Mars, What the hell is going on?

I don't know of any transcript but it was a film made by a company called JEMWorks, LLC and it is basically a general rundown of UFO phenomenon (although it leaves out alot also). You will need the google video player to watch the full-length show. The airbrushing is just a small piece of the NASA disinformation puzzle though. This small youtube clip from the History channel pretty much summarizes another piece of the puzzle which is this..

NASA publicly denies what it already knows, which is that UFO's and alien spacecraft are constantly observed in orbit by our NASA astronauts and observed by NASA in general while the administration denies and refuses to confirm the evidence that it, itself, has recorded to support the activity.


The big picture of NASA secrecy and disinformation leads in many directions but the point is that nothing can honestly be trusted. The difficult part is finding out what is the real/truthful information and what is disinformation dispatched by NASA. The big discerning factor between the two are the witnesses that have come forward whose observations and statements attest to the disintegrity of NASA in many ways to lie to the public while keeping a huge secret.

IMO, if the credibility of the entire administration as a whole is in question, then how can you honestly look at ANY photo and really believe what you are looking at. I'm not saying that we should all be paranoid and think that everything is a lie. I'm just saying that the truth becomes misconstrued by NASA towards it's own ends and, so, you are left exactly where you began regardless of what research NASA is doing or presenting to the public because you cannot know what has been altered to make you think a certain way (they're playing mind-games with the public basically so that we won't get suspicious). This was the entire reason for NASA installing DOD encrypted radio communications within it's shuttles for discussion about UFO's. It's all so the public doesn't catch on even though the videos in orbit are recording UFO's anyway LOL.

-ChriS

[edit on 17-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by BlasteR]

This is an interesting thread. Ill say this for starters, its a very valid question to answer.

The position by NASA and astrologists examining planetary footage of other planet is "assumption of natural formation". Whats interesting to note is that this approach does not follow logic, reason or established doctrine on terrain study which has been used in studying Earth images for years.

In The study of Earth images certain formations dictate a high probablity of "man made" structure. One key structure is the rectangle and this reasearch and rule is what is currently supported and used by all terrestrial archeological image study AND military and sat study.

Its the "assumption of natural formation" which is irregular here not the corelation of a rectangle to possible construction which is a very well established and used technique.

The actual technique used is a study of regularity which usually has something like a 95% accuracy comparing man made vs natural formation, nature only on very rare occassions can produce regular form such as rectangles ect.

Anyway, the point being that NASA are once again NOT to be trusted because they have again opted for a completely unproven and unsupportable "technique" (im insulting the word technique here as its nothing more than easy dismissal) as their basis for conclusions.

There are established and well used methods for studying terrain from sat images and yet NASA apparently have once again decided to disregard accepted doctrine and use guesswork instead.

Now im not saying it IS a door what im saying is that if NASA used established criteria it would warrant investigation and demonstration, as it would in Earth based studies. How can you trust an organisation which does not behave scientifically on a topic to provide you with answers?

reply to post by silver6ix


The fact that Earth has several millions of people able to make artificial structures visible from space and that not one living creature has been identified on Mars may account for that "assumption of natural formation".

And with all those people here on Earth I always assume that something is natural because even on Earth there are more natural things than artificial things.

But that it's just my way of thinking.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thats fine for you or I, but its not science and has no basis or support.

Its a case of assuming based on a factor we deem to be unreasonable. Science has a responsibility to be scientific and use correct established and justifiable methodology.

If you presented "scientific" theory based on this sort of position on Earth your work would not even be considered because it fails to respect scientific method. Thats the nature of science, methodology, control and established techniques are important.

Assumption is simply assumption. How can astrology be respected as a science when it opts for assumption over years and years of established theory, methodology and proven fact.

It doesnt matter how many structures there are on Earth, what matters is the science and evidence behind the techniques in use. Many very skilled people have worked on image theory, its used in many fields in Earth science and military sat analysis and target selection, its openly accepted on Earth.

When you have established methodology your right to call your work "science" goes out the window when you choose to throw away established scientific method and replace it with guesswork based on the fact you dont believe in alien life.

Bear in mind life on Mars might well be exitinct if it ever existed. Mars might well have had water and life long before we were smart enough to see it, so what would remain are buried structures and archeological evidence and the right way to study the terrain images would be using the established facts and methods, not guess work based on what you wish to believe true.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Nice find Gun.

The coin pics have been discussed here before in a rather long thread and it goes for the dust devils as well. But the "doorway" and the dunes was pretty new for me.

The hole in the rock could be a shadow from from a rock infront of the rock....

But since I like to imagine things to escape the real world sometimes I would like to believe it to be a big hole. Same chance of it to be a hole as it to be a shadow to be honest.

The dunes pics are far out.
Those really makes you wonder. Trees, plants, smoke....could be anything.
What makes these so interesting is that we don't have anything here on Earth to compare it with. We have caves here, we have doorways and we have shadows....but those things on the dunes...

Could be anything.

And it is those finds I found interesting. When we find something we can't compare with. It is often those pics who gets the most silly explanations because we tend to always compare it with things on Earth.
We are watching alien worlds here, we shouldn't compare anything on what we have on this planet to be honest. We need to stop use ourselves and our world as the universal encyclopedia for everything.

Thinking out of the box....

Great find gun. Starred and Flagged.

reply to post by silver6ix


OK, if I understand what you are saying, what you think it should be the assumption, if any, made by the NASA scientists?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by silver6ix

 

OK, if I understand what you are saying, what you think it should be the assumption, if any, made by the NASA scientists?

None. They either state they do not know and its outwith their mission parameters and give the material undoctored to other independant scientists for reasearch, or they conduct research by correct scientific means.


If NASA were honest and just said "hey, we dont know what the shapes are, and we dont know what those UFO looking lights are in the film, we dont have the funding or the time to study them because we are busy with our mission objectives" id be happy.

I can understand NASA going to Mars for example with strict mission parameters, they wont have the time or the means to go investigating every strange formation. However I do think they should be opening up the access to that study so those specialists who do that kind of study can do some work independantly and lets see what the scientific approach to it tells us.

My issue is simply that NASA tend to dismiss things for no sane reason, invent excuses for everything they dont want to discuss and then bury their film and images as deep as they can. The moon photos are hilarious, they airburshed the hell out of them and it just leaves you scracthing you head, WHY would their airbrush out terrain details in MOON pictures? Whats the point, are the deliberately trying to look suspect because it seems that way sometimes.

NASA havent achieved anything, sure they got to the moon using technology thats been around for years, rocket propulsion. What have they actually managed to achieve? For all those billions of dollars what exactly do NASA do? Sweet # all apart from take and hide pictures, release as little as possible and theories about things we might do 100 years from now.

In the meantime all the really interesting or at least sideline things we could have investigated get ignored and buried because NASA either dont care or have ulterior motives regarding the subject. Really the whole realm of astro physics is a sham, filled with people who have little more than half arsed theories, dont follow scientific prodcedure or rules and generally make things up in conveniece to whats easiest to think.

I find them all a waste of money and space to be honest.

N.A.S.A = Need Another Space Agency

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Originally posted by silver6ix
None. They either state they do not know and its outwith their mission parameters and give the material undoctored to other independant scientists for reasearch, or they conduct research by correct scientific means.

OK, could you point me a recent example of "doctored" material? I haven't seen any outside the marketing department.

I can understand NASA going to Mars for example with strict mission parameters, they wont have the time or the means to go investigating every strange formation. However I do think they should be opening up the access to that study so those specialists who do that kind of study can do some work independantly and lets see what the scientific approach to it tells us.

Why do you think that they do not give access to other scientists?

The moon photos are hilarious, they airburshed the hell out of them and it just leaves you scracthing you head, WHY would their airbrush out terrain details in MOON pictures? Whats the point, are the deliberately trying to look suspect because it seems that way sometimes.

As I said before, I haven't seen any airbrushed or altered image outside marketing and publicity areas.

Really the whole realm of astro physics is a sham, filled with people who have little more than half arsed theories, dont follow scientific prodcedure or rules and generally make things up in conveniece to whats easiest to think.

Aren't you exaggerating a little? Do you know all astrophysicists? And all organisations dedicated to astrophysics?

Airbrushed images.



Thats one, there are more. You would be better looking for yourself. theres plenty around. Now I know you are going to say they arent NASA pictures, and im going to say sure, someone mocked up whole martian and lunar sat pictures just to add blurs. Most of the pictures that were released with discovered "retouching" are no longer available via NASA.

I dont need to know every Astro Physisist personally and neither does anyone else, the whole field of astro physics has produced nothing but further unprovable theory which is amusing coming from a field based on a science which cant even prove its lynchpin principle (gravity).

Can you tell me what astro physics has given us? Probably the same as quantum mechanics, nothing but mounds of theories which they still cat prove.

In NASAs case what have they achieved which justifies the billions they spend. Why arent the years and years worth of footage they have beamed live from the moon and mars stas for example available for public consumption? NASA have reams of information and what do we see? A couple of retouched colour adjusted pictures of parts THEY decide to show us and the rest? Whats the issue?

They cant discover anything so the very least they can do is be of interest and let the public view the footage for instrests sake, i know Id love to see that footage, would be fascinating to see if nothing else.

NASA are useless and unreliable, they lie constantly change their story on a regular basis.

You know that way back in the day NASA used to broadcast LIVE footage from its missions, until the press spotted a UFO and asked NASA what it was, after that their arseholes clamed up tigher than a rats sphincter and five years of freely accesible film became locked away never to be seen again by the mushroom people. Since then they show us only images they select when they please.

Is that an honest organisation at work here?

NASA always cite their integrity but they never actually BEHAVE in an open and honest fashion, if they could give live footage and leave their films unedited all those years ago, why with all the advances in internet and media do they still hold to the clandestine policies they use?

Why cant we see what the Mars lander is doing? Did you ever ask yourself that? Whats with all the secrecy? They have the film in digital, day, months, years of the #, whats the issue here?

Are you saying the public isnt interested or has no right to share in those images. I think the point is very valid myself.

Why dont you mail NASA and ask them?

reply to post by silver6ix


Scientific method:

Ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Communicate Your Results

The scientific method is being followed with Mars research:

Question: What is Mars really like?

Various imaging techiques along with chemical and physical experiments on the surface have wielded a huge amount of data

A few of the hypotheses which have been constructed:
There is frozen water and water vapor on Mars.
There is or has been liquid water on Mars.
There may have been or is life on Mars
Geologic processes similar to those on Earth occur on Mars
Geologic processes dissimilar to those on Earth occur on Mars

Testing of some of the hypothesis has been carried out. Others need more data before conclusions can be reached.

A few of the conclusions which have be reached:
There is frozen water and water vapor on Mars.
Geologic processes similar to those on Earth occur on Mars
Geologic processes dissimilar to those on Earth occur on Mars

The results are published regularly.

It is not just NASA doing work with the collected data. In fact, the majority of the work being done is at universities all over the world. The data collected by NASA and others is made freely available for that research. The research is being done by highly trained and educated scientists. You might be surprised at some of the papers that have been published (if you bothered to look), not all of them discount the possibility of life on Mars.

It's obvious by your statements that you haven't really bothered to look for real information. You talk about "airbrushed" images but can't even come up with a conspiracy theory as to why it would be done. You talk about how little progress has been made, things we could have studied, things that have been buried. You have no idea about what how much been accomplished because perhaps your little interests haven't been looked at. So why don't you learn a bit? Why don't you design an experiment? Why don't you do something? You talk about science but you have no understanding of what science is.

reply to post by Phage


WOW, im going to take a bow. The only thing they have confirmed is that trace elements of water exist on Mars from soil samples. Im gobsmacked since that was already pretty much accepted from previous footage

Is that it? Really thats the extend of the latest billions spend on a buggy to Mars. Well # me I take it all back, they are truly breaking the world apart with their discoveries, it makes a history of waste and incompetence all worth while.

A gazillion dollars to know that theres a trace element of water on Mars, brilliant stuff.

As for all the rest you cite, pure theory and conjecture, it existed before this mission and will continue to be theory after it.

I think you should do some research and come up with something a little more valuable than that.

As for the footage, its still not publically available for INDEPENDANT scientists, that means non vetted non selected scientist with free access to infiormation not just what NASA chooses to give out.

Ive never claimed there are structures on the Mars or the Moon btw, just that NASA tamper images and keep all their footage to themsleves and have achieved nothing.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by silver6ix


Phoenix rover images taken yesterday:
phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...

reply to post by silver6ix



I see you use Skipper as an authority. That says a lot.

First you complain about not following scientific principles. Now you complain because they do.

Please do take a bow.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Actually the images you were given, not all the images taken

Im still not sure what your point is? All of the things NASA is doing now were practically comfirmable with various imaging techniques and spectrum analyis. Again, waste of time, waste of effort and distinct lack of interest. Certainly not justifying the existence of NASA or the funds it burns.

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by Phage

 

Actually the images you were given, not all the images taken

And your basis for that claim would be?
Can you provide evidence, or did the dog eat your homework?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by silver6ix

 

I see you use Skipper as an authority. That says a lot.

First you complain about not following scientific principles. Now you complain because they do.

Please do take a bow.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]

Im sure they followed scientific principle in designing the life support systems for their shuttles also, whats your point here?

Each case is disctint isnt it? Because they follow principle on one that means I should listen to them when they dont?

I fail to see your logic. Second of all I think you have a very rudimentary view of science. A basic outline doesnt mean you follow scientifc principle. Do you know the methodolgy being used, the control factors, the environment variables and the analysis techniques. Ahhh, no, of course not, you would rather just post Science 101 Welcome to the Lab for the First time, lists on what science is all about.

Whether or not they do adhere to principles on the mission who knows, although im sure even NASA can manage to test a soil sample without #ing it up. Im still not sure what they have given in return for the hundreds of billions blown on them over the last 50 or whatever years or did I blink and miss something?

Arent they supposed to be advancing science at the same time? How does telling us things we could already figure out advance science? Is that it? The highlight of a whole mission was that? Im sorry miss the point again here because if thats all they needed to do they should have waited untl they could thing of some other more inetresting and viable tests to do at the same time because all that effort to get water from a soil sample is pointless and rediculous and advances nothing.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by Phage

 

Actually the images you were given, not all the images taken

And your basis for that claim would be?
Can you provide evidence, or did the dog eat your homework?

d have thought that obvious. How many hours in a day, now tell me if you see 24 hours worth of footage?.....rather obvious isnt it.

Neither curiously enough can you get access to the hours and hours of footage from the GS sat. In fact you dont get very much out of NASA if im being perfectly honest.

PS that array of film and images that occupy no doubt a warehouse of KRAY XMPS by now was paid for by public funds and I fail to see what right NASA have to keep it all locked away, it should really be public domain since as they repeatedly state theres nothing of interest.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by silver6ix


That is not an airbrushed image.

That image is from the Clementine Lunar Image Browser 1.5, and it's still available, this is how it looks without the resizing and colouring made by J. P. Skipper.

If you want to see it for yourself, point your browser to this site and choose "1 pixel = 1 kilometer" as the Desired Resolution, the size you want for the image (I chose 512x512) and -30 for the latitude and 208 (and not -208 as the image you posted says) for the longitude, and press the "Use Lat/Long" button.

If you click on the image it will show you an image at the original size, but it's very difficult to find the place we want that way.

The same area on the Clementine Lunar Map 2.0 (Beta) looks like this.


You may notice that one of the "airbrushed" areas does not exist, and although I think this photo was never taken, I suppose you will say that it was deleted or hidden, and I have no way of knowing who is right.

But if you say that NASA is to blame then I would like to point that NASA was not the responsible for this mission, it was a joint mission between NASA and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, that is why both browsers above are from military (navy) sites.

reply to post by ArMaP


The second image you posted has been touched. Download it, pull it into an image program and examine the section at the bottom right of the black crater.

Its a better done touchup buts its clearly visible, even from a distance you can see the deformity at the bottom right of the creater where the "obvious touch" is visible in the other images, zoom in to 150% and you will see clearly the image has the same tampering only slight less visible.

PS the visible rectangle in the second image on room almost exactly matches that block formation which is visible in the first images.

Im not saying its buildings but I am saying that for whatever stupid reason NASA does touch its photos.


If you want to see more go here

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Yes its takes a "leap" in suggesting things are building ect, but thats not the point. What it does is not only highlights the tampers but he also provides a link to the official NASA foto in each case so you can see the image is theirs for yourself which kills the claim he added this stuff. Its all there, the images have been edited.

You ask why, well off the top of my head I could suggest one reason. Maybe its to do with the usual reason, croporate greed. Could it be there are signs of minerals or terrain indicators which might be useful for prospecting such things? Could it be that certain people want to keep that information to themselves for future exploitation?

Theres one perfectly rational explanation right there.
[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Originally posted by silver6ix
The second image you posted has been touched. Download it, pull it into an image program and examine the section at the bottom right of the black crater.

I don't need to download it, the image on my post is a copy I made and uploaded to Imageshack, I already have it.

Its a better done touchup buts its clearly visible, even from a distance you can see the deformity at the bottom right of the creater where the "obvious touch" is visible in the other images, zoom in to 150% and you will see clearly the image has the same tampering only slight less visible.

There is no need of zoom in on the image, click on the link I posted and see for yourself, on that site you can see the image much bigger that this, and it's easier to see that there is no "obvious touch".

PS the visible rectangle in the second image on room almost exactly matches that block formation which is visible in the first images.

I think that the blurred rectangles on the version 1.5 were made by the algorithm used to create the images when there was no image available.

If you want to see more go here

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

I know that site, and it is useless for image analysis, he does not understand a thing about imaging, and if he does then he his purposely misleading people.

You ask why, well off the top of my head I could suggest one reason.

No, I don't.