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.

 

Why no microscopes to Mars ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Well? We are waiting for an answer....


Who's "we"? And I believe your answer was in the 2nd and 6th posts in this thread.


why would NASA REFUSE TO SEND MICROSCOPES TO MARS?


I haven't seen them refuse to send a microscope to Mars. Perhaps they are unable to send one that has a decent amount of magnification. Be it due to weight, or who knows what.

Here's an idea, why don't you send an email asking why?


AND WHY WOULD THEY DENY LIFE ON MARS...WHY?


I don't recall NASA ever denying the possibility of life existing or having existed on Mars.




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Well? We are waiting for an answer....

why would NASA REFUSE TO SEND MICROSCOPES TO MARS?

AND WHY WOULD THEY DENY LIFE ON MARS...WHY?

WHY??


We have dozens of pieces of rocks from mars that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Our best and biggest microscopes here on Earth have not been able to find absolute proof of life (although the jury is still out on ALH-84001).

What makes you think we can send a small robotic, remote controlled microscope to mars and expect better results?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Two new proposed missions will include equipment that can be used to help determine if there might be life on Mars.


-- Urey Mars Organic and Oxidant Detector: The Urey instrument would investigate organics and oxidant materials on Mars using three complementary detection systems. The principal investigator is Dr. Jeffrey Bada, University of California at San Diego. The instrument would be built and managed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

-- Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer, or Moma: The instrument would investigate organic molecular signatures and the environment in which they exist using a mass spectrometer and gas chromatograph. The principal investigator is Dr. Luann Becker, University of California at Santa Barbara.
From NASA press releases.

Using a microscope on Mars would be difficult and not very practical. Preparing a sample needs to be very precise, you need to light it from below so the sample needs to be very thin, and dust would ruin a microscope quite quickly.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by esecallum
Well? We are waiting for an answer....

why would NASA REFUSE TO SEND MICROSCOPES TO MARS?

AND WHY WOULD THEY DENY LIFE ON MARS...WHY?

WHY??


We have dozens of pieces of rocks from mars that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Our best and biggest microscopes here on Earth have not been able to find absolute proof of life (although the jury is still out on ALH-84001).

What makes you think we can send a small robotic, remote controlled microscope to mars and expect better results?


Reread your post.

Now ask yourself why examining a rock from mars that fell to earth is not the same as sending instruments to mars to observe those rocks/dust in it's natural environment.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by esecallum
Well? We are waiting for an answer....

why would NASA REFUSE TO SEND MICROSCOPES TO MARS?

AND WHY WOULD THEY DENY LIFE ON MARS...WHY?

WHY??


We have dozens of pieces of rocks from mars that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Our best and biggest microscopes here on Earth have not been able to find absolute proof of life (although the jury is still out on ALH-84001).

What makes you think we can send a small robotic, remote controlled microscope to mars and expect better results?


Reread your post.

Now ask yourself why examining a rock from mars that fell to earth is not the same as sending instruments to mars to observe those rocks/dust in it's natural environment.


I'm not using the mars meteorites to say that life does not exist on Mars. (In fact, I think we will find life in May of 2008, when the Phoenix lander goes to the Martian North Pole.) I'm just trying to illustrate how difficult it would be, from the experience we have with the Mars rocks, to send a suitable microscopic lab to Mars. It's not as easy as the OP suggests as "hey, lets just send a microscrope to prove life/no life once and for all." It's just not that easy.

Bacterial life can be tiny...smaller than a light microscope can see. The fossilized life that some scientist claim they found in ALH-84001 is soooo small, that it takes some of our most advanced electron microscopes to see it. If that is the kind of life that exists on mars today, then a microscope small enough to be sent to Mars will have a tough time finding the life.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by esecallum
Well? We are waiting for an answer....


Who's "we"? And I believe your answer was in the 2nd and 6th posts in this thread.



i was referring to the poster Stellerxwho claimed NASA had found craniod life on Mars and posted links to pictures which were fake,doctored,or random rock formations suggesting fossil remains....and he said Nasa was denying these pictures.

to all those other have you lot ever been in a modern lab/
have you any idea of the automation possible in modern pathology ?


the only way to determine life on mars is viathe microscope....any other will always be subject to doubt....

i suggst you blind fold yourselves...plug your ears stand still and then try to determine if there is life on mars from the SMELL alone...


you got the picture?

thats what they tried to do with stupid viking landers...what a dumb idea...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
We simply didn't have the technology (apart from other reasons) to send a good microscope to Mars with Viking, but apart from the scientific rationale for not sending one, we did not have anywhere near the communications bandwidth to transmit results effectively.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
LOOK

THE PHOTOS U CLAIM SHOWING LIFE
ARE HAZY...

POORLY DEFINED AND SUBJECT TO INTERPRATATION.


Says who beside you?


SOME ARE JUST RANDOM LINES LOOKING COINCIDENTALLY LIKE ANIMAL SHAPES...NOW MARS HAS TRILLIONS AND TRILIONS of random lines...

due to cracks on the surface...


Coincidentally?


DUE TO PLANETARY ELESTICITY...
DUE TO ROCK FORMATION....ETC ..ETC...

so it stands to reason that some will form random animal shapes...


What type of reasoning?


DUE TO THE HUMAN MIND WHICH IMPELS IT TO FEAST ON SHAWDOWS.


Based on?


nasa would be the first to admit about alien life...

why would they deny it?


They already did deny it even thought they found it more than once so just read my previous information till you can bring yourself to accepting the truth.


i ask u

whats THE POINT OF DENYING IT?


That i can not be certain of but one expects that those who truly control the world are not ready to let us know that there is life on Mars TODAY as that might raise questions about who build all those artificial structures.


why would nasa deny life exists on other planets....

why? tell us


They do deny it and i can only present my theories as to why....


we are waiting mr steller.
the only clear way is to send a high mag microscope with colour camera attached...
and then we can see minimovies in real time of any life dead or alive.


There is no need for that if you are willing to study the scientific data that we have been allowed to see so far. They have already sent camera's that can basically do that and that has given us plenty of evidence about life in fact being present.


Originally posted by esecallum
i was referring to the poster Stellerxwho claimed NASA had found craniod life on Mars


They did find fossils on a number of occasions and sometimes even deliberately destroyed them.


and posted links to pictures which were fake,doctored,or random rock formations suggesting fossil remains....and he said Nasa was denying these pictures.


How were they faked or doctored or random in your opinion? What evidence do you have for that claim?


to all those other have you lot ever been in a modern lab/
have you any idea of the automation possible in modern pathology ?


Just know enough to know it's not required to establish if there is life on Mars as that were relatively easy to do back in 1976.


the only way to determine life on mars is viathe microscope....any other will always be subject to doubt....


Anything is subject to doubt ( or not) if those who hears it are ignorant enough or wants to believe something else badly enough.


i suggst you blind fold yourselves...plug your ears stand still and then try to determine if there is life on mars from the SMELL alone...


What nonsense?


you got the picture?
thats what they tried to do with stupid viking landers...what a dumb idea...


Why is a test which results have not yet been falsified 'dumb' in your opinion? There is still not scientific basis to validate the claims that it was not in fact life they found back in 1976; non.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
We have dozens of pieces of rocks from mars that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Our best and biggest microscopes here on Earth have not been able to find absolute proof of life (although the jury is still out on ALH-84001).

What makes you think we can send a small robotic, remote controlled microscope to mars and expect better results?


Actually at least two 'rocks' yielded clear enough ( unless you desperately want to believe otherwise as the scientist seemed inclined to) evidence of past life on Mars. Frankly i think all three did but that hardly matters considering the findings of 1976 or the subsequent scientific instruments on so many orbiters and lander's.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
We have dozens of pieces of rocks from mars that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Our best and biggest microscopes here on Earth have not been able to find absolute proof of life (although the jury is still out on ALH-84001).

What makes you think we can send a small robotic, remote controlled microscope to mars and expect better results?


Actually at least two 'rocks' yielded clear enough ( unless you desperately want to believe otherwise as the scientist seemed inclined to) evidence of past life on Mars. Frankly i think all three did but that hardly matters considering the findings of 1976 or the subsequent scientific instruments on so many orbiters and lander's.

Stellar

As I clarified in one of my above posts, I'm not linking the inconclusive findings of the Mars Meteorites with the question of life on Mars, I'm just trying to illustrate to the OP the difficulty in finding such life with a microscope small enough to get to Mars. The OP is overestimating the capabilities of such an instrument, and the conclusiveness of it's possible findings.

As for Viking and the rovers: The rovers were not equipped with the science packages to detect the biological processes of life. The Viking landers did have ovens that would try to dectect "life as we know it".

There is one caveat, however, to the use of the ovens such as the ones on Viking - you must know what you are looking for and build the oven accordingly. Which brings me to my next point.

This has already been discussed on these boards, and you probably already know this, but there is a not-so-easily-dismissed hypothesis that the Viking ovens may have been looking for the wrong thing. It has been suggested that Viking's findings are compatible with life that uses hydrogen peroxide as an antifreeze, and that this is the kind of microbes that may exist on the surface of Mars. Here's a link:
www.marstoday.com...

While I don't prescribe to the theories of ancient Mars civilizations, I do think that there is microbial life on Mars.

A note to the OP:
The ovens similar to the ones on board Viking are the best ways to search for the biological processes of life, not a microscope. Any evidence found in an automated light microscope would, like any photo, be highly suggestive and be open to interpretation. If life wasn't seen through a microscope, that would still be inconclusive, since maybe the life is just too small to be seen by that particular microscope. I think the OP is oversimplifying the issue and overestimating the capabilities of a microscope.

Here's another thought to ponder: people suggest that the use of ovens are inconslusive because the type of life that exists on Mars may be unrecognizable to the oven. But who's to say that the type of life on Mars will be recognizable by a microscope?

IMO an oven-based instrument similar to the ones on Viking are the best way to go when looking for life on Mars.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
As I clarified in one of my above posts, I'm not linking the inconclusive findings of the Mars Meteorites with the question of life on Mars,


Why were they inconclusive in your , not the scientific consensus, opinion?


I'm just trying to illustrate to the OP the difficulty in finding such life with a microscope small enough to get to Mars. The OP is overestimating the capabilities of such an instrument, and the conclusiveness of it's possible findings.


I have not studied this issue as specifically as you seemed to have so i can only say that i am of the same opinion....


As for Viking and the rovers: The rovers were not equipped with the science packages to detect the biological processes of life. The Viking landers did have ovens that would try to dectect "life as we know it".


Well that is not in fact the case according to open source material.

Modern myths of mars


Maybe Mars even has life today. The evidence sent back from Mars by two Viking Landers in 1976 and 1977 was not clearcut (6). In fact, NASA's first press release about the Viking tests announced that the results were positive. The "Labelled Release" (LR) experiments had given positive results. But after lengthy discussions in which Carl Sagan participated, NASA reversed its position, mainly because another experiment detected no organics in the soil. Yet Gilbert V. Levin, the principal designer of the LR experiment, still believes the tests pointed to life on Mars (7). When the same two experiments were run on soil from Antarctica, the same conflicting results were obtained (LR - positive; organics - negative.) Soil from Antarctica definitely contains life. The test for organics was negative because it is far less sensitive than the LR experiment. The same problem could have caused the organics test on Mars to give a false negative.

www.panspermia.org...



"The Viking LR experiment detected living microorganisms in the soil of Mars," Levin flatly said.

Also believing that a biological interpretation of the LR on Mars cannot be dismissed is David Warmflash, an astrobiologist at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

Warmflash said that the failure of the Viking GCMS to find organic molecules has been called to question. "More recent findings suggesting that the Viking GCMS would have missed such molecules if present necessitates a re-evaluation of the Viking LR data as well as a continued search for organic material and life at the Martian surface," he said.

At the SPIE meeting in San Diego, Levin said that after years of tests, and over two dozen non-biological explanations later, "none of the many attempts to establish the oxidant's mimicry of the LR data did so," he said.

www.space.com...



Dr. Levin and Straat put together the scientific argument that the Viking GCMS should not have been used as "the court of appeals" on whether the Viking biology experiments found evidence for life on Mars or not.

In a scientific paper published in 1981, Levin and Straat demonstrated that in pre-flight-to-Mars testing of an Antarctic soil sample (#726), that their Viking Labeled Release experiment found microbial activity in the same sample of soil that was tested by the Viking GCMS.

The tests showed that the pre-flight Viking GCMS test model could not detect organic molecules in Antarctic soil sample that contained life. Yet this would be the instrument used to render the final verdict against any positive evidence of life on Mars that might have been found by the Viking biology instruments.

Strangely enough, one of the other Viking biology instruments known as the Pyrolytic Release experiment found traces of organic matter forming inside its test chamber. This occurred in seven out of nine PR tests.

www.spacedaily.com...


So they could and did test for 'life as we know it' as far as we can.


There is one caveat, however, to the use of the ovens such as the ones on Viking - you must know what you are looking for and build the oven accordingly. Which brings me to my next point.


As far as i know they based those tests exclusive on 'life as we know it' and in my opinion anything else would have been quite a waste of time.


This has already been discussed on these boards, and you probably already know this, but there is a not-so-easily-dismissed hypothesis that the Viking ovens may have been looking for the wrong thing.


They were looking for the only thing we know how to look for and i believe they found it based on the tests results... Based on their findings they may very well have missed other types of life but they sure seemed to have found what they were originally sent to look for.


It has been suggested that Viking's findings are compatible with life that uses hydrogen peroxide as an antifreeze, and that this is the kind of microbes that may exist on the surface of Mars. Here's a link:
www.marstoday.com...


From the article...


This would help explain why Viking's gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer detected no organic compounds on the surface of Mars. This result has also been questioned recently by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico, who reported that similar instruments and methodology are unable to detect organic compounds in places on Earth, such as Antarctic dry valleys, where we know soil microorganisms exist.

* The Labeled Release experiment, in which samples of Martian soil (and putative soil organisms) were exposed to water and a nutrient source including radiolabeled carbon, showed rapid production of radiolabeled CO2 which then leveled off. Schulze-Makuch said the initial increase could have been due to metabolism by hydrogen peroxide-containing organisms, and the leveling off could have been due to the organisms dying from exposure to the experimental conditions. He said that point has been argued for years by Gilbert Levin, who was a primary investigator on the original Viking team. The new hypothesis explains why the experimental conditions would have been fatal: microbes using a water-hydrogen peroxide mixture would either "drown" or burst due to water absorption, if suddenly exposed to liquid water.

* The possibility that the tests killed the organisms they were looking for is also consistent with the results of the Pyrolytic Release experiment, in which radiolabeled CO2 was converted to organic compounds by samples of Martian soil. Of the seven tests done, three showed significant production of organic substances and one showed much higher production. The variation could simply be due to patchy distribution of microbes, said Schulze-Makuch. Perhaps most interesting was that the sample with the lowest production -- lower even than the control -- had been treated with liquid water.

www.marstoday.com...


What the author does not seem to be aware of is that the original test specifications did not require the 'reheat' of the sample to reproduce the same effects; that was never part of the test specifications but have been used as means to dismiss the original results. I don't think direct evidence for large volumes of surface hydrogen peroxide have been established and finding such would only make increase the relative abundance of methane thus indicating that we should have discovered all that active geology or that life is in fact far more abundant than anyone has suggested so far.

The article also makes it clear that the test used to 'judge' the results could not even find life on Earth....


While I don't prescribe to the theories of ancient Mars civilizations, I do think that there is microbial life on Mars.


Lucky we live in countries we one can disagree with each other as freely as we are.
I am not only 'sure' that there is microbial life but also sure that there is trees and other large scale vegetation.


www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

barsoom.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

I think i can defend my views , on the 'tree' issue, based on more than just pretty pictures but pictures seem to speak louder than pages and pages of information some would rather not read.



[edit on 23-1-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

A note to the OP:
The ovens similar to the ones on board Viking are the best ways to search for the biological processes of life, not a microscope. Any evidence found in an automated light microscope would, like any photo, be highly suggestive and be open to interpretation. If life wasn't seen through a microscope, that would still be inconclusive, since maybe the life is just too small to be seen by that particular microscope. I think the OP is oversimplifying the issue and overestimating the capabilities of a microscope.


Agreed; if NASA could so effectively hide what the viking rovers found so long ago imagine how easily they could alter pictures as is so abundantly clear from the MOC and Clementine escapades.


Here's another thought to ponder: people suggest that the use of ovens are inconslusive because the type of life that exists on Mars may be unrecognizable to the oven. But who's to say that the type of life on Mars will be recognizable by a microscope?


I think the chemistry of life is the best way to go about searching for life the moment you want to look for life that is not related to Earth biology ( if that is in fact the case).

[quote[IMO an oven-based instrument similar to the ones on Viking are the best way to go when looking for life on Mars.


It seems to be what they have in mind for future experiments...

Stellar



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   
But Mr STELLERX if those pictures are not fake as you claim then why would NASA not annouce they had found life on Mars...

Why??


it makes no sense....

some of the pictures are just clearly artificial which means they must be fakes and somebody spending a lot of time with photoshop....faking them...


surelythe media would have flashed them round the world...IF THEY WERE GENUINE..

but they re not are they?

it seems you have been hoodwinked by hoaxers...


also you can NEVER ever determine if life exists by cooking some soil and smelling the gas given off...as the result WILL ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO AN INFINITE OF POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS...

A MICROSCOPE IS THE ONLY ANSWER...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
But Mr STELLERX if those pictures are not fake as you claim then why would NASA not annouce they had found life on Mars...

Why??


It hardly matters 'why' but i have said in the past that admitting to life on Mars would simply open up too many lines of questioning they that are not ready to address. One can easily discover how vapid their lies are if you simply look at how they keep colouring in Martian skies with reddish crayons( well it's that badly faked im) despite it now being relatively well known that without severe dust storms Martian skies would be as blue as many pictures already shows.


it makes no sense....


Sense and nonsense mostly comes down to what you know and what you do not.


some of the pictures are just clearly artificial which means they must be fakes and somebody spending a lot of time with photoshop....faking them...


Please point to them if you can spare the time...


surelythe media would have flashed them round the world...IF THEY WERE GENUINE..


This dependence on consensus and what the media sells as norms is not something that can really be defended based on the data available. What the media says can not determine reality or change it and what IS available in the scientific literature is quite enough to establish the truth if you are really interested in it.


but they re not are they?


That depends on how much you have read and i suppose you can search for my past post's on this topic to see just how much the media have in fact reported on this issue.


it seems you have been hoodwinked by hoaxers...


While that is not something i will ever rule out you will have to make rather more specific claims than those you have thus far.


also you can NEVER ever determine if life exists by cooking some soil and smelling the gas given off...as the result WILL ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO AN INFINITE OF POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS...


Then you do not really understand physics and there is not much i can do beside point you in the general direction of the truth. GR ( basically sums up the universe ; as here, there ) tells us , if we needed any added assistance in determining what should logically be expected, that we can create tests and use them on other planets to determine specific 'facts'.


A MICROSCOPE IS THE ONLY ANSWER...


I don't see that it is and if you really believe it is maybe you should stop claiming that all the pictures i present were 'doctored' as it really undermines your point of view more effectively than anyone else so far has.


Stellar



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
When looking at those pictures, keep in mind that they are taken from orbit and that the smallest object that can be seen is about 5 feet in size.


The Mars Orbiter Camera acquires the highest resolution images ever obtained from a Mars-orbiting spacecraft. During normal operating conditions, the smallest objects that can be resolved on the Martian surface in these images are about 4 to 5 meters (13 to 16 feet) across. With the adjusted-rotation technique, called "compensated pitch and roll targeted observation," objects as small as 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) can be seen in images from the same camera.
From Astrobiology magazine.

Those "little bushes" are actually huge. Perhaps they are caused by crystallization of mineral ice in a freeze thaw cycle which is what they indeed look like. Perhaps life, but no definite proof in those pictures.

The newer HiRise camera can capture better pictures with a much higher resolution. You can see those very cool images on the HiRise website, and with the far more detailed pictures, thus far I haven't seen anything that looks like proof of life.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
When looking at those pictures, keep in mind that they are taken from orbit and that the smallest object that can be seen is about 5 feet in size.


I am well aware of that and so is anyone who have spent any time researching this issue.


Those "little bushes" are actually huge.


No one said anything about the 'bushes&trees' being little ...


Perhaps they are caused by crystallization of mineral ice in a freeze thaw cycle which is what they indeed look like.


There are images in the list that specifically disproves theories like yours but i know from past responses to you that you are seemingly more interested in blanket denials than addressing specific pictures or points.
As you rightly point out at least a few of the pictures might very possible be explained in the way you suggest.


Perhaps life, but no definite proof in those pictures.


Only a fool would exclusive employ pictures as 'evidence' for such a controversial issue and Franklyn don't appreciate the intended insult.


The newer HiRise camera can capture better pictures with a much higher resolution. You can see those very cool images on the HiRise website, and with the far more detailed pictures,


They are releasing them very very slowly and it will take a great deal of time and large volumes of material before they make mistakes that we can work from. The MOC database is simply huge and the automated tampering tools left us crumbs to work with which might not be the case with ever more refined codes and smaller volumes.


thus far I haven't seen anything that looks like proof of life.


Which is why you should start browsing and reading the scientific literature on the Internet or what i have presented in the past. I present pictures because they speak louder than words and might generate enough interest so that readers might take a closer look or start reading some literature on the topic. I most certainly do not require pictures to support my views and the dismissal based on the absence of such is in my opinion quite self serving.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX



Originally posted by Terapin

They are releasing them very very slowly and it will take a great deal of time and large volumes of material before they make mistakes that we can work from. The MOC database is simply huge and the automated tampering tools left us crumbs to work with which might not be the case with ever more refined codes and smaller volumes.
.




Stellar


Come now why on Earth would NASA tamper pictures? Why?

and why have you not demanded the raw data under the freedom of information act?

Why?

And surely it must be a human doing the tampering sitting in some closed office...

why have individuals not leaked those untampered pictures...

are they all totally loyal to nasa that not a single one would betray nasa?

for ALL those years?


i mean look how leaky the C.I.A is?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Come now why on Earth would NASA tamper pictures? Why?


I have made it very clear in a number of previous post on this topic and if you have trouble understanding English i suggest you resolve that before continuing this 'discussion'.


and why have you not demanded the raw data under the freedom of information act?


The raw data is available in sufficient quantities from scientific journals and general media publications; you don't need official 'disclosure' if you know how and where to look.


Why?

And surely it must be a human doing the tampering sitting in some closed office...


In some instances that will be the case but considering the vast amount of data involved i am quite sure that the tampering is automatic hence the fact that we get to see bits of the truth on occasion.



why have individuals not leaked those untampered pictures...


They very well might have as that is another way to explain the fact that we do get to see pictures of surface water and large scale structures on Mars.


are they all totally loyal to nasa that not a single one would betray nasa?


It's not just a question of loyalty ( no paycheck is enough motivation for a majority in my opinion considering the background checks and psychological evaluation) as they tend to hire the type of person that they are sure they can manipulate or control by the various methods they have practiced throughout the ages. The fact is that most of the data i present does come from NASA so there is no real reason to suspect that they have the type of wondrous and perfect control that you seem to be assigning them. If you know where to look the contradictions are quite evident and in large part unavoidable considering that NASA employs humans and not robots....


for ALL those years?

i mean look how leaky the C.I.A is?


As i said before no organization so large can truly hide the truth from everyone all the time but it's not impossible or surprising that they can hide it from the vast majority most of the time which is the only thing you can really aim for in such a relative free society. Perfect secrecy is hard to maintain and as we can see from the information technology revolution it is almost entirely dependent on control of the flow of knowledge and general information. Considering the realities ( conspiracies ) that can be exposed by means of the Internet one does wonder what type of information they are rallying to protect with the energy and violence they are not employing towards keeping these 'secrets'.

Stellar




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join