Did NASA know the "face" on Mars was an illusion from the start?

Could NASA have known right from the git-go that there was no anomaly present at Cydonia, but they saw it as a way to get everyone motivated to go there? Use it to bolster a rejuvenated interest in a dying space exploration program?

Think about it. . .

Apollo program was dead in 1972. Missions canceled. The last few not even televised for the most part. The Russians wern't going there any time soon.

Only manned missions were to skylab to stay up with the Russian Mir program. Visions of "Star Wars" anti-missle programs & other satellite based intelligence gathering kept us interested in LEO missions, but exploring other celestial bodies was not seen as anything beneficial. This also included the Space Shuttle program.

Many future NASA space exploration projects that would needs billions in funding were on the drawing boards. ( Moon base, Mars mission, deep space probes, etc. ) Yet again, there was no dire need to beat the Russians to get there first because they were not going any time soon.

Could someone at NASA have seen the photos from Viking and envisioned a poster child/cash cow to generate the funding needed for their future endeavors in "the face"?

Any thoughts?

2PacSade-

[edit on 27-9-2007 by 2PacSade]

fixed bad thread title- too long

[edit on 27-9-2007 by 2PacSade]

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Could NASA have known right from the git-go that there was no anomaly present at Cydonia, but they saw it as a way to get everyone motivated to go there? Use it to bolster a rejuvenated interest in a dying space exploration program?

Well if that was the case we may probably presume that they would not have , to say nothing of the persisting effort, had to hide the evidence for it?

Think about it. . .

Apollo program was dead in 1972. Missions canceled. The last few not even televised for the most part. The Russians wern't going there any time soon.

If one looks at the official records the Americans did not beat the Russians to the moon by much ( or at all if you would believe some reports, which i don't) and the Russians did follow the American landing because it served them better to simply start denying that they had tried but lost the race.

Only manned missions were to skylab to stay up with the Russian Mir program. Visions of "Star Wars" anti-missle programs & other satellite based intelligence gathering kept us interested in LEO missions, but exploring other celestial bodies was not seen as anything beneficial. This also included the Space Shuttle program.

There were also plenty of other good reason to do all those things including a cold war.

Many future NASA space exploration projects that would needs billions in funding were on the drawing boards. ( Moon base, Mars mission, deep space probes, etc. ) Yet again, there was no dire need to beat the Russians to get there first because they were not going any time soon.

The Russians were right on NASA's heals and given the activity on the moon SOMEONE ( or something, if you wish) is certainly still there.

Could someone at NASA have seen the photos from Viking and envisioned a poster child/cash cow to generate the funding needed for their future endeavors in "the face"?

Any thoughts?

Well i suppose it's a nice theory but since the face is real and they are still trying their damnest to hide that fact it's just not a accurate theory. The shuttle is also massively wasteful as SLV and NASA well understands how they can save billions to do all the other things they might wish to. You are free to keep coming up with these theories but it's always best to first establish a factual base with some basic contradictions before you start the construction work.

Stellar

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Could someone at NASA have seen the photos from Viking and envisioned a poster child/cash cow to generate the funding needed for their future endeavors in "the face"?

The only people "generating funding" from exploitation of Cydonia "artifacts" are clowns like Hoagland and his fantasy-prone ilk.

I don't recall any public statements from NASA attempting to use the "face" on Mars as a justification to return to Mars.

An interesting conjecture 2PacSade!!

reply to post by StellarX


Hey thanx for your thoughts Stellar. Even though this thread was concentrating on the theory that NASA used it as disinfo-

I'm curious how you know the face is real? What evidence brought you to this conclusion? Thanx-

2PacSade-

Originally posted by StellarX
Well if that was the case we may probably presume that they would not have , to say nothing of the persisting effort, had to hide the evidence for it?

Could you please show me the proof that NASA has been hiding evidence regarding the face on Mars? I believe the "Mars Face believers" have gotten (and some could say distorted) ALL of their evidence from NASA's Public information.

Can you show me actual data that NASA has covered-up regarding the face (or prove to me that data exists that has been covered-up)?

i like to believe that when the face appeared on their monitors that they could build a house with how many bricks dropped.

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Hey thanx for your thoughts Stellar. Even though this thread was concentrating on the theory that NASA used it as disinfo-

I noticed.

I'm curious how you know the face is real? What evidence brought you to this conclusion? Thanx-

By the time found Tom Van Flandern's work i were pretty convinced and since then i have given up the pretense of doubt...

www.metaresearch.org...

metaresearch.org...

If you take a closer look at the following NASA comparison table you can use the crater at the bottom left to see how editing algorithms were applied to smooth out and destroy detail in the post 1976 data.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Hoagland goes on to explain why we can't use the type of filters they did if we wanted anything approximating a true perspective.

www.enterprisemission.com...

And then a contribution from Hoagland showing that the face does not consist of the same materials as the 'regular' landscape around it.

www.enterprisemission.com...

I hope that helps.

Stellar

Sooo....The face on Mars is "real"...then what ?

I mean, I don't have an opinion either way on this subject, but if anyone suggests there is or was some sort of "civilisation" on Mars, then some rock formation that looks like a face isn't exactly the evidence most people would be likely to accept...

If that is what is being suggested, try harder...I mean, if all this does is convince a couple of hundred (or thousand or tens of thousands) of people on CT sites throughout the world that they believe there was or is some sort of civilisation on Mars, big deal...

The standard of proof amongst most other people who don't believe this is much higher than those on CT sites who do...

Only way we might find out for sure is if we put people up there and take a good look...

However, in a possible plus to the CT side, the powers that be aren't exactly going to allow a manned mission to explore sites like this, are they ?

All adds up to the mystery of the thing...

Hopefully we'll know one way or another in my lifetime...

Peace

reply to post by 2PacSade


Interesting idea, but I'm pretty sure that NASA stated when the 'face' picture first appeared that it was just a trick of the light ..... and outside of some tabloid media speculation, there was never any suggestion at the time that it might be anything else.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Could you please show me the proof that NASA has been hiding evidence regarding the face on Mars?

I think you will be able to find plenty in my previous post given NASA's relatively simple minded approach to destroying detail and height in those images.

I believe the "Mars Face believers" have gotten (and some could say distorted) ALL of their evidence from NASA's Public information.

Since we have no alternative streams of data coming from Mars ( well at least nothing so detailed) we are dependent on NASA and others for our information. You do not seem to factor in the reality that NASA is not a monolithic organization ( people work there after all) and that they have their own agenda's that do not always agree with the official secrecy program. The is mostly coming from NASA but not always by official or even legal channels hence their predicament.

Can you show me actual data that NASA has covered-up regarding the face (or prove to me that data exists that has been covered-up)?

I don't know that i can as the evidence have been there for you to see for at least a decade now. If you could not figure out the truth so far your either not trying or not able to appreciate the facts when you have found them. My previous links should be enough but maybe it helps if i present other instances where NASA has altered science data?

www.marsnews.com...

www.marsnews.com...

www.marsnews.com...

Basically shows that we do occasionally find them blatantly tampering with the data when they release their claimed best data at all.

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...

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...

The American space agency Nasa has been accused of doctoring its pictures of Mars to make the Martian surface conform to our impression of the famously red planet.
Nasa has been accused of digitally "tweaking" drab brown scenery to make it redder. It has even been suggested that Nasa removed green patches to hide evidence of life.

The theories gained credence after Nasa told New Scientist that "getting the colours right is a surprisingly difficult and subjective job", the magazine reports today.
Most of the pictures have been taken through green, blue and infra-red filters - instead of green, blue and standard red filters, which would have produced more accurate colours.

Dr Jim Bell, who worked with Nasa on the Mars rovers' cameras, said infrared filters were used because they helped geologists to distinguish rock types.
In reality, Mars appears red largely because of the dust in its atmosphere.

www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=4QRRQRIU1H00FQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2004/01/29/wnasa29.xml

Exposes the fact that they will lie about even something as basic as how the surface of Mars would appear to a human observer next to the rovers.

I can go on the show that it's not only that particular face that they are attempting to 'disappear' but that there are many more instances where NASA is simply destroying data or editing our what they do not like us to see.

Stellar

There are days on earth when everything looks grey, others when there's a mass of vibrant colours.

An alien probe landing on earth could therefore very well transmit very conflicting pictures of what colour Earth's sky is and even the colour of grass ....

Maybe mars is no different - colours varying according to weather and light conditions?

Of course, the other problem is how do you calibrate the cameras to show true colour when you only have the images from the cameras to tell you what true colour is?

And even humans see colours differently

In other words it's possible all the pictures are correct - or, indeed, none of them.

Originally posted by Essan
There are days on earth when everything looks grey, others when there's a mass of vibrant colours.

What would we do without you, Essan.

An alien probe landing on earth could therefore very well transmit very conflicting pictures of what colour Earth's sky is and even the colour of grass ....

That's possible but what reason do we have to suspect that their space agency would also mess with the colors full well knowing how to do better?

Maybe mars is no different - colours varying according to weather and light conditions?

Sure...

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...

Of course, the other problem is how do you calibrate the cameras to show true colour when you only have the images from the cameras to tell you what true colour is?

For a intelligent person you don't seem to be putting much effort into figuring out how that can be done...

Basically the use a reference 'chart' a very short distance away from the camera on the rover knowing that colors can and will not distort significantly or at all in atmosphere of Mars as detected by satellites and previous landers. Basically they have a fool proof way to calibrate their camera with and this is known if not admitted to the public they wish to fool.

If the colors in the reference chart is not RGB then the camera were not properly calibrated for the particular picture.

[qupte]And even humans see colours differently

Green is red, brown is orange, war is peace and freedom is slavery? I get where your coming from Essan...

In other words it's possible all the pictures are correct - or, indeed, none of them.

As long as we don't have to reach any conclusions that would reflect negatively on scientist or the science establishment ANYTHING seems to be possible in your view.

Do you think us, and especially me in this case, such fools Essan?

Stellar

Hey, I'm just speculating as a true sceptic should

(and a true sceptic doesn't necessarily beleive the NASA line either )

We do however need to consider all possibilities before drawing any conclusions

here is an explantion about the colours of the mars pictures.

www.abovetopsecret.com...#

short answer:

The answer is that the color chips on the sundial have different colors in the near-infrared range of Pancam filters. For example, the blue chip is dark near 600 nm, where humans see red light, but is especially bright at 750 nm, which is used as "red" for many Pancam images. So it appears pink in RGB composites. We chose the pigments for the chips on purpose this way, so they could provide different patterns of brightnesses regardless of which filters we used. The details of the colors of the pigments are published in a paper I wrote in the December issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), in case you want more details...

[edit on 30-9-2007 by yeti101]

Of course the Face on Mars is real...
I have proof. I have a set of postage stamps from Sierre Leone with the Face on one of them...
I mean...it's on an official government issued item...what more do you need?
I hope this finally puts this thread to bed.

Originally posted by yeti101
here is an explantion about the colours of the mars pictures.

www.abovetopsecret.com...#

That's 'obfuscation' not 'explanation'.

short answer:

The answer is that the color chips on the sundial have different colors in the near-infrared range of Pancam filters. For example, the blue chip is dark near 600 nm, where humans see red light, but is especially bright at 750 nm, which is used as "red" for many Pancam images. So it appears pink in RGB composites. We chose the pigments for the chips on purpose this way, so they could provide different patterns of brightnesses regardless of which filters we used.

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...

Please read and understand that NASA have had the capacity to give us true as-you-would-see-it pictures of the martian surface since day one and have been pretending that their use of the infared filter constitutes their best approximate true color. That is a LIE and a lie that is readily obvious by looking at all the pictures that have been sent back to Earth over the years.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

ftp.fas.org...

We can even see the 'blue' Martian atmosphere from Earth based telescopes!

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

www.solarviews.com...

calspace.ucsd.edu...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And we really have no reason to expect it to be 'red'...

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...

You think the last statement is based on coincidence? The are SO serious about their plans to keep the truth from us that they will not even allow us to become used to a Mars that looks similar to Earth...

Stellar

[edit on 6-10-2007 by StellarX]