The Real Mars

louis · 2017-12-11 07:49:58

I don't know whether NASA is trying to hide anything. But use of colour filters and exposure to wash out virtually all detail is, let's say, odd. Likewise, we've seen lots of interesting anomalies along the way, but NASA seem to have no interest in them: they rarely admit to them, only occasionally highlight them on their website or hardly ever seem to direct the Rovers to take a closer look. When they do discuss possible explanations they seem to rule out presence of life a priori.

RobertDyck wrote:

First, a representative from NASA pointed out that NASA has no interest in hiding anything. If life were found, that would be the greatest discovery of all. NASA would have no trouble getting funding, so why would they hide it?

Tmcom · 2017-12-11 09:32:47

louis wrote:

I don't know whether NASA is trying to hide anything. But use of colour filters and exposure to wash out virtually all detail is, let's say, odd. Likewise, we've seen lots of interesting anomalies along the way, but NASA seem to have no interest in them: they rarely admit to them, only occasionally highlight them on their website or hardly ever seem to direct the Rovers to take a closer look. When they do discuss possible explanations they seem to rule out presence of life a priori.
RobertDyck wrote:
First, a representative from NASA pointed out that NASA has no interest in hiding anything. If life were found, that would be the greatest discovery of all. NASA would have no trouble getting funding, so why would they hide it?

Thanks Louis, and yes, odd to the point where it is obvious that something is going on.

At Spirit, Opp, press release we see, (l previously posted it here) we see an obvious blue sky image, but after that, 20 years of images all up, all red sky, regardless of evevation, dust storms or anything else NASA can think up.

Nothing can account for this except a coverup, well there is the other possibility of them being incredibly stupid, but you have to be pretty brainy to land something on Mars.

Some just cannot handle the possibility of Mars being a second Earth, eventhough it is within our habitle zone, so it is more than possible.

As for intelligent life on their as well, forget it, some have a serious mental block on that idea.

All we can do is follow the evidence, and if that tells us that NASA is lying then they are.

I am certainly not going to believe some idiot saying that we have trouble getting Mars colors right, when they are fine with every other planet in our solar system, (some on the surface) and Hubble has no trouble showing Mars blue atmosphere for the 20 years.

But some can't handle the truth, (were did l hear that) so will believe in whatever NASA says.

Interesting to see if they will continue to listen to NASA in the year 2033, when a martain stone monolith is Finally shown on mass media to the Earth.

What l am showing is a trickle, but in the near future it will be a tidal wave.

Tmcom · 2017-12-14 04:38:26

Found this, apparently NASA wanted two rovers, (1970's) nuclear powered on Mars in the same place, so they could increase public funding by taking pic, or each other.

https://www.wired.com/2012/07/mars-mult … sion-1977/

Didn't happen thought.

And this, l tried to analyze early Viking data, on temps on Mars, but at least what we have, confirms Curiosity, etc numbers on night temp,s.

https://www.geosci-instrum-method-data- … 1-2013.pdf

This is a PDF, and you have to scroll down, almost til the end for the charts, then converts K to C.

I know Spirit, etc had aerogel, (solar panels on top) and gold in the glass to protect the solar panels, so they didn't crack at minus 40, (silica cracks at minus 40) but it is still hard to believe that they could handle minus almost 200 a few times a week for 10 years each.

And this...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped … _Mars.html

Showing that Vikings first experiments on the soil, gave the chances of organics in the soil as an almost slam dunk. But later ex, with the oven went against the early experiments with adding water to the soil, (eventhough it was virtually impossible to know if the oven actually had any soil in it, and the robotic arm, hid any visual confirmation of soil being ejected from the oven test on board.

Which means that all early tests showed organics in the soil almost matching Earth, (the incubation period was shorter) but later oven experiments, that couldn't be confirmed, and easily faked, didn't.

Then we have Hubble constantly showing green bands around Mars that one scientist has shown to change seasonally, (oxiding rocks don't change).

And the very limited number of blue sky images, and the Viking data showing that Mars had a pink sky at sunrise, and not surprisingly at sunset also, (one strike against NASA recent data).

And the green on rocks, and the obvious green on Pathfinder images, and the very likely chance of rain on Mars, (can't have very salty rain, pure water forms around dust particles).

And the methane experiment that wasn't produced by active volconasism, but by plant life, (Curiosity sniffed this also, but of course didn't go near the licken).

The list goes on and on.

The evidence clearly shows that NASA are Not being 100% truthful to the general public.

And as such, cannot be trusted, especially when they give us, dodgy answers.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-14 10:17:55

I believe the Rovers use standard photovoltaic cells intended for space. They're normally used on satellites. Normal cover slide is ceria doped. Satellites endure greater temperature swings than Mars.

Tmcom · 2017-12-14 20:26:36

RobertDyck wrote:

I believe the Rovers use standard photovoltaic cells intended for space. They're normally used on satellites. Normal cover slide is ceria doped. Satellites endure greater temperature swings than Mars.

True, but space has no moisture. On Earth in cold regions, (snow) there is an issue with solar panels or the silica cracking over time, due to moisture forming on the silica.

Most companies use some material to overcome or reduce this issue.

Satellites probably use heating in some way, or materials to overcome this.

On the moon the Russians closed up the lid every night on their solar collector on their rover, so it could be heated to protect them against the extreme cold.

Spirit and Opportunity, had no heating only the aerogal and gold in the glass cover.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-14 20:58:41

Satellites do not heat photovoltaic arrays. SpectroLabs was purchased by Boeing Satellite Systems. They manufacture solar cells with either 3 or 6 mil thick ceria doped cover slide. That's a high quality glass applied directly to the photovoltaic cell. Ceria doped glass can withstand temperature swings in orbit, no need for heating. Spacesuits in LEO are required to handle swings of -150°C to +120°C (±250°F), shade to direct sunlight. Mars can go from -140°C at the south pole in winter to +24°C at the equator in mid-day sun. So Mars temperature swings are not as great, nor as quick. They don't dope glass with gold, they dope it with ceria, which is cerium oxide. Cerium is a lanthanoid element. So the short answer is "materials".

RobertDyck · 2017-12-15 01:51:34

Ps. I live in Winnipeg. That's 60 miles (100km) north of the border with North Dakota. Winters can be cold here. It's mild so far this year, only -11°C right now as I type this. (1:31am) But it can get quite cold. When I was a child, it got down to -40° as an overnight low at night on the coldest nights of the year. In February and March 1966, it got down to -40° several nights, and one night it got down to -45°C. I was 3 years and 8 months old, but I remember it. For years that was thought to be the coldest temperature ever recorded in this city; but someone found weather records from 1879. One night that year it got down to −47.8°C (−54.0°F). That's real temperature, not wind-chill.

I found a news clip on the CBC website of the 1966 blizzard. It wasn't the coldest night, that was a couple weeks earlier, but it was extreme snow. The news clip doesn't show my house, but my house had just as much snow.

The point is windows of our house had normal glass. It wasn't any special glass, just window glass. When the temperature was -40°, the glass didn't crack. That's the only temperature where Celsius and Fahrenheit are the same. And yes, back then Canada still used Fahrenheit.

Tmcom · 2017-12-15 03:44:29

Another puddle within easy reach of Curiosity.

0562ML0022750030204650E01_D

This also shows that it isn't light colored sand, and also shows that the surrounding sand isn't dry further away and wet closer up.

Which, (as the reflective rock near one of the arrows, showing possible rain clouds) shows that the whole area is wet or damp. Or there has been recent rainfalls.

0562ML0022750040204651E01_D

This one puddle, possible giant distant structure, and a possible dirt road.

Usual stuff.

When Elon Musk gets to Mars we will finally get some real answers.

Tmcom · 2017-12-15 03:51:39

RobertDyck wrote:

Ps. I live in Winnipeg. That's 60 miles (100km) north of the border with North Dakota. Winters can be cold here. It's mild so far this year, only -11°C right now as I type this. (1:31am) But it can get quite cold. When I was a child, it got down to -40° as an overnight low at night on the coldest nights of the year. In February and March 1966, it got down to -40° several nights, and one night it got down to -45°C. I was 3 years and 8 months old, but I remember it. For years that was thought to be the coldest temperature ever recorded in this city; but someone found weather records from 1879. One night that year it got down to −47.8°C (−54.0°F). That's real temperature, not wind-chill.
I found a news clip on the CBC website of the 1966 blizzard. It wasn't the coldest night, that was a couple weeks earlier, but it was extreme snow. The news clip doesn't show my house, but my house had just as much snow.
https://i.cbc.ca/1.3468627.1456723685!/fileImage/httpImage/image.png_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/winnipeg-blizzard-of-1966.png
The point is windows of our house had normal glass. It wasn't any special glass, just window glass. When the temperature was -40°, the glass didn't crack. That's the only temperature where Celsius and Fahrenheit are the same. And yes, back then Canada still used Fahrenheit.

https://us.sunpower.com/home-solar/sola … intenance/

RobertDyck · 2017-12-15 09:18:56

Spectrolab

SolAero Technologies

Tmcom · 2017-12-16 04:35:51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0agVZwux1Hs

Elon Musk, wants to get to Mars in the next 6 years, with 100 people, and build a city.

0562ML0022750010204648E01_D

And another rare view of the real Mars, with distant hills and clouds flowing over them, (much like Earths hills).

The top detail is Cur, robotic arm, and lower details are from the rover as well.

Funny that Musk is ignoring the moon and going straight for Mars, no doubt he is aware that NASA isn't being up front about all available martian data, and can see Hubble images at face value, and ignores stupid NASA employees, making up excuses for the sky color turning red all of the time.

Musk will get a satellite and rovers there soon enough, then he will cut out the crap, finally.

louis · 2017-12-16 07:04:46

I don't think he's ignoring the Moon. But his focus is on Mars - a subtle difference.

Tmcom wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0agVZwux1Hs
Elon Musk, wants to get to Mars in the next 6 years, with 100 people, and build a city.
https://i.imgur.com/GzAurQZ.jpg
0562ML0022750010204648E01_D
And another rare view of the real Mars, with distant hills and clouds flowing over them, (much like Earths hills).
The top detail is Cur, robotic arm, and lower details are from the rover as well.
Funny that Musk is ignoring the moon and going straight for Mars, no doubt he is aware that NASA isn't being up front about all available martian data, and can see Hubble images at face value, and ignores stupid NASA employees, making up excuses for the sky color turning red all of the time.
Musk will get a satellite and rovers there soon enough, then he will cut out the crap, finally.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-16 08:13:34

A couple real images, with correct colours. To see where I got each image, click it. My point is NASA isn't hiding anything, and sky colour depends on a lot of things: camera angle (how high up you're looking), time of day, how much dust in the atmosphere, and position of the Sun.

First, the website I got this from says taken by Curiosity on August 31, 2012. However, I see a solar panel, so looks like Opportunity or Spirit.

Spirit, 2005:

Curiosity, April 15, 2015:

Curisity's colour calibration target, aka "sundial".

Human eyes and brain adjust colour for ambient light conditions. If you believe a human would perceive colour according to "white balance" instead of any other calibration, Ok. We might not know that until someone actually goes to Mars. Hmm, I wonder. We could measure minerals and soil with spectrometers on rovers, measure ambient light with multi-colour cameras, then recreate that in a "Mars yard" in a dark warehouse using artificial light designed to copy what the rovers see on Mars. Then someone could walk into that warehouse and see what it would look like. You could even do that outdoors at the JPL Mars yard, just do it at night with bright artificial lights designed to mimic what the rovers see. Ensure the rocks and soil of the Mars yard have exactly the same spectra as those on Mars, and that the lights produce the same spectra that rover cameras see on Mars.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-16 11:42:59)

louis · 2017-12-16 13:53:26

For what it's worth - we had a Sahara dust weather event over here a month or two ago (I wrote about it here)...everything was bathed in an orange glow that made me feel like I was on Mars...but the brain is pulled two ways. Part of you wants to say "Well isn't everything looking v. orangey" but the other half is going "We'll ignore the weather event...we still want to see differentiated colours". I reckon had the event gone on for weeks my eyes/brain would have adjusted to the new conditions and I would increasingly have seen well differentiated colours rather than the orangey tint being everywhere.

RobertDyck wrote:

A couple real images, with correct colours. To see where I got each image, click it. My point is NASA isn't hiding anything, and sky colour depends on a lot of things: camera angle (how high up you're looking), time of day, how much dust in the atmosphere, and position of the Sun.
First, the website I got this from says taken by Curiosity on August 31, 2012. However, I see a solar panel, so looks like Opportunity or Spirit.
https://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2012/08/Earth-from-Mars-with-Phobos-Deimos-Aug31-am-1024x677.jpg
Spirit, 2005:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b823a307d68e1e0b3886b15acb4e7e10-c
Curiosity, April 15, 2015:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/PIA19401-MarsCuriosityRover-GaleCrater-Sunset-Animation-20150415.gif/746px-PIA19401-MarsCuriosityRover-GaleCrater-Sunset-Animation-20150415.gif
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c895e3557881416ec626af5aba4a03a6
Curisity's colour calibration target, aka "sundial".
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4412a57012241e2327f7133ae5bfe0c1
Human eyes and brain adjust colour for ambient light conditions. If you believe a human would perceive colour according to "white balance" instead of any other calibration, Ok. We might not know that until someone actually goes to Mars. Hmm, I wonder. We could measure minerals and soil with spectrometers on rovers, measure ambient light with multi-colour cameras, then recreate that in a "Mars yard" in a dark warehouse using artificial light designed to copy what the rovers see on Mars. Then someone could walk into that warehouse and see what it would look like. You could even do that outdoors at the JPL Mars yard, just do it at night with bright artificial lights designed to mimic what the rovers see. Ensure the rocks and soil of the Mars yard have exactly the same spectra as those on Mars, and that the lights produce the same spectra that rover cameras see on Mars.

Tmcom · 2017-12-16 20:57:09

NASA isn't hiding anything, no, apart from ignoring water, puddles and streams and the green stuff all over the rocks and giving us red everything, (eventhough Hubble keeps showing a blue atmosphere) and probably air pressures, since you can't have rain, with the air pressures NASA claims, or water on the surface for that matter.

The puddle image l posted before could be very salty, but salty or not, mass media still ignores it.

And apparently 20 years of Opp, Spirit images at all elevations, and not one blue sky in the lot, has a good reason, eventhough dust storms or anything else cannot answer that one!

I guess Curiosity got extremely lucky with its true color blue sky image, (l posted that here before).

Yeah, l know very hard to get the red color right, eventhough the color charts are all the same in all three rovers. And the Russians didn't have any problems with colors on Venus, with crippling pressures and intense heat.

I guess that means that Viking seeing only pink skys at sunset got extremely lucky as well,...

I study available evidence and post that here, if you want to believe in whatever NASA or the military say, then it might pay to sign up on the NASA forums, there is plenty of people there, that will believe in anything they say.

And don't mention algea, or water on mars, otherwise you probably won't last long there.

Last edited by Tmcom (2017-12-16 20:57:27)

RobertDyck · 2017-12-16 22:15:53

We would all like to find life on Mars. The problem is the "planetary protection" people at NASA are so obsessed that they don't want humans to Mars. The goal is to settle Mars and eventually terraform, so screw them! Sure, we would like pristine samples of whatever is there. But the "planetary protection" people are actively blocking human space exploration. This has resulted in many Mars Society members not wanting to hear about extant life on Mars.

Another issue is science is very conservative. Science is supposed to be about challenging every assumption, constantly test everything. However, stodgy old professors don't like the things they've learned being challenged, because it means decades of study is all undone, and the basis of decades of work undermined. So extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

But water? There's lots of evidence of liquid water on Mars. Not in current active rivers, or liquid seas or lakes. But lots of puddles, and rivulets down the sides of canyons. Yes, liquid water can exist on Mars. The triple point is 6.12 mbar pressure, so no liquid water can exist below that pressure. But the pressure on Mars is higher than that, measured by every lander or rover.

louis · 2017-12-19 18:48:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWPXWwcJOXQ

Another, recent discovered, interesting anomaly on Mars. Once again straight lines, unusual configuration and reflective material suggest some sort of machinery. A rock? That seems unlikely, if not impossible.

Tmcom · 2017-12-19 20:01:58

louis wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWPXWwcJOXQ
Another, recent discovered, interesting anomaly on Mars. Once again straight lines, unusual configuration and reflective material suggest some sort of machinery. A rock? That seems unlikely, if not impossible.

Yes, not bad, and it isn't Curiosity's reflection, for the most part anyway.

Also unfortunately hard to tell whether it is corroded metal or rock, but worth posting.

At least here we can discuss this in an open minded way, or acknowledge that some of NASA's data has gaping holes in it.

It seems that Mars is the only planet in our solar system with an atmosphere that changes color regularly, lol.

Tmcom · 2017-12-20 03:44:30

0563ML0022780000204657E01_D

Ok, first off, this thing in the distance, that is probably a reflection, but it is also a good 5 km, or more away, so it is more likely something artificial or a tinted window perhaps.

Second one down another pool of water, and Curiosity avoids it, (we don't want to find pesky algae around the edges or worse still something swimming about).

Third phew, probably rocks that look like regularly spaced pillars. But the one that looks like a cross, with two pieces of wood, that is the one that stands out.

I am trying to convince myself that it is an optical illusion and part of the rock, but it doesn't quite fit in with the part of the rock idea.

If genuine, it could be a martian burial site or cemetery.

Tmcom · 2018-01-01 03:43:38

This is a good example of why you need to be careful with some of the images. Looks like an old chair made out of stone, right, nope, it is Curiosity's reflection or the underside of the rover.

Pity, l got exited initially.

0563MR0022810010303955E01_D

Then we have this that seriously looks like a metallic object, but it is probably a reflection again, (knock on wood).

0563MR0022810000303954E01_D

Then we have this, which l believe to be legit.

0563MR0022810020303956E01_D

Something made this impression in the sand. I don't believe that it was Curiosity, as there are zero tracks further along, and the impressions don't match the rovers wheel impressions, (or these are angled, and irregularly spaced).

I can only speculate as to what this is, probably an alien taking a closer look and leaving a partial boot print. But whatever it is, it does show that the sand is Not bone try, but moist.

I know that the moon clumps up, but that is very fine, this is more of a sand consistency.

Anyway happy new year, and thanks for visiting.

Tmcom · 2018-01-01 10:08:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKQLZMnPOZg

I usually ignore these sorts of videos, but this guy phew, adds a lot of credibility to my belief that Mars has roads.

You could say that this is an ancient slide area, but some parts look exactly like a road on earth.

If Mars has bridges, then....

louis · 2018-01-01 17:51:48

For fans of spiders on Mars! See 00:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E1oT9gxfQY

Tmcom · 2018-01-01 20:09:53

louis wrote:

For fans of spiders on Mars! See 00:47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E1oT9gxfQY

Not bad, but unfortunately also pretty blurry.

I did find a black and white spider years ago, on my video, at 1.44. Curiosity drove over part of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBICMPIIimo&t=3s

As well as rats, and possibly other life forms.

But some parts of that road, are in a z pattern, so if it was a slide area, it would not be snaking around things, and certainly not cutting away at the landscape.

louis · 2018-01-09 13:43:59

Interesting new discovery...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPTtACyZtEg

Tmcom · 2018-01-09 20:11:57

louis wrote:

Interesting new discovery...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPTtACyZtEg

Phew now that is good!

The foreground parts are Curiosity, but the background house and silver type alien letterbox, is legit.

I also found a house on Mars years ago, (my video) which showed a door with two handles and roof, etc. It also showed a whitish, scruffy looking thing out front, which l assumed was a way for locals to see that David lived there.

Also found multiple images of giant structures on Mars surface resembling animals holding restaurant menu's, etc.

No doubt this is why l keep getting 50 views a day or more, as everyone is hoping for something like this, (including me).

Viking finds organics in the soil, and blue skys and green on the rocks; Hubble keeps showing blue sky's and green bands that change with the seasons, as well as a great lake or inland ocean.

I keep finding water and most likely rain, which means NASA's air pressure data is BS, and its blue sunsets, and its dodgy red sky images, and Curiosity's inability to check out water flows, etc.

People will buy anything than accept where the evidence is leading, and it is leading towards Mars being another Earth like planet which is currently inhabited by an advance race, that has a gag over its mouth due to NASA and the US, wanting to get as much oil out of the ground as they can.

Musk should blow the lid on this in 6 years time, although his rovers might do it sooner.

Thanks for that Louis, you have made my day, l will try to clean it up and post it here.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2017-12-11 07:49:58

Re: The Real Mars

#152 2017-12-11 09:32:47

Re: The Real Mars

#153 2017-12-14 04:38:26

Re: The Real Mars

#154 2017-12-14 10:17:55

Re: The Real Mars

#155 2017-12-14 20:26:36

Re: The Real Mars

#156 2017-12-14 20:58:41

Re: The Real Mars

#157 2017-12-15 01:51:34

Re: The Real Mars

#158 2017-12-15 03:44:29

Re: The Real Mars

#159 2017-12-15 03:51:39

Re: The Real Mars

#160 2017-12-15 09:18:56

Re: The Real Mars

#161 2017-12-16 04:35:51

Re: The Real Mars

#162 2017-12-16 07:04:46

Re: The Real Mars

#163 2017-12-16 08:13:34

Re: The Real Mars

#164 2017-12-16 13:53:26

Re: The Real Mars

#165 2017-12-16 20:57:09

Re: The Real Mars

#166 2017-12-16 22:15:53

Re: The Real Mars

#167 2017-12-19 18:48:06

Re: The Real Mars

#168 2017-12-19 20:01:58

Re: The Real Mars

#169 2017-12-20 03:44:30

Re: The Real Mars

#170 2018-01-01 03:43:38

Re: The Real Mars

#171 2018-01-01 10:08:40

Re: The Real Mars

#172 2018-01-01 17:51:48

Re: The Real Mars

#173 2018-01-01 20:09:53

Re: The Real Mars

#174 2018-01-09 13:43:59

Re: The Real Mars

#175 2018-01-09 20:11:57

Re: The Real Mars

Board footer