Footprint found on Mars?

reply to post by broli


Agreed.

If NASA supposedly has guys spend thier days altering photos before the are released to the public, why would they release this if it was indeed thought to be a footprint?

Was it NASA who initialy claimed it was a footprint, or was it another orgnisation/news network/website?

I think the alien life thing will be kept secret for many a year to come yet.

Maybe they'll say the footprint is Bin Laden's.....that would get the fear factor up a again!

CX.

Originally posted by sty
the mark on the ground is just a natural occurence, but indeed it looks funny. Why would a naked man walk on Mars anyway ?

Right! But looks like this Martian guy had just one foot! Where's the other one? Or do Martians have just one big foot? (pun unintended!) And who says he was naked? The fella must've lost his shoe scooting from one of them Martian dust devils!

[edit on 2-6-2008 by mikesingh]

why are all the pictures they are showing us all black and white?

Do you think Richar C. Hoagland will have a field day with this?

Originally posted by Matthew5012
why are all the pictures they are showing us all black and white?

i asked the same thing, although the "footprint" seems to be the bigger mystery to people around here. lol the fact that the pics are all in black and white draws up more questions in my mind than one lone "footprint" that only slightly resembles a footprint.

Here is a picture of the underside of the scoop. I don't see how that could have made that particular "toe" mark though....but I tell you one thing, It's not a footprint...lol

Underside of phoenix scoop

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by Matthew5012
why are all the pictures they are showing us all black and white?

i asked the same thing, although the "footprint" seems to be the bigger mystery to people around here. lol the fact that the pics are all in black and white draws up more questions in my mind than one lone "footprint" that only slightly resembles a footprint.

They can take color pictures, but most are in black in white for a very good reason. To take a color hi res picture, you need to use more power from the lander, store more date, and then take more time to transfer that data to earth....all 3 of those things (power, storage, and transfer time) are very limited with a lander whos only power source are two relatively small solar panels. They try to save every bit of energy they can to keep the mission going, so black and white pics are used for the most part.

Oh those science nerds!! Who says they have no sense of humor?? They must have gone to great lengths to make a scoop that would leave 'footprints'!!


Well, if they really want us to believe that the scoop makes that sort of an impression, they better be able to make some more that are very similar!

( I'm betting they will obscure this one if they can't make more matching ones......besides, I would have expected it to take at least a couple of scoops in the same spot to get to any subsurface ice anyway!)

All that said, it does look more like a depression than a 'footprint shaped rock' laying on the surface.

Originally posted by CX
Great pic.

I'm inclined to think rock though until i see a few more of these, or at least the other print to the pair.

CX.

I agree, its a four toed rock.

reply to post by sensfan


Thanks for that mate, it makes good sence! although spirit and opportunity used to send them back in colour all the time??

i agree that on first glance, the explanation of black and white pics make sense, but then, yes, i am questioning it still for the same reasons as the above poster.

However, if you invert the picture, cut it in half, rejoin it, fold it into 19.5 and 33 folds and then stare at it inainely you can see the outline of the twin towers.

And if you believe that you may aswell believe the other hogwash about NASA and 9/11. I mean, the government would never lie to us.




[edit on 2-6-2008 by mOOmOO]

It's obviously not a footprint because there's no prints leading away.

Face it guys, there's no sign of life on Mars.

Here's a closed colorized a bit again to give it more "earth tones":


Here's the scoop for those who are too lazy to click on sensfan's link:

The mark was made by the scoop testing the measuring instruments on the lander. They wanted to find out if the surface was where the sensors said it was. The scoop does not work like a backhoe arm so making and indentation like that may be easy or a tired / excited programmers joke. They probably had months of practice into that first touch of the surface and plenty of tine to play. As long as the unit passed calibration they probably didn't care what the mark looked like. Besides if it was a footprint it would have been covered by the engine landing blast. As they say CASE CLOSED.

mikell

What NASA doesn't want you to see..



au.youtube.com...

reply to post by CX


agreed with every point you've made already

Since this is gov ops, they can & will do whatever they want. It's THEY'RE money.. right? We the people, give them the money to do with it as THEY will.

With that being said, riddle me this......IF everyone says, there's no intelligent beings in the universe..........THEN WHY KEEP SPENDING THE MONEY?? !!! WHY? Shut it down and stop kicking the dead horse!!!

Something else I just realized. First, There's Indiana Jones 'alien' movie, Second, we get a 'vid' of a possible Alien, 2 days later.. we get this 'footprint' from so called .. Mars.. Now, if you REALLY want a CT, follow THAT rabbit hole ALL the way down to the money pit... aka NASA!!!

There's no way for any of us to know if NASA really has anything on the planet unless every single one of us GO there ourselves!! NASA can't take color pics of Mars but they could on other missions to the moon.. WHATEVER! we've had the technology for years ..

Ether way, we've been duped~!!!!!! However, I'm still sticking to my personal experience I had in 1978 which has NEVER been debunked yet.



[edit on 04/02/2008 by Komodo]

[edit on 04/02/2008 by Komodo]

[edit on 04/02/2008 by Komodo]

If it was an inprint, wouln't it be more darker on the inside of the print than outside due to shadows?

[edit on 2-6-2008 by freeradical]

For all of you interested in the camera questions; almost all of the cameras used by NASA are black and white only because color digital imagers have more noise in the data. For Spirit and Opportunity to take one hi-res color picture they have to take an average of four separate pictures through three color filters and a clear filter for luminosity which are then stacked to form a near true color image; it is just like astrophotos with shorter exposure times. The one problem that was a big deal on Viking, which used a similar processing method, is that without a calibration target like the ones on spirit and opportunity you can get the exposure times wrong through each filter and make all of the pictures have a poor color balance. Also most of the pictures taken so far are through the low-res maneuvering camera on the robotic arm. This camera is designed to aid in placing the sample collection scoop in the desired places and getting close up shots of near by objects. The camera with hi-res capabilities and filter wheels is on a mast on top and can not get pictures under the lander. See Image

If it was in fact a real footprint, where is the other one?