Mars. The Red Planet, Not?

Here is a video I came across a while ago initially which I didnt think much of. Re-watching the video now with an open mind seems to raise some intriguing questions.

This isn't a new video but its an overlooked one nonetheless;


The pictures are taken from the Mars Rover/ Hubble. The one who posted the video on youtube is most likely the one who edited the pictures released by NASA "back to it's originality".

Pictures come from marsrover.nasa.gov... and hubblesite.org....

What I found interesting is the Rover looks alot more like the Rover when the pictures are "reverted". What you guys think?

It`s amazing, the amount of crystal clear photo`s they have of Mars and yet we still can`t get any good photo`s of the moon and it`s on our doorstep.
Wonder why?
I mean surely we have the technology to take photo`s from a few miles above the lunar surface.
Look at Google earth. I can see my car!
Yet they cant show us the dark side of the moon....or can they?

Yes. Most people who understand digital imaging understand that false color images can be produced which provide pretty much any colors you wish.

The images from the Mars rovers are received as grayscaled images taken through various filters. Each of those grayscale images is assigned a color and when 3 (or more) of them are combined a color image is obtained. The trouble is that some of the filters used do not use visible light, but infrared light. Since the human eye cannot see infrared light a color is (somewhat arbitrarily) assigned to that filter.

There are not, and cannot be, any "true color" images from the rovers. Just because someone has "turned up" the blue more than NASA tends to do does not mean it is a more accurate representation of what the surface of Mars would look like if you were standing there. The Martian atmosphere is different from the atmosphere of Earth. It is full of fine dust, carried very high, for one thing. No one really knows what it would look like.

Frankly, I don't understand the whole controversy about false color images.

BTW, have you ever looked at Mars? You don't even need a telescope to see that it's called the red planet for a reason. Even the Greeks knew it was red...blood red. That's why they named it after their god of war.

I can almost guarauntee that the govt has pictures and videos of things we wouldnt believe, as for the moon, I believe there are bases on the moon, and i Believe they were already there as jfk said we will put a man on the moon.

reply to post by lambros56

There is no "dark side of the Moon". There is a face which is never seen from Earth but it gets just as much sunlight as the side which is.

Yes, there are plenty of high resolution images of the Moon. Some at better than .5 meters per pixel.
lroc.sese.asu.edu...

You understand that the images on Google Earth in which you can see your car come from airplanes, right?

reply to post by lambros56


Once again, the need for clarity (pun!)

It`s amazing, the amount of crystal clear photo`s they have of Mars and yet we still can`t get any good photo`s of the moon and it`s on our doorstep.

250,000 miles is our "doorstep"??

Actually, we have thousands of good photos of the Moon. Check Apollo archives....I'd link, but this thread isn't about the Moon, so go look yourself.

In any case after Apollo there was no need to send yet MORE unmanned probes to take MORE photos...of the dirt and regolith. Not much else could be learned by mere photos, in the case of the Moon...

MARS, on the otherhand? Not so easy to get there with manned missions yet . NOR with unmanned soil and rock sample return missions. Sure, they'd be possible, but impractically EXPENSIVE, compared to the photographs, and the remote controlled rovers too.

I mean surely we have the technology to take photo`s from a few miles above the lunar surface.

What's a "few miles" to you? Again, why bother?? (see above).

As to a "few miles"...you do understand orbital mechanics, right?? It is not possible to "orbit" a spacecraft below a certain height above the terrain, or planet's surface. Even on the airless Moon. Look it up. (Depends on mass of planet, and its gravity...OH, and lower and closer to the ground the orbiting vehicle is, the FASTER it has to move to STAY in orbit...relative to the ground. Hard to get good photos that way, anyhow...)

But, here's the major reason to respond, and compare, and clarify:

Look at Google earth. I can see my car!

This is such a common fallacy, and misconception about GE....they use airplanes to take those extreme close-up pictures!!! You don't honestly think that the DoD lets Google have access to their top-secret satellite imaging capabilities, do you?

AND, one last dragon to slay...

Yet they cant show us the dark side of the moon....or can they?

The Moon rotates on its axis. Just as Mars does. Just as Earth does. Difference is, Mars and Earth spin at almost the same rate. One "sol" on Mars is jsut a few minutes longer than an Earth 'day'. (37 minutes and 22.663 seconds, to be precise. On average. Earth's "24 hours" is an average, too...).

SO, since Moon rotates, there is NO "dark side". It is called the "far side", usually. And, no...from where we sit, we can't sit the far side. BUT, YOU can in photographs.

JUST as you CAN see many, many, many photos of Mars too. Taken by satellite (we don't have airplanes with cameras there, and no people to fly them, so you won't see your car...nor Marvin the Martian's car either).

We DO have those neato Rovers, with camera, will travel!! So enjoy what we can see, until more missions achieve more results.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by lambros56

 

There is no "dark side of the Moon". There is a face which is never seen from Earth but it gets just as much sunlight as the side which is.

Yes, there are plenty of high resolution images of the Moon. Some at better than .5 meters per pixel.
lroc.sese.asu.edu...

You understand that the images on Google Earth in which you can see your car come from airplanes, right?

Really? How do you know?

reply to post by reesie45

Really? How do you know?

Because I told him. I like to share, that way.

I just got back from Mars...had to go visit the base there (shhh...it's top-secret, so don't tell anyone else) and pick up a few supplies.

Oh, one task ( I pulled the short straw ;( ) --- I got sent out to dust off the lenses o the Rovers...dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. Tricky staying out of the shots..hope I did allright...

Anyway, on the trip back, detoured to the Moon, found a new night spot (nights last two weeks!! Wow, what a party!)

Of course, good thing there was a party, 'cause otherwise the place was dead.



Best restaurant used to be there....got good reviews for the food, but closed after business dropped off because it was so boring...no atmosphere.

OK, folks, I'm here all week...tip your waitress!!!

reply to post by reesie45

I'm not sure what you're asking but I'll guess it's about the Google Earth images. (Please tell me you're not asking about the "dark side of the Moon.") I guess people don't know that they include aerial photography.

Notice that the imagery has a blotchy appearance. While it is true that most of GE's imagery is captured by satellites owned by such companies as DigitalGlobe , Spot Image , and more recently GeoEye , a good percentage is aerial photography taken by planes flying a various altitudes.

bbs.keyhole.com...

Just discovered that there has been an update to aerial and satellite photos in Google Maps. So far, I have determined there is new photography for many areas in California and Texas (Now also areas found in NH, CT, NC, GA, NY, FL, WA, OR, entire state of Montana, Coastline of Maine, the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Canada).

www.gearthblog.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by reesie45

 

I'm not sure what you're asking but I'll guess it's about the Google Earth images. (Please tell me you're not asking about the "dark side of the Moon.") I guess people don't know that they include aerial photography.

Notice that the imagery has a blotchy appearance. While it is true that most of GE's imagery is captured by satellites owned by such companies as DigitalGlobe , Spot Image , and more recently GeoEye , a good percentage is aerial photography taken by planes flying a various altitudes.

bbs.keyhole.com...

Just discovered that there has been an update to aerial and satellite photos in Google Maps. So far, I have determined there is new photography for many areas in California and Texas (Now also areas found in NH, CT, NC, GA, NY, FL, WA, OR, entire state of Montana, Coastline of Maine, the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Canada).

www.gearthblog.com...

hahaha No im asking about the images from google earth because i am a big fan of it. Thanks!

reply to post by Phage

I`m sorry but i dont accept that they`re the best pictures they can get.
Photo`s of Mars are still better than the ones of the Moon and i find that strange.

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by Phage

 

I`m sorry but i dont accept that they`re the best pictures they can get.
Photo`s of Mars are still better than the ones of the Moon and i find that strange.

really? you think it is strange that photos taken from the sixties and seventies are not as good as photos taken today? interesting

reply to post by lambros56

If you're talking about the orbital images from Mars (rather than the rover images) you're wrong. The resolution is about the same. The smallest objects which can be seen in HIRISE images are about .5 meters across, the same as from LROC.

Maybe it seems like higher resolution to you because of the colors. The terrain of Mars is also much more interesting that most of that on the Moon.

reply to post by Phage


Phage no planet can be really red, unless theres a huge sandstorm
a planet can be like venus but not really red, its no suripse you support NASA illusion that mars is a red planet.


I can still see some two disfo info agents right here on this topic, attacking people for there own opinions, i think your going a bit to far with your little game.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

Originally posted by FermiFlux
This isn't a new video but its an overlooked one nonetheless;

I think it's not overlooked enough.

Seriously, I don't trust anyone that is supposedly showing Mars photos and mixes:

1 - what looks like a photo from Earth
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/aa724a1905713fcf.jpg[/atsimg]
(those dunes do not look like Mars dunes, the tracks are not Rover tracks and the Sun is much bigger than what can be seen from Mars)

2 - one photo that shows Mars and Earth
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/d78332c0deaccf0f.jpg[/atsimg]
(I think that image shows a comparison between a dust storm on Mars and one on the Earth, over the Canary Islands)

3 - and one computer generated image of Earth
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/eef79321a87c97be.jpg[/atsimg]
(original image here)

besides using one Mars photo five times
(this version appears at 1:51, 3:08, 4:08 and 5:38)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/dc5ae17654b53686.jpg[/atsimg]
(this version appears at 8:18)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/628f62b2d9f98e5e.jpg[/atsimg]

And making the Hubble photos blue is a ridiculous thing, any amateur astronomer (which I am not, unfortunately ) will tell you that Mars doesn't look blue.

The pictures are taken from the Mars Rover/ Hubble.

I think I saw several Viking photos in the video, but I don't have the time now to try to identify them.

What I found interesting is the Rover looks alot more like the Rover when the pictures are "reverted". What you guys think?

No, the Rovers look blue with that "treatment".

The funny thing is that he/she can get the original photos and create colour versions without changing any colours like that. What he/she is doing is faking his/her version of the photos.

Trust me, it's easy to use the original NASA photos and, without doing any stupid colour changes that make everything blue, get a perfectly natural looking photo, I have done that many times.

Ok hold the phone here.
first off, what program was used in color correcting these photos?
normal run of the mill programs are used based on the lighting of earth.
that and just think, that looks like it would be on earth, remember mars has no atmosphere, thats another thing that must be taken into perspective along with so many others. you cant jump to conclusions without first applying it to science. i have no scientific data to support my reasoning but just use your common sense (one thing alot of you people dont seem to do)
second of all, the government lying to us about something like that?
dont get me wrong i think they cover and hide and try to hide ALOT!!! but this?
come on people.
Im not saying this is debunked but, just its just a thought. theres gotta be an aposer in not every situsation but very very many.

reply to post by The Drunken Cow


Mars does have an atmosphere, but much thinner than the Earth's atmosphere.

Originally posted by The Drunken Cow
, remember mars has no atmosphere, thats another thing that must be taken into perspective along with so many others. you cant jump to conclusions without first applying it to science.

i have no scientific data to support my reasoning

WHAT?

o wait you made your point... "i have no scientific data to support my reasoning".

of course you don't, mars does have an atmosphere, look it up.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Phage

 

Phage no planet can be really red, unless theres a huge sandstorm

a planet can be like venus but not really red, its no suripse you support NASA illusion that mars is a red planet.


I can still see some two disfo info agents right here on this topic, attacking people for there own opinions, i think your going a bit to far with your little game.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

reply to post by monguzi

Who said photo`s of the sixties and seventies?
I said todays technology.
I like your signature.