It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by Exuberant1
What you see in the last photo you posted is the "Gamma-ray spectrometer boom", it can also be seen in this image:
Originally posted by jkrog08
Now either it is an image artifact or you have a non-photoshopped (airbrushed by NASA) version. The first seems more plausible, but who knows. There is no conclusive proof either way. Below you can see another picture of the exact same area, but note the object is missing.
Yep! But how big are they? Considering it is in the lab, they could not be more than a couple of inches at the most. What we're seeing on Mars is hundreds of feet in diameter!
An average bolt of positive lightning carries a current of up to 300 kA (kiloamperes) and has a potential difference up to 1 gigavolt (one billion volts). For an electric discharge to have produced those huge features on Mars, it would have to be in the range of trillions of volts!! Possible? I don't think so!
Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by coolterm
Have a quick look at this image from NASA. It's from the Moon. PIA01680. There are clearly boulder tracks that have been formed as they fell and split on their way down the steep incline...
If the tracks can be created by boulders there, they can be created by boulders anywhere...
Originally posted by ArMaP
The McDaniel Report has become obsolete, not only because of the apparent change in attitude but also because of the new data gathered since then.
(unless I have read the wrong McDaniel Report )
Originally posted by wdavidb
reply to post by DaMod
Any information put forward by a scientist making reference to billions of years should not be taken too seriously.
The very issue of light years and the aging of the universe etc. is based on pure fantasy, as no such years exist or can be shown to exist.
At best it is a smoke and mirrors trick.
From 1963 - 2007, Gravity Probe B has been funded and sponsored by NASA. The total funding amount over this 44-year period has been approximately $750 million.
From January - September 2008, GP-B was funded in equal $500,000 shares ($1.5 milliion total) by a private donor, Stanford University and NASA.
Beginning in October 2008, a different funding agency committed $2.7 million to support completion of the data analysis and conclusion of the program, now anticipated at the end of 2009.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Do you believe that the McDaniel report had an influence on the noted "change of attitude" that occurred after it was published?
Also, new data is always being gathered. It is the extent to which that data is released that is of far more import to myself and others - not the fact that NASA is always gathering new data. NASA often gathers data but does not release it, or refuses to release in its entirety.
Gravity Probe B was a Prime example of this.
NASA did not release the entirety of the data from that mission, which was already paid for by the American taxpayer. They said they had their reasons reasons, but they still should have released the already bought-and paid-for data.
*Then there is Clementine; A Navy project.
The images that were initially made available to the public were of such low quality as to be laughable. The Navy eventually came around and released better quality images - though they were still only comprised of 10 percent of the actual image data...also paid for by the American Taxpayer.
Zorgon covers the matter in detail here:
Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite
Originally posted by Phage
No, you can't download it. There's just too much of it there. But for those who have a real interest in the data rather than just making claims that it's not available there are ways of getting it.