Mars isn't Red/Life On Mars

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
i'm chuckling to myself at all the people saying it's the camera that would produce a color entirely on the OPPOSITE end of the visible spectrum. it's ludacris. okay, blue may come out a little purple or a little green, but blue coming out as red? lmao, they're opposite ends of the spectrum! if that were true, they wouldn't even send color cameras to mars because they'd be so inaccurate! if the sky comes out on the opposite end of the spectrum, why doesn't the ground come out blue or purple? afterall, they're opposite of reddish-brown. how come the cameras can similarly picture the ground but the sky is off by huge wavelengths? please, explain that one to me.

i feel so sorry for all the people trying to debunk what is plainly right in front of their faces. yea, those aren't trees either, they're natural sand patterns

Infra-red light is a lot different the red light. Take a look at some colour infra-red photos. Try these to start...

www.vividlight.com...
erg.usgs.gov...

Note how trees and grass turn from green to pinkish red. Infra red light can reveal a lot that we don't normally see with the naked eye. This is why all science organizations tend to photograph things in various levels of infra-red and also ultra violet. It does more than just tint the colour a little bit. I urge you to take the time to learn more about this rather than ignorantly dismissing it.

Also NASA nor any other space agency sends colour cameras on there probes. They use black and white, thats what the colour filters are for. Some infra-red filters look completely black and opaque to our eyes.

Kano's article makes perfect sense.

EDIT:

Here is an infra-red photo I took myself with a homemade infra-red filter.



What I did was I used two pieces of 35mm film that was developed at a lab, but not exposed to any light prior to being developed. I used two layers of it and taped it over the lens of my digital camera. And that photo was the result. There was no post processing of the photo after except for some sharpening, but I didn't touch the colours at all.

This is just one such example of how infra-red photography can make things look very different and the great thing is you can try it yourself.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by jra]

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
i'm chuckling to myself at all the people saying it's the camera that would produce a color entirely on the OPPOSITE end of the visible spectrum. it's ludacris. okay, blue may come out a little purple or a little green, but blue coming out as red? lmao, they're opposite ends of the spectrum! if that were true, they wouldn't even send color cameras to mars because they'd be so inaccurate! if the sky comes out on the opposite end of the spectrum, why doesn't the ground come out blue or purple? afterall, they're opposite of reddish-brown. how come the cameras can similarly picture the ground but the sky is off by huge wavelengths? please, explain that one to me.

i feel so sorry for all the people trying to debunk what is plainly right in front of their faces. yea, those aren't trees either, they're natural sand patterns

Infra-red light is a lot different the red light. Take a look at some colour infra-red photos. Try these to start...

www.vividlight.com...
erg.usgs.gov...

Note how trees and grass turn from green to pinkish red. Infra red light can reveal a lot that we don't normally see with the naked eye. This is why all science organizations tend to photograph things in various levels of infra-red and also ultra violet. It does more than just tint the colour a little bit. I urge you to take the time to learn more about this rather than ignorantly dismissing it.

Also NASA nor any other space agency sends colour cameras on there probes. They use black and white, thats what the colour filters are for. Some infra-red filters look completely black and opaque to our eyes.

Kano's article makes perfect sense.

EDIT:

Here is an infra-red photo I took myself with a homemade infra-red filter.

What I did was I used two pieces of 35mm film that was developed at a lab, but not exposed to any light prior to being developed. I used two layers of it and taped it over the lens of my digital camera. And that photo was the result. There was no post processing of the photo after except for some sharpening, but I didn't touch the colours at all.

This is just one such example of how infra-red photography can make things look very different and the great thing is you can try it yourself.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by jra]

notice how every single color in your picture changed dramatically. my problem with the mars photographs is that it's the sky that changes colors while everything else stays relatively the same. shouldn't the color change dramatically on the entire film strip? there are blatantly obvious airbrushings in most of the photos. also, you purposely tried to achieve that affect.

also, don't forget your pictures are taken on regular personal film. now, don't you think NASA would buy better quality film? i mean, NASA would be aware of these coloring problems on mars, so wouldn't they go out and develop a super high quality film that resists this type of color alterations? if this really was a problem on mars, don't you think NASA would get the best quality film out there that resists this type of thing?

think about it. i doubt NASA is stocking their rover cameras with $4 400 speed fujifilm from rite aid. what "makes sense" is often not the correct answer.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]

Originally posted by Anonus
Scientists have found out that there is Methane on Mars,..

I have a thread I made somewhere here on ATS a couple of years ago where I found and attempted to demonstrate (and am still convinced, regardless of several posts suggesting otherwise), of gasous vents in the bonneville creator.

I can see a gaseous layer or atmosphere of some type on mars as a possability.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
notice how every single color in your picture changed dramatically. my problem with the mars photographs is that it's the sky that changes colors while everything else stays relatively the same. shouldn't the color change dramatically on the entire film strip? there are blatantly obvious airbrushings in most of the photos. also, you purposely tried to achieve that affect.

It all depends on what filter you use. There are different types of infra-red filters. I don't know how my homemade one compairs to other ones. Also the way NASA takes its Mars photos is different then the way I took mine. I just took one photo in colour with an infra-red filter, where as NASA takes multiple photos of the same thing with different colour filters and then combines them together.

And i've seen false colour images of Mars were the ground is blue. Example: marsrovers.nasa.gov...

The filters used were 753-nanometer[infra-red range], 535-nanometer [yellowish-green] and 423-nanometer [indigo-violet]

also, don't forget your pictures are taken on regular personal film. now, don't you think NASA would buy better quality film?

Mine are digital as are NASA's. My infra-red filter is different and my cameras CCD sensor is also not specificly designed for infra-red photography, but it can pick up infra-red light.

i mean, NASA would be aware of these coloring problems on mars, so wouldn't they go out and develop a super high quality film that resists this type of color alterations?

NASA takes false colour images on purpose, because it helps for scientific study. A true colour image helps them with nothing. It's only for our benifit to get an idea of what it looks like on the surface. Again, NASA never claims to have true colour images, only approximate true colour. They know they arn't 100% accurate and they say so.

if this really was a problem on mars, don't you think NASA would get the best quality film out there that resists this type of thing?

Again, no film involved, it's all digital. It wouldn't matter what kind of film you'd have anyway. It's the effect of not using pure red, green and blue filters. And they don't use them because it wouldn't help for scientific study.

My photo is just an example of how much infra-red can distort the colour of an image.

Lol he's right the sky on mars isn't red. it's a sort of orangey white but not red obviously and he's right again

at sunset on mars the sky turns blue, slightly, again space.com go click on mars at the bottom.

a blue sky doesnt really mean a planet has life or it has oxygen, neptune and uranus' skies are probably blue but they have 0% oxygen like all other gas giants

Originally posted by grapesofwrath

a blue sky doesnt really mean a planet has life or it has oxygen, neptune and uranus' skies are probably blue but they have 0% oxygen like all other gas giants

The only gas giant in our solar system is NASA. Some planets have blue skys, but they all have oxygen and life.

mars-news.de...

that directly supports your "blue sky" claim

The only gas giant in our solar system is NASA. Some planets have blue skys, but they all have oxygen and life.

Care to offer any evidence to support your claim?

Originally posted by grapesofwrath

that directly supports your "blue sky" claim

Nope. That supports NASA's 'blue sky' claim. Thanks anyway.

Originally posted by Edn
If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

When you where not looking NASA officials, parked across your street 24/7, run and place a red sticker on your lense before you turn back! ... sneaky little guys arnt they?

OORRR because NASA is so incredibly advanced... *Cough cough.. BS!* .. they put a big red glowing ball where Mars usually is and then cloaked Mars wit the help of the aliens from zetabetageta 2.

Originally posted by zoopnfunk

The only gas giant in our solar system is NASA. Some planets have blue skys, but they all have oxygen and life.

Care to offer any evidence to support your claim?

He has none... just read his sig at the bottom of the post.

No offense Mr. Lear, I enjoy reading your post.. though I take it as science fiction, if only you could prove it...

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Edn
If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

When you where not looking NASA officials, parked across your street 24/7, run and place a red sticker on your lense before you turn back! ... sneaky little guys arnt they?

OORRR because NASA is so incredibly advanced... *Cough cough.. BS!* .. they put a big red glowing ball where Mars usually is and then cloaked Mars wit the help of the aliens from zetabetageta 2.

it is possible

holograms exist you know

We can only believe it or not when they say that some picture was taken with a filter for a specific wave-length, we do not have any means to know what is really happening on Mars.

Using the information about the filters that Nasa supplies, I made the following image using three images from the three filters they usually use.

Is that the real colour? I have no way to know it, the only thing I can see is that the colours are in the range we usually see on the photos from NASA and ESA, the only people who have cameras on Mars (I think)

Water on Mars? Why not, but why must it be water, why couldn't it be any other liquid?


I would love to live to a point in time where we would find definite proof of the existence of other life forms on the Universe, preferably on the Solar system, but why are we only looking for life as we know it, like life forms that need water and identifying things as trees?

Maybe those things that look like trees to some people are just some mineral crystals and what we think are strange rocks are animals, if there is a different kind of life on Mars (and it must be at least a little different, as the conditions are different), why are we looking for "our" kind of life?

Lets just wait and watch, see the difference in quality of those images we now have and the first ones (I remember when I saw the first picture from Mars), and imagine what the next years may yet bring.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

No offense Mr. Lear, I enjoy reading your post.. though I take it as science fiction, if only you could prove it...

No offense taken. But you are correct Rockpuck, if only I could prove it!

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Edn
If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

When you where not looking NASA officials, parked across your street 24/7, run and place a red sticker on your lense before you turn back! ... sneaky little guys arnt they?

OORRR because NASA is so incredibly advanced... *Cough cough.. BS!* .. they put a big red glowing ball where Mars usually is and then cloaked Mars wit the help of the aliens from zetabetageta 2.

care to explain what the color of the martian soil has to do with the color of the martian sky? mars is rusty brown colored. it'll give it a reddish-orange tint. i fail to see why reddish-orange soil would have an impact on a blue sky? in the "corrected" pictures, the soil is still rusty orange colored. so, again, why can't a planet have rusty orange colored soil and a blue sky?

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
care to explain what the color of the martian soil has to do with the color of the martian sky? mars is rusty brown colored. it'll give it a reddish-orange tint. i fail to see why reddish-orange soil would have an impact on a blue sky? in the "corrected" pictures, the soil is still rusty orange colored. so, again, why can't a planet have rusty orange colored soil and a blue sky?

It might have to do with the soil gets kicked up in the air during sand storm, but that doesn't mean anything.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trimmed triple nested quote

[edit on 27-10-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
care to explain what the color of the martian soil has to do with the color of the martian sky? mars is rusty brown colored. it'll give it a reddish-orange tint. i fail to see why reddish-orange soil would have an impact on a blue sky? in the "corrected" pictures, the soil is still rusty orange colored. so, again, why can't a planet have rusty orange colored soil and a blue sky?

Because Mars has huge dust storms all the time. That dust stays suspended in the atmosphere. There are times when the dust settles and the sky isn't as yellow/brown. If the atmosphere was completely free of dust, it would be blue.

Originally posted by ArMaP
We can only believe it or not when they say that some picture was taken with a filter for a specific wave-length, we do not have any means to know what is really happening on Mars.

We do and as the material i posted clearly indicates those colours are supposed to look exactly the same on Mars as on Earth when they camera is engaging it's filters correctly.

Using the information about the filters that Nasa supplies, I made the following image using three images from the three filters they usually use.

Your using the infrared filter same as NASA does but that is a choice and obviously does not resemble how the human eye would observe the surroundings. They CAN send is true colour as from human perspective but they have chosen not to even while pretending they are doing 'the best they can'.

Is that the real colour? I have no way to know it, the only thing I can see is that the colours are in the range we usually see on the photos from NASA and ESA, the only people who have cameras on Mars (I think

)

The range NASA and ESA presents are very very broad indeed ( the very first picture looked exactly like a earthly desert with blue sky and all) but at least the ESA seems to be interested in giving us a much closer approximation and vivid colours at least suggestive of the fact that Mars is not some kind of red dry dusty and dull desert planet.

Water on Mars? Why not, but why must it be water, why couldn't it be any other liquid?

Because we know it had seas in the past and we know how liquids behave on Earth and have no reason to suppose that water on Mars would behave any differently; if you understand the basic premise of general relativity this should be obvious?

I would love to live to a point in time where we would find definite proof of the existence of other life forms on the Universe, preferably on the Solar system, but why are we only looking for life as we know it, like life forms that need water and identifying things as trees?

Since we know only how to look for the life we know why do not we do at least that properly? Why does NASA not employ astrobiologist in it's Mars probe teams? One would think they would do at least that if they were interested or unsure about the truth? We have at least four or five completely separate strains of evidence each strongly suggesting life and when taken as a whole only a strong denial of observe reality can result in the opinion that there is no life on Mars; to suggest that there is not strong evidence is just a blatant unadulterated lie or suggestive of overwhelm ignorance.

Maybe those things that look like trees to some people are just some mineral crystals and what we think are strange rocks are animals, if there is a different kind of life on Mars (and it must be at least a little different, as the conditions are different), why are we looking for "our" kind of life?

Because that is what we know most about and what we most focus on till we know more&better imo. What you say might very well be so but it basically robs us of initiative and is thus in my mind not constructive and certainly not the way to approach interstellar exploration. Why should we assume that all life in the universe does not have a common origin and spread from one point or were seeded by one creative or intelligent force and or alien race? We know that a whole spectrum of complex organic molecules can be found in interstellar space and we also know that some bacteria can survive flash heating of 600 + degrees ( it can actually survive entry into our atmosphere even with little or no protection)? What do we base the idea on that the universe consist of islands where everything happens in isolation? Such thoughts are obviously great for making life seem unique or a unexpected happening but where is the scientific foundation for it?

Lets just wait and watch, see the difference in quality of those images we now have and the first ones (I remember when I saw the first picture from Mars), and imagine what the next years may yet bring.

And i fear that those who say 'lets wait a few more years' will be crying the same thing in five or ten years.... We know NASA lies about the colour, the planets much denser atmosphere and liquid water so why trust that we will ever get a clearer picture of the planet if they already tried so hard to tamper the civilization evidence out of existence?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Your using the infrared filter same as NASA does but that is a choice and obviously does not resemble how the human eye would observe the surroundings. They CAN send is true colour as from human perspective but they have chosen not to even while pretending they are doing 'the best they can'.

No, I used the 673nm version for the Red, the 535nm for the Green and the 432nm for the Blue (the closest I could get from NASA's photos) to make that "photo", the closest to a RGB photo I could make using only Photoshop and the photos provided by NASA.

The range NASA and ESA presents are very very broad indeed ( the very first picture looked exactly like a earthly desert with blue sky and all) but at least the ESA seems to be interested in giving us a much closer approximation and vivid colours at least suggestive of the fact that Mars is not some kind of red dry dusty and dull desert planet.

Unfortunately, ESA has published just some photos, I would love to see all their photos.

And i fear that those who say 'lets wait a few more years' will be crying the same thing in five or ten years.... We know NASA lies about the colour, the planets much denser atmosphere and liquid water so why trust that we will ever get a clearer picture of the planet if they already tried so hard to tamper the civilization evidence out of existence?

If we do no not trust NASA, can we trust ESA? And can we trust any other organisation? And if we can do something else than wait, what can we do?

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Edn
If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

When you where not looking NASA officials, parked across your street 24/7, run and place a red sticker on your lense before you turn back! ... sneaky little guys arnt they?

OORRR because NASA is so incredibly advanced... *Cough cough.. BS!* .. they put a big red glowing ball where Mars usually is and then cloaked Mars wit the help of the aliens from zetabetageta 2.

care to explain what the color of the martian soil has to do with the color of the martian sky? mars is rusty brown colored. it'll give it a reddish-orange tint. i fail to see why reddish-orange soil would have an impact on a blue sky? in the "corrected" pictures, the soil is still rusty orange colored. so, again, why can't a planet have rusty orange colored soil and a blue sky?

The color of the sky has to do with the amount of atmosphere the planet has.. which Mars does infact have an atmosphere with limited oxygen.. maybe not completely gone .. but very small amount.. and that does not prove life exist AND in relation to the thread as you admit the planets ground is a rust colored red hence Mars is STILL red.

So..

Your point?