Looks like Water on Mars to me!

Levin finally accepted his mistake about the puddles on Mars.

What a mistake!

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Orion437]

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
The theory goes that NASA has been ordered by The Powers That Be©, to keep people ignorant of the "truth" that the solar system and the rest of the Galaxy is teeming with life, because TPTB believe that the ignorant masses would riot in the streets and burn down the Vatican and just generally go ape, which would make it more difficult for them to keep the general populace in wage slavery and able to supply them with all the golden calves and altars necessary for the required baby sacrifices/cannibalism. Therefore, NASA spends billions in space exploration, but when they find bona fide proof of life, they have to debunk themselves and pretend it's something else.

Or something like that. You'll have to have Henry Kissinger or George Bush, Sr. fill you in on some of the specific details.

Why would people riot in the streets and burn down the Vatican, etc? Before any probes had been sent to Mars or Venus or any other planet. Astronomers and scientists used to speculate about life on these planets, it was, as far as I understand it, to be a common and an accepted idea that life existed elsewhere. These beliefs spawned lots of literature and films, like War of the Worlds for example, which was written in 1898, about Aliens invading Earth from Mars. But that all changed by mid 60's, when probes started going to these places and no obvious signs of life were found.

So it doesn't make much sense that "the powers that be" would want to hide signs of life on other planets to prevent riots, when it was already a common idea among astronomers and the general public that life was there.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by jra]

Originally posted by jra
Why would people riot in the streets and burn down the Vatican, etc?

It's just one of those excuses not to tell the truth for other reasons.. Who believes in the findings of the brookings report?

Before any probes had been sent to Mars or Venus or any other planet. Astronomers and scientists used to speculate about life on these planets, it was, as far as I understand it, to be a common and an accepted idea that life existed elsewhere.

It's not common and it's most certainly not widely accepted. There is a world of difference between speculation and finding microbes on Mars as they did back in 1976.

These beliefs spawned lots of literature and films, like War of the Worlds for example, which was written in 1898, about Aliens invading Earth from Mars.

By a guy who happened to be part of this elitest grouping....

But that all changed by mid 60's, when probes started going to these places and no obvious signs of life were found.

Well define 'obvious' as i am getting the impression you were expecting neon signs saying things like "yankee go home" ( someone else said this so he can take the credit when i remember).

So it doesn't make much sense that "the powers that be" would want to hide signs of life on other planets to prevent riots, when it was already a common idea among astronomers and the general public that life was there.

There is hiding and then there is hiding in plain sight. It has no become abundantly obvious that the second strategy works much better if your keeping up the pretense of freedom and disclosour.

Stellar

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So, now they want to do a "mulligan" over at New Scientist? Cowards.

I guess when your sources at NASA threaten to shut you out, you have to start throwing out the retractions.

What a bunch of wusses.

What are you talking about? It's quite clear that the image was on a slop. I even mentioned this on page one of this thread. Just look at images from Endurance crater. You'll notice that the areas with the rocks with the cracks and crevasses with sand in between are all along the sides of the crater and that the bottom half is all sand, with small dunes formed at the very bottom. It doesn't take much effort to figure this out and realize that Ron Levin is in error.

The whole thing is, despite it being on a slope, it looks a certain way.

It doesn't look as much like flowing water as it does saturated mud. Slimy in its composition, almost. Reflecting the sunlight. Don't have to be flat to absorb water.

Originally posted by promomag
People should click the links

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

They are important.

Woah, that just convinced me.

Anyways, anyone who doesn't believe there is water on mars is definitely ignorant. The first picture has distorted colors, but the second post contains a picture that's slightly more trustworthy. Putting aside both photos, I still believe there is water on Mars.

Originally posted by StellarX
It's not common and it's most certainly not widely accepted. There is a world of difference between speculation and finding microbes on Mars as they did back in 1976.

Oops, made a typo. I meant to say "used to be a common and accepted idea...". For example, there was an astronomer named Percival Lowell who wrote several books speculating about life on Mars back in the late 19th, early 20th century.

But that all changed by mid 60's, when probes started going to these places and no obvious signs of life were found.

Well define 'obvious' as i am getting the impression you were expecting neon signs saying things like "yankee go home" ( someone else said this so he can take the credit when i remember).

I wasn't expecting anything of the sort... I'm saying there were no obvious signs of life on the surface of the planet, like what some astronomers had speculated about before the first probes went to Mars.

And I chose the word "obvious" as there could still be the possibility of microbes and the like below the surface of Mars. And those are not visible from photos taken on the surface or in orbit. Thus not an obvious sign of existing life.

Originally posted by Orion437
Levin finally accepted his mistake about the puddles on Mars.
What a mistake!

Yup it was...

I just love the way skeptics all pounce on one incidence like that... and throw away all other evidence... I guess it makes them feel safe

So it would seem that even the eminent scientists at NASA and Lockheed Martin can make a mistake... Imagine that... who woulda thought?

Originally posted by jra

These beliefs spawned lots of literature and films, like War of the Worlds for example, which was written in 1898,

Nice example you provided there JRA. Perhaps before 1900 people were more open minded and less under control... though the days of the inquisition were not so friendly to radical scientific ideas.

In 1611 Galileo came to the attention of the Inquisition for the first time for his Copernican views. Four years later a Dominican friar, Niccolo Lorini, who had earlier criticized Galileo's view in private conversations, files a written complaint with the Inquisition against Galileo's Copernican views. Galileo subsequently writes a long letter defending his views to Monsignor Piero Dini, a well connected official in the Vatican, he then writes his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina arguing for freedom of inquiry and travels to Rome to defend his ideas

Source

However when "The War of the Worlds" aired on the Radio as a news broadcast, there was wide spread panic and mass hysteria, with many people committing suicide... when all they had to do was look out the window and see there were no Martian ships above New York..

[edit on 14-6-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by jra
". For example, there was an astronomer named Percival Lowell who wrote several books speculating about life on Mars back in the late 19th, early 20th century.

....well, Lowell was also “speculating2 of existance of another planet...gues what - later it was found.......

Originally posted by jra
Oops, made a typo. I meant to say "used to be a common and accepted idea...". For example, there was an astronomer named Percival Lowell who wrote several books speculating about life on Mars back in the late 19th, early 20th century.

And i did not attempt to discount the idea that it was not a entirely unpopular idea in some circles. As with all wishful thinking and speculation it did not have much significance considering the limited nature of the 'evidence' at the time. To discount such ideas back in the day were hardly worth the time of 'professionals' but these days they have absolutely large volumes of evidence to abuse and misrepresent making it hard for the truth to get it's day in court.

I wasn't expecting anything of the sort... I'm saying there were no obvious signs of life on the surface of the planet, like what some astronomers had speculated about before the first probes went to Mars.

But, but...

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...

I just see trees everywhere and if you have trouble check the following links for more direct comparisons...

members.shaw.ca...

members.shaw.ca...

Coupled with the Methane,Ammonia, temperature data and seasonal changes i really don't see how we can still claim that there is no 'evidence'. You might say that you do not find these convincing but they do 'obviously' look like trees...

And I chose the word "obvious" as there could still be the possibility of microbes and the like below the surface of Mars.

Their on the surface as the viking tests proved to anyone who cared to check the original mission specifications...

Stellar

Originally posted by zorgon
However when "The War of the Worlds" aired on the Radio as a news broadcast, there was wide spread panic and mass hysteria, with many people committing suicide... when all they had to do was look out the window and see there were no Martian ships above New York..

Yes there was some panic, I don't know how much exactly, but I think the media had over exaggerated the amount. And the panic wasn't so much about the aliens themselves but just the fact that some people they thought they were being invaded or attacked. Some actually thought it was the Germans rather then aliens. I'm sure if Orson Welles had done a fake news broadcast about the Germans invading, people would have panicked just as much, if not more, since the idea would have been a bit more probable.

Originally posted by promomag
space.newscientist.com...



Mars rover finds "puddles" on the planet's surface

I also see bits of green in there too, the picture released to the public leaves a lot to be desired however, I think it's pretty safe to think what this is, and what it might mean.

I'd drink it. First i'd probably put a couple drops of bleach in it then i'd give it a whirl.

Mystery solved: Mars had large oceans
Warping of Martian rock has hidden clear evidence of oceans

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Posted this in Bluebird's other thread "Forests on Mars" But it needs to be added here to the Water Thread

I found something interesting from one of my favorite sources. The Department of Defense (Much better than NASA, considering they are the top of the food chain )

Subject: Water on the Moon....

Here is an excerpt from the briefing..

Q: What's the presumptive volume of it then, and how did you discern that?

A: As I mentioned, what we can tell from looking at the radar return is roughly the area that is covered by this. Assuming it reflects ice like ice on Mercury -- making that assumption. That's been well looked at. Then in order to see this back scatter effect, this roadside reflector effect; it's estimated that we have to see some number of wavelengths of our radar into the ice. In reviewing the paper, several of the reviewers posited we probably need to see somewhere between 50 and 100 wavelengths. So our wavelength is about six inches. So at the thickest case, it's roughly 50 feet.

Q: That translates to what in volume?

A: We were very conservative in the press release, but if you take basically 100 square kilometers by roughly 50 feet, you get a volume of something like a quarter of a cubic mile, I think it's on that order. It's a considerable amount, but it's not a huge glacier or anything like that.

Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake.

I have had this for awhile but did not want to post it until I had used it in the moon thread in regards to the Clementine Satellite

Now THAT is a LOT OF WATER 100 square kilometers 50 feet thick!!!



The other interesting (for this thread) thing mentioned was this....

"The other thing that happened -- this is somewhat of a technical term -- is the polarization changes. The spacecraft transmits a wave of a certain polarization, ordinarily pure rock, would flip the polarization 180 degrees. Because ice is transparent, the wave bounces around, some of it comes back with the same polarization. This effect has been observed on Mercury, on a number of places in the solar system where ice is known to be, ..."


Okay there you have it folks, direct from the Pentagon itself...

Water on the Moon and on Mercury



Oh I guess you want the rest of the story huh? About Clementine returning and Starwars?

Oh alrighty then...
www.defenselink.mil...

PEGASUS PRESS RELEASE JUNE 25, 2007

A while back on several threads I have been teasing people with

lyle.org...

Its funny really, considering what is really at this site. And there is no way to get in from the front page. Now several people have already had the data but I asked them to keep it to themselves. The reason was that we wanted to copy all the images before the directory vanished, as has been happening to some of the great finds we have made over the past few months...

But now Orion437 has posted some of the other links to this site so "the cat is out of the bag" so to speak...

Before I provide the links though... I wish to discuss the "true color" images from Mars....

We have all seen the NASA version.... Too much RED



We have all seen the COUNTER NASA groups versions... Too much BLUE



Below is a specimen of Vesicula Basalt (Scoria) from the Nevada Desert... notice its blue gray tint...



Now here is one of the images from lyle.org... showing Vesicula Basalt (Scoria) on Mars. You will notice that the color matches pretty close on the two specimens... Now looking at the sand and the pale dusty blue sky you get a picture of what is the true color on Mars. (Funny how it looks a lot like the Nevada desert though ) You will also notice how clear this image is. I know undo and bluebird have been itching to show some of these. The image with the "pond" was from this source originally

True Color Of Mars...



The term used on this website is "radiometrically corrected" color images. The color marker on the rover is on each page for comparison...
It looks like this on this site..



You can easily see the red, green, yellow, and blue colors on the chart...

The directory that these images are from contain ALL the Spirit and Opportunity Color Images... It is in Prof Markoff's directory and I hope that it won't move once all you ATSer's bombard the site with hits.. a chance I will have to take as it was impossible to download all the images from here

Lyle.org - MER Raw Imagery - Color Rover Images

The directory that contains thousands of images is so long that it will not even finish loading on my or Undo's computer so we cannot download it We will just have to go through ALL the images and find the gems... which is why I am posting it now...

RESEARCH ASSISTANTS NEEDED

The directory that is so huge is this one...

Complete Directory Listing

The regular "Front Door" public entry is here

www.lyle.org...

Okay folkes have fun.... there are a LOT of fantastic images to look at here. Lets find the best and get them saved


[edit on 25-6-2007 by zorgon]

Water on the Moon and on Mercury

I don't think that's big news or anything. We've known there is water ice on Mercury, the Moon, Mars, and some of the Jovian moons for a while. The big deal is finding liquid water.

Ice on Mars: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Ice on Mercury: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Ice on Ganymede: www.space.com...

Ice on Europa: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Ice on the Moon: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by nataylor
I don't think that's big news or anything. We've known there is water ice on Mercury, the Moon,...

Thanks for those links

True it's not a "big deal" as such to those just hunting water.

It is more of a big deal to those following the conspiracy. Its just a great official source to have the Pentagon confirm it in a press release, from a non NASA agency, that has military motives at heart.

you are kidding me right, Nat? Ice on Mercury no big deal?

From an electric universe point of view it is a huge deal.

The sun, according to the current "fusion reactor" model of the sun, is in excess of a million degrees. Most won't mention that the surface is hotter than the more internal parts (as evidenced by the cooler areas expose in large sunspots).

so, my thought would be that mercury should be molten, right? It should easily exceed a few thousand degrees based on proximity?

So, with that being the expectation, one would have to ask how ice forms on it? it is not locked into an orbit like the moon, so all sides are exposed to the sun. the ice should never form, even if the "dark side" were always dark. but, considering that it actually rotates, why doesn't the water boil off? there is not atmosphere on mercury to retain the water, as the classical model shows that the "solar wind" has blown the atmosphere away, just like it should do with the water vapor that the sun creates from this ice.

i will mention that the sun is not as hot as we suppose. The only reason the sun warms the earth is because of energy transformation. The atmosphere acts like the glass on our windows. Have you ever noticed that is it hotter inside than outside the car? This is because the sunlight, as it passes through the glass, is altered. It migrates into a thermal wavelength which increases the overall heat. This is what causes your car to be hot in the summer.

Window tint and polarized glass help...but this is the same concept driving our own thermal intake from the sun.

Now, our government has helped us to support this.

Mercury have ice is HUGE news.

Life on other planets is nothing new

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by jra
Before any probes had been sent to Mars or Venus or any other planet. Astronomers and scientists used to speculate about life on these planets, it was, as far as I understand it, to be a common and an accepted idea that life existed elsewhere.

It's not common and it's most certainly not widely accepted. There is a world of difference between speculation and finding microbes on Mars as they did back in 1976.

You're wrong, I'm afraid. Intellectually speaking, life on other planets is nothing new.

Personal experience first: I'm old enough to remember the Sixties. I also remember the science and science-fiction books, magazines and comics from an earlier era (the 1940s and '50s), lovingly preserved by various uncles and cousins, that I devoured avidly as a child. The idea of people living on other planets was well established in popular culture by the 1950s.

It was a Cold War thing, along with the flying saucers that have turned into a twenty-first century peasant religion. Yes, there was plenty of paranoid thriller stuff about evil anthropophagic aliens, but there was also any number of extraterrestrial utopias, cosmic wonderlands, alien masters of wisdom and all the rest. If you doubt me, watch a few TV programmes from the Sixties, like Lost In Space, or read its comic-book predecessor Space Family Robinson. Or watch Hammer horror films like The Quartermass Experiment and Five Million Years to Earth. Have you forgotten how old Star Trek is? Or Doctor Who? Or Dan Dare, Pilot of the Future?

This is a random sample stuff I remember from my childhood. Others my age will remember plenty more comics, TV shows and movies about extraterrestrial life from this era.

By 1959, the whole thing was already such a big deal that the great psychologist Carl Jung could write a whole book on the UFO culture. Yes, UFOs were recognized as a mental phenomenon that long ago, though the message still hasn't reached the trailer parks of the western world.

The Cold War explosion of popular interest in life on other planets was built on a sturdy foundation of Victorian ideas such as those of Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and others, and embellished with intellectual furniture from stories found in magazines of the golden age of science fiction, magazines with titles like Amazing Stories and Thrilling Wonder Stories.

In fact, speculation about life on other worlds is as old as civilization. Not just Western civilization, either. In Hindu and Buddhist cosmology, the planets are thought to be gods themselves. South Asian folk belief ties into this, with the planets seen as powerful living entities.

In Western civilization, the idea of life on other planets has been around since Anaximander of Miletus (sixth century BCE).

The visionary and 'philosopher' Emanual Swedenborg even wrote a book entitled Life on Other Planets in -- wait for it -- 1758.

In fact, ever since the true nature of the planets (balls of matter orbiting the sun) was understood -- from the beginning of the seventeenth century to be precise -- speculation about the existence and nature of life on them has been fairly constant.

With the development of Copernican ideas in the 1600s it came to be widely though not universally believed, even in theological circles, that other planets -- as well as the Moon -- must have inhabitants like us. Many astronomers attributed features they saw on the Moon to life if not intelligence...

Paradoxically, it was with the coming of the twentieth century and a more detailed understanding of the composition and surface conditions of the planets that hope and belief in extraterrestrial life began to wane among intellectuals. But this was more than made up, as we have seen, by an explosion in belief and speculation within popular culture.

You can find more about the history of belief in exterrestrial life here.

Oh, and by the way-- while we're on the subject of speculation: it is pure speculation to assert that NASA was 'finding microbes on Mars in 1976'. One of the Viking (I think it was) 'life tests' returned positive. Others didn't. The consensus was that there wasn't enough evidence to be positive about it. In science, doubtful data are discounted. In conspiracy theorists' minds, the opposite happens: doubtful data are given preeminence over established fact.

That was a very good job of describing the timeline, Astyanax. My grandmother kept some of those old magazines when my uncle moved out, so i got to see some, too.

You used the term "Conspiracy Theorist". That term has begun to have some pretty severe negative connotations, along the lines of "Liberal" or "Conservative". It would seem to me that it lumps many type of people together.

I, for one, could likely be considered a Conspiracy Theorist. However, i do not believe any of the conspiracies to be true. I believe little to be true. I do believe that many things are possible, and since our government doesn't want to be forthcoming, i am left with no option but to draw my own conclusions. Unfortunately, after the Tuskeegee Airmen, i have not faith in our government being benevolent, so the likelyhood of nefarious acts is not removed as an option.

I will say that people see UFO's in places outside trailer parks. They were seen over DC, O'Hare Airport, among others by respectable people. Reagan discussed aliens, Carter discussed UFO's. You cannot rightfully label a group as cranks when they have such strong reason to have their ideas.

One comment you made, in particular, is interesting to me:

In science, doubtful data are discounted. In conspiracy theorists' minds, the opposite happens: doubtful data are given preeminence over established fact.

The "doubtful data" is the problem. You cannot discount this data. You got information returned to you,and you just ignore it because you are incapable of including it in the model you are formulating? That just doesn't seem reasonable. Honestly, such practices lead me to believe that a predetermined result is desired, and the "data" is fixed around this result.

I do data analysis for a living. You cannot ignore any segment of it that you cannot explain fully. If you want to ignore it, you must understand why it is not viable. If this cannot be done (and replicated) then you do not understand it, and you are being lazy as an analyst if you do.

In my work we have a saying that applies to our governments approach, and it has become prevalent in our private institutions as well:

"Figure's don't lie, but liars can figure"

Bear in mind that, consiering the track record of truthfulness and benevolence our government has, there are many, many people out there who just don't buy it anymore. The problem with this is many of them are cranks, so now all get lumped into the same box.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanMercury have ice is HUGE news.

It may have been huge, but it's old (from 1991). Do some Googling:

"Scientists now believe that the ice resides on the floors of craters at Mercury's north pole, where it can remain permanently shaded from the Sun and reach temperatures as low as 125 degrees Kelvin (-235 degrees Farenheit)."

Your assumptions about Mercury are incorrect.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by nataylor]