Something growing on Mars

I think I may be missing something here.

StellarX, you spoke of 'political consequences'. As I understand them, political consequences are things like riots, revolutions, the fall of governments or, at the very least, the destruction of the careers of leading statesmen. Surely you aren't saying that the discovery of life on another planet is thought so likely to lead to such outcomes that it has to be suppressed?

To me, Lunarminer seems to be saying the same thing too, citing for evidence a half-century-old document called the Brookings Report. Plus the possibility that some leading scientists and bureaucrats might lose their jobs or their reputations.

Surely you guys don't mean that? I mean, that's ridiculous, completely bananas. There must be something more you're hinting at here. What am I not getting?

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Phage
If it weren't for the fine dust carried throughout the Martian atmosphere, the sky on Mars would be a dark blue due to Raleigh scattering.

If the Martian atmosphere were to be completely cleansed of dust, the daytime sky would appear blue, just as our own sky, because of Rayleigh scattering by the molecules (primarily carbon dioxide molecules) which make up the atmosphere. Pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope in the early 1990s suggested that the Martian atmosphere had much less dust loading than in the Viking years. So perhaps the Martian sky was closer to blue than in the Viking years(or perhaps the Hubble Space Telescope was inaccurate on this matter until repairs were completed in February 1997). However, Mars Pathfinder pictures in 1997 showed essentially the same sky color and dust loading as the Viking landers in 1976.

calspace.ucsd.edu...

It would appear the same as on Earth for the very same reason.

But because of that dust the Martian sky is a butterscotch color. Earth's atmosphere does not have the dust content that dry, dry Mars does.

It's largely odd colors because the MSM paints a red picture and NASA has done nothing to correct the agenda's of others. When you read NASA press you can see that they know exactly how to come up with true color images and that the 'art' ( science according to science) is apparently understood by Europeans as well.

Levin, a physicist now at Lockheed Martin in Phoenix, knew exactly how to tell if something was amiss. Two years earlier he had written a paper titled “Solving the Color-Calibration Problem of Martian Lander Images.” Like earlier Mars landers, each rover carries a color-calibration target—a set of primary-color squares used as a reference for its cameras. If the settings are correct the, squares seen through the rover’s cameras look about the same as matching squares on Earth. Levin tracked down Mars images that included a view of the colored squares, and what he saw confirmed his fears: “When the color-calibration target is in the same scene as the Martian surface and sky, it looks completely different. The blue panel is red. It’s as if NASA color-coded blue to be red, and green as a mustard-brown color.” The results dramatically transform Mars from an ocher planet to a red one.

The myth of a red Mars should have died in 1998, when the Pathfinder imaging team finished analyzing 17,050 images from the mission. The researchers conclusively showed that the predominant colors of Mars are yellowish brown, with only subtle variations. Subsequent “true color” images of Mars from Hubble duly show a yellow-brown planet. More recently, images from the European Space Agency’s Mars Express orbiter in January and February of 2004 present Mars as a world awash in browns, blues, golds, even olives—hence Ron Levin’s surprise and dismay at seeing the garish old red Mars resurface in the cutting-edge pictures from Spirit and Opportunity

mars.spherix.com...

I mean who REALLY buys into the notion( once you think about it ) that we send rockets to other planets but can not build camera's that can yield us the , perhaps not scientifically useful as so commonly claimed, 'true color' standing-on-mars images the lay public could actually appreciate and draw conclusions from?

Using the calibration target on each rover, scientists have a good knowledge of how to adjust colors according to the circumstances found by the rover cameras on Mars. Scientists saved half of the material for the silicon colored chips on the calibration targets, so they can make comparisons and accurately measure how the rings and chips on Earth are reflecting light on

Before sending cameras to Mars, the team took more than 100,000 pictures in a vacuum chamber on Earth that simulates martian conditions. They experimented with different levels of light entering the lens, depending on the angle of sun or amount of dust in the air. They then fine-tuned the cameras to respond correctly to temperature changes or anything else that might cause the instrument to vary.

"It's crazy how many pictures we took with the Pancam on Earth, but those images were essential to finding the answers on Mars," Jim recounted. Using a "calibration target" with green, red, blue, and yellow silicon swatches and rings of varying shades of gray, the team monitored how those colors changed under different lighting and environmental conditions in the laboratory.

Each rover carries its own calibration target, and is regularly instructed to take pictures of it. With their earth-bound experience, scientists have a good knowledge of how to adjust colors according to the circumstances found by the rover cameras on Mars. They know how much sunlight the three rings of gray, black, and white reflect on the calibration target in the different filters. They also saved half of the material for the silicon colored chips on the calibration targets, so they can make comparisons and accurately measure how the rings and chips are reflecting light on Mars.

marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Not widely understood or discussed, and NASA doesn't correct these false views, facts amongst the lay educated public that believes themselves oh so well informed.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX

Yeah, the link to the sky color article doesn't work anymore. I paraphrased from memory. I would have liked to quote and link it.

The rovers can't provide true color images because they aren't designed to. The filters they use are limited to very narrow sections of the visible spectrum so no matter how they are processed they end up being "false color". You can make the color wheel look right but there are still a lot of missing wavelengths.


[edit on 3/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
The rovers can't provide true color images because they aren't designed to. You can make the color wheel look right but there are still a lot of missing wavelengths.

Okay, and based on this logic Phage, what exactly do you deduce the true color(or approximation) of Mars to be?..Even with the missing wavelengths, chances are that the sky there isn't red.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think I may be missing something here.

Or i might be wrong about a whole heap of things....

StellarX, you spoke of 'political consequences'. As I understand them, political consequences are things like riots, revolutions, the fall of governments or,

Hardly. Perhaps 'poltical' was a bad choice of words as the governments of the west seems to be largely bit players in a epic tragedy they do their best to create. According to the bookings report the things you mention will supposedly happen but in my view it isn't the direct consequences to any government of the day but the mostly subconscious alteration of humanity's perception of a larger universe. I believe such revelations will be so subversive that the whole consumerist capitalist dogma might start to unravel. I don't expect these these things to happen in a year or two or even ten but since that is not the short time frame these organizations plan along that does not matter. As with science in general breakthroughs that affects the basic economic control mechanisms are fought at every step while weapons are rather more frequently adapted to employ the best knowledge we can muster.

at the very least, the destruction of the careers of leading statesmen. Surely you aren't saying that the discovery of life on another planet is thought so likely to lead to such outcomes that it has to be suppressed?

Yes, saying that it will have political repercussions was clearly a mistake on my part. I don't believe statesmen will lose their jobs or even many top scientist their positions; their previous beliefs will as is the case in the science establishment suddenly become impossible to track down their previous objections as if life on Mars was clearly always obvious to everyone.

To me, Lunarminer seems to be saying the same thing too, citing for evidence a half-century-old document called the Brookings Report. Plus the possibility that some leading scientists and bureaucrats might lose their jobs or their reputations.

Even that may have been overstated on my part. These institutions are so deeply penetrated/controlled that they can really destroy internal dissent whether it be before the truth comes out or after the fact when someone wishes to point fingers at those that held back the field for decades by their denials and misrepresentations. There are numerous fields and instances of this so perhaps i'm just dreaming when i hope that some careers are ended before they can do further damage.

Surely you guys don't mean that? I mean, that's ridiculous, completely bananas. There must be something more you're hinting at here. What am I not getting?

Well i am hinting at many other more far reaching consequences of a open NASA admission ( that they found in 1976) of life on Mars but that is probably a discussion for another thread. What i will say is that i believe there are people in these positions that know , and knew long before we had the technological means to know, about the artificial nature of many structures on Mars and perhaps about their and our origins.

Stellar

Originally posted by Phage

Yeah, the link to the sky color article doesn't work anymore. I paraphrased from memory. I would have liked to quote and link it.

It doesn't take THAT much time to defend what you say with actual sources.

The rovers can't provide true color images because they aren't designed to.

This is not true as the sources i supplied not long ago should show. Here is some additional data to show that there is nothing 'impossible' about 'true color' ( horrible term, but there you go) images:

Two views of a sundial called the MarsDial can be seen in this image taken on Mars by the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's panoramic camera. These calibration instruments, positioned on the solar panels of both Spirit and the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity, are tools for both scientists and educators. Scientists use the sundial to adjust the rovers' panoramic cameras, while students participating in NASA's Red Rover Goes to Mars program will monitor the dial to track time on Mars. Students worldwide will also have the opportunity to build their own Earth sundial and compare it to that on Mars.

The left image was captured near martian noon when the Sun was very high in the sky. The right image was acquired later in the afternoon when the Sun was lower in sky, casting longer shadows. The colored blocks in the corners of the sundial are used to fine-tune the panoramic camera's sense of color. Shadows cast on the sundial help scientists adjust the brightness of images.

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

So far, however, the images produced are only approximate martian colors. That's because many of the pictures are taken with set of camera filters that include near-infrared or ultraviolet wavelengths, which our eyes do not perceive. Overall, there are 14 "geology" filters (two additional camera filters were designed exclusively to observe the sun). Scientists find these geology filters extremely useful because they provide maximum contrast for analyzing some of the most interesting geological features at the landing site.

"We almost never choose to take the images in natural color, because that's not as helpful to us scientifically," said Eric. "However, we're able to approximate what humans might see because Jim's team lived and breathed with this camera for many years, experimenting to get the colors in the camera models just right."

marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Most of the red Mars images resulted from using filters out of the range of human vision. Even recent rover panoramas and close-ups labeled “approximate true color” are made with infrared filters standing in for red. Olivier de Goursac, an imaging technician on the Viking Lander mission, argues that the glut of phony colors is easily avoidable. “NASA’s rovers have the capability for true-color imaging with the left camera eye, but they simply choose to use the L2 filter [infrared] as their red and the L7 filter [near-ultraviolet] for their blue,” he says. “They do this because they want to maximize the data stream by sending back to Earth images that can be readily used for stereo imaging with the widest possible range in the spectrum.”

discovermagazine.com...:int=1&-C=

They know how to get true color and that's why the very first picture back from the martian surface were of a distinct blue sky; the chances of that being a coincidence is remote to say the least. According to some insiders Nasa technicians where then ordered to adjust their screens manually until the pancam could be 'fixed' to flect a 'truer' representation of Mars. Since then we have had plenty of blue color photo's but the MSM has consistently chosen to show us red skies no matter what NASA did.

The filters they use are limited to very narrow sections of the visible spectrum so no matter how they are processed they end up being "false color".

That's not even what they claim. There do not HAVE to use the geology filters at all times and they most certainly do not have to combine the data of such filters to come up with 'aproximate' views of Mars that are completely unrepresentative.

You can make the color wheel look right but there are still a lot of missing wavelengths.

That was the intent of the sun dial color wheel. How else are they supposed to do geology work when they have no accurate means to determine the color of a thing? How would you identify minerals by means of camera's when your colors are so inaccurate? It's shear fancy to suggest that they took 100 000 pictures and did every test they could think of to come up with accurate means of measurements only to still prove unable to tell how the martian atmosphere would appear to a human being standing on it's surface.

I don't know why that's so hard to understand from even a scientific point of view.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

It doesn't take THAT much time to defend what you say with actual sources.

I try to avoid non-working links. I get a 404 error when I click yours and a google search for the text yields me no results.


There are 6 filters which use visible wavelengths, all on the left camera.
L3 = 673nm (16nm bandpass) "Deep Red"
L4 = 601nm (17nm bandpass) "Red", actually more like orange
L5 = 535nm (20nm bandpass) "Green", yellowy
L6 = 482nm (30nm bandpass) "Blue"
L7 = 432nm (32nm Short-pass) "UV/Blue"
L8 = 440nm (20nm) Not used for landscape imaging
marsrover.nasa.gov...
www.giangrandi.ch...

So, even if all of the filters are utilized a total bandwidth of 115nm is obtained. The visible spectrum covers about 370nm (380nm-750nm). 68% of the spectrum is not recorded. Using various formulas, those 115nm (but all of the filters are seldom used at once) can produce an approximation but those missing colors cannot be recovered so there cannot be a true, full band, color image. Just like with photoshop (though a bit more complex), the sky can be made to look blue, or red, or green. Because some images show the sky blue, it does not mean it is.

For geology purposes, they don't care about the "color", they care about the wavelength. That is why the filters have such a narrow bandpass, so very narrow ranges of wavelengths can be seen. The wavelengths selected were done so with specific observations in mind. The geologists don't use the "true color" composites as much as they use the individual images.

I don't even know why we're talking about this. The color of the sky has nothing to do with the presence of life on Mars and the images from the rovers have nothing to do with the image of the OP.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Phage]

It is a group of hybrid gypsie/carney rocks. They just left West Virginia and went home. That is a Mars trailer park.....

Honestly looks like rocks to me.

Originally posted by lunarminer
On the subject of the sky color on Mars. From what I have seen, the photos that we see from Mars are red saturated. When they are balanced for natural sunlight, the sky is in fact blue.

It depends on what photos we see.

The easiest way of "making" colour images from the Rovers' photos is by using the photos from filters L4, L5 and L6 as the source for Red, Green and Blue. Those images are the most common on sites that say that the sky on Mars is blue and that NASA hides the true colours, and I have posted some of those images, like this one.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df04e98c0b47.jpg[/atsimg](click for full size)

But NASA has ways of knowing how to correct the images so they show exactly how things looked like (to compensate for the fact that what we see above, for example, is a composite of three different photos for each channel, each of those photos taken in optimal settings for each wavelength, something that would not happen with a real colour photo, when the settings are automatically selected for the whole spectrum), because they have the targets on the Rovers and they know exactly the characteristics of the cameras.

The (radiometrically) corrected images, when used to create a RGB composite, produce images with a reddish tint, but not that different from photos taken on Earth during a sand storm.

It's getting too late for me here in Portugal (02:05 AM), so I will post the photos tomorrow, unless some mod tells me is off-topic.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks for posting that pic. When you look at that pic and others with an RGB composition, you start to see that the true color image of Mars shows us a world that is much more like our own than we have been led to believe.

When I look at the pics of the color targets on the landers, I notice that the blue portion looks green, the red is very red, the yellow is also red, and the white area is pink. We are told that the reason is the red dust in the air, yet when the RGB level is adjusted to match yellow sunlight, the pictures look normal. Mars recieves the very same sunlight that the Earth receives, and so it becomes obvious that the photos are red saturated.

I am old enough to remember the first color pictures from the Viking landers. When they were released to the press, they showed a blue sky, brown dirt, reddish rocks. The press was expecting everything to be red, after all Mars is the red planet. Shortly after that, all the pics showed a pink sky, red dirt, redder rocks. NASA is first and foremost a PR organization, whose funds come from public support. They simply changed the data to match the presses expectation.

That is my opinion and it sure seems to fit. There have been several instances where photos from Mars have shown the blue sky, and each time when it was brought to the attention of the public, another version of the photo was released with a pink or orange sky.

To my eye the color balanced photos reveal more details. This is to be expected if the "official" photos are indeed red saturated. When you subvert a particular color, then you lose detail.

reply to post by Astyanax


Hey, we may need to start a new thread on all of this. Maybe we should.

The reason that I brought up the Brookings Institute report was that it was commissioned by NASA back at the beginning of the organization. It shocked the heck out of the NASA administrators when it was revealed that contact with alien intelligence would probably result in the extinction of our species, and at the very least the complete collapse of our major institutions. You may question the relevance of a report that is 50 years old and you may think that our society can handle the idea of alien intelligence. You may very well be correct. The problem is that NASA chose to follow a path at that time and they are now stuck with their decision.

I think that NASA continues to withhold information about Mars because a full disclosure would raise questions about the Mariner, Viking, and Pathfinder missions. The answers to these questions could shake the public's confidence in NASA altogether.

Take the issue of the sky color as an instance. Viking carried stereoscopic color cameras to Mars. To come out and admit that NASA has withheld the color information would force them to admit that they had this information for the past 30 years.

This raises the additional question of what else is there that was withheld? This then leads to the question of the face on Mars, the pyramids, water, life, etc.

When the layers are peeled back and the full truth is told, then the confidence in the data for Venus, the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, is shaken. Then the question comes up about Apollo, Gemini, Mercury. Then the question of UFO's comes up. In the end, the entire reputation of NASA could be destroyed. Even if the damage is limited, there is still damage done.

All of this because of a 50 year old report that shook up the NASA bigwigs and started them on a policy of withholding sensitive information about alien life. So NASA is stuck with controlled releases of small bits of information and they can try to transition from the old policy to a more open position. They have to do this slowly, so that it does not look like they have made a sudden reversal in their statements.

Sure they know that there are people who pay attention and who remember what was said a year ago, 5 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. The press though has a short memory and they often fail to do their homework. Small incremental releases don't make the front pages.

Originally posted by Phage
Yeah, the link to the sky color article doesn't work anymore. I paraphrased from memory. I would have liked to quote and link it.

Well according to Lockheed Martin...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f382dc382e58.png[/atsimg]

Now that gives us this for the color of the Martian sky

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ac8872ac6e1.png[/atsimg]

And since the blue is created by Raleigh scattering with the same wavelength from the same sun... why would it NOT be blue?

Evaluation Report by Lockheed Martin
mars.spherix.com...

Using the Lockheed parameters a piece of Vesicular Basalt on Mars taken by Spirit...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9f355b19cf1.jpg[/atsimg]

And here is the same material from Nevada... I put it on an appropriate color backdrop

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec6e972d8720.jpg[/atsimg]

So I am 99.9999% sure my colors on Mars are true....

StellaX and lunarminer, thank you very much. I think I understand your positions now. I certainly don't agree with you, but that's another matter.

reply to post by zorgon

I'm not sure what you think you're showing with the reflectivity chart. It pretty much just shows what color the chips on the sundial are. It is interesting though that all of the chips (blue in particular) are a lot more reflective in the infrared band than in visible light. I suppose that was by design.

The "evaluation report" from Lockheed is a paper by Ron Levin. It says that true color images cannot be obtained and instead of trying to jump though hoops to by correcting for Martian lighting conditions the values used on Earth should be used. It should be noted that Ron Levin is the guy who reported that blue puddles of water had been found on Mars. We know where that went. It turned out that the puddles were hanging on the side of a steep slope (they weren't puddles). www.newscientist.com...

Look at the color of the soil in the pictures with the blue sky. Is it anything like the color of the soil that the basalt specimen is sitting on? You say the color of the rock matches your earthly sample so it must be the right color. If that's the case, shouldn't the color of the soil match the color of the soil and rocks in the blue sky images? Or maybe Mars is covered in turquoise.

You're right though, if it weren't for the dust. The sky would be blue.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Guys! at the end of the day there so many anomolies on Mars that you can poke a stick that its not funny? and Nasa will not explore or come to the party/funding to explore the more interesting areas .

Thats not including shadow effects etc on rocks, and the odd beer can? lol.

All in all we have one muther of a planet that has a history?




[edit on 11-3-2009 by Bob Down Under]

Originally posted by Phage
You're right though, if it weren't for the dust. The sky would be blue.

I didn't mean to open up a can a blue/pink/butterscotch worms.

If the sky were free from dust it would be blue, but for the most part the martian atmosphere is not free from it. From further looking at various websites it looks as if Mars, like Earth, has a sky that changes color based on the angle of the Sun coming through (Time of Day) and the amount of particles in the sky. If you were to take a picture at sunset on Earth would you conclude the Sky was reddish all the time?

Everybody here makes good points, the most probable answer is yes, Mars sky would be bluish if not for the amount of dust in the air. Certain regions of Mars that don't get as many sandstorms would probably have a bluer sky than regions that do get such sandstorms.

One thing I do note is that the ultraviolet filter really messes with the blue and green tones more so that the other colors. I am sure the filters are adding to the confusion rather than helping get a "true color" picture.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by pavil]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by pavil]

Originally posted by Phage

Or maybe Mars is covered in turquoise.

Now THAT would be kewl

I already want a few buckets of those round Hematite "Blueberries" and snoop around those 'fossil' sites I found... Martian turquoise... now THAT would be awesome... I mean its lying around in the Nevada desert so why not?

You're right though, if it weren't for the dust. The sky would be blue.

While the dust storms of Barsoom are indeed something to contend with... we all know that it is not dusty EVERY DAY.

We also know that due to the reddish color of the soil that the soil is MOST LIKELY heavy with iron oxides. Considering the atmosphere is supposedly thin and contains little water vapor... how long do you suppose dust would stay suspended in such an atmosphere?

Even here in the desert with all the high winds, dust storms and dust devils we get in out thick water laden atmosphere... we still have mostly crystal clear skies (until the LA smog blows in )

Hubble Clear day vs Global Dust Storm

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f23034a8fa5.jpg[/atsimg]


Now on Earth when we have a dust storm we too get those love NASA RED skies...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/be14324de337.jpg[/atsimg]
Courtesy U.S. Air Force

This one is 4000-5000 feet high....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55fc3ed285ed.jpg[/atsimg]
Courtesy U.S. Air Force

More here...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

And yet on a NORMAL day... Iraqi skies are just as deep blue as they are here in the High Desert... and just as clear when the dust settles

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/403faf7fe307.jpg[/atsimg]



So can you please explain to me the logic that says the Martian Skies are always full of suspended dust?

A comparison of a Martian dust storm with one on Earth from the Sahara Desert

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e91687bc6e8.jpg[/atsimg]




.,.



[edit on 11-3-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Global dust storms. Mars is a strange place.

A few reasons for the Martian atmosphere to stay dusty;

1. It isn't just the dust storms that carry dust into the air. Dust devils are extremely common and do their share.
   
2. It rains on Earth. So far we haven't seen that happen on Mars and if it does it must be a very rare occurrence. Yes, there are dry areas on Earth too but that dust from the Sahara gets caught by rain clouds somewhere, eventually.
   
3. The dust of Mars is not like the dust of Earth.
   

   
   "Airborne dust on Mars is about as fine as cigarette smoke,"

   
   science.nasa.gov...
   

These fine grains reflect 20% to 25% of the sunlight that hits them; that's why the clouds look bright. (For comparison, the reflectivity of typical martian terrain is 10% to 15%.)

The dust is fine but not fine enough to produce Raleigh scattering. Highly reflective dust overrides the Raleigh effect.

More about the dust of Mars:
www.astrobio.net...

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]

Here are the three possible (that I know) versions of Rover's photos.

First, the "normal" version, the one that can be made by using the photos available on NASA's Rovers site.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/884fed737154.png[/atsimg]

As I said before, the problem with these photos (besides having always a high contrast, it looks like NASA applies the same contrast to all photos they put on that site), the three components were taken with the best settings, so this is a composite of a photo that shows the best reds, one that shows the best greens and one that shows the best blues, and that is not the same as a photo that was taken with the best settings for all the visible light. Unfortunately we cannot have photos like that from the rovers.

The second version is the radiometrically corrected version.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23a067f97e5.png[/atsimg]

These photos compensate the automatic adjustments of the camera, and show a photo that is (supposedly) the closest to a "real" colour photo we can get from the rovers.

The third version is the least seen, and is made with the radiometrically corrected images but without using the correction values.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd14521752c3.png[/atsimg]

These are not as "scientifically correct" as the previous photos but they look better.

Where did the growth come from? Is it possible that bacteria/organisms can survive traveling from one planet to another? Could simple life forms from earth have been sent out into space from an impact and possibly reach Mars?