Mars the anomalies The moon too., part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

telfrow

Guest
The original thread was approaching the post limit and has been locked.<br /><br />For those of you wishing to continue the discussion, here's Part II... <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
E

enigma10

Guest
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"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<font color="yellow">Enigma10 - ...Still trying to figure out that wife shape wandering around where i live...</font><br /><br />I had one of those once. But, I got better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
P

pierround

Guest
I would like to put this in here because Dfrank makes a very good point, <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA says, <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Hey, I got an idea. Lets spend millions of dollars and go dig around and see If we are right. <br /><br />If you where my boss would you give me the money? Now who is BS ing who? <br /><br />Dfrank <br /><br /><br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />And like the picture below which picture of the face are we to believe?
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<i>And like the picture below which picture of the face are we to believe?</i><br /><br />This is the wrong question. All images of the Cydonia region are useful. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<font color="yellow">pierreround - ... Dfrank makes a very good point,</font><br /><br />Not really.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">They are no organics in the soil. </font><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>""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.<br /><br />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....</i> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/marsorganics.html<br /><br />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 <b>valid</b> 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"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
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" /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
I forgot to add:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">dfrank - The sun sends harmful radiation that would cook any poor critter on the planet. </font><br /><br />A couple of related trivia points you may find interesting besides what I linked above... <br /><br />More of Earth's biomass rests beneath the soil than above it.<br /><br />If you took the gross weight of all "ant" species, they would way more than the total human population on Earth.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There is a fungus colony that is over 9km in size and it's members are all genetically related.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
D

dfrank

Guest
<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Before 1976 we defaulted to the known. After 1976 we defaulted to what it should be. Why? Because we know better now. LOL<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />I do not know how much I will be able to contribute to this forum. I don’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.<br /><br />The point is I see anomalies. Mars anomalies that do not add up. The point wa
 
D

dfrank

Guest
a_lost_packet, said<br /><br />“None of these amazing critters could live without water. With all their differences, that is the common need.â€<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What could be going on in that little ball? Just a thought.<br /><br />The image relative to my post above was too big. This is the link:<br /><br /><br />http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/122/1P139018947EFF2809P2266L2M1.HTML<br /><br />Dfrank<br /><br /><br />
 
T

telfrow

Guest
Here's your picture, reized.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Alien life does not share your limitations.</font><br /><br />Just curious - how do you know that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
D

dfrank

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

oscar1

Guest
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" />
 
P

pierround

Guest
Finding other anomalies.<br />At a time of bombardment in it’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?<br />It obviously was more evolved in the past with seas.<br />We have no idea what's underground and how highly evolved those creatures are or might be.<br />
 
O

oscar1

Guest
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.
 
D

dfrank

Guest
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.<br /><br />We are so smart we don’t know what color Mars is. <br /><br />Dfrank<br />
 
T

telfrow

Guest
The Color of Mars <br /><br /><i>Edited to add:</i> The Color of Mars, II <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
dfrank: <font color="yellow"> 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. </font><br /><br />Although a camera may not be set up to take “true color†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. That’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.<br /><br />dfrank: <font color="yellow"> Before 1976 we defaulted to the known. After 1976 we defaulted to what it should be. Why? Because we know better now. LOL </font><br /><br />Not so. We just use better processing based upon new information about how to make a more accurate simulation.<br /><br />dfrank: <font color="yellow"> 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. </font><br /><br />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 couldn’t do that on Mars because the image and the baseline reference were both the same in <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

dfrank

Guest
<br />Mental avenger said,<br /><br />“Not so. We just use better processing based upon new information about how to make a more accurate simulation.â€<br /><br />Accurate simulation? Now that’s close to the truth. I just call that an opinion, less typing.<br /><br />Bottom line,<br /><br />We don’t know what color Mars is because we have never been there. Funny thing is we know what color it is not. LOL<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Dfrank<br />
 
T

telfrow

Guest
NASA Is Not Altering Mars Colors <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
In a sense we do. The rovers include targets whose colors are known through all the filters, so that accurate reconstructions can be made.<br /><br />Of course, it's never perfect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
D

dfrank

Guest
<br />They did in 1976, I saw them, and everyone did.<br /><br />I understand what your link is saying. I understand what the illusion squares are saying. I disagree that’s all. It does not really matter does it?<br /><br />Dfrank<br />
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
dfrank: <font color="yellow"> Accurate simulation? Now that’s close to the truth. I just call that an opinion, less typing. </font><br /><br />Actually it isn’t an opinion, it is a verifiable fact.<br /><br />dfrank: <font color="yellow"> We don’t know what color Mars is because we have never been there. Funny thing is we know what color it is not. LOL </font><br /><br />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 individual’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 <i>average</i> person.<br /><br />dfrank: <font color="yellow"> The fact is we set up our cameras to the best of our ability. The sky came back blue. </font><br /><br />Again, that is what we have been trying to explain. The sky did not “come 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.<br /><br /><br />Is that all you have to say about the rather detail post I made? No comments on the rest of it?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
B

bobw

Guest
<font color="yellow">They did in 1976, I saw them, and everyone did. </font><br /><br />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? <br /><br />Six whole days to get it sorted out on an IBM 360. <br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /> <br />http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/ch11-4.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bobw

Guest
Here's another from 1976<br /><br /><i>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.<br /><br />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)</i><br /><br />http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/HTML/FAQS/sky.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY