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.

 

Is The Mars Rover Cam Life-Blind?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

You are uninterested in learning or accepting anything that might contradict that conclusion, no matter how true it might be.


You are uninterested in my conspiracy. I have just begun to bring in new points. You do not seem to understand that I DO understand what you are saying. So please stop saying that. I find it insulting.

You are looking from the wrong perspective.

Put yourself in the position of those trying to hide it. How would you do it?

Is this not a perfect method of hiding a dual mission? That you understand so much, and do not accept what I am presenting only proves that if it is real it is a well thought out conspiracy.

People who should see through it are the first to jump on those who do.

All of your points only support my conspiracy theory.

How do you look for specific signs of life on Mars, and hide it from everyone else?


[Edited on 17-2-2004 by ArchAngel]




posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
How to advance the conspiracy. Notice the hole dug by the rover. How did this happen? By accident? I believe it was done on purpose. The rover system should not have allowed this to happen in this way.


Wow, Rense would be impressed with the depths of your research. Its on par with the 'STRANGE BURNT HOLE IN MARS ROCK' that spirit drilled herself. This trench was dug intentionally by Opportunity to check out the soil.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Rense would be impressed with the depths of your research.


It was my first impression after seeing the image. It was purposely dug....



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Wow, This belongs in the debate forum and lock it to preserve the content.
Hands down, BarryKearns the winner, and he got bored just as he was hitting
his stride. Sorry AA, but he reduced you to admitting your conspiracy bias as
the last defense. But be consoled AA; being a conspiracy theorist means never having
to say your sorry. I wish AA had stated the conspiracy bias. I suspect it goes
something like this: NASA KNOWS exactly what life is on MARS and has very
carefully designed their Pancam filters to specifically exclude it. So the award to
BarryKearns is the Carl Sagan Dragon Detection award.

spl.haxial.net...

BarryKearns found the dragon in AA's garage.

Congrads to both debators and cheering section, this is a FIVE STAR Debate.
Impressive, very Impressive. I think I am voting for both the debators for
outstanding reading.


/\/ight\/\/ing



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
It was my first impression after seeing the image. It was purposely dug....


...and you decided to post it on here and say 'look what else are they hiding from us' instead of actually bothering to look what it is really about...

This is a geology mission, it is not a geology mission with a hidden agenda of being a biological mission. There is no point sending bio-missions until a better understanding is gained of Martian geology and the history of the planet. Otherwise its just randomly fishing for life like the Viking landers were.

We need to know if the next landers should be focusing more on present or past life, finding out if or when water has ever existed or does still exist on the surface is helpful in deciding that.

Either way, it is simply dumb to propose the idea that this mission is a biological mission. Obviously if some kind of plant was found or something ran out in front of the Rovers, they would study it as best they could with the tools available. But a biological study mission would simply have completely different rovers and tool-sets. The tools on this rover are purely geological study instruments, still able to detect life should it be obvious, and able to study it to a very small extent.

Bio-missions would have much more complicated chemical analysis tools, many more sample-taking experiments and so forth. It's a lot harder to study the biological nature of the planet than it is to study the geology.

Now of course you will just propose that there is indeed an entire other set of instruments that NASA has not told us about, etc etc.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   

NASA KNOWS exactly what life is on MARS and has very carefully designed their Pancam filters to specifically exclude it.


It is possible, and if that is the case there is a conspiracy behind it. NASA brought suspicion on themselves by being dishonest from the begining. They finally admitted they made a 'mistake' about the color issue. What did it get them? Time...

Spirit supposedly breaks down. What does that give them? More time...

They were not releasing images on time. Some were more than a week late. They were all supposed to be posted within minutes of there arrival. What did that get them? More time.

They need time lag in the system to allow for this to work, and they got it.

After seeing what was supposed to happen, what really happened, and WHO is 'the buck stops here' guy in the chain at Malin I believe they are trying to hide something.

What are they trying to hide, and how are they trying to hide it?

They are hiding signs of life, and they are hiding it right in front of your faces.

I think you must agree that it is at least possible.

And that is not all. For now work calls.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Put yourself in the position of those trying to hide it. How would you do it?

Is this not a perfect method of hiding a dual mission? That you understand so much, and do not accept what I am presenting only proves that if it is real it is a well thought out conspiracy.


No, this is not a perfect method for hiding a dual mission. It is a grotesquely sub-optimal method for trying to do so... there are mission packages that would make this much, much easier and provide excellent "on mission" features as well, but they were not included.

It's pretty trivial to come up with a payload that would make this "dual mission" damned near bulletproof from detection, while accomplishing the second mission flawlessly. The fact that we DON'T see such a powerful package is "evidence" that they didn't engineer the mission to reliably allow for such a scenario.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
NASA could be selective in how it handles data, distributing sanitized photos to the public and retaining the more interesting photos for military intelligence. The cameras could be designed for this dual-purpose agenda.

ArchAngel's theory is intriguing, in my opinion, especially since credible people like Gilbert Levin have raised concerns about how NASA data is handled. On the web somewhere there's an astronomer's review of the Clementine Lunar Mission CD-ROM which the reviewer purchased at great cost and found several discrepancies on including missing photos, duplicate or damaged photos, conflicting time/photo signatures, and whatnot. Of course Clementine was a military mission, but this type of thing might lead people to suspect something is being hidden.

BTW. this is an odd place to criticize a poster for discussing conspiracy theories. ArchAngel deserves a Way Above award for collecting so much technical information. Imagine what ATS would be like if all posters went to this much effort.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by Condorcet]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
What technical information? He found the chlorophyll absorption data on like the 3rd google hit for 'chlorophyll'. The majority of the rest of his posts are either mislead or patently false.

The theory that the PanCam is blind to life is nonsense. It is not designed to specifically search for life, but it is far from being blind to life. How it is operated is a different matter, also an unproveable one. AA started with a legitimate technical concern about the PanCams ability to detect chlorophyll. It has since been shown that beside the obvious fact that chlorophyll of any Earthlike form is highly unlikely on the Martian surface, should there be any the PanCam could notice and give a pretty solid identification.

He has since changed to proposing that the geology mission is just a cover for a biological mission. This also is false as the Rovers simply do not have the tools to carry out a meaningful biological study.

Now we have drifted to another unproveable theory that data is being hidden. While I consider this rather unlikely. I think its also important to remember that the PanCam data doesn't constitute the majority of the important mission data. It is handy, and can be used for many things. But the data from the rovers other instruments can give a lot more information, which we can all get a copy of for ourselves for cheap post-mission.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
After seeing what was supposed to happen, what really happened, and WHO is 'the buck stops here' guy in the chain at Malin I believe they are trying to hide something.


What exactly are you proposing Malin has to do with it?

The Rovers typically communicate directly Earth-Mars via the Deep Space Network. I wasn't aware MSSS had any control of these comms?

Of course its possible. As I have said all along.

But the fact its possible does not therefore mean that its probable. Theres also no way of proving it, so until there is it stays in the (large) possible-bin.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condorcet
NASA could be selective in how it handles data, distributing sanitized photos to the public and retaining the more interesting photos for military intelligence. The cameras could be designed for this dual-purpose agenda.


Yes, they could... and my point is that there are many other configurations besides the Pancam layout that would have been much BETTER suited to trying to accomplish that kind of dual mission.


ArchAngel's theory is intriguing, in my opinion, especially since credible people like Gilbert Levin have raised concerns about how NASA data is handled.


I've raised many questions about NASA's handling of the data myself, and been quite pointed in many of my observations of their less-than-stellar performance on this count.


On the web somewhere there's an astronomer's review of the Clementine Lunar Mission CD-ROM which the reviewer purchased at great cost and found several discrepancies on including missing photos, duplicate or damaged photos, conflicting time/photo signatures, and whatnot. Of course Clementine was a military mission, but this type of thing might lead people to suspect something is being hidden.


You don't even have to go back that far. I can still point to data from this particular mission that they obviously HAVE, yet have never bothered to release. I have always found that particularly troubling, and have had no reservations expressing that fact.


BTW. this is an odd place to criticize a poster for discussing conspiracy theories. ArchAngel deserves a Way Above award for collecting so much technical information. Imagine what ATS would be like if all posters went to this much effort.


My position on this is not to criticize due to "conspiracy theories". I'm certain that a great number of conspiracies actually exist, and I know for a fact that NASA has data from this mission that (for whatever reason) they have chosen to not release to the public.

My criticism, as it is, is based almost ENTIRELY on the fact that ArchAngel pulled a "bait and switch" with his argument.

I have no issue with the argument that NASA may be failing to release some data, and might have their own agenda for doing so. I consider that a fairly plausible argument... but that's not the argument that ArchAngel made.

What I have an issue with is ignorance about the abilities of the Pancam being masqueraded as "evidence" that the Pancam itself was jury-rigged to prevent data from being seen. We don't do service to LEGITIMATE conspiracy theories when we go off half-cocked with only a tiny amount of erroneous data, and use that to present an argument that is easily demolished.

That does a dis-service to the entire community. Legitimate conspiracy theories will NOT contradict known evidence... they will instead focus on the motives that might explain the likely choices that are being made.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if ArchAngel had framed his initial argument as "it's possible that NASA might be suprressing some of the data being gathered, to prevent us from seeing what's up there", I doubt I would have said much at all.

Instead, I end up investing many hours correcting fundamental misconceptions, only to have the corrections ignored and the argument changed after the fact. That ticks me off, frankly.

If you want to understand a subject, you ask questions, not make blanket proclamations on subjects where you are obviously weak. All that does is invite ridicule, and make the community look bad.

Far better IMO is to reconcile what we know, with what we see happening, and ensure that the theories we put forth stand up to scrutiny. If they cannot, then they are simply not solid theories, and should be abandoned.

No theory that is so riddled with holes is going to be taken seriously... it strains the bounds of credulity.

Do I think NASA has some image data that they haven't posted yet? I'm CERTAIN of it. Do I know their motivation? Nope... but I'm also not ruling out that they might have an unsavory motive for doing so.

Do I think the Pancam is rigged for a "dual mission"? Almost certainly not... because I understand that capabilities of the tool, and understand how much easier and more effective that "dual mission" would be with a different payload.

If you start with legitimate questions (instead of poorly-directed ignorant attacks against useful tools), or simply ask questions about capabilities, and are willing to LEARN from what you are shown, you'll get no flack at all from me.

But when you try to pull a bait and switch after I've invested this much time in trying to clear things up, and you ignore the information that is presented and its implications... stand by to hear about it.

That's the crux of my objections in this thread... plain and simple. Not that ArchAngel is offering a conspiracy theory... it's that AA chose to not be HONEST about his agenda in the discussion, and instead tried to misplace the blame on the tool's capabilities without actually understanding the tool's capabilities, instead of where it belonged from the beginning: on the operators using the tool.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by BarryKearns]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

My criticism, as it is, is based almost ENTIRELY on the fact that ArchAngel pulled a "bait and switch" with his argument.


Is not the title in the form of a question? This invites examination which I wanted. It did not need to go on for so many pages, but direct yes-or-no questions were avoided. I hoped to quickly progress to this point. Bait-switch? Not hardly. Establishing firm ground for moving on, and bringing out examples for the psychology behind the conspiracy.


The fact that we DON'T see such a powerful package is "evidence" that they didn't engineer the mission to reliably allow for such a scenario.


Such a system would have drawn unwanted attention. Spartan life detection is needed, and this can be accomplished with the cam, and the system with minimal suspicion. This must all operate with most of the system open, and the results must be obtained. It is my opinion that this method of narrow focus missions are a perfect vehicle for continuing a long conspiracy.

_____________________________________

This is a project. I hunted for debunkers before I began, and I picked you two. You should be flattered. I passed over many other debunkers in favor of you. BB code, and format of ATS gave you an additional boost in the debunker ratings. You guys are tops in your 'field'.

This project will be epic. If you do not care to be part then do not let my text impose upon you any further. A story, a game, a grand conspiracy, ancient history, theology, multi layered dialectics, global eco-dynamics, terra-forming, past space missions, the mind of man, his past, and future along with the 249 pound dancing ping-pong ball are all part.

Think me crazy if you will but I believe that there is an ongoing conspiracy(based on the literal definition) whos goal is to build a new home for man that started long before any of us were born, and will not be finished until long after we are dead.

Debunkers are welcome to be a part, and needed, but please leave your insults, and dismissals behind as you enter. Do not hope to discourage me for I am more determined to finish than you are to stop me, and I have yet to find anyone who has greater endurance than I.

Think of this as a different kind of entertainment, a chance to learn about the true nature of conspiracies, and why they almost always work out for the conspirators in the end.

I'm not sure if I should continue in this thread, start another, or even move to a different forum. Think about it while I work on the next stage. I may not finish today so don't be upset if there is nothing new today.


When The Comet Ran

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois,
Du ciel viendra un gran Roy d'effrayeur.
Resusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois.
Avant apres Mars regner par bon heur.

The year 1999, seventh month
From the sky will come a great King of Terror.
To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols,
Before and after Mars to reign by good luck.

OR...

In the year 1999 and seven months
A great King of Terror will come from the sky.
He will bring back the great King Genghis Khan.
Before and after Mars rules happily.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

My criticism, as it is, is based almost ENTIRELY on the fact that ArchAngel pulled a "bait and switch" with his argument.


Is not the title in the form of a question? This invites examination which I wanted. It did not need to go on for so many pages, but direct yes-or-no questions were avoided. I hoped to quickly progress to this point. Bait-switch? Not hardly. Establishing firm ground for moving on, and bringing out examples for the psychology behind the conspiracy.

This is a project. I hunted for debunkers before I began, and I picked you two. You should be flattered. I passed over many other debunkers in favor of you. BB code, and format of ATS gave you an additional boost in the debunker ratings. You guys are tops in your 'field'.


So now, instead of recognizing that your initial arguments were pounded to dust, you're going to instead take the position that the whole thing was constructed as some kind of "puppet master" exercise using ATS members as the "players", or a "job interview" of some kind?

I think that you'll find that I can be a valuable resource for those who are interested in improving the quality of their theories, but I don't react well AT ALL to people who try to use me as a tool, instead of as an ally. You'll have to pay a pretty damned good salary if you want me to be a lab rat.



Debunkers are welcome to be a part, and needed, but please leave your insults, and dismissals behind as you enter. Do not hope to discourage me for I am more determined to finish than you are to stop me, and I have yet to find anyone who has greater endurance than I.

Think of this as a different kind of entertainment, a chance to learn about the true nature of conspiracies, and why they almost always work out for the conspirators in the end.


So you're using the ATS memberships as the main event in your puppet show, for entertainment purposes? Yeah, I'm sure that must be entertaining for SOMEONE...



I'm not sure if I should continue in this thread, start another, or even move to a different forum. Think about it while I work on the next stage. I may not finish today so don't be upset if there is nothing new today.


Upset? Don't flatter yourself.

For those who would like my help in improving their theories, I really only have a couple of guidelines for friendly interaction with me. They are guidelines that are useful to apply to interactions with anyone else here.

One, be up-front and honest about what you're trying to accomplish. If I'm uninterested, I'll let you know.

Two, treat me as an ally, not a tool. No one likes to be used.

Three, be willing to recognize when someone has uncovered a "hole" in your presentation, and be willing to either scrap the theory or revise it to take the new info into account. The best conspiracy theories are the ones that are consistent with 100% of the evidence out there. That's a valuable goal to strive for, IMO.

Of course, it helps if you understand the process of (formal) logical argument, but more important is the ability to recognize when your argument has been shown to be wrong, and learn from it.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Good response, Barry.

ArchAngel, Why dont you start a new thread on this New Home theory of yours.




posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
This is a good break to invite anyone looking for evidence of Mars Life,people,animals & fossils, to just check out threads using search "Mars Life" on ATS. I designed the Mars rovers 1987 and they found life on Mars 2004.Jerry Lehane III jpl123@inbox.com I have posted many pics in Feb 2008 of collections from 4 years of research with more on photobuckets.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
You did NOT design the rovers. Their design history is well documented and pre dates your claims. I demonstrated this in another thread, in which you suddenly disappeared once caught in false statements. Please, drop it and move on to something meaningful.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Show you proof of those statements.This should be educational. But wrong. Life on Mars,people,animals,fossils from Vikings(yes I wrote to Dr. Levin to encourage him to come out again and assert that they found Life in the 1970's)Pathfinder,S&OP are what I try to present.The Landers and rovers themselves didn't JUST find life,but the Mars life already in abundance visited them regularly like a tourist attraction. The large intelligent and highly evolved life on Mars can be seen unmasked in photos since the 1970's when Nasa was fully aware of its existence. We are lovingly kept in the DARK about life on Mars until hundreds of posters find many unexplainable findings,anomalies ,faint outlines of humanoid faces,and add your own category.
Naysayers wil try to discredit the people who work toward these practical goals. Negative contributions. Why bother covering up Life on Mars? What's the advantage or the point? Why delay the inevitable outflow of info? Why stonewall the truth?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Why take your medication? Skipping it is a good idea it seems, if you want to see space marmies with Rik. So are tin foil hats. They protect from space radiation.

There is a great deal of REAL science being done with the Mars missions and this uneducated nonsense of yours is a waste of time.

Martian soil is highly oxidising and for the most part, self sterilizing, (perhaps you should study chemistry a bit.) You cite one individual who claims that life was found previously, yet every other scientist who has examined the data disagrees. His notions are highly controversial and do not follow the evidence. If there is an abundance of life as you claim, then what is the biology behind it? What to they breathe? What do they eat? How do they survive the massive amounts of cosmic radiation without tin foil hats? The atmosphere on Mars is on an order of magnitude less than that of Earth and does not have enough oxygen to support the advanced life forms you claim. Explain these items please, in detail, using science, not grainy manipulated photos of rocks.

The Mars rovers, which you had nothing to do with designing, are giving us an unprecedented amount of new information on a regular basis. We have a much better knowledge base on soil conditions, weather, past surface water, chemistry, and climate than we have ever had before. REAL science shows us what conditions on Mars are currently, and other than your imagined snakes and human heads, this endeavor is being studied by scientific groups around the globe. The results of the missions are fascinating enough, and there is no need of your snake/humanoid skull nonsense. You do not even understand basic biology.


I was warned by other members not to bother educating and refuting a "loony." Instead of making incoherent statements, perhaps you could utilize some basic science to explain your astounding claims, Your grainy manipulated photos are useless. Explaining the science behind your claims would serve your cause better. Give up on claiming that you designed the rovers because it is a blatant falsehood, and ipso facto, makes all other claims by you invalid.

If you have no science to offer, then there is little point in having a discussion on the subject. Anyone can imagine rocks that look like something else. They are still rocks.
Stone canine



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
When you take your head out of the sand and look around at all the life on Mars you'll be amazed by the variety that doesn't exist in any ancient absurd writings from desert rubes who never knew about the dinosaurs.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
As expected, you fail to respond with any science, and only offer grainy manipulated photos of rocks. Yes ROCKS and nothing more.

There are tons of rocks on earth that look like all sorts of things and yet, they are still simply rocks. What about Biology. You have failed to indicate any reasonable logic on how these creatures you imagine, survive on Mars. What they eat and breath. How they withstand the massive deadly bombardment of cosmic radiation. And how a self sterilizing soil would support said life forms.

No, you stick to your wild imagination, and continue with delusional rantings.

This thread began with a clear ignorance of basic science. The OP spouted off endlessly about how the Rover cameras were set in such a manner that they could not see chlorophyll. Bollox. It was simply a clear demonstration if scientific ignorance and personal bias. Now this thread has degenerated to sheer nonsense. Yes folks, there are fairies on Mars and elves swimming in the seas under the surface. You can go to Mars but remember to wear your tinfoil hat and be careful not to step on the Sand Marmies.

There is no point in any continuation of discussion when fairy tales are the norm in this thread. When you get back on your medication and become rational, let me know.




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join