Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist

page: 21
102
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
.especially seeing as this thread is about Venus,



Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The LROC Image Browser appears to be down as I write this, but may come back later. Meantime, this great resource can be navigated by reading about how to do it at this link:


This thread as you pointed out is about Venus, not LROC which is a Moon mission




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
No problem:
Russian source -- same site, different localization

It doesn't add much of anything, though. It's far from a clear picture of anything, and I'm being told there is some serious wind blowing on Venus.


ummm that is the link to the Russian news media reporting it. We already had that on page one... what we want is the full scientific paper that Emily only posted a section of on her debunkers blog

But thanks anyway



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
So what's your point? Are you also going to post a photo of yourself with the caption "Uber Believer of EVERYTHING"?


You already have a picture of me in my avatar
and its well known what I support here

As to Phil... maybe this will illustrate my point

Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3)




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
You mean the digital noise? Even you must be disappointed with this "discovery."


I neither have the original images to look at nor the original report. Until I see those I am neither disappointed nor discouraged

I AM disappointed at the posts here though that can't seem to get past the lend cap not being a life form.

I did forget one thing though... I should have written the News agency before the Space Academy
Must be getting old



Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
2nd Edit: Oh dear, it's even worse than the lander debris.


Seriously dude... what did you expect using those low res images? Without the original series that he looked at it is pointless
edit on 25-1-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Hey I didn't read all the replies so sorry if its been said. I was very excited to see these pictures at first. But as I kept looking at them and realized what they are. I was looking at the pictures of the schematics of the craft and the camera lens idea works out. If you look at the picture of the ground its a shape much in the shape of an old stone bridge without the railings. But on the base of the arch are four protruding peg like objects evenly spaced that seem to fit into something. In one picture the top of the curve is pointed to the camera pegs facing out and to the right slightly blocking the view of the fourth peg. Another picture it seems as the curve is directly pointing into the dirt pegs fully facing the camera. If you look at the lander camera from a third point of view without the lens cap the inlet exactly matches the same shape. It made me extremely sad to come to this conclusion but look at the images yourself from the site on the first or second page.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Emily Lakdawalla and Phil Plait

Uber Debunkers of EVERYTHING
All that is missing in the photo is Jim O


Oberg doesn't do pictures. I think I've seen 2 photos of him in the last 17 years.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
If you look real close, in the distance, I think I can make out a Toyota Landcruiser.... Looks like there's also a Mitsubishi Pajero/Shogun catching up..



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan


Oberg doesn't do pictures. I think I've seen 2 photos of him in the last 17 years.


I saw him on some TV show a couple of years ago. Might have been one of those NatGeo "Is it Real?" shows, but I'm not sure.


Originally posted by zorgon

You already have a picture of me in my avatar
and its well known what I support here

As to Phil... maybe this will illustrate my point

Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3)


You're a LARP nerd AND hard-core, steam shovels-on-the-moon grade conspiracy theorist? Where do you find the time?!!



JK. I'll have to watch it later - firewall blocks youtube. That Emily looks like a charmer, though.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan
Oberg doesn't do pictures. I think I've seen 2 photos of him in the last 17 years.


Found it.



I used to read his byline in OMNI magazine back in the late 70's/early 80's. The subject seemed a lot more fun and interesting back then.
edit on 25-1-2012 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Here are some pictures from the article. Note, I am presenting what the author claims, you can decide for yourselves.

1. The changing disc:



The semicircular area marked by "a" at the 32 min mark, gets progressively more features. By the 93 min mark, "chevrons" are visible, marked by "b". By the 119 mark it may have reburied itself?

2. The black rag:



At the 0-13 min mark, something black is hanging off the conical measuring hammer at the end of the arm. It subsequently disappears.

3. The scorpion:



When the probe landed, it apparently kicked up dirt and dust and covered the scorpion (according to the author). It presumably crawls out so that by the 93 minute mark it is visible. It is gone by the 119 minute mark. Did it scurry off or rebury itself?

Close up of the scorpion:



Source: www.sci-news.com...

The impression I get from the little I've read of the article is that the landing was hard and disturbed the ground around the probe. The author claims that this disturbance caused the local inhabitants to scurry about before going back underground.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


When I look a these "time series" pictures, I do observe that many if not all objects in the frame (rocks, part of the craft, etc) look different as time passes. This can be due to many factors, including various camera and data transition artifacts, changing lighting conditions, possibly dust moved by the wind etc.

Again, the main point here is that everything is somewhat changing in appearance, not just some single bit of the image. And that means that I wouldn't interpret some pixellated blur as a "scorpion" or any other such thing.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Scorpions and rag-creatures? I dunno. Seems like a huge leap of logic based on grainy, questionable photographic "evidence". The most amazing thing for me is the fact that the Russians were successful at landing a probe on Venus and receiving back photographic data in the first place, not just once, but multiple times.

Not saying some sort of thermophilic alternative life forms couldn't exist there, just don't see proof of it from the photos.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Hasn't the obvious conclusion that this high profile, sensationalist story was well timed to remind people that the Russians have actually carried out some incredible space exploration missions successfully in light of the recent Phobos Grunt boo-boo occurred to anyone else?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


on the vid 5m12-5m19 sec it looks more like 2 objects coming from a tunnel.
2nd



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
deleted, source was satire

edit on 25-1-2012 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel


You may be right. Putin made some remarks about this "discovery" that reminded me of the cold war space race:


I'm surprised photos of him standing [shirtless] on the Venusian surface haven't yet appeared in the Russian press.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 



So you are quoting the source that is also announcing:

HEIDI KLUM DATING BAT BOY

Great.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Irrelevant satire from source, post removed
edit on 25-1-2012 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Another angle:

NASA Debunks Life on Venus Claim
14:26 25/01/2012 // en.rian.ru...
NASA has dismissed the sensational claim by a Russian scientist that there is life on Venus, saying that the “disc” seen moving on the surface was in fact a lens cap.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



NASA has dismissed the sensational claim by a Russian scientist that there is life on Venus, saying that the “disc” seen moving on the surface was in fact a lens cap.


Remember, you read it here first, folks.






top topics



 
102
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join