Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist

reply to post by Larry L


I tried to find any reference to actual newspaper articles, to no avail. All that appear are tales, and hearsay, and such.

Best one is this, but it refers to the "Los Angeles Times", which makes little sense, because this "Valiant Thor" allegedly landed in Alexandria, VA.

Venusians


I'm beginning to wonder if this whole account of "Thor", and his two "companions" wasn't a form of early "viral marketing" that pre-dates the Internet?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Larry L

 

I tried to find any reference to actual newspaper articles, to no avail. All that appear are tales, and hearsay, and such.

Best one is this, but it refers to the "Los Angeles Times", which makes little sense, because this "Valiant Thor" allegedly landed in Alexandria, VA.

Venusians


I'm beginning to wonder if this whole account of "Thor", and his two "companions" wasn't a form of early "viral marketing" that pre-dates the Internet?

edit on Mon 23 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Sounds a lot like the stories from George Adamski, in which he met this Venusian, Orthon ....
read some of his books many years ago, when I was young....

On November 20, 1952, Adamski and several friends were in the Colorado Desert near the town of Desert Center, California, when they purportedly saw a large submarine-shaped object hovering in the sky. Believing that the ship was looking for him, Adamski is said to have left his friends and to have headed away from the main road. Shortly afterwards, according to Adamski's accounts, a scout ship made of a type of translucent metal landed close to him, and its pilot, a Venusian called Orthon[1],[7] disembarked and sought him out.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...
www.skepticreport.com...

Space.com reports:

Russian Scientist's Claim of Life on Venus Proven False

"If those objects were already on the surface of Venus, what are the chances that Venera 13 and 14, which landed nearly 1,000 kilometers apart, would both land inches away from the only ones in sight and they would be in the same positions relative to the spacecraft? It makes much more sense that it's a piece of the lander designed to break off during the deployment of one of the scientific instruments," Hill told Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to SPACE.com.

According to NASA, the half-circle components are camera lens covers that popped off the Venera probes after they landed. As for why they appear to be in different places in the two Venera-13 photos, "Venera-13 had two cameras, one in front and one in back. The one image shows the front camera lens cap and the other shows the rear camera lens cap, not one lens cap that moved," said Ted Stryk, a photo editor who reprocesses and enhances many NASA and Soviet space program images.

In fact, the half-circle objects are famous for being lens caps, because the one that popped off Venera-14's camera landed exactly where a spring-loaded arm was meant to touch the Venusian surface in order to measure its compressibility. The lander ended up measuring properties of the cap.

The other photograph highlighted by Ksanfomaliti, which supposedly shows a scorpion-like creature, contains a blur. "The features that Ksanfomaliti shows are nothing more than processed noise, at best, in some particularly bad versions of the images. They are not in the original data," Stryk said.

Or, as Hill put it, the image is an example of "letting your mind see patterns in low-resolution data that simply aren't real."

www.space.com...

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just passing it along. I'm not making any qualifications or assertions as to its legitimacy.

reply to post by AceWombat04


nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, nobody is shooting at you It is just a friendly debate It forces us all to sit back, read up on things we haven't heard about

reply to post by Hellhound604


Good find my man, good find!


At last some answers! So what can we glean from this?


The images mentioned in JO's opening post, were indeed those speculated on in the paper.

So we can summise that the part everybody was talking about, and most believed to be part of the lander, was in some way thought to be a living 'thing', when clearly (unless someone thinks the object morphed) it is 2 different objects, although similar in size and shape.

The picture of 'the scorpion' on the first page of this thread, was indeed that mentioned in the paper. So now we have the source, Zorgon's argument can be vindicated somewhat, now we know where the image came from.

We?/I still haven't seen the picture of 'the flap' yet.

Image processing, with inferior processing software was used in the construct of the image before analysis. Which included, filling in missing areas of the pictures, from other transmissions of photo's and the use of a sharpening technique with the software 'microsoft paint'.

We now know his motivation for the work and we know some of the techniques used in the process of that work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My own personal view:

I think (but I cannot be certain) that we were looking at part of the lander from the 2 (different) camera shots (although having now read that article, it's more likely a mish mash of quite a few shots).

'The scorpion' is most likely an image defect, resulting from the sharpening technique applied with microsoft paint on some noise in the picture. This has to be the case for me, unless we somehow get hold of another picture, showing this exact same shape, but clearly in a different location. It would be almost impossible to replicate the same noise on a different photo, of the same shape and size in a different location.

Moral of the story? No matter how smart and educated one is, every now and again we make some very silly mistakes. Microsoft paint indeed!

EDIT: I just have to say, this has been one of the best threads in A&UFO's for a long time, kudos to JO for starting it!

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Moral of the story? No matter how smart and educated one is, every now and again we make some very silly mistakes. Microsoft paint indeed!

I resemble that remark!

Being here in a neighboring country i've never heard of this before. Anyhow, as we know, different kinds of lifeforms can survive in extreme conditions. So i'd say it's at least plausible. Would love to get some more evidence, of course.

Originally posted by Lithops
Being here in a neighboring country i've never heard of this before. Anyhow, as we know, different kinds of lifeforms can survive in extreme conditions. So i'd say it's at least plausible. Would love to get some more evidence, of course.

I don't think anyone here can possibly say for certain that life does or does not exist on Venus, and still retain any credibilty.

However, unless we have all missed something, you might be disappointed trying to find evidence from the paper being talked about in this topic (personal view ofcourse ).

There. I fixed the color. Never liked all that orange.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Lol! I wonder how long it'll be before we see that pictured used in someones argument for Venus being very Earth-like?

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


As far as I hear, the way beings like us 'could' exist on Venus is:

Subterranean complexes.

Orbiting Ships.

Then there's the wildcard of the data on Venus being 'incorrect' and it having a breathable atmosphere etc...

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


He posted that before he admitted painting with a paint brush tool.

Originally posted by zorgon
Well just like the Mars images... the space craft carried a color chart

So when you see it look like this on Mars... you can be pretty sure the color is not right

The question is always going to be philosophical rather than technical. What would the place look like if you were just standing there, looking at it with your eyes? Even through a clear, color-neutral visor, will there be atmospheric effects that give everything an orange/yellow tint? Or will your brain adapt to it to give it more Earth-like hues?

post by Blue Shift
What would the place look like if you were just standing there, looking at it with your eyes?

I've always liked this image from one of the early rover press conferences , before they found it necessary or had the time to add the red filter

The Mars images are false colour in every sense of the word .

I have always said that life is everywhere, we are just not looking for the right type of life. I cant wait until they release information about what they really found at mars when NASA went... if that ever happens.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Average temperature is well above 1500 Fahrenheit. Whatever would live there cant be carbon based. Atmosphere is primarily Co2. Our hypothetical scorpion would have to resist high temperatures and breathe the way trees breathe.

Here are a couple questions for you relating to your assertion of the temperature on Venus.

- Exactly when and how did this surface temperature of Venus become known?
- Was it before the probes sent by the USA and USSR?
- If not, what were the parachutes and support lines on those probes made of?

reply to post by TheFlash


I can answer questions about the temp on Venus....already have in a previous post, actually.

- Exactly when and how did this surface temperature of Venus become known?

It's called "spectroscopy" As in the information in this POST.

- Was it before the probes sent by the USA and USSR?

Yes, although the USSR's instruments gave more precise readings.

- If not, what were the parachutes and support lines on those probes made of?

The parachutes (and their lines) only used down to a certain depth in the atmosphere (height above ground). The density of the atmosphere then cushioned the landers for the rest of the drop, as the parachutes were released at a certain height....about 50 km, IIRC. It is not as hot in the upper levels of the atmosphere as it is on the surface.

reply to post by gortex


The many images of Mars that have the various colors are only because they haven't been color-corrected. This is discussed often on ATS, and seems to be misunderstood.

Also, just take a look at photography on Earth, and take note of the many differences in color appearance, even for he same scene....it can vary greatly, based on many factors, to include simply, the Sun angle.

Were you aware that in every motion picture production, part of the process involved as they finalize the film is "color correction"? This is so, when edited together, every cut for each scene looks cohesive and the "same"....even when a scene's separate parts (the cuts) might have been filmed on different days. And, different equipment standards.....it's a specialized part of cinematography.

Wiki source

Color grading

Modern color correction, whether for theatrical film, video distribution, or print is generally done digitally in a color suite.

A video example:

All I can say -- props to the Soviets for pulling off a real technology feat, and reaching in to a forbidding environment...

Now, I went to the original paper (in Russian), and read it carefully -- it doesn't sound too convincing to begin with. I did it just as a cross check with the English version. What I see is speculation and artifacts.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
The question is always going to be philosophical rather than technical.

Actually ArMaP and I already solved that and came to an agreement... but that is another thread. I can U2U a link if you like but have to remember the thread