!!!Mars Blue Sky & Water!!!

reply to post by Lotlatino


LOL NASA...they will come undone eventualy and this is just the beging...i feel sorry for the bloke or woman who put it up there, i wounder how long till they take it down lol all we need now is proof of the moon's ET mining operation's and the apparent plant life growing up there

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by II HAL II

 

It is not possible to create a near true colour image when we do not have enough data, and that is the case.

While the top image had its colours enhanced, the bottom image is just the result of combining the original data from the available (and relevant) filters, in that way it is more "true" colour than the other.

Sure...ok.... I don't buy that for a second.

Why cant they just match the colour of the instruments that they KNOW and problem solved.

It seems your just quoting NASA.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by II HAL II]

Originally posted by ArMaP
Could you point me one of those NASA photos made with that L4 L5 L5 L5 L6 combination?

I don't remember seeing any NASA photo saying that they used those filters in that way.

Edit: I forgot to say it is true that adding the images from the L2, L5 and L7 filters, the ones used for this image, do not make an image with that orange look, that looks like it had an orange overlay applied.

[edit on 8/1/2008 by ArMaP]

areo.info...

from this site posted earlier in the thread I believe

areo.info...


Second row ... the first two look like rather real colors ... of course on the parent site you have to sift through tons of pictures to find those two particular filter combinations ...

Originally posted by II HAL II
Why cant they just match the colour of the instruments that they KNOW and problem solved.

Because, as I said, it is not possible, unless you allready know how every colour should look.

See it for yourself.

Can you, by adjusting the colours in this image, from which I removed the blue channel...

get something that looks like the original image, this one?


As you can see, without the blue channel, the pure blue square (the one that says "0.0.142"), becomes black because there is no blue information.

How can you turn that black back to blue without turning the also black border (but that was originally black) into blue?

In the same way, how can you make what was the white square white again without making the yellow square also white?

there is no grass and no water.

What you think is grass is actually the black rock you see in the closer images but since they are far away the image quality is reduced, so the same black rocks and red sand seem to make up a grassy tone to the mountains in the distance.

There is no water it is actually iron rich sand with possible oil like substances. Close to northern canadas oil sands. The sand has simply been blown by the wind to create the illusion of water in the wind.

Note. The rocks and basicly everything in the rest of the image closest to the right has the same wind motion pattern. The definitive slope to the right of most objects in the picture state that wind is coming from the right of the photo creating the seen patterns.

Found some images on the ESA webpage on new 3D images of Mars.

All three pics show the same area but from a different view, and it's possible to see a dark bluish zone; I wonder whether that is also water.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Estess
All three pics show the same area but from a different view, and it's possible to see a dark bluish zone; I wonder whether that is also water.

Thoughts?

You've seen those little greyish-blue "blueberries." You get enough of them blowing around and clustering in the bottoms of craters or valleys and they add to the general bluish look of the area. Go look at Google Earth or some other photos of what real water looks like in a lake or river. The difference is obvious.

Click the magnifier on the " Water" and you get a beautiful closeup of sand dunes. The cameras do not have a green capability they left that out.
Why?
so the color of everything is off, and indeterminate.

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Estess
All three pics show the same area but from a different view, and it's possible to see a dark bluish zone; I wonder whether that is also water.

Thoughts?

You've seen those little greyish-blue "blueberries." You get enough of them blowing around and clustering in the bottoms of craters or valleys and they add to the general bluish look of the area. Go look at Google Earth or some other photos of what real water looks like in a lake or river. The difference is obvious.

Sound theory Nohup. Drifting sands can separate elemental differences by density and size. Blueberrys is a good guess, but from orbital can only be an educated speculation.

ZG

reply to post by Cyberbian


Could you please be more specific about which photo and which cameras are you talking about?

Thanks.

reply to post by Estess


Estuss,

Beautiful pictures, from ESA you say?

Hard to say what the dark gray area is...certainly doesn't look like water. The resolution of the cameras used should be considered, as well as color filters, etc, etc.

Judging by the color, and just an opinion, since there is nothing resolved as clearly as in other parts of the pictures...ancient lava field? One could also imagine, this same patch of exposed ancient lava, now cooled...would, on another picture pass, be covered in red sand to a greater extent.

Point is, without actually being there, on site, we have to judge from multiple photos over a period of time, given the reality of the resolution restrictions imposed, to ascertain the exact nature of what we are seeing.

I was in Death Valley a few times, and in a few places the ground is covered in salt. Even from a close distance, i.e. while standing on it, it sure looks like dirty snow.

My second example -- in the Marble Canyon, which is the upper part of the Grand Canyon, there is an area rich with uranium ore. The salts of this chemical have all sort of colors and impart greenish and bluish hue to the rocks and to the river in a few places.

While an idea of a puddle of water on Mars is an extremely alluring one, I find it's likelihood to be very small. Of course, the underground caverns may in fact contain significant quantities of water, we just don't know yet!

reply to post by ArMaP



From what I see in the images on NASA's site it seems 'black is white and white is black' and the 'true' colour image is the false one. The picture is not a 'true' colour one as they say but a picture manipulated to make the landscape a particular colour. In the process it's also changed the instruments... why then does this make you believe one picture over the other... apart from NASA's say so.

How can you put a man on the moon (40 years ago) and not take a colour picture from a distance. Why would you spend $Billions$ on sending a probe to Mars and not have an accurate way of taking images??

How can you come to the accepted conclusion Mars sky and land is orange/red with this faulty and easily manipulated method?

As I said originally in my opinion the false one seems more real to me.

My reply to this - "Because, as I said, it is not possible, unless you allready know how every colour should look." - a simple colour chart on one of the panels would help with that, green, red, blue etc. then you would know what colour is what... $10 answer to that 'issue' but they didnt to keep it vague perhaps?? or maybe they didnt think having accurate images of the surface of mars was important.

hey does anyone have a myspace here? i recently got a friend request with someone having the name as " ? " and then his main pic is the First picture talked about in this tread ...... kinda freaky lol

Originally posted by II HAL II
How can you put a man on the moon (40 years ago) and not take a colour picture from a distance. Why would you spend $Billions$ on sending a probe to Mars and not have an accurate way of taking images??

They have accurate ways of taking images, but for their purposes, not ours.

If they want to see how things look in infrared, why should they use colour?

How can you come to the accepted conclusion Mars sky and land is orange/red with this faulty and easily manipulated method?

Who said I came to that conclusion? I have made approximate true colour images using the images from the L4, L5 and L6 filters from the rovers,








and that does not look like red sky and/or ground.

I have also tens of high resolution colour photos from HiRISE (like this one) and the ground has many colours.

My reply to this - "Because, as I said, it is not possible, unless you allready know how every colour should look." - a simple colour chart on one of the panels would help with that, green, red, blue etc. then you would know what colour is what... $10 answer to that 'issue' but they didnt to keep it vague perhaps?? or maybe they didnt think having accurate images of the surface of mars was important.

See the colour chart that I posted before. It has two yellows, one was originally yellow, the other was white, without enough information is not possible to re-create the original look of the target of the photo.

And they have colour targets on the rovers precisely for that, to know how to adjust the image, but they can only create near true colour images if they have images from the red, the green and the blue channel.

PS: why did ATS broke the possibility of using links in the images, it makes the thumbnails from ImageShack useless.

The rock is unusual as well..take a close look. There are lines defining the large rock and it has striations and a curious curved indentaion that belies a water based erosion process to some degree...but could well be something else. Just on the spur of the moment, I am guessing we are looking at ancient ruins, a statue sitting next to a toppled pillar or upright once part of a column. There are indentations along the top of the right part of the rock and along the top possible indicating carving, and the shape overall is suspicious indeed. That and the statue make this a sign of civilization to me..or at least I hope so!!

Originally posted by PaulWillocks

Originally posted by malcr
I managed to find the Pancam photos on the web. Try this website:

areo.info...

Especially the early photos at the bottom of the list. What I found very interesting as I went through the photographs was the number of panoramic pictures taken with the filter combination L2 L5 L5 L6 L6. Now if you look at the Pancam calibration unit for these same filter settings you will see that blue (bottom right) is bright magenta. Wheras the true colour pictures are with filters L4 L5 L5 L5 L6. Again there are a few pictures with this combination but that many.

Clearly the "colour" of the vast majority of photos are false (L2 L5 L5 L6 L6) i.e. no blue but realistically red (the Mars myth). But NASA can state "truthfully" that they have not doctored the pictures!!! In essence they chose a filter combination that perpetuates the myth of a bright red Mars surface.

What few L4 L5 L5 L5 L6 photos there are shows that sky is not red, the dust is more brown and the stones are slate grey-blue colour.

I had a look at this site and came across a photo from the Opportunity Rover that has some strange features. What do you guys make of these (More so the circular indentations on the left).

Source Photo (from areo.info) - Opportunity

[edit on 7-1-2008 by PaulWillocks]

this ´holes´come from water whirls. seems like former river beds.

Any ideas what's in these two pictures? Doesn't seem like something that had fallen off of the rover... Then again, it COULD have, riiiiight...

Spirit Rover Pic #1

Spirit Rover Pic #2

Out for speculation, just thought it was a weird find after sifting through the true color site linked in this thread :3

reply to post by drkXsl


Those look like more markings from the drill tool.

And the photos on that site are not true colour, they are even less true colour than some (but only some) of NASA's photos.

Can anyone tell me anything here about a skeleton that was spotted on the moon or mars nasa might even have a picture of it NOW BURIED WITHIN THE NSA VAULTS; does John Lear know of this - it might be that I heard of it from him or someone similar post reply thank you.