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.

 

!!!Mars Blue Sky & Water!!!

page: 14
70
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rolotommasi



Anyone have any theories on this dust plume?


Looks like a small creature being chased by larger white one (from the right).


Try magnifying the image to 200%




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yknot

Originally posted by rolotommasi



Anyone have any theories on this dust plume?


Looks like a small creature being chased by larger white one (from the right).


Try magnifying the image to 200%


I found the image and found some more anomalies nearby to the right. I don't know how to post the image here. One looks like a cheetah or lion.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
So, has NASA commented anything on what we've found, especially on what I pointed out on image I posted earlier in this thread?

[edit on 23-1-2008 by TheoOne]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Don't take your eyes off the prize. Project bluebeam will only work if everyone is looking at the skys. Look at your neighborhood.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

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


But they DO know what the color should look like... they just prefer to tint it reddish just like the conspiracy sites love to tint it with too much blue...


Everyone forgets the little sundial on each rover... the one the secret astronaut corps has to clean every now and then...



Here is a NASA Viking picture



Darn thing is the spacecraft is white...




Same picture from a 'true color' website...



Here is an area covered with chunks of Vesicular Basalt... this is a true color image from a NASA source....



Here is a specimen of the same rock on Earth...



To the Original Poster.... there are many images in color from the two Rovers... true they are not in the public eye, but not too hard to find if you know where to look


Now I hear some people say "Are you sure that they are even on Mars?" What a ridiculous notion... of course they are...



And just to finish... this is from a slide presentation by J. Garvin at a NASA presentation for scientists... shows what they thing of us




[edit on 23-1-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheoOne
So, has NASA commented anything on what we've found, especially on what I pointed out on image I posted earlier in this thread?


No and they won't... it's official policy to ignore any public requests about any anomalies... Think about it... if they say nothing... they cannot be accused of lying



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Gunter
BTW, if there is water on Mars, how come there are never any clouds?




You people make statements like that... but do you ever LOOK? Google is your friend... use it and you will look less a fool





Here is an animation from the rovers...



Here is all kinds of Martian Weather... even a Malin MOC picture of FOG


www.thelivingmoon.com...

[edit on 23-1-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
lotlatino, I love the pic! hah hah! A blue sky on Mars. What will they try next? Hey, maybe it's real. Hmmmmm......


Oh such comedians here :shk:

Twilight on a Cloudy Day - Pathfinder

This true color image was taken in the twilight by the rover Pathfinder on Mars in August 1997. The clouds are of the same type as those discovered by SPICAM at a much higher altitude. The sky on Mars is BLUE




A view from the Opportunity rover's panoramic camera shows the sun setting in the Martian west.The sky on Mars is BLUE



Dae

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I dont understand Zorgon, you use nasa images to prove something then say nasa is lying or getting it wrong about something else, Im just wondering if you can have it both ways! What Im saying is, you use images from nasa rovers to prove there is a blue sky or clouds but then have the opinion that nasa hides and distorts information. Im wondering, how do you decide what data to use or discard?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horusnow
Very interesting thread indeed.
I examined the pic a bit more and found what seems to be an imprint of some
circular object on the left side of the 'water pond' in the background. I enhanced
the picture by using 'auto levels' in Photoshop. Check it out:


Seems the Rover went to investigate.... here is a closeup of that 'circular object'



Complete with muddy Rover tracks



BTW Here is a picture of that sundial on Mars... notice the colors
Sol 9 Jan 11 2004 then notice the dust.... Sol 357 Jan 5 2005....



On the left Sol 416 March March 5, 2005 and on the right sol 426 March 15, 2005



Seems that someone is cleaning it off from time to time... Maybe those huminoids are doing that... under NASA contract... and they just forgot to duck when the camera turned their way...

Its dusty on Mars.... so they say the Rovers were only supposed to last a few months... well here is Sol 1183...



And then Lo and Behold Sol 1293... A miraculous cleaning job! Those dudes have earned their paycheck




Yup I can here the skeptics sputtering


Dae

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Perhaps a windy storm blew alot of the dust off (there are a lot of rocks out there not covered in dust, is someone cleaning them too?), perhaps the different lighting makes one seem cleaner than the other? Why would 'they' clean it? Why not let it sputter and die around the expirey date so no more effort in all that disinfo?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Concerning the blue sky on Mars (and I do not have a working knowledge of this information) but to me it seems we should be able to theoretically estimate the approximate true color of the Martian atmosphere based on it's contents, no? I mean, we know why the sky is blue on earth:


The sky appears blue to us on a clear day, because the atoms of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere separate the suns white light into its many colors, and scatter them throughout the atmosphere. The wavelength of the blue light scatters better than the rest, predominates over the other colors in the light spectrum, and makes the sky appear blue to us. The scientific name for this phenomenon is the Tyndall effect, more commonly known as Rayleigh scattering.


So the Earth's Atmosphere is roughly:


Nitrogen (78%)
Oxygen (21%)
Argon (1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%)


And the Martian atmosphere is roughly:


Carbon Dioxide (95.32%)
Nitrogen (2.7%)
Argon (1.6%)
Oxygen (0.13%)
Carbon Monoxide (0.07%)
Water Vapor (0.03%) (Wouldn't that be hydrogen and oxygen?)
and trace gases of neon, krypton, xenon,ozone, methane


Knowing the above, should we not be able to tell what the color would be seen as through human eyes? I do not know about the light scattering properties of carbon dioxide, so can't really guess. But I assume someone here can fill in the blanks concerning what the primary color of the Martian atmosphere should be based on the refraction (or dipole scattering for all you hard asses out there) of that much carbon dioxide?

Personally, I don't care what color the Martian sky is, but I do find it simply outrageous that on all of these multi-billion dollar missions we don't send a standard camera that is capable of capturing high resolution video and still images. I understand the science behind why they choose not to do this, but they need to remember their funding comes from the public, and they should allocate a certain portion of every project to "public relations" If the common taxpayer gets confused every time he looks at the data from a multi-billion dollar expenditure he will soon loose interest and vote his money towards useless social programs that further enslaves the uneducated and ignorant.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Re: dust.

They noticed that the power output of solar panels increased after a period of wind. It is likely that strong wind is blowing off dust.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Seems that someone is cleaning it off from time to time...


Nope....seems that "somehow" it is getting cleared off.

See the difference? I've recognized the cleaned condition versus the dusty condition....I'm curious about it even....yet I find myself unable to conclude or even theorize that "someone" is cleaning it.

I will support the idea of wind.....the wind put the dust there originally, it doesn't seem farfetched that the wind could also remove the dust. As a previous poster pointed out....there sure are a lot of "clean" rocks there.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts I understand the science behind why they choose not to do this, but they need to remember their funding comes from the public, and they should allocate a certain portion of every project to "public relations" If the common taxpayer gets confused every time he looks at the data from a multi-billion dollar expenditure he will soon loose interest and vote his money towards useless social programs that further enslaves the uneducated and ignorant.


Now that is in my opinion the smartest thing you have said
It would also stop most conspiracy theories dead in their tracks IF they had live true color as 'we see it' images. They actually had that on Clementine... to bad WE didn't get to see them...


I was hoping Japan would fix that... but what they have shown so far with the purple tinted images and the dark green videos is not a big help...

As to winds cleaning the Rovers... LOL

Selective cleaning




Here is another amazing "selective cleaning" example.
The white arrow points to a small area where something has apparently touched the panel, removing the thin layer of dust and exposing the metal underneath. Also visible is the hinge mechanism (red arrows) showing the hinge plates and actuator completely cleaned of dust. Also - there is evidence that the top hinge plate may have recently been attached to this dirty solar panel. Note the tool marks around the top edge of the hinge ears, and the disturbance of the dust around those ears. This is similar to the disturbed dust where the white arrow is.



SOURCE



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Do you have a source for those photos other than the "Pegasus Foundation", to which you have close ties? Bizarre, to attempt to bolster a point with photos posted on a website that is clearly not neutral.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
OK... now this may sound kind of dumb, but if you went out and purchased a $10 35mm disposable camera and took a picture of something here on earth, once developed, the colors on the picture would be pretty darn close to "TRUE" color. Having said that, why is it that we send a rover to another planet that costs millions and millions of dollars but somehow cannot get a single shot in "TRUE" color? Why do these pictures need to be manipulated, corrected and edited by NASA Photo experts?

You mean to tell me there's not a single piece of optical equipment on these multi-million dollar rovers capable of taking TRUE color pictures?

Again, I'm no expert on this topic and maybe I'm missing something, but why the need for all these "COLOR CORRECTIONS" everytime a new picture is released?

If you went to Walmart, bought a regular camera, got on a rocket, landed on Mars, took a few pictures, came back to earth and developed it, wouldn't that picture be pretty close (in terms of TRUE color) to the colors you saw with your own eyes while you were there?

My apologies in advanced if my question seems dumb, but I just have real hard time figuring out the need for all these COLOR CORRECTIONS when it comes to pictures of Mars taken by the rovers.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Hi Zorgon, I'm in no way trying to prove your observations wrong, but considering that the solar panels on the rovers collect energy which is then turned into electricity and knowing that there are many types of metals in any type of dust including here on earth, would it be far fetched to think that perharps the static produced by the solar panels would attrack any metal particles in the martian dust, thus causing such particles to stick to the electrically charged panels but not other parts of the rovers (i.e. the hinges)??

Just a thought......



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I was looking at some of the 'sundial' pictures Zorgon posted from thelivingmoon and am puzzled...

Up above, posted at 04:58 EST (my time zone), compares a NASA photo with one taken on Earth...pointing out the blue reference in the lower right corner. An hour and a half later there is a post discussing the changing levels of dust on the 'sundial' and there the same lower right corner is, indeed, blue. I am assuming that thelivingmoon is using NASA photos in their assertions that a Merry Martian Maid is doing some Rover cleaning?

So, IS NASA 'tinting the pictures red or ISN'T they? Besides, I always thought when you add red to blue you get purple...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well, WW/TJ,

somebody else already noticed that kind of anti-circular argument in Z's and other posts:

a) "NASA's pictures are fake! They are a bunch of liars! And Nazis!"
b) "I just found an alien cofee shop and a star cruiser in those NASA pics! I can clearly see them!"



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join