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.

 

Secret Colonies on Mars

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
(...) our solar system. It is 6.1 billion years old, (...)

That's in contradiction with the most generally accepted values. Where is that coming from? Any substantiating information?



(...) and its inner sun, which all planets have or had, is burned out. So, the
inside is cold, dark and wet. The surface appears to be desolate, sandy and windy.

its? what, the solar system, or mars, or what else? In all cases this does make no sense.



However, Mars is changing, and it
has been changing for the last 30 years.

How so, changing?



The Andromedans say that Mars is getting closer to the sun every three
years, and the 200 mile-an-hour storms are becoming less and less frequent.

Well, if it is getting closer every three years, it must be getting closer all of the time! Unless it is getting closer by X kilometers every three years. Then, how much closer is it getting closer per three year? Or per year?...

I won't even bother commenting the rest of the text... How on earth can this be given any kind of credibility? There is absolutely not the slightest evidence of anything here above!




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


OK, you won, I watched the video.


As I said, what made me want to avoid the video was the lack of knowledge about the rovers and Mars, the content of the video, being mostly photos from NASA, is the same that has been know for years (or months or days, according the age of the photos), but I will try to say what I find about the video itself.

1 - The site is from someone called Holger Isenberg.

2 - The photos are never true colour, only approximate true colour, there is no way of knowing how things really look on Mars without being there

3 - The names of the images have much more information than just what filters were used.

In the case of image 1P272976400ESF90LFP2353L5M1, for example, the name has these meanings:
1 = Opportunity
P = PANCAM
272976400 = number of seconds since January 1, 2000 at 11:58:55.816 UTC
ESF = Sub-frame EDR (EDR means Experimental Data Records)
90 = Site number
LF = Drive number
P2353 = Command sequence number (in this case a Pancam sequence)
L = Left camera
5 = 530nm filter
M = Product producer (in this case MIPL (OPGS) at JPL)
1 = Product version number

4 - I said before that I do not agree with the method of creating the images, and that is because the filters were chosen to make approximate true colour images using the L4, L5 and L6 filters, but not with that method, just by joining each channel in an image.

That was how I made this colour image.



The problem with using the 3 images from the 3 filters is that all photos are taken in the best way, and that makes some images darker or brighter than the components they should show, because taking a photo with a blue filter, for example, optimises the photo for what can be seen with the blue filter, but a photo with all filters optimises the image for the whole spectrum, and in that case the blue channel may be brighter or darker than the blue only image (I hope you understand what I mean, I think I made it more complicated than I should).

Using that information (the radiometric data), they adjust the images, and making the colour image with the adjusted images gives the common, reddish, NASA look.



I prefer (without anything scientific to back it up
) to use the corrected images but without the radiometric correction data, it gives better looking images, in my highly subjective opinion.



5 - The "greenish coloured ground" is not dry algae, it's the common "blueberries".

6 - NASA did not "screwed with data about how the surface looks like", once more, the data is available for anyone to look at, we just have to know where to look, this image appears in some NASA pages.


7 - Dry dust can be bellow the freezing point without being frozen solid, only water on the ground makes it hard, a cold, dry, ground would behave as a warmer dry ground.

8 - I don't understand what is the purpose of showing Earth and Mars with a note about the length of the day. The fact that it shows the Earth and Mars with the same size may be misleading (I Finally found something misleading
), the Earth is bigger than Mars.

I hope this was informative enough.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasagaSure, the ground might be reddish, there's some red areas here on earth as well, but you're not gonna tell me that the sky is red as well, which is actually pictured in a LOT of NASA's fotos.



Earth... Iraq... Middle of a sand storm...



Dust storm covering all of Mars... (happens a lot up there) TRUE COLOR HUBBLE IMAGE



Vesicular Basalt var. Scoria lying on Martian soil Spirit Sol 732 on a clear sunny day



Vesicular Basalt var. Scoria Specimen in my collection from Nevada



When the skies on Mars are dusty from REDDISH iron oxide laden soil... you will see red skies...

When it is clear and sunny you will see blue skies... even though three university professors that I wrote claim that since blue skies on Earth are created by scattering of light due to the NITROGEN content... that since Mars has mainly a CO2 atmosphere... that the TRUE color of the Martian sky should be neither Red nor Blue, but BLACK

End of color story




[edit on 8-9-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
When it is clear and sunny you will see blue skies... even though three university professors that I wrote claim that since blue skies on Earth are created by scattering of light due to the NITROGEN content... that since Mars has mainly a CO2 atmosphere... that the TRUE color of the Martian sky should be neither Red nor Blue, but BLACK
Then that may mean that:
- Mars has more Nitrogen than supposed
- there is something else making the sky blue on Earth
- other things besides Nitrogen can make the sky blue, and that is what makes the Mars sky light blue



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPThen that may mean that:
- Mars has more Nitrogen than supposed
- there is something else making the sky blue on Earth
- other things besides Nitrogen can make the sky blue, and that is what makes the Mars sky light blue


Yes intriguing isn't it? The possibility that they are not giving us the straight facts?



What REALLY interests me is the LIGHT BLUE aspect.... out here in the high dessert... say 11,000 feet at Bryce Canyon... the sky is a dark blue because of the altitude



If the air on Mars is as thin as they claim it SHOULD be darker...




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you. That other people don't know as much as you doesn't mean you need to keep the rest ignorant


[edit on 9-9-2008 by vasaga]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I'm afraid I've never read so much rubbish in my life- it reads like a bad sci-fi plot. However, lets deal with the nonsense one bit at a time. I shall need to do this in two parts I think:


Originally posted by Reevster
Mankind has been fascinated with Mars ever since time began. The
story of Mars that has been shared with me by the Andromedans is both compelling and quite fascinating.


Actually, mankind has been fascinated with all of the five brightest planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars Jupiter and Saturn. Early mankind was fascinated by their unusual motions through the heavens. There is no evidence to show that Mars was more important- indeed Martian apparitions are not equally favourable.

Unlike Venus, Jupiter and Saturn, Mars is not particularly well placed for most of the year. In general Mars is only observable for once every two years- when Mars is at opposition and at the furthest point in it's orbit, it may be no brighter than a 1st magnitude star.

When the early telescopes were turned to the sky, MArs was so small and uninteresting that it was virtually ignored! We had to wait until the late 18th and 19th century when better optics and large telescopes revealed any detail. Realistically, Venus, Jupiter Saturn adn the moon have always had the limelight!

Who on Earth are Andromedians? Presumably some latest alien spieces from a recent conspiracy theory- it's interesting they would call themself after a man made- man named constellation...


Originally posted by Reevster

Unlike some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the moon of Earth and the planet Venus, Mars actually originated in
our solar system.

What evidence is there to show that this is true? What evidence shows that Venus, the Moon and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn come from elsewhere?


Originally posted by Reevster
It is 6.1 billion years old, and its inner sun, which all planets have or had, is burned out. So, the
inside is cold, dark and wet. The surface appears to be desolate, sandy and windy. However, Mars is changing, and it
has been changing for the last 30 years.


This is so unbelivably bad it makes the flat earth society look tame. First the date- Geological evidence points to the Matrian surface being at least 4.6 billion years old.

Inner sun? Is this child speak for planet core? The core of Mars is partially molten, and magnetised rocks on the surface show that Mars had a magnetic field at some point in the past. It is certainly not cold and wet!!!!

The reason it is barren is because Mars has lost it's atmosphere- there are probably two mean reasons for this. First Mars is quite small, so it's gravitational field did not stop the atmosphere escaping over time. Secondly, with no magetic field, energtic particles from the sun have striped away the atmosphere. The surface of MArs is always changing- dust storms can blow up and cirlce the planet changing features on the surface.


Originally posted by Reevster
The Andromedans say that Mars is getting closer to the sun every three
years, and the 200 mile-an-hour storms are becoming less and less frequent. Every year, the polar caps are showing
more and more of a change of seasons.

Oh dear, the Andromedians grasp of Celestial mechnics seems to be somewhat lacking! If this was true, the apprent size of MArs would be getting larger in telescopes. Not only that, but the planet's season would show signs of getting warmer- for example the polar ice caps would melt and not reform to the same size- THIS has NOT happened. I followed Mars with my telescope during the last apparition- there was no sign of it getting closer to the sun and moreover the polar caps showed exactly the same change as they have done more or less for the past 150 years or so. So this is completely wrong!




[edit on 9-9-2008 by timelike]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster

Mars has a part very similar to that of Earth. It has a history of repeated colonization and life. According to Moraney,
Mars was the first planet in our solar system to explored and colonized. When civilizations were coming to our solar
system, they stopped first at Mars. Mars at one time had an ocean and an atmosphere. It was also in a different orbit
than it is now.

The first lot of this is pure sci-fi, however, if Mars was in a different orbit, why is it no longer?


Originally posted by Reevster
Alpha Draconis, Ursa Major and Minor,
Lyrae, the Pleiadies, Zeta Reticuli and Sirius.


Ah yes, the favourite chosen stars...

As for the rest of it, well it seems completely fabricated with no basis in reality. In short, more conspiracy theory tripe! Although I am very skeptical about UFOs, the fact remains that it is still an interesting subject worthy of study, and the idea of finding alien life is a wonderful. Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense does quite a bit of harm to the subject.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike So this is completely wrong!


Your right... your absolutely wrong


But thanks for sharing your theory with us



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike
In short, more conspiracy theory tripe!


Please read sign on door... this is a conspiracy site... one expects to find conspiracy here




Although I am very skeptical about UFOs, the fact remains that it is still an interesting subject worthy of study, and the idea of finding alien life is a wonderful.Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense does quite a bit of harm to the subject.


Well then please share with us YOUR research on UFO's and Aliens... Please show us what you consider 'proper' investigation. Its easy to shoot other people down, but lets see you back your convictions with hard facts...


Oh you don't actually research? Hmmm why am I not surprised?




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Please read sign on door... this is a conspiracy site... one expects to find conspiracy here



Actually, I thought this was a place for discussion of unusual phenomena, but your quite right, these days it has been turned into a consipracy theorests free for all. A shame really because you used to be able to have a good debate on here...


Originally posted by zorgon
Well then please share with us YOUR research on UFO's and Aliens...

There would be a little difficult, there is quite a lot of it which I have done for various organizations.


Originally posted by zorgon
Please show us what you consider 'proper' investigation.

I don't think it would appeal to your sensationalist behaviour, however if you are unaware then I'm happy to tell you. A proper investigation uses objective thinking and rational thought to investigate some particular phenomena. It's best not to start with the idea that you have to conclude with aliens always being the cause. You see there is a little matter of something called evidence, this usually points one into supporting an end conclusion.

If there is evidence (say some alien artefact clearly manufactured by an intelligence elsewhere) of ETs then I would be happy to conclude that, and if it could be shown without much doubt that the Andromedeans are (a) real, and (b) there claims are real then I will be happy to agree with the conclusions. Until the arrival of that happy time, I am unconvinced.


Originally posted by zorgon
Its easy to shoot other people down, but lets see you back your convictions with hard facts...


Yes it is. Especially when such ludicrous claims are made without any proof at all.


Originally posted by zorgon
Oh you don't actually research? Hmmm why am I not surprised?

Actually I'm a research Theoretical Physicst here in the UK. I've investigated many UFO sightings for a number of different organizations.

It seems quite clear that your posts that it is unlikely that you have conducted any serious investigations yourself, or ever indulged in a little rational thought. If you took a look at the real world you might not find it such a frightening place you know.

Perhaps you should try to master thinkining inside the box before you have a go at outside the box? Just a thought


[edit on 9-9-2008 by timelike]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike I've investigated many UFO sightings for a number of different organizations.


AH! Well then... linking me to just ONE example of your work should not be too difficult, now should it?
I mean you claim that you want to see better more realistic material presented here then I would think rather than belittling others attempts (no matter how outrageous they may seem) would it not serve truth more to lead by example?

I have seen many come and go here waving degrees in our faces, yet never once 'put up the goods"



It seems quite clear that your posts that it is unlikely that you have conducted any serious investigations yourself, or ever indulged in a little rational thought.


Well then... that just proves the 'value' of a PhD



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Science actually denies certain stuff. You know what science does? It tells how things work. Not what the primary cause is for something. So they look only at the material stuff, and actually say that consciousness or any intangible thing is not important in the matter (except quantum physics mayB).So when they don't have an answer for the primary cause, in the end they don't look at it anymore or ignore it, or throw it away. Look at gravity for instance. They have tons of equations to describe it, but they still don't exactly know what causes it. Or maybe they know, but they don't wanna say it. Anyway, Same with particles. They say they're there, and they predict what they do, but they do not really look at why they behave in that way and what causes matter in the first place.

Now we come to crop circles. Some of them are fake, some of them are authentic, which include a different magnetic field in the area of the crop circle. They haven't looked further, because they can not explain it in a way which is completely material, or excludes things like a higher being or consciousness or God or aliens whatever you want to call them/it. It's actually funny how every single science actually came from philosophy, but philosophy is laughed at today.....



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Vasaga, it strikes me you have some serious misunderstanding here...


Originally posted by vasaga
Science actually denies certain stuff.


Science denies nothing. It's just that you can't come up with whatever hypothesis you like and have no evidence to support it. Science can only explain what can be studdied and evidence and data collected from it.


Originally posted by vasaga
You know what science does? It tells how things work. Not what the primary cause is for something. So they look only at the material stuff, and actually say that consciousness or any intangible thing is not important in the matter (except quantum physics mayB).

No no no, you've got it all backwards. Science does not just tell us how things work, it is our best attempts to model the physical world.

It's fascinating how often the phrase "science doesn't know everything" is uttered by certain types of people. Well that is true, science doesn't know everything- but it doesn't know nothing! It knows enough quantum mechanics to to have invented the semi conductor and allow us to have this conversation via the internet, yes? To be able to perform the most daring surgery and obtain cures for terrible diseases and so on.

Your rather trivial attitude to science has come about because it is so successful today. You see, not many people have to understand it for the rest to benifit from it's rich rewards.


Originally posted by vasaga
So when they don't have an answer for the primary cause, in the end they don't look at it anymore or ignore it, or throw it away.


Rubbish, I don't know of a single scientist today who is not concerned with the big questions like what is conciousness, why did life start, or of anyone who would throw away an interesting result because we don't have a theory for it. I'm guessing you're not familiar with the stirling work of Roger Penrose?


Originally posted by vasaga
Look at gravity for instance. They have tons of equations to describe it, but they still don't exactly know what causes it. Or maybe they know, but they don't wanna say it.


Right, so we have all the secrets of gravity, but we don't want to say- yes, we have to battle for every penny in research grants, and the one thing that could gauruntee us unlimited funding perhaps- a complete theory of Quantum Gravity- we keep under our hats. Well that makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

In actual fact, I think you'll find General relativity provides a very good description of what gravity is. It tells us that gravity is not a force at all, but simply a local curvature of the Universe caused by the presence of matter. General Relativity has given us the global positioning satellite, so perhaps it's not doing to bad eh?

Incidentally, there are not tons of equations for describing it, there is but one- the Einstien Field Equation.


Originally posted by vasaga
Anyway, Same with particles. They say they're there, and they predict what they do, but they do not really look at why they behave in that way and what causes matter in the first place.


Your lack of understanding of even rudamentary physics is simply astonishing, and it compells me to ask, what have you contributed to mankind? You see, you discuss all of these misunderstood ideas of yours and how science is bad at this bad at that- what have you got to replace it? What is your theory of gravity or your replacement for the Standard Model of Particle Physics?

Juding by this little statement, I presume you are completely unfamiliar with the Particle Accelerator at Cern? This is built entirely to look at the way particles behave to see if it agrees with the Standard Model of Particle Physics- i.e. what causes matter to exist in the first place. Why not do a little reading into these things?


Originally posted by vasaga
...some cropcircles are authentic...

Authentic in what way?




Originally posted by vasaga
They haven't looked further, because they can not explain it in a way which is completely material, or excludes things like a higher being or consciousness or God or aliens whatever you want to call them/it.


Ah yes, the coup de grace. This all goes back to the foundations of phillosophy. It's your argument, your hypothesis, you prove it! Einstien did not say to his mates in the pub- "I think gravity's probably caused by a curvature of spacetime- will you chaps go and investigate it for me?"

We do not exclude the existence of anything- and as for things being completely material- what about dark matter or warm inflation theories? No one excludes the idea of aliens or higher conciousness, these are marvellous concepts, but some of us don't need them to exist at all costs in order to get on and do things. However, if you've embarked on a serious investigation then I'm sure we would all love to see your results.


Originally posted by vasaga
It's actually funny how every single science actually came from philosophy, but philosophy is laughed at today.....


I don't know of a single scientist who would laugh at Phillosophy, given your attitutde towards science and it's methods, maybe it is you who is laughing at phillosophy?




[edit on 10-9-2008 by timelike]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

AH! Well then... linking me to just ONE example of your work should not be too difficult, now should it?


I'm not linking you with anything I've done. I just note that you fall into the category of very easily pleased.


Originally posted by zorgon
I mean you claim that you want to see better more realistic material presented here then I would think rather than belittling others attempts (no matter how outrageous they may seem) would it not serve truth more to lead by example?


It would, unfortunately, I have yet to see a convincing example, except perhaps for the Lonnie Zamora case, or the Kelly Farmhouse incident, I found those to be most mysterious...


Originally posted by zorgon
I have seen many come and go here waving degrees in our faces, yet never once 'put up the goods"


Ah, that is just as I suspected. Perhaps your inability to have a rational objective discussion, and your hostile approach to anything that questions your belief system, put them all off? What a shame, a few people with enquiring minds came here looking to be open minded, only to find a hard believer who doesn't want his belief system challeneged? What 'goods' should they put up I ask? It is after all, you making these wonderous claims, shouldn't it be you providing the 'goods'?

You see it's a certain sort of mindset this belive my hypothesis no matter what. One which did very well during the With hunts in New England...


Originally posted by zorgon
Well then... that just proves the 'value' of a PhD


Right, so you have no value of critical thinking or research methods? Yes that would explain quite a few things. Once we abandon those skills, we are free to see faires ar the bottom of ther garden, and evil spirits and demons in the night.

So, to some up from this reply, it is clear you believe that profesional thinking people should not investigate the UFO field or if they do they should provide the'goods', and therefore all people that do give time to the subject must be necessarily be stupid? Well, that's just as closed minded as saying that there is no way UFOs could ever be alien spacecraft isn't it?



[edit on 10-9-2008 by timelike]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
timelike - congratulations!! - that was very well put. Stupidity is lurking in the dark to regain the power as to be stupid is the easiest way of life. I wish I would have such patience with alike people as you had with him.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by sci-fan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Reevster
 





Unlike some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the moon of Earth and the planet Venus, Mars actually originated in our solar system. It is 6.1 billion years old, and its inner sun, which all planets have or had, is burned out.


So what they have is the technology to move a planet, a third of the Earth in size and mass, from one galaxy to another, across the vast gulf of space, and actually put it into a stable orbit, but not the tech to turn its boiler back on?
AND to do this with not just Mars, but Venus and the moon?
I think the Andromedans were pulling someones leg

Can I prove it one way or the other? I can't be arsed!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join