Strange image of new lander photo

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Nice info, SGIP...as always!

Funny thing about 'true' color....what we see, what we interpret as a 'color' that we have assigned a name, varies depending on the light source. Our eyes evolved to see a certain spectrum, and under conditions of our nearest star...move to a different star system, if that star's light is, say....bluer than the Sun's, then colors will look very different, to our eyes.

Even in our own Solar System, the gases that comprise the atmosphere of another planet, if not Nitrogen/Oxygen, may also affect the resulting color perception.

Originally posted by sensfan
How would they possible know the exact location of a discarded parachute, or heat shield? Neither of the two objects has built on location devices, or any way to transmit that data.

Excuse me, but you aren't actually presenting any evidence to prove this statement as fact. You can't discredit someone elses "speculation" without proof.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but NASA wrote off the OP's picture by saying it was a camera artifact.

Newscientist.com

The buttom image of the series of four (scroll down) is the same as the OP's image, with a small description given to it.

reply to post by Crabmeat


Well, to be completely accurate, they haven't written it off as a imaging artifact just yet...the article says that NASA at the moment believes it is a camera artifact, but they want to swing the camera around and look at it again (perhaps in high-resolution this time).

I think it will end up being a camera artifact.

[edit on 5/28/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Crabmeat
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but NASA wrote off the OP's picture by saying it was a camera artifact.

Oh THAT is rich!!!

All this talk here about it being part of the parachute etc... and what does NASA say?


The linear white object in the horizon may be an image artefact (Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona)

Gotta love it...

Maybe we ought to send them a box of disposable cameras I bet we get better results

Briefing on NASA TV starts about right now.

They're supposed to move the robotic arm today but they didn't say when. The MRO failed to relay the commands to move the robotic arm yesterday.

I've noticed a pattern with NASA. They'll say it 'may' be an image artifact, take another picture with higher resolution, and airbrush it out, and then say 'oh that was an image artifact afterall' while in the meantime they find a beacon with the secrets to immortality.

If anyone don't mind, could you tell me what's going on on NASA TV

I am getting impatient. I really want to see the pictures from the robotic arm camera.

reply to post by zorgon


Z, how are you going to get the film from those cameras back to us on the good ole' Earth??

What, you expect a Hasselblad???

Did you read Soylent's posts? Tell us he doesn't know what he's talking about, and tell us why you think so.

For those of you too young to remember, before digital took over, there used to be this stuff called "film"....silver oxide particles on a cellulose (later plastic) medium, that, when exposed to light, through a lens, would capture an image....in negative, of course. Not quite like how our own eyes work, but similar....except for the negative part.

Over simplified, I know...but eventually people learned how to use light-sensitive paper to develop these negatives into 'photographs' that you could carry around with you, in your wallet or purse.

Eventually, the basic SO was modified so instead of graduations on gray, color was possible.....color that our eyes could discern.
But, there was 'transparency' film, to make slides.....not sure how that worked.....but, it's all 'digital' now....well, mostly.

A robotic vessel, 150 million miles away, with limited electrical power, needs to be very conservative when transmitting the data back to Earth.

Its data stream contains other information, as well....not just visuals.....

oops....spelling.....oops




[edit on 5/28/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Crabmeat


Crabmeat, you can't "airbrush" a digital picture!!

Unless you're using the generic term "arbrush" not in the literal sense....perhaps 'photoshop' would be more appropriate??

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon --

Most consumer digital cameras (even the diposable kind) will have built-in software that "fills in" a missing pixel or two, based on the surrounding pixels. The filled in pixel isn't really what was there in the original scene, but it's good enough for personal use.

NASA on the other hand does not want false information -- they either want to get a pixel right, or don't get it at all. So there is no "filling in" of bad pixels.

I'm not saying that that alledged artifact was caused by blank pixels. It could be a reflection off of a bright rock or possibly ice. A bright relection can cause data loss; it happened quite often with the rovers. But to mock NASA on this is just ridiculous.

...oh yeah -- and are those dispoable cameras part of a system that can transmit the image information 150,000,000 +/- miles across space with near 0% data loss? I didn't think so.

[edit on 5/28/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Z, how are you going to get the film from those cameras back to us on the good ole' Earth??

Why the secret astronaut corps, naturally... you know those guys who repair the Rovers to 'keep em going" ?

What, you expect a Hasselblad???

Sure why not? But how about those old cameras they used on LO and Clementine?

Did you read Soylent's posts? Tell us he doesn't know what he's talking about, and tell us why you think so.

Don't know about Soylent, but you don't Your supposedly a pilot, yet pass off as a space expert and now a photo expert? Hmmmm curious indeed and quite condesending at that..

For those of you too young to remember, before digital took over, there used to be this stuff called "film"...

As to 'airbrushing' digital photos your comment is just so much Bovine Scat...

First of all the term "airbrushing" as used in these threads by most people is just used as a GENERIC term for editing

Second my Paintshop Pro has an airbrushing tool that works the same way as a real airbrush... and even lets you clone perfectly from one image to another...

So stick to what you claim to know best... flying

Originally posted by weedwhacker
if that star's light is, say....bluer than the Sun's, then colors will look very different, to our eyes.

Poppy Cock!!! If we were under a purple star things would look purple but our eyes would see it as PURPLE not green

The scenery would look different but our eyes would still register the same wavelengths of light which we translate to color

The point is we are all still here on earth viewing images from Mars or the Moon that as far as I know are lit by the same sun as Earth, therefor I should have reasonable expectations of seeing a simple photograph in true color..

SHEESH what a bunch of obfuscation over a simple issue...


To ALL...

In other news......

Channel Three News here in Vegas carried the new Phoenix images and specifically pointed out the anomaly in question and that NASA has no real answer....

Gotta love it

More Food for thought...

The overhead camera that has taken the Parachute descending, and more photos of the ground showing the lander and its various parts....

Amazing isn't it? seems it was there just at the right time... and 'hung around' to snap more pictures from descent to after landing...

Considering NASA's usual track record of delays and bungles... this is a truly amazing stunt

reply to post by zorgon


Z.....I wish I could tell everyone about the U2U's we have traded.....but, as you've said, revealing those private comms would lead to BANNING!!!

Why would you say that??

Was it because, when I was new on ATS....you thought you could intimidate me??? Was that your plan????

Well....your intimidation tactics don't work any more.

Z....I offered to meet you, when I went to Las Vegas, last March....you were too busy!!

Folks, all who read this.....Zorgon was too busy!! He constantly wishes to put me down, on this site....but to actually meet me in person??? Nah, he chickened out.

What does this tell you about, not only Zorgon, but the esteemed 'John Lear' (Zorgon's friend) .....who, in a fit of pique, childishly left ATS.....and burned some bridges, but is still able to come back and post, but refuses to.....so selfish!!!

edits were spelling, and format....






[edit on 5/28/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
NASA on the other hand does not want false information --

Interesting theory I will have to look into that...

Mock NASA? well maybe I do that on occasion... but that's my job

Somebody has to keep them on their toes... Besides if they were bothered by me and I had no valid case they could always shut me (and all other "exposing NASA' sites)

In THIS case naturally we have almost nothing to go on... as you say a reflection off something bright either spaceship part or chunk of ice... ( I would rule out crystal based on the terrain I see )

A bright relfection can cause data loss; it happened quite often with the rovers.

Yes it can and happened with Clementine as well... but me personally when something reflects light enough to mess up the pixels... it perk my curiosity

...oh yeah -- and are those dispoable cameras part of a system that can transmit the image information 150,000,000 +/- miles across space with near 0% data loss? I didn't think so.

Well I don't suppose I could have posted that suggestion facetiously? But as I mentioned to Herr Wacker... I see nothing stopping the secret astronaut corp from collection the film


As to NASA and its dedication to the truth...

Remember all that fuss we made trying to convince everyone there were clouds on the Moon?

Well it seems NASA has come up and agreed.. not only clouds but DUST STORMS

Every lunar morning, when the sun first peeks over the dusty soil of the moon after two weeks of frigid lunar night, a strange storm stirs the surface.

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.

Never heard of it? Few have. But scientists are increasingly confident that the storm is real.

They could have told us this years ago... but decided not to... (considering its Apollo data) So you will have to forgive me if I keep hazing NASA to 'spit it out"

They also talk about the Sunset and Sunrise rays observed by Surveyor and every craft since... and sketches made by the astronauts... (why they didn't just 'point and shoot' these with the Hasselblad on their chest is beyond me.. )

Point is NOW they tell us they have been observed for some time... and for these to exist there must be suspended dust in the 'atmosphere'

Here is the NASA press release

Moon Storms
science.nasa.gov...

Here is NASA's comparison between Earth and Lunar sunset rays...



Which they in their infinite 'wisdom' have dubbed "MOON FOUNTAINS"

Moon Fountainsscience.nasa.gov...

But it gets better rather than admit the atmosphere might be more than the NASA FACT SHEET states... they have come up with LEVITATING MOON DUST as the reason..

No matter at least NASA has finally confirmed what Astronomers have seen for many decades DUST CLOUDS ON THE MOON



OH Almost forgot...

NASA has a new mission...

NASA has announced plans for a Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) satellite and two small landers to be launched to the Moon by 2014.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 28-5-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Are we discussing the pictures from the OP and mars or are we now discussing cover-ups with NASA and the moon?

It would be cool and most productive if we can all stay on topic for this thread imho and not go off into a tangent on some other conspiracy that has all been well documented here on ATS and even an entire website dedicated to it.

Originally posted by Crabmeat
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but NASA wrote off the OP's picture by saying it was a camera artifact.

Newscientist.com

The buttom image of the series of four (scroll down) is the same as the OP's image, with a small description given to it.

I don't see anywhere in that article that NASA said officially that it is an artifact . The only thing I read in that article is the opinion of the editor of the article and not an official statement from NASA. The only time NASA, to my recallection said it may be an artifact is when those pictures first came back.






[edit on 28-5-2008 by zarlaan]

[edit on 28-5-2008 by zarlaan]

Well it looks like were that dirt is dark,there was water there.Like how sand is darker when wet here.Look how smooth it look.Kind of interesting don't you think.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


See Jp Skipper www.marsanomalyresearch.com... he shares our thoughts on Mars being a treasure trove of artifacts and evidence of life.

Originally posted by zorgon
Why the secret astronaut corps, naturally... you know those guys who repair the Rovers to 'keep em going" ?

Right…. The secret astronauts!
The ones that only exist in you and Johns imaginations.
So secret that even the government does not know about them…

Originally posted by zorgon
Don't know about Soylent, but you don'tYour supposedly a pilot, yet pass off as a space expert and now a photo expert?

So stick to what you claim to know best... flying

Most people who have an interest in Aviation, also have an interest in space. Maybe your not aware of this, but real astronauts are normally chosen from accomplished pilots.

I am not sure about the fantasy astronut core though….

Originally posted by zorgon
Poppy Cock!!! If we were under a purple star things would look purple but our eyes would see it as PURPLE not green

The scenery would look different but our eyes would still register the same wavelengths of light which we translate to color

Double poppy cock!!
Maybe this is the reason why you cannot figure out that the moon having an atmosphere is complete bunkiss, because you fail to understand that basics of how light and color work.

Maybe you should start off with the very basics:
5th Grade Science

I supposed that the sun looks red at sunset, because the sun physically changes color at that time of your local evening?

Maybe Weed is more aware of this issue then you, because he is a diver, and divers have to deal with color changes/loss at depth. Why do you think that diver safety gear is yellow? Because it retains its color the longest at the greatest depths. Why do you think that divers use red filters on their cameras? Because the colors shift as you proceed deeper, and the first wavelength that you lose is red, shifting all the other colors to different colors (some of my rig is red, and it turns gray at around 30 feet). You do of course realize that all colors are combinations of the primary colors and if you shift one of them it changes the other non-primary colors, right? Most children learn this by kindergarten when they learn to mix fingerpaint. You know like red paint and green paint make yellow paint.
Color Correction in Diving

This is similar to the way that astronomers can use stars occulting behind a astral body to tell if it has an atmosphere and what the atmosphere is made of. Hence the fact that we know for certain that there is ZERO atmosphere on the moon, despite what you and john claim.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

 

See Jp Skipper www.marsanomalyresearch.com... he shares our thoughts on Mars being a treasure trove of artifacts and evidence of life.

I dunno.. I read this site's report on the anomalous white object. He marks it up to an artifact, but stands resolute that the Phoenix lander isn't really located on Mars where NASA is telling the public, that the info Phoenix finds from it's soil sample studies is info long ago decided in some secret bureaucrat office a while back, that the images of the polar region where Phoenix is located are made up ...

C'mon ... these are some pretty far fetched ramblings going on. I want so badly for full disclosure of alien life to happen myself, and I would love nothing more than for us to locate a crashed UFO on Mars or some artifact left by someone else. But what he suggests on his site asks you to throw away all common sense and trust absolutely nothing that NASA has to say. I find it all a bit hard to swallow.