NASA's Deceptions...DARK MISSION

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by ATSGUY
"Colored photos from Viking and Pathfinder were doctored to make the Martian sky look red. The first images of Mars actually looked like Arizona with blue skies, but NASA wants us to think that Earth is the only place for life, said Hoagland. "

The reason that Earth has a blue sky is the fact that the earths surface is 70% water. It's our oceans that make our sky look blue. Therefore Mars with no oceans and just red dust, has a red atmosphere.

I hope he's not next going to claim that a great percentage of mars' surface is covered in water? But im sure John Lear could step in and say that without any evidence to back that up.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by DaRAGE]

I think there is more too it then just Earths surface being mostly covered in water.

A clear cloudless day-time sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. When we look towards the sun at sunset, we see red and orange colors because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight.

The white light from the sun is a mixture of all colors of the rainbow. This was demonstrated by Isaac Newton, who used a prism to separate the different colors and so form a spectrum. The colors of light are distinguished by their different wavelengths. The visible part of the spectrum ranges from red light with a wavelength of about 720 nm, to violet with a wavelength of about 380 nm, with orange, yellow, green, blue and indigo between. The three different types of color receptors in the retina of the human eye respond most strongly to red, green and blue wavelengths, giving us our color vision.

Tyndall and Rayleigh thought that the blue color of the sky must be due to small particles of dust and droplets of water vapor in the atmosphere. Even today, people sometimes incorrectly say that this is the case. Later scientists realized that if this were true, there would be more variation of sky color with humidity or haze conditions than was actually observed, so they supposed correctly that the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in the air are sufficient to account for the scattering.

The case was finally settled by Einstein in 1911, who calculated the detailed formula for the scattering of light from molecules; and this was found to be in agreement with experiment. He was even able to use the calculation as a further verification of Avogadro's number when compared with observation. The molecules are able to scatter light because the electromagnetic field of the light waves induces electric dipole moments in the molecules.

Edit: Know when to quit.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by seawolf197]

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
So, even though we spend countless hours at ATS delving into the galactic secrets that the powers-that-be have known for years, studying the most intriguing of photographs and documents not released to the general public or touted in MSM . . because Hoagland discusses it, suddenly it's ridiculous.

I don't understand if this is what you are saying, but Hoagland's pictures were released to the general public, they are not "secret" photos, as far as I know.

But what do we do with dazzlingly-bright moving "stars" in our sky at night; city-sized ships appearing in NASA videos, images of ruins and possibly other activity on the moon which defy conventional explanation; planet-sized somethings moving around the rings of Saturn and other bodies . . . I mean, is any of this list "normal"?

Maybe they are "normal", first we must know what they really are, only after we are sure of those things are can we know if they are "normal" things or not.

And the fact that they look some thing to some people does not mean that they are exactly what they look like to those people.

But evidence exists for it all, and just because this evidence doesn't fit into our civilized omniscient boxes does not, IMO, disqualify one single thing.

Right, and those that are against mainstream ideas just because they are mainstream ideas should do the same and accept it even if it does not fit their own "boxes". The fact that is a different looking "box" does not make it better than the other.

So if Hoagland mentions it, it's absurd. I think a blanket opinion like that is absurd.

I agree, we must take each of his opinions as an unique piece and avoid classifying all things he says as absurd just because we may think that he is absurd. And even if he really is absurd and 99% of what he says is absurd that does not mean that the remaining 1% is not worth of analysis.

ArMaP:

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
So, even though we spend countless hours at ATS delving into the galactic secrets that the powers-that-be have known for years, studying the most intriguing of photographs and documents not released to the general public or touted in MSM . . because Hoagland discusses it, suddenly it's ridiculous.

I don't understand if this is what you are saying, but Hoagland's pictures were released to the general public, they are not "secret" photos, as far as I know.

They don't have to be. In general, my use of "secret" here has reference to what the general public has not been privy to in MSM. Attempt to forgive me, please, for not narrowing sharply the specificity needed for clarity.

But what do we do with dazzlingly-bright moving "stars" in our sky at night; city-sized ships appearing in NASA videos, images of ruins and possibly other activity on the moon which defy conventional explanation; planet-sized somethings moving around the rings of Saturn and other bodies . . . I mean, is any of this list "normal"?

Maybe they are "normal", first we must know what they really are, only after we are sure of those things are can we know if they are "normal" things or not.

And the fact that they look some thing to some people does not mean that they are exactly what they look like to those people.

"Maybe" don't cut it . . . we're already at "maybe". The point of my statement with this was that weird things exist, we study them, what is the problem with these trolls who want to show up at ATS and criticize and ridicule those who seek answers to (sometimes disturbing) questions not even addressed by MSM. What do you already at this reading know of that would look like a star, yet blink on and off with red and blue silvery flashes, move around in the night sky, then vanish while you watch, that would be considered "normal" by the average citizen? I'm not a scientist, but I read a lot of science/astronomy. That said, I'm presently stumped to give this type of thing a name . .

As well, what they look like is irrelevant; I'm not saying there is a 30K-mile long ship at Saturn, just that something appears from photos I've seen on ATS and elsewhere to be there, and if that something is actually there, then it's big. And we don't yet know what it is, or to whom it belongs. The way I see it, if there is no precedent in our recorded history for it . . that's what makes it not "normal".

But evidence exists for it all, and just because this evidence doesn't fit into our civilized omniscient boxes does not, IMO, disqualify one single thing.

Right, and those that are against mainstream ideas just because they are mainstream ideas should do the same and accept it even if it does not fit their own "boxes". The fact that is a different looking "box" does not make it better than the other.

And isn't it great I'm not one of "those"! MSM says it, I triple-check it. Period. A lot of times there is a spin, no? So, maybe I'll check on it outside MSM with a site like this. The statement has reference to not knowing what a given anomaly is, not me having decided contrary to MSM, which -- in most bizarre-circumstance cases -- doesn't even bother to speculate on it.

So if Hoagland mentions it, it's absurd. I think a blanket opinion like that is absurd.

I agree, we must take each of his opinions as an unique piece and avoid classifying all things he says as absurd just because we may think that he is absurd. And even if he really is absurd and 99% of what he says is absurd that does not mean that the remaining 1% is not worth of analysis.

Agreed.

Good God....not Richard Hoagland again. I am so sick of seeing his falsified claims everywhere and that people actually follow this man. I believed what he said at one point until I actually did some RESEARCH myself into his ideas. Mars is red, not blue. If you want to know why Richard Hoagland is full of BS, then well respected astronomer Phil Plait THOROUGHLY DEBUNKS DARK MISSION and all its cooky ideas. And here's the clincher. Phil Plait actually uses REAL VERIFIABLE DATA! Unlike Hoagland. However, to each his own. If you desperately want to cling to Hoaglands erroneous and crazy ideas, go ahead. But you should know that he's been disproved with...wait for it....REAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS! Wow.. And instead of bashing me for telling you all the truth, why don't you just read it for yourselves here:

Richard Hoaglands Nonsense

You know, maybe there is nothing up there. Maybe we really are the only life forms in the entire universe. Maybe all those geometric shapes I've seen in the terrain of various photos claiming to be of Mars are really just natural, square, triangular, and round formations. Maybe I've never actually seen one odd thing in the skies, nothing unusual has happened at all.

I observed a glorious sunset one evening, and counted how many colors I'd use at that moment if I was going to paint that majesty. I saw -- within 10 minutes -- red, peach, yellow, orange, lavender, blue, gold, gray, pink and white. As a tropical storm rolled inland earlier this year, the sky was literally aqua and pink, solid. Depending on what time of day and conditions an alien rover shoots a pic if it came to earth, the babblers on Mars (or wherever it came from) would debate endlessly if the sky was pink, blue, or orange.

I'm here to find out facts, not debate who brought forth the fact. I don't give a dam who said it, I'm going to research it to my own satisfaction -- not to yours -- and if I find that the facts are indeed compelling, then the Easter Bunny could have sourced it, for all I care. The word "normal" is rapidly becoming obsolete in its conventional sense, anyway, as far as I can assess.

If this is upsetting, one should visit another site where strife and contention are encouraged.

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
You know, maybe there is nothing up there. Maybe we really are the only life forms in the entire universe. Maybe all those geometric shapes I've seen in the terrain of various photos claiming to be of Mars are really just natural, square, triangular, and round formations. Maybe I've never actually seen one odd thing in the skies, nothing unusual has happened at all.

I observed a glorious sunset one evening, and counted how many colors I'd use at that moment if I was going to paint that majesty. I saw -- within 10 minutes -- red, peach, yellow, orange, lavender, blue, gold, gray, pink and white. As a tropical storm rolled inland earlier this year, the sky was literally aqua and pink, solid. Depending on what time of day and conditions an alien rover shoots a pic if it came to earth, the babblers on Mars (or wherever it came from) would debate endlessly if the sky was pink, blue, or orange.

I'm here to find out facts, not debate who brought forth the fact. I don't give a dam who said it, I'm going to research it to my own satisfaction -- not to yours -- and if I find that the facts are indeed compelling, then the Easter Bunny could have sourced it, for all I care. The word "normal" is rapidly becoming obsolete in its conventional sense, anyway, as far as I can assess.

If this is upsetting, one should visit another site where strife and contention are encouraged.

First of all, a couple posts up, did you just quote yourself and respond to your own quotes? wtf.

Anyways, about your quote directly above. I'm not saying that the facts are not debatable. I'm just saying that Richard Hoagland himself is full of BS and you should look elsewhere if your looking to actually get anywhere with your research. Unless of course you like hitting brick walls or coming to dead ends that offer no real answers.

And what you're saying makes no sense at all. That you don't care where your facts come from??????? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought in VALID RESEARCH citing sources was important. "I'm here to reasearch the facts, I don't care where they come from" is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. No offense, but hell, I can tell you anything you wanna hear but that doesn't make it true. Especially since i'm not an expert on the subject. And neither is Hoagland. He's not a NASA imaging consultant. He doesn't piece together the images from the Telescopes and Rovers. So therefore, he has no experience in what he's trying to talk about concerning the photographs at NASA and how they are colored.

And FYI, NASA images are all BLACK AND WHITE. Color is added later in the labs based on multiple images taken at different spectrums of light. The telescopes and rovers have filters that filter out light based on its position in the color spectrum. So it takes about 4 different pictures with filtered light. These pictures then have the correct color added based on the wavelength the picture was taken at, and then overlapped to form the final colorized image. However, this process takes skill (a skill Hoagland does not have nor was he ever responsible for at NASA) and sometimes weeks of tweaking to get the correct color combinations.

But hey, you don't care where your sources come from right? Even if your sources have a long history of lies and disinformation.

Its also noteable that Hoagland changed his position of the "Face on Mars" that he so strongly supported for years and years and years that IT WAS REAL! But WAIT....some years ago, when CLEAR pictures were provided that showed it was merely a mountain, all of a sudden Hoagland claims its not a face and he knew it all along. Jeez...give me a break. I'd rather that the Easter Bunny wrote Dark Mission. I might believe it then.

Originally posted by mike_b

Its also noteable that Hoagland changed his position of the "Face on Mars" that he so strongly supported for years and years and years that IT WAS REAL! But WAIT....some years ago, when CLEAR pictures were provided that showed it was merely a mountain, all of a sudden Hoagland claims its not a face and he knew it all along. Jeez...give me a break. I'd rather that the Easter Bunny wrote Dark Mission. I might believe it then.

Thanks for the post mike_b. I never read or heard that Richard Hoagland had changed his position on the Face On Mars. I just read Dark Misson and he didn't say it in there. Actually just the opposite.


Do you have a source or reference to where Hoagland "...all of a sudden Hoagland claims its not a face and he knew it all along"?

Thanks for your post. Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by mike_b
Good God....not Richard Hoagland again. I am so sick of seeing his falsified claims everywhere and that people actually follow this man. I believed what he said at one point until I actually did some RESEARCH myself into his ideas. Mars is red, not blue. If you want to know why Richard Hoagland is full of BS, then well respected astronomer Phil Plait THOROUGHLY DEBUNKS DARK MISSION and all its cooky ideas. And here's the clincher. Phil Plait actually uses REAL VERIFIABLE DATA! Unlike Hoagland. However, to each his own. If you desperately want to cling to Hoaglands erroneous and crazy ideas, go ahead. But you should know that he's been disproved with...wait for it....REAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS! Wow.. And instead of bashing me for telling you all the truth, why don't you just read it for yourselves here:

[url=http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html

Richard Hoaglands Nonsense[/url]

What a bunch of garbage!! The BAD ASTRONOMY site you linked to says" The Face on Mars is just another hill ", with NO facts whatsoever!! All this is is a site determined to back up the phony government lies and pseudosceince put out by NASA and their cohorts. This site does NOT refute with Scientific Eviedence, as you claim, but with innuendo and aspersions about Hoagland. There is NO science on that site that can refute Hoagland. It is like the National Enquirer of the debunking stooges.

Hoagland has NOT been proven wrong by science..on the contrary. So next time you claim that SCIENCE has proven something, offer more please than some trash site against hoagland.. Red skies indeed!! Nonsense..you have fallen for the old lies also..sad.

what are you talking about? Hoagland himself claims that the face is nothing more than a hill. and this is AFTER he supported that it was a face for years. Obviously you didn't do much reading. So why don't you READ before you make uneducated comments that have nothing to do with the link I gave.

and the site is called BAD ASTRONOMY because its exactly what Hoagland bases his claims on...bad astronomy. Hoagland tries to talk about issues he has no experience in.

And it is YOU who believe the lies....sad.

Since you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ IT, here is an excerpt from the article on the face:

"Any discussion of Richard Hoagland would be incomplete without discussing the "Face" on Mars. Basically, there is a hill on Mars that is roughly a kilometer across. It was first imaged by the Viking orbiter in the 1970s. It looks like a face. Hoagland jumped on this, saying it didn't just look like a face, it WAS a face, carved by aliens for unknown reasons. He made this claim over and over, and then images taken later by probes with higher resolution cameras showed it didn't look much like a face at all. Hoagland then claimed that a) they botched the image, making it look less like a face, and b) he had predicted all along it wouldn't look like a face when better images were taken. "

And that is just the first paragraph. After which Plait goes on to talk about it and offer proof as to why its not a face. WITH REAL DATA. Oh snap! But I'm not gonna do your research for you. Read the rest of it yourself.


[edit on 30-11-2007 by mike_b]

This thread just smacks of commercial solicitation (against T&Cs) to me...seems like a lot of people have been trying to pimp this book.

Oh yeah....it's not much more then a mountain....





[edit on 30-11-2007 by webstra]

Originally posted by webstra
Oh yeah....it's not much more then a mountain ?

mcadams.posc.mu.edu..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Yeah, its not much more than a mountain.

The first is Hoaglands edited picture of how it looks. The second is how it really looks. ONCE AGAIN. READ. Is there like a deficiancy of people that can read on this site or something?

[edit on 30-11-2007 by mike_b]

Originally posted by mike_b

Originally posted by webstra
Oh yeah....it's not much more then a mountain ?

Yeah, its not much more than a mountain.

Now tell me mike_b.....It's 'a little bit' more then a mountain ?

[edit on 30-11-2007 by webstra]

Originally posted by webstra

Originally posted by mike_b

Originally posted by webstra
Oh yeah....it's not much more then a mountain ?

Yeah, its not much more than a mountain.

Now tell me mike_b.....It's 'a little bit' more then a mountain ?

[edit on 30-11-2007 by webstra]

No, I'm sorry, it isn't.

In that case it's better for you just to say 'it is a mountain' instead of saying : it's not much more then a mauntain.

Or do you think that you are more believable than ?

In that case it's not difficult for you to find a wind and sand shaped object with similar strange futures, on earth ?

[edit on 30-11-2007 by webstra]

once again.....




Clearly this does not look like a face. I will see if I can find a larger version of this image. Can i please hear from someone who has an INTELLIGENT reason why I may be wrong?

triple post for some reason EDIT

[edit on 30-11-2007 by mike_b]

triple post EDIT

[edit on 30-11-2007 by mike_b]