Mars isn't Red/Life On Mars

Nasa has been lieing to us for over 30 years about Mars being "The Red Planet". Mars happens to be just like our planet. IT IS INHABITABLE!

Nasa uses color correction on all of their images from the rovers to make it look like the sky is red and is not fit to support life. When indeed proof of life has been indeed found on Mars. Spread the word Mars isn't red and I believe myself that the planets inhabitaints lives beneath the surface to avoid something like the gusev crater from ever happening. Dispite what NASA says about the gusev crater being a lake It is believed that an explosion of a spacecraft over head or a meteor hit the planet. Scientists have found out that there is Methane on Mars, ifvyou didn't already know methane from Earth comes from humans and animals. Also The reason NASA is hiding the fact that the sky on Mars is blue could be because when you have a blue sky it means you have oxygen and nitrogen on the planet (Elements for supporting life).

rapidshare.de...

I will post Comparison picures ASAP.

A blue sky isn't a sign of life. It's just light refracting in the atmosphere. Due to dust storms on Mars tossing dust into the sky, it tends to affect the colour. The sky colour on Mars is more of a butterscotch yellow/brown and more pinkish durring sunrise/sunset. If the atmosphere on Mars was completely cleansed of dust, it would indeed appear blue. And probably a dark blue since the atmosphere is thin, about the equivilant of Earths atmosphere at around 80,000 feet. I'm sure there are periods on Mars when a lot of the dust settles, that it may appear more of a greenish yellow or greenish blue colour, although this is only speculation on my part.

Methane can also come from other sources, it's not limited to just life forms. All possibilities are being considered by NASA and other scientific groups, even life forms, but no one can say for sure just yet.

If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

Originally posted by Edn
If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

Its possibly one of the escaped 99 Red Balloons

oh wait, I am thinking weather balloons and UFOs, or something like that...

Imo, Mars is Indigo with black pinstripe spots

My browser security won't even let me open that site. I checked the McAfee Site Advisor and it is not a site anyone should open. If you do make sure you have a very aggresive Fire Wall and scan all files before alowing them to download. If you have been on that site you should run a virus scan and check for data miners. I kid you not. I've only seen this on two sites in the last year.

I don't even need to see the photos. I've seen them before. You are looking at false color images. Confidence people use them to trick the uninformed. You should do some reading about the Mars images and how they are created. You will be better informed and more able to glean the wheat from the chaff.

IS THE MARTIAN SKY IS RED?

A NASA statement from two years ago - "It's very hard to get the color right on Mars, images." Utter non-sense! All the spacecraft sent to Mars over the past 30 years have color calibration charts in one form or another, and have even included the American Flag. They have been caught not consistently using the charts. Blue color squares on some of the images are found to be red. So who is tampering with the color and why?

Because it's psychological: since the early days of astronomy the planet has appeared red as viewed from earth in a telescope.

Viewed from the moon, our earth appears like a "big, blue marble" as one astronaut described it. Are rocks and dirt on earth BLUE because the sky is blue? Of course not. NASA conveniently forgets this "minor detail" and INSISTS that their images remain reddish - regardless of the negative impact good science. The book covers this in detail shows proof of color tampering. (Source: www.rense.com...)

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Anonus]

Source:rapidshare.de...

Originally posted by Edn
If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

Doesn't look red to me.

/y35ufa

It wasn't NASA that named Mars 'the Red Planet'. That name is about as old as mankind itself.

And do you know why?

Go out tonight, look up into the sky, find Mars and discover for yourself why it is known as 'the Red Planet'.

If you don't know where to find Mars in the sky, Stellarium will help you.

I trust you're now feeling suitably foolish. Don't worry -- it's good for you.

Hang on a minute, I agree with Edn. What's that red coloured planet in the sky that I can see through my telescope as well???
I'm pretty sure it's whatisname, thingy.... oh yes, Mars!

Originally posted by Anonus

Originally posted by Edn
If Mars isn't red then explain to me what that Red coloured planet is that I always see through my telescope?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Edn]

Doesn't look red to me.

/y35ufa

he's not arguing the color of the soil of mars, he's arguing the color of the sky. we can't see the sky on mars from earth. mars is covered in iron oxide - rust - a reddish-brown hue. however, the sky could very well be blue. what NASA is allegedly altering is the SKY of mars, making the martian sky look red and inhospitable to life, when in fact, it's probably blue. i think the thin atmosphere of mars is a lie. where's the proof? look at spirit and opportunity. they were engineered to last a few months and have lasted years. why? probably because the "harsh environment of mars" is not a harsh environment after all, and the "facts" of mars is nothing but fabrication.

I thought this had already been debunked. It has something to do with the available light on Mars, combined with the type of lenses being used on the camera or something. I can't quite remember.

I do believe there's life on Mars, I've known it since I heard 'Ziggy Stardust'. In this case however, I don't think this evidence proves anything

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I thought this had already been debunked. It has something to do with the available light on Mars, combined with the type of lenses being used on the camera or something. I can't quite remember.

I do believe there's life on Mars, I've known it since I heard 'Ziggy Stardust'. In this case however, I don't think this evidence proves anything

it's not meant to prove that there is life. it's meant to show that NASA may be covering something up. why would they cover something up so foolishly?

i hate the term "debunking". these people that "debunk" things have never been to mars. they have no idea if the pictures are airbrushed or not. do you think NASA would just airbrush with no explanation? no way! they have these debunking theories already ready, that way when someone notices, they already have an explanation why. "debunking" is all theoretical and fictional and i HATE it when it's applied as fact.

See this thread.

And do not forget that each person has a different colour perception, where you see a clear blue I may see a greenish blue, for example.

The sky on Mars is blue. And there are people on Mars including us.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I thought this had already been debunked. It has something to do with the available light on Mars, combined with the type of lenses being used on the camera or something. I can't quite remember.

You are correct. The cameras used on probes are not RGB cameras, meaning they don't take images in the standard, red, green and blue. This is why there are no true colour pics of Mars. Only approximately true colour and false colour images.

Anonus: You should realy take a look at this thread. It explains in detail how it all works. www.atsnn.com...

this thread.

I am a bit busy at this time and while Kano's arguments are confusing and not convincing i still feel the urge to tell people not to waste their time with the nonsense he considers research.

Here is a good start that exposes the truth of this matter in easy to understand detail.

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

www.discover.com...

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.”

www.discover.com...

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...

The first color image (12A006/001) of the surface of Mars was taken July 21, 1976, at the Viking 1 site, one day after the landing. Immediately displayed on color monitors at JPL, as seen in Figure 1a, the landscape awed observers with its resemblance to that of Arizona. Typical desert colorations of soil and rock, ranging from umber sand to yellowish-brown and olivine-colored rocks stood out clearly under a blue sky. Two hours later, however, the official image was changed to the monotone of orange-red (NASA P-17164), Figure 1b, that, with few exceptions, has prevailed in NASA-published images of Mars ever since, as presented by Mutch et al.[1]. However, a spectral analysis of color images of the Viking 1 site reported[2] a broader palate. The paper made the first, and perhaps only, reported use of JPL’s Image Processing Laboratory to analyze digitally the red, green and blue color channels of the images taken by the Viking 1 lander camera. In addition to studying the color images, their RGB components were transformed into saturation, hue and intensity components to enhance subtle deviations. When these components were equally amplified to produce an equal average sensitivity over the spectral bandpass, the resulting “radiometric” (closest possible approach in appearance to a human observer) images very closely resembled the first color image (12A006/001). Among the range of colors, the paper reported that some of the rocks exhibited greenish patterns that apparently changed between images taken 301 sols apart. Radiometric images of lichen-bearing terrestrial rocks taken and processed through the same system as were the Viking images showed a close resemblance of the lichen colonies to the greenish patches on the Mars rocks. Inclusion in the analysis of three near-IR channels available on the Martian images enhanced the greenness of the patches that were, to the sensitivity of the method, virtually indistinguishable from the lichen colonies on the terrestrial rocks.

mars.spherix.com...

And if someone is telling you a different story they are knowingly ( especially if your as well educated as Armap) trying to deceive you. As to life on Mars?

We know NASA is lying to us about the colour and the fact that there is standing water so why trust them on what they have to say about life on Mars?

Standing water:

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com... ***

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com... ( Long loading time)

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

qt.exploratorium.edu...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.esa.int...

www.msss.com...

esamultimedia.esa.int...

www.msss.com...

Trees and general biological activity:

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

barsoom.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

I can support my ideas with as much factual written and well sourced material as is required but that takes time and professional debunkers always have the final 'ace' card of simple stating that it can , somehow, be explained it another way. Imo pictures from official sources may very be the easiest abd most effective way of summing up my conclusions based on the evidence i have found and seen.

Stellar

i agree with you, StellarX. i'm chuckling to myself at all the people saying it's the camera that would produce a color entirely on the OPPOSITE end of the visible spectrum. it's ludacris. okay, blue may come out a little purple or a little green, but blue coming out as red? lmao, they're opposite ends of the spectrum! if that were true, they wouldn't even send color cameras to mars because they'd be so inaccurate! if the sky comes out on the opposite end of the spectrum, why doesn't the ground come out blue or purple? afterall, they're opposite of reddish-brown. how come the cameras can similarly picture the ground but the sky is off by huge wavelengths? please, explain that one to me.

i feel so sorry for all the people trying to debunk what is plainly right in front of their faces. yea, those aren't trees either, they're natural sand patterns