Ancient Mars

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I think that identifying an elephant or a donkey or a duck would be easier by sound than by smell.

That only depends on your knowledge.

But while an animal can be silent it cannot stop emitting its own smell. Smell is a chemical analysis, and as such can be extremely accurate, besides remaining after the animal is gone. Dogs trained to find dead bodies' scent can detect just some molecules of cadaverine some days after a dead body had touched a surface.

But I have to admit that sound detection is cheaper and easier to use.

we can't get decent *cough* pictures yet... ai smell

reply to post by mcrom901


What's that suppose to mean?

Could you please be more specific, I don't understand it.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Lets talk about Noah's ark and the Great Flood from 8,000 to 9,000 years ago where it rained for forty days and forty nights. I feel this was the water that was knocked off Mars during the asteriod impact that knocked Mars out of its orbit, removing it's atmostsphere and water killing any inhabitants of Mars instantly. Placing the planet in a colder orbit with no ozone atmostsphere layer or water. I fell this whole theory and after math is a really simple theory of what might have happened. A pledies colony exterminated.

reply to post by ArMaP


i was hoping that you were not implying that we send one of those head shaking robots to mars....

Originally posted by zorgon
NASA will soon send a probe to Europa the water moon... since the water in our deepest oceans is teeming with all sorts of life in the deep dark trenches where no sunlight reaches them I see no reason to NOT believe we will find things on Europa beneath the ice. The water on Europa will be the same temperature as the bottom of our seas, because and colder than 32 degrees F and it would be ice. It's actually closer to 40F as and deep sea diver can tell you

they covered that project in 'we are the aliens' bbc horizon documentary....

Google Video Link

it didn't look like....... "SERIOUS NASA"...

the other discussions re extremophiles confirms the idea of life on mars for me....

Originally posted by Aquarius1
Amazing thread Skyfloating, I have a question, sorry if it's already answered. What are the real colors on Mars, I read and saw some pictures a few years back that said and showed that the colors and atmosphere looks no different then earth and that NASA makes everything look red. Actually the first picture you posted in your opening looks very earth like, Sadona maybe, not saying it's Sadona only that is looks like it.

Thank you.

I dont know Aquarius. I havent been to Mars. And I havent remote viewed it yet properly. Maybe Zorgon knows. He seems to know a LOT about Mars.

As for RV: In order for that to be taken seriously there would have to be a group of at least 10 people remote viewing the place. The data would then have to be compared. I guess the Government has already done that but not published its findings.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As for RV: In order for that to be taken seriously there would have to be a group of at least 10 people remote viewing the place. The data would then have to be compared. I guess the Government has already done that but not published its findings.

Nope. Not published.

However, you should look up "Pat Price".

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Maybe Zorgon knows.

Shhh Zorgon knows.... but errrr Phage and ArMaP are watching him...

NASA Viking 1 Says...



Lockheed Martin says...

mars.spherix.com...

But please look it up in ATS search countless threads on the color issue

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Maybe Zorgon knows.

Shhh Zorgon knows.... but errrr Phage and ArMaP are watching him...

NASA Viking 1 Says...

Lockheed Martin says...

mars.spherix.com...

But please look it up in ATS search countless threads on the color issue

Hey these are cool images

second line: great pictures! polaroid?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by fooks
armap! how do you know there is no sound and with some of the crap theypass for music here on earth, i bet we can get SOMETHING in the audio range.

I didn't said that there is no sound, I said that I have never seen anything that could produce any sound, besides wind.

yes, on the surface, but what about underground where most think some sort of life resides? seismic activity?

also sound would travel farther through the ground than the thin air.

i was in bangkok for the first time, some years ago on a crappy tour. lol. i went out to the street to buy some smokes at a corner store and have a beer, coz the dinner we were being served suked.

anyway, me standing on a quiet street IN bangkok at night, all of a sudden i got this weird feeling that made me look around, it was quite nerving.

a few seconds later coming up the street was a freakin elephant! lol.
freaked me out since i felt it before i saw it. the guy who was with it made more noise than it did.
what i'm getting at is things can make sound below and above our audio range.
we should really explore that and not dismiss it because we don't see a bulldozer.

what's it take to hear vlf? bull to that point of view.

It depends, listening to what was originally radio waves is the same as using a sound to create colour patterns like media players do, interesting but not very useful.

planets in space make sound but on a planet there is nothing but a waste of time!!??

No, they do not make sounds.

Remember that in space no one can ear you scream.

yes we just slowed that down to our audio range. i loved that movie too!

reply to post by zorgon

Lockheed Martin says...

No.
Ron Levin says. Isn't he the guy that said there were puddles the face of a cliff? Yeah, that's right. He was. I thought so.

The story concerned a presentation made at the 2007 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Aerospace Conference by Lockheed Martin physicist Ron Levin. The article reads in part:

A new analysis of pictures taken by the exploration rover Opportunity reveals what appear to be small ponds of liquid water on the surface of Mars....

www.planetary.org...

Seems he snookered himself with his "true colors".

reply to post by Skyfloating


Skyfloating, regarding this (non-) controversy about colors from Mars Landers that have been beamed back....my two $.

I've always taken it all with a grain of salt because (and anyone can correct/enhance this, if I don't explain it well enough) colors are so based on perception usually. And reproducing them exactly is darn near an unattainable goal, depending on the media we're talking about.

Let's use some examples we all (hopefully) can relate to in real life, here on Earth? Picture yourself in the desert, or at the beach. Spend the day there. Notice how everything (colors, depths of shadows, etc) change as the Sun moves to different parts of the sky? Or, depending on which way you look in relation to the Sun?

And that's just how humans perceive --- I'd suggest that we all have slightly different "take" on color (which could account for someone's tastes in 'favorites', for example). Also, I'd think anyone who's taken a number of photographs over their lifetimes has seen that what was seen and remembered with your naked eyes sometimes comes out very differently in the finished photo (whether film, or digital).

Speaking on that, with either format, the lighting is important (as mentioned above). Cinematographers know this, professional photographers too. Sometimes I hear it referred as the "temperature" of the light, and how colors reproduce. Spectrum matters too. (But, the Sun is the same, for ignore that bit for now).

I was thinking about televisions, also. Especially years ago, earliest color TVs, and the tint and color controls...that you frequently had to adjust to suit your personal preference; and the way that you'd see differences between sets from different manufacturers, when at the electronics store, for instance.

Now, because we don't have the luxury of sending a Polaroid camera (or other color film camera) to Mars, and return for developing, it is done electronically. Since no human eyes are there, they included a color-correction device on the Rovers, so that they'd be able to determine proper balance and levels:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd2904addf06.jpg[/atsimg]

Still, I'd think that every image, being digital (by necessity) would be subtlely different in any case, depending on the computer monitor you view it, the way it's printed and reproduced, etc.

reply to post by Phage


Haha,

He is a fool because he thinks puddles can form on the face of a cliff. Everyone knows that is impossible!

He must not have had the proper context for the image - but that just shows how he comments on things without knowing the context. Busted !

Phage you're so great.

*I'd give you a hundred stars if ATS would only allow us to do that. A hundred.

reply to post by Exuberant1

It shows that he let his enthusiasm run away with his common sense. To present such an ill researched "finding" at a conference does not speak wonders for his critical thinking skills.

hey guys, stumbled upon a pretty great Mars anomaly video! a very interesting subject indeed.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, because we don't have the luxury of sending a Polaroid camera (or other color film camera) to Mars, and return for developing, it is done electronically. Since no human eyes are there, they included a color-correction device on the Rovers, so that they'd be able to determine proper balance and levels:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd2904addf06.jpg[/atsimg]

Still, I'd think that every image, being digital (by necessity) would be subtly different in any case, depending on the computer monitor you view it, the way it's printed and reproduced, etc.

Ah Star for you... The color chart and as you say "being digital (by necessity) would be subtly different"

Subtly yes, but if the image matched the color wheel and the other one on Earth, then we can say that from our view as a human... it would be REASONABLY close to 'true color'.

Thank you, Herr Weedwacker... for showing us that... even though I have been flogging that horse since 2006

Originally posted by Phage
It shows that he let his enthusiasm run away with his common sense. To present such an ill researched "finding" at a conference does not speak wonders for his critical thinking skills.

Pretty bad when we can't trust NASA or Lockheed Scientist to give us good research eh? I mean we here don't get paid for our enthusiasm, but they do... and you skeptics count on them to deliver the facts..

How dare they make an error. It means all their other work is invalid, their data questionable, and they get dumped in with the charlatan hall of fame...



Well lets just hope you never make a mistake... otherwise you might have to give back some stars..

OH BTW...

Ron L. Levin
Lockheed Martin IS&S, Building 5
1300 S. Litchfield Road,
Goodyear, AZ 85338-1599

Seems he did work for Lockheed Martin... say so at the top of the paper

reply to post by weedwhacker


Remember, the typical RGB values for recording and display are:

Red-600nm.
Green-530nm.
Blue-480nm.

These coincide with the L4, L5 and L6 filters on the PanCam. In most images taken by the Rover, the L2 is used for the Red-Channel instead of the L4. The L2 is at 750nm, and right at the extreme end of the visible spectrum, the near infra-red range. Why did they do this? To increases the range of the spectrum that can be recorded by the PanCam, allowing higher definition to be recorded, making it easier to see into the shadows and so forth.
As a result, the blue pigment is very bright in the near-IR range. Thus the L2 plate has a very bright recording of the blue pigment.

The crux of the problem I think is the L2 filter (The L4,L5 and L6 filters correspond to the points R,G and B) replacing the L4 filter thereby shifting the Red point by 150nm to the very edge of infra-red.

Here's what the color wheel looks like with the L4 filter (L456):



And with the L2 filter (L256):

reply to post by zorgon

Yes, I know he works(ed) for Lockheed. I read the paper and the quote I linked also provides that information. Does that mean he speaks for Lockheed? You didn't say "an employee of Lockheed Martin says" or "Ron Levin says", did you?

I've made mistakes. And when I find out about it I try to correct them.

But regarding his paper, he says this:

Rather than search endlessly for the unknown illumination of the surface, the color calibration charts should be used to render the Martian scenery as it would appear on Earth.

Why? Who cares what Mars would look like if it was on Earth? It isn't. It's...on... Mars, which is red. Have a look at it tonight, it's to the right of Venus right after sunset.

If you're interested, here's some of what's really involved in the process.
an.rsl.wustl.edu...