Mars Conspiracies

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
Mr Snowman said:
That's a totally different link Rynner... Where on Earth (or Mars *chuckle*) did you dig that one up from? .
The link was the JPG link from the page WW gave. (I wasn't going to wait for the GIF to download!)

And WW said:
I refuse to believe Mars is a desert planet! I think the whole idea of Mars being a dead, desolate planet is all hogwash! Mars is alive and so are its inhabitants.
I refuse to believe otherwise.
Nice to see someone with the courage of their convictions!
 

Cavynaut

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
673
Points
144
WonderWoman said:
And finally, anyone see the pic of the giant colossal head-like sculpture?
Surely, if NASA or anyone else wanted to tamper with the photographs in order to hide evidence of life on Mars, they'd have started with the head?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
43,474
Reaction score
34,771
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Aren't these digital photographs?
File compression routines (such as are used in JPEG files) can cause artifacts and blockiness to form. It could be that imperfectly-compressed pictures were corrected with artifact-smoothing software routines, which has led to some areas appearing as if they were 'tampered with'.
Also, we have to appreciate that these are pictures that have been transmitted from a long distance away, and some segments of data may have become lost or scrambled in the transmission.
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
IIRC, there is at least one previous thread here that discusses such photos...
 

sunspot8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Points
22
Mythopoeika said:
Aren't these digital photographs?
File compression routines (such as are used in JPEG files) can cause artifacts and blockiness to form. It could be that imperfectly-compressed pictures were corrected with artifact-smoothing software routines, which has led to some areas appearing as if they were 'tampered with'.
Also, we have to appreciate that these are pictures that have been transmitted from a long distance away, and some segments of data may have become lost or scrambled in the transmission.
All of the raw images posted on the JPL site are in JPEG format - and will obviousely show compression artefacts, they also have a contrast stretch applied to them. However the first 90 Sols of data from both rovers is now available in a calibrated format here: http://anserver1.eprsl.wustl.edu/

Files are available in PNG format or the better IMG format which you will need to download a program called NasaView to view them with.

These sties often have the RAW data well before the JPL site, sometimes within minutes of it being received on Earth:

http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/
http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/opportunity/

One word of advice though, the site above lists all data transmitted on that day, so some of the pictures might be old having been stored on the rover and only just transmitted to Earth, the JPL site organises data by sol.

Decoding rover filenames:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... e_key.html
 

RainyOcean

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
22
Points
54
It just so happens that I visited Mars yesterday. There is no life there, however it is somewhat of an ugly planet and they may have tampered with the pictures to make the planet look more pretty. There is, however, abundant intelligent life on Jupiter and Venus.


I think I should go to bed now. Night night.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Of more interest...

Are the photos deemed classified to protect national security! What ever happened to Richard Hoagland?
 

Dingo667

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
68
Points
64
Rynner:
I used to have a collection of them on my old computer, but sadly that died. (Backups? What are backups? [blush])


Mr Snowman:
I once had an outstanding collection of space pictures, but my hard drive went *zing* and the collection was hence known as a non-collection

Hey is it just me that finds this a little bit odd? Anyone else who had Marsian piccies on their hard drive which went nose up?
reminds me of those probes that go missing as soon as they get near Mars. ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Anyone ever hear of that supposed 1960's Mars landing? I saw a clip of it on some UFO website a while back and I am sure if you google it, you'll find it. Basically, you could hear a transmission from NASA regarding the landing and there is a camera in the bay window recording the descent and what looks like a living organism. The film is all choppy and so I couldn't see the creature, but still...anyone know what I am talking about?


WW
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mars Landing

The Mars landing in that clip was ttaken from the spoof documentary Alternative 3. Made and shown in the UK in the early seventies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I read and saw on the official website that the latest explorer to go round mars and take close-up photos was actually send on a deliberate course so it could photograph the famous 'Face'.

Unfortunately, this particular photo (one of these long 'strip' photos) was corrupt on it's return to earth. Guess which one? You guessed it, the one that would have given a very clear photo of the 'face'.

I was absolutely flabogasted at the time; it really stinks if they're covering these things up.

I'll try and dig up a link.

Maybe they thing terrorists with a bit of savvy can get up to mars and steal life forms for a biological weapons attack on the US. Be afraid bush...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I quote:

An attempt to take a picture of a portion of the "Face" itself (M12-01787) in mid-February 2000 was foiled when the MGS spacecraft experienced a sequencing error and most of that day's data were not returned to Earth. Only the first 97 lines of M12-01787 were received; the image's planned footprint is shown as a dashed box.
You can't make this stuff up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There's 2 possibilities here... either the government surpressed it for a reason... got knows what..

or, perhaps the 'martians' surpressed it... interecepted the transmission or perhaps there's an 'anti-photo' field round it.

Either way, I can't sleep so well these days ;)
 

Mike_Pratt33

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
624
Reaction score
3
Points
49
Or a 3rd possibility: sometimes things go wrong.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LOL - Good point Mike.

When you've eliminated the unlikely, the impossible and the bizzarre, you have no choice but accept the simple answer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dull isn't it? I suppose it could be the Martian Area 51... hidden mountain base.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,458
Reaction score
1,306
Points
184
Everyone talks about doctoring photos to hide the possibility of life on Mars. But it's equally true that some might want to doctor pictures to show 'alien formations' etc.

The supposed 'banyan tree' photos look more like crystal 'blossoms' which might be more feasible and scientifically fantastic!
 

sebastianp1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
22
" Martian Banyan Trees"

Actually, the "banyan trees" look an awful lot like mound springs. Some good examples are found on the edges of the Simson Desert in Australia. :)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
Re: " Martian Banyan Trees"

Sebastianp said:
Actually, the "banyan trees" look an awful lot like mound springs. Some good examples are found on the edges of the Simson Desert in Australia. :)
Got any links with pics?
 

SoundDust

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 17, 2002
Messages
1,677
Reaction score
20
Points
69
Beagle 2 'should never have been built' - link to New Scientist article

Beagle 2, the British lander lost on Mars in 2003, should never have been built. That is the damning conclusion of the official investigation into the loss of the probe in a report that the UK government and the European Space Agency attempted to hide.

The probe was carried to Mars on board ESA's Mars Express spacecraft and released towards the Red Planet in December 2003. It was never heard from again.

The report was commissioned by the UK government and ESA in February 2004 to investigate the circumstances and possible reasons for the failure of the Beagle 2 mission. The investigation was chaired by ESA's Inspector General Rene Bonnefoy and completed in April 2004.

But the UK government and ESA refused to publish the report, saying it contained details of confidential intergovernmental agreements as well as commercially sensitive information. Even the Beagle 2 project team was forbidden from seeing the report. Instead, ESA and the UK government released a set of recommendations for future missions.

But the government was on Thursday forced to publish the report after New Scientist requested it under the UK's new Freedom of Information Act, which came into force at the beginning of the 2005.
Embarrassing revelations

Following the request made in January, the government circulated the report to the scientists, engineers and managers involved in the project to test their reaction. "What have they been waiting for? I don't see why they couldn't have published it last year," says Colin Pillinger, a planetary scientist at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK, who led the mission and only read the report for the first time on Wednesday evening.

Pillinger says the report contains little, if any, commercially sensitive information. "I haven't seen any of that kind of material," agrees Mark Simms, the mission's project manager at the University of Leicester, UK, who was given the report two weeks ago.

But it does contain a number of embarrassing revelations about the role played by ESA and the UK government. The report is highly critical of the way in which Beagle 2 was born. It says ESA determined at the beginning of the project - in 1997 - that the mission should not go ahead unless the Beagle team could secure full funding by October 1998.

Instead, ESA ignored its own recommendation and approved the mission in November 1999 when the team had secured only £6 million of the total cost which was then estimated to be £24 million. The cost later rose to over £42 million.
Bolt-on experiment

The inquiry also concluded that ESA made a fundamental error at the outset by regarding Beagle 2 as a bolt-on experiment. Instead, the lander should have been treated as a spacecraft in its own right and given the appropriate oversight. Pillinger agrees: "That was an important mistake." The inquiry concludes that many of the subsequent difficulties in the project stemmed from this problem.

The report says that the absence of any data after the Beagle 2 separated from Mars Express means it could not determine exactly what went wrong. But it does identify a number of failure scenarios. One possibility is the failure of the lander's airbags, designed to cushion its descent. Another is that the lander bounced back into its own parachute after hitting the surface which would have prevented it from communicating with Earth. It could also have been released above the ground from its airbags and destroyed on impact.

Many of these conclusions were also found by the Beagle team's own internal inquiry. However, Pillinger does not accept all the findings of the report. He disagrees with the report's conclusion that the Beagle 2 project was poorly managed. "I refute that 105%" he says.
[/code]
 
Top