutting his arguments and so I turn to this forum for help in technical areas that I am not conversant in. I wanted a simple (i.e. concise and well argued) answer that would keep him thinking and help me to further differentiate nonsense from reality.

[Ed]

Donn,

It comes down to "why oh why oh why?"

The scientists themselves speculate on the possibility of life on Mars. Yesterday they reported ice on the southern pole. There have been discussions of supposed fossils in martian meteorites,

If they found "green areas" then BINGO ... funding.

So why would anyone want to keep it under wraps? And the suggestion of a conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people is just the ramblings of a disordered mind. Always remember that POTUS could not keep a BJ secret.

Sniff test(tm).

The problem is that if you (the collective "you") are not an engineer or a mission scientist that has lived and breathed this project for years, there are going to be things that you cannot explain. So what? I don't understand the logic of seperating some types of cardboard from others at my local recycling site. Does that suggest conspiracy? No, simply my ignorance.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Donn
...I thought an object looked (say) red because all other colours where being absorbed into it and only the red was being reflected, hence read dust should reduce blue light.
Yes. That's why when you mix pigments, it is termed subtractive color mixture. The more different pigments you add, the more wavelenghts are absorbed and the darker and muddier the result. Some people use crimson and azure to make a warm shadow.
It is entirely different with additive color mixture, where the lights of different wavelenghts are added to eachother. Pointillism used the fact that tiny bits of color seen at a distance fuse together, so that red and green produce the sensation of yellow, just like your TV does.
And pay no attention to Looneyarchy. She can't even spell.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Donn
Also, why no live feed from the ISS, also forked from the ground (so to speak).
Seems odd - I may be wrong, but I have not found anything interesting via google yet.

Dunno but the woos have suggest that the delay associated with Hubble are due to some crackpot reason whereas the reality is that they give the project scientists first crack.

In reply to that other rude chap, Lucianarchy, I do not simply want to shoot him down for the sake of it. I have better things to do.
It is because he sends me a lot of this 'pseudo' stuff that I have been reading more and more skeptical info. (I should thank him!)

Luci seems to believe that, when faced with something anomolus, one ought to err on the side of belief or acceptance of things at face value, perhaps. It would be a more effective approach if he actually engaged in debate.

The time has come for me to start rebutting his arguments and so I turn to this forum for help in technical areas that I am not conversant in. I wanted a simple (i.e. concise and well argued) answer that would keep him thinking and help me to further differentiate nonsense from reality.

Ask him why. If he spins tales of vast conspiracy, fold your tent, have a glass of wine and watch a re-reun of The Beverly Hillbillys. You will thank me.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

She can't even spell.

Easy there, Corey, that is hitting a bit too close to home for my comfort:D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Donn
Ok, red more pervasive in the camera - got it. Thanks.

I suspected that a "web-cam" from Mars may be too expensive (in $'s and bandwidth), but do the NASA folks get some kind of constant feed?
If they do then could a single web-server not be set up to send from the data that is already in the computers on the ground?

Also, why no live feed from the ISS, also forked from the ground (so to speak).
Seems odd - I may be wrong, but I have not found anything interesting via google yet.

In reply to that other rude chap, Lucianarchy, I do not simply want to shoot him down for the sake of it. I have better things to do.
It is because he sends me a lot of this 'pseudo' stuff that I have been reading more and more skeptical info. (I should thank him!)

The time has come for me to start rebutting his arguments and so I turn to this forum for help in technical areas that I am not conversant in. I wanted a simple (i.e. concise and well argued) answer that would keep him thinking and help me to further differentiate nonsense from reality.

OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.

Oh, and there are huge worms up there, geneticaly manufactured by the Martians in order to recycle the remaining 'silt'. There was a thread here, but alas, it has been removed.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0400291.html
http://www.ebtx.com/mars/marsfaun.htm

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Ed
Easy there, Corey, that is hitting a bit too close to home for my comfort:D
I don't get it. You can't spell, either?
I didn't notice that.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

I don't get it. You can't spell, either?
I didn't notice that.

It has improved a bit. Stupid joke.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.

Oh hell, and I thought that there was no good reason:D

[Donn]

Ed,
Well put. This NASA conspiracy stuff that he is sending me is the least wierd stuff. You should see some of the hyper-dimensional-crystal-stargate-vibrational-galactic-empire stuff he sends... I have just become really bored with this stream of nonsense that I have started to try and understand why someone, really very clever and capable, could so utterly believe all this gumpf.

I am not all clued on Science and maths, but even with my limited insight into the workings of nature, I can see that the stuff he believes is deeply flawed, it's shining a light on those flaws that is really quit difficult to do.

I can't just say, "Oh you should stop smoking those little plants," or some such retort - this guy is using all his adult mind and energy to further the spread of nonsense!

It's like being in a bad movie man! Too wierd really. More wierd than ghosts or Gellers.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.
Watch it! You are coming dangerously close to plagiarizing the dementia of $cientology. If you persist, Vinny Barbarino and Top Gun will come around to your flat and pummel the Thetans out of you.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Donn
Ed,
Well put. This NASA conspiracy stuff that he is sending me is the least wierd stuff. You should see some of the hyper-dimensional-crystal-stargate-vibrational-galactic-empire stuff he sends... I have just become really bored with this stream of nonsense that I have started to try and understand why someone, really very clever and capable, could so utterly believe all this gumpf.

I
If you look closely at certain woo beliefs you will find that the crackpots have transmorgrified Hollywood imigery into their reality structure. The old Star Trek is a mine of gibberish that gets recycled.

[Donn]

Thanks for the help.
Let me summarise:

1. Mars is mainly red.
This is due to the nature of both the dirt and the atmosphere - both scattering red light and absorbing other colours (to variying extents).

2. The camera on the lander sends back colour-biased images intended for scientific consumtion. The public gets re-re-biased images intended to provide an accurate picture to the best of our scientific knowledge.

3. If there is any life on Mars, it ain't great big swathes of green bush or we would all be talking about it by now.

4. There is no conspiracy because Occam slices that away, and anyway I have an old video I want to watch and better things to do with my time.

5. Once a Woo^2 always a Woo^2.

Am I on track?

[NullPointerException]

1. Surface of Mars can be seen from earth.
2. NASA would be shouting from the trees if they found plants on MARS
3. A focus on a trip to a planet is inevitable and if there is actually a deposite of hematite on the planet the size of any state in America it represents untold mineral richs for any wood be colonizers.

*edit, those aren't typos that are puns

[espritch]

I still don't know how to respond to his argument about :
"If the red colour can be attributed to colouring due to atmospheric
reflection (e.g red dust in the air), then the diffuse atmospheric light
would have to be blue and not red (particles scattering red light in the
atmosphere would cause objects in the sunlight to appear blue, and NOT red)."

Tell him to stop expecting the atmosphere on another planet to behave like the one on Earth. It is true that the Earth’s atmosphere preferentially scatters blue light (hence the blue color of the sky). Earth’s atmosphere in predominantly nitrogen and oxygen while the Martian atmosphere is primarily CO2. Different chemicals affect light in different ways. Also, the Martian atmosphere is much thinner than ours so there is much less scattering. Most of the sky color on Mars comes from reflection of light from dust in the atmosphere rather than scattering. Since the dust is reddish in color it reflects red light (the color of an object is based on which colors it reflects, not which it absorbs).

At least, that’s my take on it.

[Donn]

<QUOTE>Most of the sky color on Mars comes from reflection of light from dust rather than scattering. Since the dust is reddish in color it reflects red light. At least, that’s my take on it.</QUOTE>

I tried this on him too-

He said:
"For the image I sent you: If reflection off the sand is to be responsible
for the red colours in the image of the lander then there could of course be
no direct reflection from the Martian surface on the objects that are facing
directly upward (i.e. the JPL logo and wiring)."

But I understood that light (already scattered by an atmosphere) is going to be travelling in all directions, bouncing here and there, from further afield and close-up so the JPL logo and the wiring could still be altered this way.

It's hard to argue about what light (and molecules and gasse etc) will do if you haven't the authority to really KNOW, but I am sure that reality is more fuzzy and the red colour would spread all over the place.

That bouncing light would also paint the 'air' reddish between the camera's lense and the JPL logo + wiring, hence coulouring the light coming from them into the camera.

Is this bouncing light concept correct?

[espritch]

I altered my first reply after reading it to clarify that the flection is from dust in the atmosphere, not dust on the surface. The atmosphere of Mars is dustier than Earth's because there isn't much in the way of rain or similar percipitation to clear dust from the air that was thrown up by those occasional planet wide dust storms and more frequent local events. I hope that makes it clearer (or dustier if you perfer ;) ).

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.

Oh, and there are huge worms up there, geneticaly manufactured by the Martians in order to recycle the remaining 'silt'. There was a thread here, but alas, it has been removed.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0400291.html
http://www.ebtx.com/mars/marsfaun.htm

I think I already saw a couple of movies and series episodes with such scripts... Couldn't the writers be a bit more creative?

"genetically alter the simian and reptilian gene"... For what? Reptiles evolved before mammals, and apes were not exactly the first mammals to evolve, therefore there was not a "simian gene" to alter on reptiles, even on the mamaliform ones back in the Permian or Triassic. Or you are saying that there were apes by that time? Or the martian altered the genes of reptiles from the Tertiary, at the same time they messed with some poor simian genetic pool? For wich reason? For fun? OK, what could we expect from a species that mutilates cattle...

Worse then that, Mars lost its atmosphere and water (if it really had one) billions of years ago, before here on Earth existed something more evolved than a jellyfish. There are no "reptile or simian genes" to alter on these creatures... And the martians would have to evolve from some procaryote-like beings to sentient martians in less then a billion years.

Please correct this on your movie script.

[espritch]

It sounds like you are prejudiced, rather than skeptical.

You admit you do not understand, yet you just want to "shoot" his argument.

That, is neither skeptical nor rational.

It is *****.

A fundamental principal of skepticism is to doubt extraordinary claims. In fact, I’d say a primary duty of the skeptic is to attempt to shoot down questionable arguments. In science, any new theory is subject to a concerted effort by other scientist to shoot it down. Only theories that survive this kind of intense scrutiny and skepticism are worthy of consideration and respect.

Personally I find it rather remarkable that NASA conspiracy theorists can believe that NASA is competent enough to send multi-million dollar robot probes to distant planets yet so incompetent that they would attempt a cover up by releasing images so poorly doctored that that the conspiracy theorists can easily detect the ruse using nothing more than Photoshop. I guess it just never occurs to them that just maybe it isn’t NASA that is incompetent.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Correa Neto


I think I already saw a couple of movies and series episodes with such scripts... Couldn't the writers be a bit more creative?

"genetically alter the simian and reptilian gene"... For what? Reptiles evolved before mammals, and apes were not exactly the first mammals to evolve, therefore there was not a "simian gene" to alter on reptiles, even on the mamaliform ones back in the Permian or Triassic. Or you are saying that there were apes by that time? Or the martian altered the genes of reptiles from the Tertiary, at the same time they messed with some poor simian genetic pool? For wich reason? For fun? OK, what could we expect from a species that mutilates cattle...

Worse then that, Mars lost its atmosphere and water (if it really had one) billions of years ago, before here on Earth existed something more evolved than a jellyfish. There are no "reptile or simian genes" to alter on these creatures... And the martians would have to evolve from some procaryote-like beings to sentient martians in less then a billion years.

Please correct this on your movie script.

No, you don't understand.

The Martians set this place up. Earth. Home. After the dinosaurs sorted out the main bugging problems, then they had to go, genetic manipulation was the quickest. The 'missing link' in the story is when they took the a monkey and perked it up a little.
The rest, as they say, is history.

[Pyrrho]

Two major factors affect the color balance in both photographs.

The photo taken at NASA/JPL is illuminated by artificial light. Unless the photograph has been color corrected, the color balance is not natural.

The photo taken on Mars was, well, taken on Mars. I don't see any "color targets" in the image, meaning a set of color chips for the purpose of balancing color. Sunlight is filtered through the dust-laden Martian atmosphere, reflected off the surrounding soil, etc.

Comparing one uncorrected image to another uncorrected image and crying "Conspiracy!" is idiotic, reprehensible, and downright stupid. Anything for a headline, I guess.

[Donn]

Well, I have to go to sleep and my weekend online time ends soon, so I thought I would post another email I was sent on this subject and then I will return when I can to see the debate.
(have fun!)
--------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt in my mind that NASA is involved in some very 'bad
astronomy'.

The 'original' NASA images and press release:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040121a/Lander_Pan_Sol
16-A18R1_br2.jpg
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040121a/Lander_Pan_Sol
16-A18R1.jpg
<http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040121a/Lander_Pan_So
l16-A18R1_br2.jpg>
<http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040121a/Lander_Pan_So
l16-A18R1_br.jpg>
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040121a.html

Interesting, wouldn't you say, that NASA take so long (sometimes weeks) to
release their colour images (whilst their black & white ones are released
almost right away).

I highly recommend that you read these two articles:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors2.htm

Interesting:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/coverup.jpg

You might want to look at some of the other stuff here:
http://www.enterprisemission.com

Also of interest:
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM8ZB474OD_1.html

Interesting, too, would you not say, that NASA have never put web cams or
any other live feed on any of their spacecraft?
They have refused, outright, to broadcast any live feed from their Mars
probes. Hm, wonder why that could be?
It amazes me that people don't ask these kinds of questions. Why has NASA
not had any live feed from their Space Shuttles (except for a few very short
clips during dockings, etc, where not much can be seen anyway). What about
the 'International Space Station'? Where's our 24 hour live feed?

I'll have to show you some of the live feed sometime, that NASA do in fact
get from Space Shuttle missions!
Very interesting.

I find it interesting that NASA have continually stalled on releasing new
images of 'The Face' - often taking months and years to release images of
this area. They have also blatantly lied to the public and White House
about having images to 'disprove' the shape of the face, when in fact they
had none in their possession. They were forced to admit this (a few years
ago) by some professor (I'll have to find the info for you).

The Face on Mars:
http://the2001face.50megs.com/index.html
<BLOCKED::http://the2001face.50megs.com/index.html>
http://www.enterprisemission.com/paper_1/paper_1.php?page=paper1
<BLOCKED::http://www.enterprisemission.com/paper_1/paper_1.php?page=paper1>
http://www.planetarymysteries.com/egypt/sphinxmars.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/catbox.htm
<BLOCKED::http://www.enterprisemission.com/catbox.htm>

Other 'geoglyphs' on Mars:
http://herotwins.hypermart.net/corn_god/Is_this_hand_shucked.htm
<BLOCKED::http://herotwins.hypermart.net/corn_god/Is_this_hand_shucked.htm>

NASA's last response for envestigating 'The Face' further:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/nasamars.html

A good resource from a NASA (or ex-NASA) employee:
<http://www.keithlaney.com/> http://www.keithlaney.com/

NASA are indeed playing games and they, and those who support them, are not
going to miss any opportunity to discredit people such as Hoagland.

[espritch]

There is no doubt in my mind that NASA is involved in some very 'bad astronomy'.

I think we’ve identified the source of the trouble: his mind.

Interesting, wouldn't you say, that NASA take so long (sometimes weeks) to release their colour images (whilst their black & white ones are released almost right away).

Let’s see. Black and white images require transmission of about 1/3 the data of a color image and no special processing to achieve a proper color balance. Now why would it possibly take longer to post color images?

I highly recommend that you read these two articles:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors2.htm

Interesting:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/im...rit/coverup.jpg

You might want to look at some of the other stuff here:
http://www.enterprisemission.com


Wade through four links from Enterprise Mission? Can I just jab my eyeballs with an ice pick instead? It would be less painful.

Also of interest:
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/...8ZB474OD_1.html


Well, that’s a legitimate source anyway. Unfortunately, I didn’t see anything their that would support claims that NASA is involved in a Mars cover up.

Interesting, too, would you not say, that NASA have never put web cams or any other live feed on any of their spacecraft?
They have refused, outright, to broadcast any live feed from their Mars probes. Hm, wonder why that could be?
It amazes me that people don't ask these kinds of questions. Why has NASA not had any live feed from their Space Shuttles (except for a few very short clips during dockings, etc, where not much can be seen anyway). What about the 'International Space Station'? Where's our 24 hour live feed?

I'll have to show you some of the live feed sometime, that NASA do in fact get from Space Shuttle missions!
Very interesting.

It is far more amazing to me that anyone would actually ask questions that stupid. So NASA didn’t put a web cam on the Mars rovers. Does this guy have any idea how difficult it is to retrieve data from a rover on Mars? Does he really think they would waste a communication channel to broadcast a web cam image from Mars? Would he know how to interpret live feed from Spirit if NASA did broadcast it? Is this guy really as stupid as he appears to be?

I find it interesting that NASA have continually stalled on releasing new images of 'The Face' - often taking months and years to release images of this area. They have also blatantly lied to the public and White House about having images to 'disprove' the shape of the face, when in fact they had none in their possession. They were forced to admit this (a few years ago) by some professor (I'll have to find the info for you).

The Face on Mars:
http://the2001face.50megs.com/index.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/pa...php?page=paper1
http://www.planetarymysteries.com/egypt/sphinxmars.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/catbox.htm


Ok. I guess that answers my question. He is as stupid as he appears to be. A cat box? It’s a freaking hill! NASA has released at least 3 images of this hill and each one has shown more clearly than the last that it is exactly that. I can’t imagine why he thinks NASA has nothing better do than release more pictures of the same hill so Richard Hoagland can screw around with them in Photoshop until they bear some vague resemblance to his silly fantasies.

Other 'geoglyphs' on Mars:
http://herotwins.hypermart.net/corn...and_shucked.htm


And I thought Jesus on a corn chip was silly. :D

NASA's last response for envestigating 'The Face' further:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/nasamars.html

A good resource from a NASA (or ex-NASA) employee:
http://www.keithlaney.com/

NASA are indeed playing games and they, and those who support them, are not going to miss any opportunity to discredit people such as Hoagland.

I doubt NASA looses a lot of sleep worrying about discrediting Hoagland. The man does a good enough job of that all by himself.

I admire your dedication in trying to debate this guy, but I suspect you will find that you are trying to teach a pig to sing.

[Ed]

The degree of interest in space stuff wears off pretty damn quick. You might recall that the last Apollo Landings received scant coverage. To suggest that they use their resourses for the edification for a small segment of the population is irresponsible. A web cam would be useless, as I understand it, without all of the processing routines necessary to turn the data into images. Further there are power consumption considerations.

Ask this guy "why".

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by espritch


Personally I find it rather remarkable that NASA conspiracy theorists can believe that NASA is competent enough to send multi-million dollar robot probes to distant planets yet so incompetent that they would attempt a cover up by releasing images so poorly doctored that that the conspiracy theorists can easily detect the ruse using nothing more than Photoshop. I guess it just never occurs to them that just maybe it isn’t NASA that is incompetent.

Aversion Therapy. If the truth is really 'Out There', it would be logical from a management pov to expose society to the situation gradually using safe methods.

[Correa Neto]

Please, enterprise mission is one of the wackiest wackos around. The "eyes" on the face are laughable. The "artifacts" in the landing sites are below any comment.

I wrote this once, and I'll write again- who belive there's anything of unatural in all those pics never got out of a city! Never walked on any rocky landscape. You don't need to be a geologist to see that (and I am one)! A walk around any area with rocky outcrops is enough to debunk all those claims.

I'll make a prophecy! Someone (maybe Hoagland) will say that the fracture patterns on the outcrops near Opportunity (see top left of image on this link-> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rover-images/jan-25-2004/captions/image-2.html) are not natural. They'll claim its artificial because the blocks have similar dimensions, there are straight lines and orthogonal faces, and all of these "as we all know", do not happen in nature... Now, where do I go to pick my 1 million dollars?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No, you don't understand.

The Martians set this place up. Earth. Home. After the dinosaurs sorted out the main bugging problems, then they had to go, genetic manipulation was the quickest. The 'missing link' in the story is when they took the a monkey and perked it up a little.
The rest, as they say, is history.

These claims are very extraordinary. Is there any evidence backing such bold claims?

Sorry, but it does not sound logicall to me. What exactly you mean by "sorted out the main bugging problems"? Some fix in the world's ecosystem? Earth had several stable ecosystems for hundreds of million years before the appearance of the dinosaurs (if we consider the lifeforms that existed before the Ediacara or Burgess shale faunas, a couple of billion years or so), as well as after. And Earth's ecosystems were reorganized quite quickly after every large mass extinction event- a blink of an eye in terms of geological time. So, I see no reason at all for all these interventions. If it were just a question of taking the dinos away to allow a better chance of survival for the mammals, such advanced genetic engineering would not need 65 million years to obtain results... Pick a shrew and evolve it! See? Its all to tortuous and not practical.

And Mars lost its free-flowing water (if it had any) roughly 2 or 3 billion years ago. By that time, the most advanced creatures on Earth were jellyfishes. So, the martians stood there, waiting for hundreds and hundreds of million years untill the reptiles evolved, then another 65 million years untill apes evolved? It makes no sense.

So, after all the debugging they done the martians took the poor dinos away by sending a meteor to Earth? Messy martians... And what about all the other species that were also gone in this and other extinctions (mass extinctions or not)? Amonites, pterosaurs, mamaliform reptiles, trilobites, hallucigenia, mastodons, large marsupials, etc.?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Aversion Therapy. If the truth is really 'Out There', it would be logical from a management pov to expose society to the situation gradually using safe methods.

Hmmm.... like people are exposed to the start of a war? or the A-Bomb? or quadruple bipasses or Starbucks Coffee? Please. There is no logic to what you say.

[LTC8K6]

Maybe you should ask a Brazilian?

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.

Oh, and there are huge worms up there, geneticaly manufactured by the Martians in order to recycle the remaining 'silt'. There was a thread here, but alas, it has been removed.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0400291.html
http://www.ebtx.com/mars/marsfaun.htm

Let's see, that's a strange amalgam of Mission to Mars starring Gary Sinise,Tim Robbins, and the fat kid from
didStand By Me, and Frank Herbert's Dune. Fascinating.

You are evidently not aware of the ebtx guy's next, uh, exposition on the subject of martian sandworms:

http://www.ebtx.com/mars/noworm.htm

did

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Maybe you should ask a Brazilian?
?

Sorry but... Ask what?

I'm a brazilian but I didn't get it...

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Oh, and there are huge worms up there, geneticaly manufactured by the Martians in order to recycle the remaining 'silt'. There was a thread here, but alas, it has been removed.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0400291.html
http://www.ebtx.com/mars/marsfaun.htm
Yeah, it is too bad that thread is gone, because your worm nonsense was thoroughly debunked in that thread. Mars ain't Arrakis.

Next time, try a good doughball for bait.

[LTC8K6]

How did the Brazilian flag get up there? :D

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/coverup.jpg

[Checkmite]

When one takes a 14" or larger telescope and brings it to bear on Mars, one can clearly see that the entire planet is swathed in reds, oranges, and a couple of white ice caps. So this NASA conspiracy must also extend to the manufacturers of telescope mirrors, who design said mirrors to function perfectly normally when pointed anywhere else, but hide green spots when focused on Mars.

[alfaniner]

Don't forget about those circular landing pads on the surface, clearly seen in the pictures. Or are they merely fossilized crop circles?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
How did the Brazilian flag get up there? :D

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/coverup.jpg

Hey, that is mine! I was with that on the latest worm-riding competition.

Don't you dare blaming my worm-riding skills for any damage on that wheeled NASA thingie!:p

[Randy with a "Y"]

Don't forget that the camera(s) on the mars rovers all send back black and white images.

The colors that we see are achieved by two things:

1) Colored filters are placed over the lens of the camera(s)
2) The colors are calibrated by taking pictures of a special calibration target on each rover.

Click Here to see what the calibration target looks like. (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/spirit/images/Cal_Target_040115174644.jpg)

A series of pictures, taken with different filters over the lens, are sent back from mars. There is one picture for each "color" (wavelength) of light. (Red, Green and Blue for instance... I don't know the details but you get the general idea.)

All of these pictures are received on earth. Computer technicians combine them together with some kind of photo manipulation software. (Photoshop, for all intents and purposes.) Then the resulting "composite" images are compared to the images of the calibration target to be sure they are as true, colorwise, as we can make them.

So... if the computer technicians make mistakes using Photoshop (or whatever program NASA/JPL uses to process their images... GIMP, maybe?) then, of course the images will be wrong in terms of color. Even if the technicians did a perfect job it is still only our best educated guess as to what the color of mars really is.

Until a MAN stands on the surface of the planet, raises his sun visor, peers out over the landscape and declares, "Mars is red!", will we ever know for sure.

Who knows? Maybe mars is really PURPLE with little yellow spots?! :D

PS: If you want to know more about the mars rovers check out their official website: marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html)