It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

blue sky on mars possible life air...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
i found this site and it shows how our nehrborhoods favorit space agency has been ^:::^ with our heads. People nasa is a joke and from these pictures i show u that mars is sutable for life.

nasa has been tampeering with the pictures of mars..
just look

xfacts.com...

xfacts is a really cool site

and here is some green for ya
xfacts.com...


[edit on 16-7-2005 by ned316]




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I came accross this site a few weeks ago -- very interesting! Thanks for giving me the link back, id lost it. Cheers


Edit: what is that anomoly down the bottom to? I coulnd't work it out last time. Any thoguhts? Dosen't look like the face to me.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by ekul08]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Sorry, but that's an extremely shady and untrustable site for a number of reasons.

Also, this topic, as well as this site I am sure, have come up many, many, many, many times in the Space and Exploration forum of the ATS.

For example, the "anomaly" at the bottom of the site you've linked was the discusson of a 10-15 page long topic back when this data was just being released by NASA, and the colourization issue was one of the most viewed/read topics on all of the ATS. We actually had a correspondence going with the JPL over at NASA for a short time finding out how it worked and why images come back the way they do.

The thing about the internet is, you have to take everything you read with a grain of salt. I might not be entirely right, as I can make mistakes too, but I'm fairly sure this particular topic has been discussed and widely agreed to be unsuspicious.

Before you spread the word, check its sources.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
oh is it already posted on ats.

if not when you look at the second link and read the paragrahp some scientists think that it is actually plants or some other organic featers, and in that case i think that the revised pictures showing the true color of mars having a bluish cindove atmoshper there must be some oxygen on it.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I'm not surprised that theres a color issue going on with the pics coming down from mars. So the question is who does NASA throw under the speeding bus since JPL let the cat outta the bag?



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
maybe this is just new tech and they finally can see the true face of mars i mean color.

and maybe they be hiding it for a while

i still think that they just made the images red becaue from space it looks red because of the methain in the air reflecting the light and what not,

so yea they just made the whole planet rocks and everything red..


also if anyone has ever seen the seeemingly fake video of the landing on mars in like 1962 by russian the terrian color in the video looks like the color in the images on what mars looks like with color



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
..Sorry to bust your bubble, folks, but you've got to "Shift" out of Conspiracy-Mode every once in a while.

No one let any cat out of any bags. The methods for taking pictures are to use various filters and then reconstruct them with computers from the raw data we receive. You can't just send a 50MB Bitmap from Mars too reliably!

The reconstruction is the bit we had a correspondence on, and it's the bit that would have to do with the final look of the pictures. It isn't that they come back normal and some one reddens them, it's that they come back and get fed through a few filters and a program much like Photoshop compiles the filters into a single, flowing image. The problem is, that some cameras taking some data through some filters are "brighter" - and so they need to be turned down on reconstruction. Others are dimmer, so they must be turned up, and in the end, the filtered pieces of the image have to be brightened/dimmed/red/blue/greened to adjust for the expected loss/gain of information. It is a very highly perfected process, and the chances that NASA is messing it up severely are slim to nil.

The ability to change those pictures and say "This is what it really looks like" is not a fantastical one. You could do it with free software known as GIMP, or pay software like Photoshop, or anything in between, by just modifying colour channels.

Now, they, and we, know what the atmosphere is composed of due to spectroscopic analyses from orbit, not colourised pictures on the ground. Mars should not have a blue sky like ours at all, as its atmosphere is not composed chiefly of Nitrogen and secondarily of Oxygen. I belief it is Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen, but I am not entirely sure, and am in no real mood to check up right now.

The important thing is that a national laboratory/organisation is not untrustable just because it is official. If a man came up to you and showed you that 2+2=4 on a piece of paper, and the answer of 2+2 were to dictate what you did next, then another man arrives and just keeps telling you the first man was lying and hates you, and that it is 5, which would you believe? Would you believe the one that made logical sense and was official, or the one that was illogical, but sensational?

It's a very oversimplified way to put it, but it's the way it is.

And for the record, The rocks are red due to high iron content. It's rust.

And no, in the second link, it is not a forest or a wide area of vegetation - it's a spectroscopic reading of a Methane deposit. It supported the idea that life must be on Mars producing Methane for such a buildup to exist, until means of buildups such as that lasting for hundreds of thousands of years were shown, and it is merely interesting, not a near proof.

XFacts is not a trustable site - anywhere with links to what Dan Akroyd thinks of Art Bell to someone's claims on what the Sumerian's believed relating to Planet X, is probably not very trust-worthy. Go to the Space & Exploration area, go to Wikipedia - learn before you guess. Please.

EDIT: I've just realised a mistake in my post, I said that Mars' sky should be completely unlike ours, because its atmosphere is composed of different elements/compounds. I am wrong, it could be a very similar look if the elements/compounds absorb/reflect light similarly to our own, but it is not necessarily required. Again, I'm a bit too tired to actually check it at the moment.

[edit on 17-7-2005 by Viendin]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Here's the ATS discussion on the subject for anyone interested. It has all the info you need, and probably more!

Even some pics of the "blue sky" effect. An awesome job by Kano



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Ah, thank you for finding that eaglewingz. I knew it was still around, but I'm in a bit of a hurry now and I didn't have the time to actually go looking, which I feel a bit ashamed at but it got found anyway.

What's important is that people interested in the colour should read that link!



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
..Sorry to bust your bubble, folks, but you've got to "Shift" out of Conspiracy-Mode every once in a while.

No one let any cat out of any bags. The methods for taking pictures are to use various filters and then reconstruct them with computers from the raw data we receive. You can't just send a 50MB Bitmap from Mars too reliably!

The reconstruction is the bit we had a correspondence on, and it's the bit that would have to do with the final look of the pictures. It isn't that they come back normal and some one reddens them, it's that they come back and get fed through a few filters and a program much like Photoshop compiles the filters into a single, flowing image. The problem is, that some cameras taking some data through some filters are "brighter" - and so they need to be turned down on reconstruction. Others are dimmer, so they must be turned up, and in the end, the filtered pieces of the image have to be brightened/dimmed/red/blue/greened to adjust for the expected loss/gain of information. It is a very highly perfected process, and the chances that NASA is messing it up severely are slim to nil.

The ability to change those pictures and say "This is what it really looks like" is not a fantastical one. You could do it with free software known as GIMP, or pay software like Photoshop, or anything in between, by just modifying colour channels.

Now, they, and we, know what the atmosphere is composed of due to spectroscopic analyses from orbit, not colourised pictures on the ground. Mars should not have a blue sky like ours at all, as its atmosphere is not composed chiefly of Nitrogen and secondarily of Oxygen. I belief it is Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen, but I am not entirely sure, and am in no real mood to check up right now.

The important thing is that a national laboratory/organisation is not untrustable just because it is official. If a man came up to you and showed you that 2+2=4 on a piece of paper, and the answer of 2+2 were to dictate what you did next, then another man arrives and just keeps telling you the first man was lying and hates you, and that it is 5, which would you believe? Would you believe the one that made logical sense and was official, or the one that was illogical, but sensational?

It's a very oversimplified way to put it, but it's the way it is.

And for the record, The rocks are red due to high iron content. It's rust.

And no, in the second link, it is not a forest or a wide area of vegetation - it's a spectroscopic reading of a Methane deposit. It supported the idea that life must be on Mars producing Methane for such a buildup to exist, until means of buildups such as that lasting for hundreds of thousands of years were shown, and it is merely interesting, not a near proof.

XFacts is not a trustable site - anywhere with links to what Dan Akroyd thinks of Art Bell to someone's claims on what the Sumerian's believed relating to Planet X, is probably not very trust-worthy. Go to the Space & Exploration area, go to Wikipedia - learn before you guess. Please.

EDIT: I've just realised a mistake in my post, I said that Mars' sky should be completely unlike ours, because its atmosphere is composed of different elements/compounds. I am wrong, it could be a very similar look if the elements/compounds absorb/reflect light similarly to our own, but it is not necessarily required. Again, I'm a bit too tired to actually check it at the moment.

[edit on 17-7-2005 by Viendin]



Viedin, you know your stuff, and wrote an excellent argument. I dont believe for one minute NASA would change the colour of Mars to hide something, why would they do that? They dont think people can just pack up their belonging and head for the promised land in the sky just because its got a blue sky and a patch of lichen! I may be wrong (and probably am) but you said the rocks had a high iron content and were red through rust, dont you need oxygen to get rust? Therefore some kind of blue sky is possible? ..........Pack your bags Maureen, we're off to Mars!!!



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Before I've looked anything up (because that's an excellent point, Mcphisto) - I'm suspecting that rust is possible somehow through a mix of Iron and CO2, Carbon Dioxide. I'll check though, I could very well be wrong on why the rock is red!

Edit: There, did a check up. Source is Wikipedia's Mars Page

"Mars has always fascinated people. Its red, fiery appearance is caused by Iron Oxide (rust) on its surface." -Physical Characteristics (General), Sourced Wiki Page.

"The atmosphere on Mars is 95 percent carbon dioxide, 3 percent nitrogen, 1.6 percent argon, and traces of oxygen and water. In 2003, methane was also discovered in the atmosphere by Earth-based telescopes, and possibly confirmed in March 2004 by the Mars Express Orbiter, ..." -Physical Characteristics (Atmosphere), Sourced Wiki Page.

Always good to know for sure.

[edit on 17-7-2005 by Viendin]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Thanks for the reply Viedin. I will keep an eye on your posting cos you know your stuff and even better, you know where to research and find the answers.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I thought I'd just point this out.

The sky is blue because of the light reflecting off the water, which itself is blue.

And the reason the sky is blue everywhere in the world is because are planet is 70% water, so light reflecting off that kind of area makes the sky blue.

For the sky to be blue on Marsyou would have to have alot of unfrozen water on mars, and on the surface, and unless someone has been altering the tryth for over one-hundred years, there is no unfrozen water in in significant amounts to be seen on Mars.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I thought I'd just point this out.

The sky is blue because of the light reflecting off the water, which itself is blue.

And the reason the sky is blue everywhere in the world is because are planet is 70% water, so light reflecting off that kind of area makes the sky blue.


Light reflecting off of the water has nothing to do with the color of the sky on Earth. If that were the case, the sky over the Southwestern United states would be brown because light reflecting off of the desert.

The Earth's sky is blue because blue is the color of light from the sun scattered the most by the makeup of our atmosphere.

www.sciencemadesimple.com...

It's also blue, because if it was green, you wouldn't know where to stop mowing.


[edit on 18-7-2005 by Junkheap]

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Junkheap]

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Junkheap]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join