Mars the anomalies The moon too., part II

telfrow · Aug 7, 2007

The original thread was approaching the post limit and has been locked. For those of you wishing to continue the discussion, here's Part II... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

enigma10 · Aug 7, 2007

I like staring at clouds under a cool shade. Easier to see those instead of through a telescope.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I've always found trying to make sense of shapes within nature to be challenging at best. Still trying to figure out that wife shape wandering around where i live. Figured thats enough alien presence to last me a lifetime. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 7, 2007

Enigma10 - ...Still trying to figure out that wife shape wandering around where i live... I had one of those once. But, I got better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

pierround · Aug 7, 2007

I would like to put this in here because Dfrank makes a very good point, <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA says, They are no organics in the soil. That is the building blocks of life. No liquid water, just on rare occasions, maybe, could be dry slides. The atmospheric pressure is too low. The sun sends harmful radiation that would cook any poor critter on the planet. Hey, I got an idea. Lets spend millions of dollars and go dig around and see If we are right. If you where my boss would you give me the money? Now who is BS ing who? Dfrank <hr /></blockquote> And like the picture below which picture of the face are we to believe?

JonClarke · Aug 7, 2007

And like the picture below which picture of the face are we to believe? This is the wrong question. All images of the Cydonia region are useful. What is clear when you look at all the images is that the face-like appearance of one mesa is purely an illusion of lighting and viewing angles and resolution. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 7, 2007

pierreround - ... Dfrank makes a very good point, Not really. They are no organics in the soil. I'd say there are none that we have found. But, experiments like the ones aboard the Viking Lander could have missed the mark. That's been an idea that has been passed around a lot lately. ""Our study shows the Viking instruments from the 1970s may have been unable to detect low levels of organics on Mars, due to the presence of iron in the soils, because the soil was heated in the presence of this iron. Future Mars missions should use methods that do not involve heating the soil, such as liquid extraction," said Christopher McKay, a scientist at NASA Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley, and one of the report's authors. The principal author is Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Even soils without iron can contain organic material the Viking spacecraft could not detect. Study scientists said they found minute amounts of graphite-like organic material (produced by life) in the Antarctic dry valleys, the Chilean Atacama and Libyan deserts. Because the levels of organics are so low in these soils, and the organic material has become so much like graphite, the Viking instruments would not have detected the graphite-like material.... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/marsorganics.html Even so, we've only probed the very top layer of soil. Barely a few inches.(AFAIK) We can say what we have found and what we have not found. We can "speculate" on the rest. We can make valid speculations by using the knowledge we have already proven to hold true. We can't say that there are no organics in the Martian soil because we can't even be sure the very, very limited testing we ha <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

JonClarke · Aug 8, 2007

I wasn't quite sure what point dfrank was trying to make, so you said it much better than me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 8, 2007

I forgot to add: dfrank - The sun sends harmful radiation that would cook any poor critter on the planet. A couple of related trivia points you may find interesting besides what I linked above... More of Earth's biomass rests beneath the soil than above it. If you took the gross weight of all "ant" species, they would way more than the total human population on Earth. Tubeworms, which arguably live in the harshest environment on the planet Earth, are also one of Earths most longest lived animals with an estimated lifespan of 250+ years. There is a fungus colony that is over 9km in size and it's members are all genetically related. None of these amazing critters could live without water. With all their differences, that is the common need. Water is on Mars. That is one reason why we are going there. The other is "because it's there." PS - It has cool rocks and dust and stuff too.. (Put one in for Jon. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

dfrank · Aug 8, 2007

Well the point I was trying to make was NASA sets themselves up for doubt. I put a lot of things on the table the other night. To discuses Mars anomalies it would be nice to check our ideologies at the door to the best of our ability. If you would like we can take them one by one. Lets go back to 1976. The famous blue sky. NASA made color an opinion. It can never be anything else. True color is just an opinion from that day forward. To say an image is true color is a fraud. True to who? True to you maybe. Before 1976 we defaulted to the known. After 1976 we defaulted to what it should be. Why? Because we know better now. LOL The point is let me see and make my own opinions. If you start changing what I see to what I should be seeing you are suspect. I would think that before they launched Viking they may have hired a camera guy, maybe someone who understood light and imaging. I would think they may have had more than one. I would have hoped he or she would have been the best possible. I would hope they might have interviewed a couple of people and checked their references. Now we got to overcome it cant be because it cant be. It would appear the standards for making a claim in this forum is higher than the credentials of a NASA camera man. The image I posted was a cross eyed 3D of the surface of Mars. The response was blueberries. There is a lot more going on in that image than blueberries in my opinion. This just does not look like the product of eons of wind and dust to me. To have an open discussion would be nice. To say we have reached a conclusion in this forum 2 years ago means that you know. I do not know how much I will be able to contribute to this forum. I donâ€™t know how much I want to. I do not like beating my head against the wall that much either. Lot to overcome with no possible true resolution. The point is I see anomalies. Mars anomalies that do not add up. The point wa

dfrank · Aug 8, 2007

a_lost_packet, said â€œNone of these amazing critters could live without water. With all their differences, that is the common need.â€ This is an opinion based I guess on our understanding of Earth life. Alien life does not share your limitations. The abilities of life to convert water vapor to liquid water are up for debate. All it would need is a collector and a heat source. That could be external or internal. Passive phase change is just one option. Process induced phase change seems an easy feat for nature. What could be going on in that little ball? Just a thought. The image relative to my post above was too big. This is the link: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/122/1P139018947EFF2809P2266L2M1.HTML Dfrank

telfrow · Aug 8, 2007

Here's your picture, reized. Alien life does not share your limitations. Just curious - how do you know that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

dfrank · Aug 8, 2007

Thank you for posting my picture. In reference to, Alien life does not share your limitations. Just curious - how do you know that? We as humans are bound by our limited understanding. Alien life does not have these limitations. Dfrank

oscar1 · Aug 8, 2007

Just resign to the fact that you, like all of us here, have limited understanding. What else can you do? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

pierround · Aug 8, 2007

Finding other anomalies. At a time of bombardment in itâ€™s past and a microbe or two are found on a meteorite sworn to be from Mars wouldn't it be possible that there was an extinctions of higher life forms? What was able to survive and adapt? It obviously was more evolved in the past with seas. We have no idea what's underground and how highly evolved those creatures are or might be.

oscar1 · Aug 8, 2007

It is a pity that our Dachshund Jean-Claude got run over by a car, otherwise we could have trained him for a trip to Mars. You have no idea how many creatures he dug out of the soil in his time.

dfrank · Aug 8, 2007

What is beneath the surface of Mars we have no way of knowing. Present or past civilizations on what ever scale or make-up we have no idea and no way of knowing. We are so smart we donâ€™t know what color Mars is. Dfrank

telfrow · Aug 8, 2007

The Color of Mars Edited to add: The Color of Mars, II <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 8, 2007

dfrank: Lets go back to 1976. The famous blue sky. NASA made color an opinion. It can never be anything else. True color is just an opinion from that day forward. To say an image is true color is a fraud. True to who? True to you maybe. Although a camera may not be set up to take â€œtrue colorâ€ images, that does not mean that a true color image cannot be created from the data. Remember, the camera does not take a picture, it scans the imaging element as light falls upon it. Depending upon the imaging element used, and the filters if any, the data will merely be an ordered array of pixels with data that corresponds to varying degrees of intensity. Thatâ€™s it. That is the simplified version. The data is then processed to produce an image that simulates the original. The data can be processed in such a way as to simulate a true color image using data from a camera that did not have true color capability. dfrank: Before 1976 we defaulted to the known. After 1976 we defaulted to what it should be. Why? Because we know better now. LOL Not so. We just use better processing based upon new information about how to make a more accurate simulation. dfrank: I would think that before they launched Viking they may have hired a camera guy, maybe someone who understood light and imaging. I would think they may have had more than one. I would have hoped he or she would have been the best possible. I would hope they might have interviewed a couple of people and checked their references. The problem did not rest with the camera, but with the post processing. Here on Earth it is easy to get terrestrial photos right the first time because we can go to the location and see first hand what the lighting conditions are. We couldnâ€™t do that on Mars because the image and the baseline reference were both the same in <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

dfrank · Aug 8, 2007

Mental avenger said, â€œNot so. We just use better processing based upon new information about how to make a more accurate simulation.â€ Accurate simulation? Now thatâ€™s close to the truth. I just call that an opinion, less typing. Bottom line, We donâ€™t know what color Mars is because we have never been there. Funny thing is we know what color it is not. LOL The fact is we set up our cameras to the best of our ability. The sky came back blue. A person or persons made a conscience decision to change it. This took less than an hour or so. There was no exhaustive research, there was no peer review. The fact is they did not like the color of the sky and they changed it. Now what else are they changing? Dfrank

telfrow · Aug 8, 2007

NASA Is Not Altering Mars Colors <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 8, 2007

In a sense we do. The rovers include targets whose colors are known through all the filters, so that accurate reconstructions can be made. Of course, it's never perfect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

dfrank · Aug 8, 2007

They did in 1976, I saw them, and everyone did. I understand what your link is saying. I understand what the illusion squares are saying. I disagree thatâ€™s all. It does not really matter does it? Dfrank

mental_avenger · Aug 8, 2007

dfrank: Accurate simulation? Now thatâ€™s close to the truth. I just call that an opinion, less typing. Actually it isnâ€™t an opinion, it is a verifiable fact. dfrank: We donâ€™t know what color Mars is because we have never been there. Funny thing is we know what color it is not. LOL Incorrect. We now know what color Mars is just as well as if we had been there, for several reasons. We now have the color standards there on Mars to use as a reference when creating the images from the data. Also, it depends upon what you are viewing Mars with. If you are looking at a printed picture on paper, the same data will give you a different set of colors than if you are viewing it on a CRT. Lastly, it also depends upon the person viewing Mars, or an image of Mars. Different individualâ€™s eyes can be sensitive to different ranges of colors for the same reason that NASA uses different filters to get better contrast in certain ranges for a variety of images. Two individuals can get different perceptions of the same scene. And that is why the data is processed to provide images as they would appear to the average person. dfrank: The fact is we set up our cameras to the best of our ability. The sky came back blue. Again, that is what we have been trying to explain. The sky did not â€œcome back blueâ€. That is merely the color it was using the first set of parameters for processing. Now that we have all the additional information, including color standards, that is no longer an issue. Is that all you have to say about the rather detail post I made? No comments on the rest of it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bobw · Aug 8, 2007

They did in 1976, I saw them, and everyone did. So you are saying that instead of getting out a picture, any picture, as fast as possible and filling in the details after getting the pictures of the calibration target worked out that what actually happened is that they decided the blue sky had to be kept secret and have butterscotched the sky since then? Six whole days to get it sorted out on an IBM 360. Two variations of the first color photo from the Viking 1 lander, taken on the Mars surface 21 July 1976. The blue-sky version above was released the same day. Below is the true red-sky version released 26 July. The red cast is probably due to scattering and reflection from sediment suspended int he lower atmosphere. To assist in balancing the colors, a photo was taken of a test chart mounted on the rear of the spacecraft and the calibration then applied to the entire scene. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/ch11-4.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bobw · Aug 8, 2007

Here's another from 1976 The first Viking Lander images to be broadcast over TV in the 1970s showed a blue sky, later "corrected" to a pink sky. This was because of uncertainties in the initial image processing. Also, the lander had several color patches to calibrate the cameras which were partially covered with Martian dust thrown up during landing. However, further careful analysis of Viking Lander data revealed a Martian sky which is generally "butterscotch" (yellow/brownish) in color, except for the pink/red of sunset and sunrise. This was confirmed by Mars Pathfinder in 1997. A true color image from Viking Lander 2, showing the spacecraft and part of Utopia Planitia, looking due south. The American flag, color grid, and bicentennial symbols on the spacecraft were used for correct color balance. The RTG (radioisotope thermal generator) cover is in the foreground with the flag. The S-band high-gain antenna is at the top center, and the other RTG cover is at the left. The image spans an azimuth of about 140 degrees. The image was taken at 12:20 lander local time. (Viking 2 Lander, 21C056; Date/Time (UT): 1976-11-02 T 15:24:49) http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/HTML/FAQS/sky.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mars the anomalies The moon too., part II

telfrow

Guest

enigma10

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

pierround

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

dfrank

Guest

dfrank

Guest

telfrow

Guest

dfrank

Guest

oscar1

Guest

pierround

Guest

oscar1

Guest

dfrank

Guest

telfrow

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

dfrank

Guest

telfrow

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

dfrank

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bobw

Guest

bobw

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page