Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, I went to the original paper (in Russian), and read it carefully -- it doesn't sound too convincing to begin with. I did it just as a cross check with the English version. What I see is speculation and artifacts.

Care to link us to the original paper? I only see a picture of a portion of it. Do share with us where you went to the original paper, thanks

It's in Russian, but after spending rather too long feeding paragraphs into Google Translate, I've come up with what seems like a reasonably sensible English translation. Out of respect for copyright I can't reproduce that text here, but I'll paraphrase.

planetary.org...

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
So we can summise that the part everybody was talking about, and most believed to be part of the lander, was in some way thought to be a living 'thing', when clearly (unless someone thinks the object morphed) it is 2 different objects, although similar in size and shape.

No the part of the lander was NOT the 'life form' The arrows point to where they are

Emily Lakdawalla and Phil Plait

Uber Debunkers of EVERYTHING All that is missing in the photo is Jim O

reply to post by Blue Shift

The question is always going to be philosophical rather than technical. What would the place look like if you were just standing there, looking at it with your eyes? Even through a clear, color-neutral visor, will there be atmospheric effects that give everything an orange/yellow tint? Or will your brain adapt to it to give it more Earth-like hues?

It would look like this...



... because you will have been crushed to death.

reply to post by zorgon

No the part of the lander was NOT the 'life form' The arrows point to where they are

You mean the digital noise? Even you must be disappointed with this "discovery."

Originally posted by zorgon

Emily Lakdawalla and Phil Plait

Uber Debunkers of EVERYTHING

All that is missing in the photo is Jim O

edit on 24-1-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

They look like nice people.


So what's your point? Are you also going to post a photo of yourself with the caption "Uber Believer of EVERYTHING"?

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Lol! I wonder how long it'll be before we see that pictured used in someones argument for Venus being very Earth-like?

Yeah, but we'll know better. Besides, I forgot something. It's Venus, so it should have clouds:

Originally posted by DJW001
It would look like this... [...]
... because you will have been crushed to death.

Exactly. The idea that you or I or any human being is ever actually going to directly look in person at any of these places is problematic to begin with. It's all going to be filtered through the lens/software/transmission of whatever tough robot we send, and at that point it might as well all be in your imagination, anyway. And I imagine Venus and Titan to look a lot like some parts of Ireland, kind of barren and craggy and maybe covered with something green (copper? lichen?) in spots.

Actually the images show that peice of "Croisant" metal is actually a Titanium lens cap on the Venera 13, just wanted to point that out.

L. V. Ksanfomality article about life on venus is now available for digital download. It costs $35 USD.

The Article is called: "Venus as a natural laboratory for search of life in high temperature conditions: Events on the planet on March 1, 1982"

Here is the Abstract:

New classes of extrasolar planets with relatively small masses (“super-Earths”) located in low orbits near low luminosity stars possess moderately high temperature and atmospheric pressure at their surfaces. Such physical conditions and composition of an atmosphere is incompatible with the Earth’s aminonucleic acid form of life. But should they be considered as conditions incompatible with any form of life at all? Considering the conditions on Venus as a possible analogue of physical conditions on low-orbiting exoplanets of the “super-Earths” type, a new analysis of Venusian surface panoramas’ details has been made. These images were produced by the VENERA landers in 1975 and 1982. Also the images which had not been previously considered were included in the processing. A few relatively large objects were found with size ranging from a decimeter to half meter and with unusual morphology. The objects were observed in some images, but were absent in the other or altered their shape. The article presents the obtained results and analyzes the evidence of reality of these objects.

www.springerlink.com...

A compilation of images on the back side of the moon that were covered up by Nasa. This shows tubes and connections to thousands of towers that are buildings made in a fashion that will totally make you think - WOW!

this video is very interesting and probably deserves a place of its own on ats, but If there is proof of life on our moon then I feel there is life elsewhere.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by RPeternell


Sorry, not buying it....especially seeing as this thread is about Venus, and the link in your post directs to what is apparently your YouTube video, for your own self-promotion?


In the description under the YT video is a link to a photo from Apollo 8:

Apollo 8 Photo

Shows no evidence of the claims per the video. However, RE: the claims, there is a far better resource for Moon terrain photos than the 40-year-old Apollo pictures.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The LROC Image Browser appears to be down as I write this, but may come back later. Meantime, this great resource can be navigated by reading about how to do it at this link:

Searching for, Downloading, and Saving LROC Images into Usable Files

Links to the LROC Browser are in the above PDF.

Too bad we have nothing like this (yet) for Venus........but of course, it will have to be a radar terrain mapping sort of thing, not visual in the case of Venus......

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, I went to the original paper (in Russian), and read it carefully -- it doesn't sound too convincing to begin with. I did it just as a cross check with the English version. What I see is speculation and artifacts.

Care to link us to the original paper? I only see a picture of a portion of it. Do share with us where you went to the original paper, thanks

No problem:

Russian source -- same site, different localization

It doesn't add much of anything, though. It's far from a clear picture of anything, and I'm being told there is some serious wind blowing on Venus.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, I went to the original paper (in Russian), and read it carefully -- it doesn't sound too convincing to begin with. I did it just as a cross check with the English version. What I see is speculation and artifacts.

Care to link us to the original paper? I only see a picture of a portion of it. Do share with us where you went to the original paper, thanks

No problem:

Russian source -- same site, different localization

It doesn't add much of anything, though. It's far from a clear picture of anything, and I'm being told there is some serious wind blowing on Venus.

i said this like 10 pages ago but no one wanted to listen to me.

this could easily just be a particle broken off of the lander(as described) that was moved by the winds, and possibly covered by whatever material makes up there outer crust by the same wind. I really don't see much of anything in the pictures. none of this really adds up to me. i say BS. I really think this is just wind and you people are just all super super gullible.

reply to post by OGOldGreg


Welcome to ATS:

and you people are just all super super gullible.....

Not all of us are, but sadly? A trend has been developing, of late. Hopefully, new members who can think critically will slow or reverse that decline ......

reply to post by OGOldGreg


Au contraire, mon ami -- I think a lot of people listened to you, and I also share the opinion that there is tons of debris moved around by the thick and fast moving wind, and it's preposterous to call it a "scorpion", "medusa", or "shape-shifting black disk".

reply to post by zorgon


Edit: NM, found it now. Gonna see if I can get some detail out of it (even the larger picture is really hard to see).

2nd Edit: Oh dear, it's even worse than the lander debris.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by OGOldGreg

 

Au contraire, mon ami -- I think a lot of people listened to you, and I also share the opinion that there is tons of debris moved around by the thick and fast moving wind, and it's preposterous to call it a "scorpion", "medusa", or "shape-shifting black disk".

to be perfectly honest, after i posted it like 15 more pages sprouted up and i simply did not have the time to go through and read every single post haha. but i'm glad to see some people are thinking logically on this one.

The Planetary Society has got a copy of the article and has discussed it on their blog. They are less than kind:

There is so much variation in noise among these five images, and they have been so processed with sharpening and infilling of data, that I think it is pointless to micro-analyze tiny little features and whether they have changed, much less whether they represent the presence of moving, living creatures or not.

I think this story has got so much attention because the author is well known and respected in astronomy circles.

Here's the link: www.planetary.org...

By the way, the latest entry on the blog shows new images of Mars from the European Space Agency's Rosetta spacecraft as it flew by on it's way to a comet. The new Mars images are worth checking out and even show the Gale crater where the MSL will land in August:

www.planetary.org...

People also believed the "alien interrogation" video was real too.....