PDA

View Full Version : Mars Anomaly Research Site



jrkeller
2006-Mar-13, 03:56 PM
I happened to come across this site (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/) and found it to be another nice woo-woo site. I don't think we've seen it before.

twinstead
2006-Mar-13, 04:35 PM
Wow, I am just totally shocked that NASA manages to miss all the waterlogged swamps and living ground cover so obvious to the rest of us. Jeeze, just what the heck are they doing, twiddling their thumbs?

Thank God we have serious bastions of scientific discovery like the Mars Anomaly Research Site to point out a planet teaming with water geysers and glass tubes; we certainly can't trust NASA to figure it out. :doh:

N C More
2006-Mar-13, 06:51 PM
Hey, I've heard of this Joseph Skipper and his Mars *anomalies* before! Take a look here from Randi's site. (http://www.randi.org/jr/061705like.html#9)

Apparently, Mr. Skipper sees *stuff* in JPEG artifacts as well.

Metricyard
2006-Mar-13, 07:22 PM
At least the site is readable. No need to tear out your eyeballs because of fluorescent text/background.

Other than that, nothing new. Cool pictures though.

Duane
2006-Mar-14, 05:33 PM
Wow I am SO happy that Mr Skinner has used his "unique objective ability that enables [him] to sidestep prejudice and make these discoveries of anomalous evidence irrespective of [his] feelings or reaction to a discovery" ( quote from here (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/general-directories/commentary/01/real-or-not.htm)) to show us all the pictures that "they" have missed manipulating to hide the evidence! Woo-woo!!

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-14, 05:40 PM
The name of the site says it all...Mars Anomaly Research.

If you have the word "anomaly" in your name, you're duty bound to "find" those anomalies. :)

hhEb09'1
2006-Mar-14, 06:23 PM
The name of the site says it all...Mars Anomaly Research)Shouldn't it really be the Mars Anomaly Research Site, the Mars MARS site?

Rue
2006-Mar-14, 07:59 PM
LOL. Well he's right about this pic. It is indeed an artificial structure on Mars.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/065/opportunity-object.htm

twinstead
2006-Mar-14, 08:03 PM
LOL. Well he's right about this pic. It is indeed an artificial structure on Mars.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/065/opportunity-object.htm

Yikes. I'm seriously embarrassed for that dude right now.

hhEb09'1
2006-Mar-14, 08:04 PM
LOL. Well he's right about this pic. It is indeed an artificial structure on Mars.LOL

However, upon investigating, it turns out that this has already been officially identified as the Mer-A/Opportunity backshell and parachute discarded in flight as the Lander made its decent to the Mars surface as opposed to say the discarded heat shield that is said to have landed in a different location. I expected that there would be some kind of official explanation, whether it is actually Opportunity debris or not, just because this strange object is so obvious in some of the official images, looks so anomalous, and would be so easy for many to find and become concerned about.

Z28Jerry
2006-Mar-15, 01:03 AM
I wonder what the woo-woos would say about this pick?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/758/1P195468370EDN65C3P2365L5M1.HTML

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Mar-15, 03:01 AM
So, he's saying the pictures aren't good enough to say for certain what it is?
What does that tell us of his interpretations of other objects?


I wonder what the woo-woos would say about this pick?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/758/1P195468370EDN65C3P2365L5M1.HTML
They are all over it. It doesn't look "natural".

snabald
2006-Mar-15, 08:18 AM
So, he's saying the pictures aren't good enough to say for certain what it is?
What does that tell us of his interpretations of other objects?


They are all over it. It doesn't look "natural".

It's doesn't look natural at all... I wonder what it is. -just for clarification, I know it's not the remains of a martian cobblestone walkway, even if it sure does look like one -but I'm sure that there is an explanation that doesn't have to do with a cover-up that goes to the highest level of government :)

That first (obviously manipulated) pic of the heat shield looks like a Tusken Raider!!!!

I wish I knew a way to write out that sound they make. :(

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-15, 01:41 PM
Does anyone know if Nasa have any parallel commentries on the same material as Mr Skipper?
What I mean is, are there any official NASA research notes on ... say ......
this image....as an example.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/images/E14/E1401276.html

I would be keen to get two interpretations side by side. Here is one side ....

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/079/south-pole-ring.htm

twinstead
2006-Mar-15, 03:23 PM
Does anyone know if Nasa have any parallel commentries on the same material as Mr Skipper?
What I mean is, are there any official NASA research notes on ... say ......
this image....as an example.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/images/E14/E1401276.html

I would be keen to get two interpretations side by side. Here is one side ....

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/079/south-pole-ring.htm
It appears to me to be a normal impact crater with a standard peak in the center. There seems to be some darker material right below the surface, as if there is only a thin vaneer of ice on top the normal rust-colored soil.

The mars anomaly guy says "First, you should know that it is not an impact crater", but doesn't explain in detail why he says it isn't. Then he goes on to talk about flooding and dark-colored organisms and other stuff that I'm dubious can be inferred just from looking at the image, unless one has a good imagination, of course..

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-15, 03:47 PM
It appears to me to be a normal impact crater with a standard peak in the center. There seems to be some darker material right below the surface, as if there is only a thin vaneer of ice on top the normal rust-colored soil.

The mars anomaly guy says "First, you should know that it is not an impact crater", but doesn't explain in detail why he says it isn't. Then he goes on to talk about flooding and dark-colored organisms and other stuff that I'm dubious can be inferred just from looking at the image, unless one has a good imagination, of course..

Do you know of a NASA interpretation of this image?

twinstead
2006-Mar-15, 03:50 PM
Do you know of a NASA interpretation of this image?

Haven't found one yet, although I doubt they pen an interpretation of every non-descript crater they image.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-15, 03:59 PM
Sure. It's a unique location, nicely preserved in the white stuff (not sure if I should call it ice)

twinstead
2006-Mar-15, 04:04 PM
Sure. It's a unique location, nicely preserved in the white stuff (not sure if I should call it ice)

It is in a unique location. It would be more interesting if it was shown to be volcanic, like a chaldera, than a simple crater.

I do wish we would get a rover to the poles soon. Looks like an interesting place.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-15, 04:27 PM
Yeah, sending two rovers to similar terrain miles apart must have made sense to someone. I guess designing equipment that operates in polar regions is going to be more demanding too.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-16, 04:16 PM
I quite like this report.


http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2005/084/hale-civ-evidence.htm

twinstead
2006-Mar-16, 04:38 PM
I quite like this report.


http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2005/084/hale-civ-evidence.htm

Zoom in on a lossy jpeg and you will find all the wonders of the universe...

Musashi
2006-Mar-16, 04:54 PM
Eric, you might like this as well:

http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/

twinstead
2006-Mar-16, 07:27 PM
Even better:

http://www.wiolawapress.com/

Swift
2006-Mar-16, 08:53 PM
Using really, really super advanced image analysis software I have been able to blow up many images and show that much of the surface of Mars was covered with rectangular buildings with black roofs - I suspect it was some sort of advanced solar energy collection system. My proof is in the image below


http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4373/box6yv.png (http://imageshack.us)

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-17, 01:36 PM
Do you know the word Gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-17, 01:53 PM
What I can appreciate about Mr Skippers site are some of the images he finds/zooms in on. He obviously scours loads of images.
I love the geology.
Check this GEOLOGY out, not the Philosophy or Ecology.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2003/050/50-waterfalls-report.htm

twinstead
2006-Mar-17, 02:03 PM
What I can appreciate about Mr Skippers site are some of the images he finds/zooms in on. He obviously scours loads of images.
I love the geology.
Check this GEOLOGY out, not the Philosophy or Ecology.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2003/050/50-waterfalls-report.htm

I agree his pictures are very good, and he obviously spends a lit of time at it. I just think the conclusions he comes to about what is in the images jump the gun just a little bit.

Z28Jerry
2006-Mar-17, 02:11 PM
Do you know the word Gullible isn't in the dictionary?


really?

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-17, 02:36 PM
really?


Love it !

P. Edward Murray
2006-Mar-18, 06:24 AM
Sometimes I wonder if there should be specialized software that would quickly bring up a message asking "Have you taken your meds yet?" for those who believe in this type of thing...:(

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-20, 10:23 AM
It's not that I believe or disbelieve ... Mr Skipper is obviously serious about his beliefs and is prepared to spend a great deal of energy and time persuing answers. (It's bit like mankind following different belief systems or religion, his answers are followed by some and scorned by others.)

I am always intrigued by the committment people put into their beliefs.

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-20, 01:06 PM
It's bit like mankind following different belief systems or religion, his answers are followed by some and scorned by others.

Problem is that Skipper is "presenting his work" as if it were an actual scientific investigation. His, (and his "followers") Beliefs are irrelevant...

Convincing evidence is...

Skipper's "evidence" is simply not convincing...

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-20, 01:26 PM
He believes there is more being discovered on Mars than is released to the general public. This fuels his investigation. His belief is relevant, it drives him.

Naturally, as soon as one is open to new ideas, new ideas appear.

It's the old psycology that, until you know what you are looking for, you won't find it. Robert Anton Wilson is quite a big advocate of this kind of thinking.

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-20, 01:42 PM
He believes there is more being discovered on Mars than is released to the general public.

Then he should stop wasting his time "playing with pictures" and concentrate on providing convincing evidence that what he "believes" is actually true.


This fuels his investigation. His belief is relevant, it drives him.

Relevant only to himself.


Naturally, as soon as one is open to new ideas, new ideas appear.

Or to put it another "way", if he is determined to find anomilies on Mars...then he will indeed find them....That doesn't make them real.

Fram
2006-Mar-20, 02:52 PM
He believes there is more being discovered on Mars than is released to the general public. This fuels his investigation. His belief is relevant, it drives him.


And he finds evidence for this in what is released to the general public. Bizarre, isn't it. It's the same old trick of "they are incompetent when it suits me, and hypercompetent when it suits me as well". A bit too easy for me. Remember that is was Nasa that was the first to point out the Face on Mars as well. A bit stupid if you want to hide things, no?

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-20, 04:39 PM
As Mr Skipper keeps reminding everyone, the images they release are very much tampered with, obscuring much detail, truely or Falsly (I am no expert in such details).

If my memory serves me right, the Area 51 UFO crash was initially confirmed from an official source, then denied. (I might be wrong here????)

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-20, 04:50 PM
As Mr Skipper keeps reminding everyone, the images they release are very much tampered with, obscuring much detail...

The images that NASA releases are "tampered with"?? Well, then he needs to show that his statement is more than just his belief...and he needs to show that with evidence...


If my memory serves me right, the Area 51 UFO crash was initially confirmed from an official source, then denied. (I might be wrong here????)

I fail to see what this has to do with what we are discussing...talk about "changing the subject"...

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-20, 05:23 PM
NASA were the first to point out the FACE. Official. (Thanks FRAM) UFO crash was also an initial official release. That is the only connection. Not a change of Subject.

Could NASA have discussed the FACE woowoo frenzy and discounted it catagorially, instead of leaving it hanging in the happy "is it or isn't it" world?

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2003/055/towers-in-sun.htm

Paragraph 6 - This is one report that touches on Image Tampering applications.

ToSeek
2006-Mar-20, 06:47 PM
It is in a unique location. It would be more interesting if it was shown to be volcanic, like a chaldera, than a simple crater.

I do wish we would get a rover to the poles soon. Looks like an interesting place.

A rover operating at the poles would need to be powered by plutonium RTGs rather than solar panels. So it's going to be a lot more controversial. But I think the next rover is supposed to use RTGs, so it will be interesting to see where they send it.

ToSeek
2006-Mar-20, 06:49 PM
Could NASA have discussed the FACE woowoo frenzy and discounted it catagorially, instead of leaving it hanging in the happy "is it or isn't it" world?

NASA isn't in the habit of taking official positions on scientific issues, leaving that to the scientists themselves. And few of the scientists considered taking the Face even seriously enough to discount it.

Gillianren
2006-Mar-20, 08:28 PM
It's the old psycology that, until you know what you are looking for, you won't find it. Robert Anton Wilson is quite a big advocate of this kind of thinking.

You know, a brief examination into the history of science would prove that this isn't true. Hence, in fact, the very existence of the word "serendipity." Heck, I find things I wasn't looking for all the time, and that's just when I'm cleaning my apartment.

sts60
2006-Mar-20, 10:04 PM
What is this "cleaning" of which you speak?

Anyway, as to ToSeek's post, the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL-09) rover will use a single RTG (new design, using 8 heat source modules as opposed to 18 on the New Horizons/Cassini/Galileo/Ulysses RTGs), and the mission will go somewhere between +/- 60 degrees latitude. (I'm peripherally involved on the heat source/RTG side of things.)

AGN Fuel
2006-Mar-20, 10:29 PM
You know, a brief examination into the history of science would prove that this isn't true. Hence, in fact, the very existence of the word "serendipity." Heck, I find things I wasn't looking for all the time, and that's just when I'm cleaning my apartment.

Absolutely. The history of science is littered with examples of accidental discoveries. Just a few from the world a astronomy...

When Galileo pointed a telescope at Jupiter, he never suspected that he would find moons encircling the great planet. This totally unexpected finding helped support the Copernican idea of a heliocentric universe.

When Karl Jansky tried to solve the problem of static on long-distance communication lines, he was surprised to find that a major source of radio signals came from the Milky Way galaxy itself.

When Jocelyn Bell set up her radio telescope, the first finding of a pulsar was so unexpected that the initial half-joking reaction was that the signal might be from 'little green men'.

When the Americans sent up the Vela satellites to monitor illegal nuclear testing, they were stunned to find their detectors triggered almost daily by hitherto totally unexpected explosions of unimaginable power from the depths of space.

And of course, two technicians trying to locate the source of a hissing noise in communications equipment (reminiscent of Jansky) stumbled on nothing less than the remnant traces of the Big Bang itself.

All of the sciences have similar stories to tell. Many of the major advances in science have come about completely by accident - the key has been that the people involved were canny enough to recognise what it was that they had stumbled across.

Gillianren
2006-Mar-21, 03:08 AM
What is this "cleaning" of which you speak?

Well, okay, "cleaning" may have been too strong a word. "Going through boxes looking for other stuff" might possibly be closer to the mark. As would be "getting my neighbor to clean for me."

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-22, 09:52 AM
It seems to work all ways then.
You'll find what you are looking for even if you don't know what you are looking for and you'll find something relevant as soon as you start looking for something.

Forskern
2006-Mar-22, 10:40 AM
As Mr Skipper keeps reminding everyone, the images they release are very much tampered with, obscuring much detail, truely or Falsly (I am no expert in such details).

I have not read all the information on his site, so I wonder if anyone here could tell me: What, in his opinion, is NASA's reason for observing martian civilizations and then blurring them instead of simply not taking those photos?

PS: First post here, so be gentle :razz:

CJSF
2006-Mar-22, 04:11 PM
I've heard it said, by people such as Hoagland, that there is an "inside person" or "whistle blower" that releases the doctored images with just enough clues as a tip off to what's REALLY in the picture.

I've deliberately avoided such sites as of late, but isn't that the gist of that argument?

CJSF

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-22, 04:25 PM
....and as Mr Skipper suggests:
There is automated image doctoring, which occasionally misses things.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-22, 04:33 PM
I have not read all the information on his site, so I wonder if anyone here could tell me: What, in his opinion, is NASA's reason for observing martian civilizations and then blurring them instead of simply not taking those photos?

PS: First post here, so be gentle :razz:


Hi Forskern Welcome

I would have thought that by not releasing images they would either cause huge woo woo stories or none at all!

twinstead
2006-Mar-22, 06:29 PM
Automated image doctoring?

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-23, 02:16 PM
I am currently looking for a relevant paragraph in which Mr Skipper refers to automated image manipulation.

CJSF
2006-Mar-23, 03:16 PM
Automated image manipulation is not the same as automated image doctoring. Image manipulation can include histogram clips or stretches for contrast enhancement or visibilty, noise reduction, bit scaling, and geometric correction among others. Much of this is automated, and should be. They are normal practices in image analysis.

CJSF

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-23, 04:06 PM
Automated image manipulation is not the same as automated image doctoring. Image manipulation can include histogram clips or stretches for contrast enhancement or visibilty, noise reduction, bit scaling, and geometric correction among others. Much of this is automated, and should be. They are normal practices in image analysis.

CJSF

My apologies, you'll have to bear with me, I am not as exact as I should be. It's better that I find the details from the Mars Anomaly Research Site itself. Sorry. ...more follows

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Mar-23, 07:12 PM
Of course they are using Automated Image Doctoring.
How else can you explain the large number of photos NASA is publishing.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-24, 10:04 AM
Of course they are using Automated Image Doctoring.
How else can you explain the large number of photo's NASA is publishing.


Not sure what you mean Halcyon Dayz?

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Mar-25, 05:28 AM
Not sure what you mean Halcyon Dayz?
Just kidding.

The hoax believers somehow believe that NASA is hiding the fact that they know
that there is life on Mars. And then they use the photos from NASA to 'proof' it.

I think that's funny.

twinstead
2006-Mar-25, 03:38 PM
Just kidding.

The hoax believers somehow believe that NASA is hiding the fact that they know
that there is life on Mars. And then they use the photos from NASA to 'proof' it.

I think that's funny.
Yup, the old simultaneous omnipotence and incompetence theory, loved by CT's the world over. NASA is able to fool every astronomer world-wide and hide from them that our solar system is teaming with life--even non-NASA and anti-American sources--yet idiotically let evidence they are covering up probably the most important discovery in mankind's history slip out in pictures they themselves have control over.

Hans
2006-Mar-26, 11:28 AM
It is course the 'hero' (themselves) that is exposing the evil lies of the conspiracy.

As someone of vast intelligent noted a long time ago. If NASA actually wanted to hide something on Mars they probably wouldn't have sent robot after robot to take tens of thousands of photographs of the secrets then place them on the internet for all to see.....

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-27, 12:34 PM
Images 3 and 4 in this report look at some image manipulation.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/072/opportunity-mixed.htm

I found quite a lot of talk about image tampering in the Clementine reports Mr Skipper has produced. Because it is under the same site I will include a link despite taking cover behind a large rock in cover of the shrapnel.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/067/moon-towers.htm

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/068/moon-objects.htm

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-27, 01:35 PM
Quoted from Eric's 3rd link (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/068/moon-objects.htm)...bottom of previous page.


As you can see in the above first image, this is probably the most massive tall towering object visible in and drawn from the official military Clementine science data...

And to that I say rubbish...I'd even say it was obvious rubbish...

Why do I say that?

Well, if this is some "massive tall towering object", then just where is it's shadow??? I see the shadows of the craters, yet this "tall object" has none.

Seriously, Eric...we all know that Skipper believes this "stuff", but it's painfully (and I stress painfully) obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about...

edited to add link

N C More
2006-Mar-27, 02:05 PM
"It is the true believer's ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind never deserve to be seen or heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and consistency." Eric Hoffer

AGN Fuel
2006-Mar-27, 10:17 PM
I thought this line particularly apt:


This type of evidence reporting may be disturbing to some...

It's disturbing to me, for one. In days gone by, these characters could be left to rant to a couple of bemused spectators in an obscure corner of Hyde Park, or similar locations. With the advent of the internet, they are now free to peddle this nonsense to a world-wide audience - many of whom lack the skills of critical thinking so realise what a load of garbage is being hoisted upon them.

The net is a remarkable resource that has (and will continue to) revolutionised the globe, but what a double-edged sword it is.


(Sorry for the rave - I have had a rather bad morning....)

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-28, 02:25 AM
*sigh* more jpg pixilations, this looks like a's, and overexposure bleeds. You'd think that these people would actually learn a little bit about what to expect from the images before they start making the same mistakes.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-28, 12:30 PM
As a lay man I ask:

Do the scientific community then accept: this pixelation is normal and distortion of images like these are unavoidable; there is no technology known that can produce less fuzzy (or more accurate) images?

I can't access Google earth, but I must believe that earth images would also distort with magnification? Perhaps we can find some anomalies right here on earth? Maybe right in my own back yard?

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-28, 02:04 PM
any jpeg is going to pixelate when it is zoomed into. It's due to the way the image is coded. They get worse each time they are saved as well, espeically if they are opened into an editer for adding borders, notation or even viewing before resaving. There are image types that have less in the way of artifacts to them, but mostly they are raw data images like tifs and are huge filewise.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-28, 03:46 PM
any jpeg is going to pixelate when it is zoomed into. It's due to the way the image is coded. They get worse each time they are saved as well, espeically if they are opened into an editer for adding borders, notation or even viewing before resaving. There are image types that have less in the way of artifacts to them, but mostly they are raw data images like tifs and are huge filewise.


Are Tifs of Mars available for scientists to study? They would seek the best quality available no doubt.

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-29, 02:34 AM
Are Tifs of Mars available for scientists to study? They would seek the best quality available no doubt.

That I can't answer, I don't know what form they are transmitted in. If there are, I'm imagine that they are used by those that actually deal with the rover data. The stuff released on the Internet is really just NASA's commitment to release its info to the Public. If they are transmitted as better quaility images, it's possible they can be obtained from NASA themselves.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-29, 01:28 PM
This report on Viking image tampering ...would I be right to think of the original images as analogue as opposed to digital, or were they using digital then? Does pixelation still play a part in this?

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2003/054/viking-tampering.htm

JimTKirk
2006-Mar-29, 02:43 PM
This report on Viking image tampering ...would I be right to think of the original images as analogue as opposed to digital, or were they using digital then? Does pixelation still play a part in this?

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2003/054/viking-tampering.htm

No matter what the source, if you currently have an image file and perform zooming(magnification) on portions of it, you will be looking at extrapolated views which won't necessarily have any basis in reality. Image files are fixed in their resolution and you cannot bring out detail that doesn't exist to begin with. Even TIFF files have a fixed resolution which will show the same problems once you exceed the resolution of the original.

Edit: dropped the word compressed as the statement applies to all image files

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-29, 09:02 PM
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2003/054/viking-tampering.htm

Why do you continue to post links to Skipper's site? Yesterday, I posted the following...


Seriously, Eric...we all know that Skipper believes this "stuff", but it's painfully (and I stress painfully) obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about...

Now my opinion hasn't changed, (he still doesn't know what he is talking about, nor any idea how to interpret images.) And you haven't addressed the points that I made...

...So why continue to post links to a page when you won't aknowledge the errors that Skipper has (so obviously) made???

01101001
2006-Mar-29, 09:26 PM
This report on Viking image tampering ...would I be right to think of the original images as analogue as opposed to digital, or were they using digital then?

No. It may be difficult to believe, but the Viking Orbiters did not take analog photos on chemical film and then return those analog images to Earth.

National Air and Space Museum: Deep Space Network (http://www.nasm.edu/ceps/etp/mars/viking_DSN.html)


Viking pictures of Mars are not true photographs, but are "images" made up of individual small segments that are put together by computer. The numbers on the computer printout are each proportional to the level of light received by the camera for that individual segment.

A greatly magnified version of a Viking Orbiter image shows the checkerboard pattern of individual picture elements, or "pixels." On this image, the width of one pixel is equal to meters on the ground.
When combined, each Orbiter image is 1,182 pixels wide by 1,056 pixels high.

AGN Fuel
2006-Mar-29, 09:54 PM
No. It may be difficult to believe, but the Viking Orbiters did not take analog photos on chemical film and then return those analog images to Earth.


Yeah - I wish I had known that before I bought that 24-Hour Photo franchise on Phobos. My wife said it would never work....

Wolverine
2006-Mar-30, 01:17 AM
I feel somewhat bad for the folks on a perpetual wild artifact chase. There are so many gorgeous surface features to appreciate in all the Martian imagery... which actually exist. Makes me wonder if "anomaly" devotees ever pause to take in the planet's natural beauty.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Mar-30, 01:25 AM
Are Tifs of Mars available for scientists to study? They would seek the best quality available no doubt.
Absolutely (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars).

Edit: There are a few 140MB panoramas in there. ;)

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-30, 03:53 AM
Here's an example of what zooming does to a jpg.

This is a crop from a picture of a starfish I found on my local beach. The red box is the area I am going to zoom into.

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/starfish.jpg

this is the result is if I just use a smart zoom that repixelates the image

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/Zoomed-starfish.jpg

But if I just use a increase the pixel size

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/Zoomed-starfish2.jpg

You can see how the quality and detail is lost and artifacts and pixaltion starts to occur.

Musashi
2006-Mar-30, 03:55 AM
What are you talking about? I see a city in there. There is a subway station and there is a school. Over there is a factory for producing tanks, and across the street is the temple. Don't tell me you can't see it?

AGN Fuel
2006-Mar-30, 06:11 AM
OT - but I just wanted to say what an awesome starfish that is! :)

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-30, 10:11 AM
Why do you continue to post links to Skipper's site? Yesterday, I posted the following...



Now my opinion hasn't changed, (he still doesn't know what he is talking about, nor any idea how to interpret images.) And you haven't addressed the points that I made...

...So why continue to post links to a page when you won't aknowledge the errors that Skipper has (so obviously) made???

I posted the link in reference to my question and allow people to quote from source, should they want to.

I didn't comment on the points you raised because I have no comment on the lack of shadows? I can't answer as to the non presence of them. I can
say ' quite correct R.A.F. well spotted.'

boppa
2006-Mar-30, 02:24 PM
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/067/2-067-2towers-closer.jpg

even his own pictures defy his logic

if you care to look at the above posted picture
in both shots there are craters (in the `unblurred' section) that clearly show bright/dark segments showing sun direction
ie at the tip of both `towers' there are clear unblurred craters shown(to the left of the left hand tower picture and slightly to the right and above for the right hand picture)

both of these craters show(by shadows) that the sun position would be around `7oclock' ie slightly to the left at the bottom of the shot and id estimate(purely by personal experience here on earth) that the altitude of the sun above the horizon would be around 45 deg(does anyone have the lunar `time' they are taken at-i havent been able to find that out in terms of the lunar `day'

anyway-back to my point-the shadows `should' if these towers existed-be upwards and slightly to the right if you look at the shadows everywhere else

but.....

these areas that the shadows `should be in' are also unblurred...

so are they not there and the blurring is an artifact

or are the towers there and blurred out by nasa-but the relucant photoshopper at nasa decided to leave us all a `clue' by blurring the tower,and didnt blur the shadow-but got them all to turn the big spotlights on the tower on so that the shadow disappeared..

edit to add
look at the scale at the top of his image-lat/long-resolution 1km per pixel image size 768x768 pixels...

that makes those towers over 500 km tall!!!

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-30, 02:43 PM
I posted the link in reference to my question and allow people to quote from source, should they want to.

So you are "content" to have this board completely debunk every single item on Skipper's site?? As I previously posted, it's obvious Skipper doesn't know what he is talking about...so it's kind of a waste to continue to discuss him...

But I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't, so carry on...

twinstead
2006-Mar-30, 02:49 PM
It would probably be better if Skipper himself could come on the board and defend his theories, but something tells me that would never happen.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Mar-30, 02:53 PM
[QUOTE=boppa both of these craters show(by shadows) that the sun position would be around `7oclock' ie slightly to the left at the bottom of the shot and id estimate(purely by personal experience here on earth) that the altitude of the sun above the horizon would be around 45 deg(does anyone have the lunar `time' they are taken at-i havent been able to find that out in terms of the lunar `day'

anyway-back to my point-the shadows `should' if these towers existed-be upwards and slightly to the right if you look at the shadows everywhere else

but.....

these areas that the shadows `should be in' are also unblurred...

so are they not there and the blurring is an artifact

or are the towers there and blurred out by nasa-but the relucant photoshopper at nasa decided to leave us all a `clue' by blurring the tower,and didnt blur the shadow-but got them all to turn the big spotlights on the tower on so that the shadow disappeared..QUOTE]

Is it relevant that this pixelation is in a triangle shape....but the other blurring is kind of random?

boppa
2006-Mar-30, 03:06 PM
Is it relevant that this pixelation is in a triangle shape....but the other blurring is kind of random?

i have absolutely no idea if its relevant or not

but it certainly seems relevant to me that where the shadow of the `tower' should be its not only not there-but imho it should be in an `unblurred area' that hasnt been `touched up' by the mystery blur tool artist

suggesting imho that the shadow doesnt exist
ie the tower doesnt either

JimTKirk
2006-Mar-30, 03:07 PM
[quote=boppa both of these craters show(by shadows) that the sun position would be around `7oclock' ie slightly to the left at the bottom of the shot and id estimate(purely by personal experience here on earth) that the altitude of the sun above the horizon would be around 45 deg(does anyone have the lunar `time' they are taken at-i havent been able to find that out in terms of the lunar `day'

anyway-back to my point-the shadows `should' if these towers existed-be upwards and slightly to the right if you look at the shadows everywhere else

but.....

these areas that the shadows `should be in' are also unblurred...

so are they not there and the blurring is an artifact

or are the towers there and blurred out by nasa-but the relucant photoshopper at nasa decided to leave us all a `clue' by blurring the tower,and didnt blur the shadow-but got them all to turn the big spotlights on the tower on so that the shadow disappeared..QUOTE]

Is it relevant that this pixelation is in a triangle shape....but the other blurring is kind of random?

Have you tried to reproduce any of Skipper's pictures? I get the feeling different things would "appear" if you tried the same tricks. Does anyone else feel that would be a conclusive test of just how random this effect would be?:eh:

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-30, 03:20 PM
...suggesting imho that the shadow doesnt exist
ie the tower doesnt either

...and if Skipper can be so obviously wrong about such a simple thing (shadows), then what is the point in discussing his ideas...and "pixel issues", at all. Skipper is wrong, continued discussion will not change that...

...which is the point I was making earlier.

boppa
2006-Mar-30, 03:32 PM
...and if Skipper can be so obviously wrong about such a simple thing (shadows), then what is the point in discussing his ideas...and "pixel issues", at all. Skipper is wrong, continued discussion will not change that...

...which is the point I was making earlier.


hey so im bored.....

actually i did to get to exercise a few of my failing braincells tonight-i saw something in the pictures that i didnt `feel' was right according to the authors explaination,had a bit of a thunk,did some searching and decided to explore further

this is something that everyone should indulge in imho

if something doesnt add up-look at it further and toss a few ideas around in ya skull..
just cause something is wrong,doesnt mean its not worthy of discussing

often looking at something that is `wrong' and trying to spot why it can be classified as such is again imho a good thing

promoting critical thinking can never be a bad thing ;-)

boppa
2006-Mar-30, 04:04 PM
often i like to just try and spot things that make me think
sometimes im right, sometimes im wrong

but i always seem to learn something even from the wrong things-one of the reasons i keep coming back here

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Apr-04, 02:46 PM
Does anyone know of a site with as much energy and research on Mars but it looks at what is obviously there?

Musashi
2006-Apr-04, 10:12 PM
meaning?

Omicron Persei 8
2006-Apr-05, 04:44 AM
Does anyone know of a site with as much energy and research on Mars but it looks at what is obviously there?

Mars Odyssey's website (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/)

Mars Global Surveyor's website (http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/)

TES Website (http://tes.asu.edu/)

MOC Website (http://www.msss.com/)

Mars Express Website (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html)

Mars Rovers (http://athena.cornell.edu/)

I could keep going if you like....

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Apr-05, 04:30 PM
Thank You. I know some of those.

Reticuli
2006-Apr-09, 02:26 AM
You really need to do honest, openminded research into the Mars Anomaly sites BEFORE ridiculing them... I cannot understand how most scientists equate human intelligence with dogmatic skepticism...it continues to amaze me...many;) former skeptical scientists have discovered after thorough research, that these claims, along with many other extraordinary claims are, IN FACT true... do any of you have the guts, the real courage to find out for yourself and not fear ridicule by colleagues???

N C More
2006-Apr-09, 03:09 AM
I honestly and openly have come to the gutsy and courageous conclusion (all by myself, thinking with my own mind) that this Mars anomaly stuff is nonsense. Fear of ridicule was not a deciding factor in forming my conclusion. Looking at the evidence, and the application of solid critical thinking, ranked right up there, however.

R.A.F.
2006-Apr-09, 11:39 AM
You really need to do honest, openminded research into the Mars Anomaly sites BEFORE ridiculing them...

Yes, but just how "open minded" do we have to be?? If it's painfully obvious (from the beginning) that someone (lets say Hoagland) doesn't know what he is talking about, then what is to be accomplished by further investigation?


I cannot understand how most scientists equate human intelligence with dogmatic skepticism...

Do you believe that to be a valid characterization of "most scientists"?


...former skeptical scientists have discovered after thorough research, that these claims, along with many other extraordinary claims are, IN FACT true...

Can you provide the names of these scientists?

Reticuli
2006-Apr-10, 12:02 AM
Yes, here is one...Dr. J. Allen Hynek.
Also Stanton Friedman a nuclear physicist.
Perhaps you heard of the late Dr. John Mack, Harvard professor of psychiatry...
There ARE more...
:dance:

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Apr-10, 12:40 AM
Yes, here is one...Dr. J. Allen Hynek.
Also Stanton Friedman a nuclear physicist.
Perhaps you heard of the late Dr. John Mack, Harvard professor of psychiatry...
There ARE more...
:dance:
Heh. Dr. Hynek seems to be the only one with anything resembling relevent experience. Got any PhDs in Dentistry in there? I might believe them...

Fram
2006-Apr-10, 08:24 AM
Yes, here is one...Dr. J. Allen Hynek.
Also Stanton Friedman a nuclear physicist.
Perhaps you heard of the late Dr. John Mack, Harvard professor of psychiatry...
There ARE more...
:dance:

You consider Stanton Friedman a "former skeptical scientist"? He gave a lecture "Flying saucers are real" as early as 1968 (http://ncas.sawco.com/ufosymposium/friedman.html). He was a believer, not a skeptic, and thus probably quite easy to convince.
John Mack was a believer in UFO's (alien abductions, no less) as well. Hardly the signs of a sceptic convinced by a thorough research of the Mars Anomaly claims.
And J Allen Hynek was one of the best known early UFO defenders as well (starting at least in the 1950's). He was a former skeptic wrt UFO's, but was convinced that they were real decades before the Mars anomalies discussion.

A strange bunch of former skeptical scientists, Reticuli, so perhaps you are willing to try again and give us the names of some truly skeptical scientists wrt Mars anomalies that became convinced after a thorough research? Preferably with some relevant scientific knowledge of course...

eburacum45
2006-Apr-10, 11:25 AM
Dr Hynek died in 1986, and so did not get to see any of the more recent Mars data. Additionally, he did not regard the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as the only, or even the best solution to the question of UFO's;
In 1975 (according to Wikipedia)
Many UFO reports, he said, seem to pertain more to accounts of poltergeists (cases where objects fly around the room and strange sounds are heard) and other types of 'psychic' manifestations than to 'actual solid items of nuts and bolts hardware.' "That is one of the reasons," added Dr. Hynek, "why I cannot accept the obvious explanation of UFOs as visitors from outer space."

Reticuli
2006-Apr-12, 04:06 AM
This is concerning the scientists studying UFO's, etc... I have given you three names however I'll try to get more... that won't be hard , I know thy are out there!!! :p
I do think it's wonderful that you here are at least entertaining the possibility!!!
I can remember a name of a Dr. Bruce Macabee, I think he is a PHD, an optical physicist.
Remember, it may be true that some scientists do, for whatever reason, feel the UFO phenomenon is real, don't you feel that their preconceived ideas on this are similar to the skeptics? Although at the opposite end of the spectrum don't the skeptics (not all, of course) have their own preconceived ideas on the topic?

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-12, 07:18 AM
the UFO phenomenon

I have the feeling that the acronum UFO is thrown about too much. Any object that is in the sky and not about to be identified by the observer is a UFO, that doesn't mean that every, or any UFO is an alien spacecraft. How about we refer to them as ETOs or Extraterrestorial Transportation Object, just as Aliens are now called EBEs (Extraterrestial Biological Enities.) This way we can differenciate between a Flying Object with has not been identified and an Object believed to be of Extraterrestial origin.

Fram
2006-Apr-12, 08:01 AM
This is concerning the scientists studying UFO's, etc... I have given you three names however I'll try to get more... that won't be hard , I know thy are out there!!! :p
I do think it's wonderful that you here are at least entertaining the possibility!!!
I can remember a name of a Dr. Bruce Macabee, I think he is a PHD, an optical physicist.
Remember, it may be true that some scientists do, for whatever reason, feel the UFO phenomenon is real, don't you feel that their preconceived ideas on this are similar to the skeptics? Although at the opposite end of the spectrum don't the skeptics (not all, of course) have their own preconceived ideas on the topic?

Of course sceptics will have preconceived ideas, and that is why having examples of some of those that in spite of their ideas became convinced after a study of the Mars Anomalies would be interesting (as I would like to know what it was that convinced them).
You claimed that there were such sceptical scientists that became convinced that the Mars Anomalies were real anomalies (not just natural phenomenons or JPEG artifacts). Now, the first three names you gave were not sceptical, they were long time UFO believers. The one you give now (Bruce Maccabee) is a UFO researcher since the late 1960's as well and co-author of "Ufo's are real, here's the proof". Again, not someone I would call a sceptic.
So take your time and please come up with some scientists that fit your description...

Reticuli
2006-Apr-13, 03:28 AM
Hey!
I have several organizations I'm going to list here that are for serious study of the UFO (ETO) phenomenon...Thanks for the ETO recommendation Phantomwolf! :lol:
But first, the late Dr John Mack, IF you check it out, was a skeptic at first, read his book Abduction.
Dr Hynek also was a former skeptic, but due to overwhelming evidence changed his mind.
Stanton Friedman, despite knowing this is a very real phenomenon is nonetheless a very competent man with a great deal of knowledge and information, if anyone would only be willing to listen...
There was also a B.H. Downing, Ph.D, Professor Raymond Leonard, plus so many more it would be easier if you researched this for yourselves...
The following are just a few links to some serious UFO studies...

CSETI, at...http://www.cseti.org/

Florida UFO Network

Fund for UFO Research, at... http://www.fufor.com (this particular site is VERY conservative)

UFO Research Coalition UFO- The Scientific Examination of a Mystery,at...http://www.ufoscience.org/research-coalition.html

CUFOS, at...http://www.cufos.org/index.html

Organization for SETV Research at... http://www.setv.org

NARCAP,National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomenon


N.C. More, I have been meaning to ask you what research you performed in regards to Mars Anomalies???

And Fram, I will search specifically for the Mars Anomaly skeptic-turned nonskeptic shortly...
But honestly, please do check on the three first names.. I KNOW Dr. Mack was a skeptic, however we cannot quote them here.
Also I KNOW Dr. Hynek WAS a skeptic also...

Kindest regards and prosperous investigating,
Me :p

Reticuli
2006-Apr-13, 05:19 AM
Hi Fram and the others on this thread... I found more info. however, wether the mars anomaly scientists were previous skeptics I can't say...
Here are some amazing sites and hih level scientists on mars...

SPSR
The Society for Planetary SETI Research
http://spsr.utsi.edu/

Society for Scientific Exploration
http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Science Frontiers
http://www.science-frontiers.com/


Also I found a Journal of Scientific Exploration at Stanford University

And a few notable names:
Dr. Brian O'Leary, Ph.D Astronomy (with SPSR)
Prof. Stanley McDaniel
Tom VanFlandern Ph.D (former JPL)
Dr. Alexey Arkipov, Senior Scientist at Inst. of Radio Astronomy
Dr. Horace Crater, Ph.D Yale

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

:think:

Fram
2006-Apr-13, 07:59 AM
None of the names you gave were sceptic about UFO's / aliens when they started studying the Mars Anomalies and became convinced that they are real (assuming that those people really studied the Mars Anomalies and really came to that conclusion).
I haven't checked all the names you gave in your last post, seeing Tom VanFlandern as a sceptic was more than enough...

But anyway, I'ld rather discuss the arguments for and against the Mars Anomalies than which authorities agree or disagree. Of course, if you can find the arguments some of those people do give for believing in the reality of the Mars Anomalies, then please give them (but perhaps check first if they haven't been discussed to death on this board yet).

Draconis
2006-Apr-13, 08:59 PM
Reticuli, I have noted that it's always the same short list of scientists who "believe." Certainly you can't be suggesting that all of the rest who don't "believe" aren't capable of making a sound judgement for themselves?

I don't actually think that's what you mean, certainly. But it is very interesting that it's always the same people.

Reticuli
2006-Apr-13, 10:54 PM
Hello!
I certainly do NOT mean to imply that the names I listed were the only ones doing serious research into the Mars Anomalies, nor did I imply that only they were capable of making sound judgements for themselves, please accept my apologies if it came across like that...:(
I'm simply hoping that many more scientists take a hard look at all the evidence from other scientists...
So many times over centuries, something that seemed absurd turned out to be very real...
If you have done alot of in depth research into this, serious unbiased research, and conclude that this is all nonsense then that is okay, I do respect everyone's judgement... I might not agree with it but I DO respect it...;)

I have been meaning to ask a question here...
Does anyone suspect that NASA is tampering with the Rover images??? If not, why not, and if so, why?

Kindest regards,
Me

Reticuli
2006-Apr-13, 10:59 PM
Hi Fram...
PLEASE don't let one researcher which is questionable to you deter you from a truly unbiased scientific investigation... Because in every area of study, the more true, honest and openminded scientists ( I suspect there are indeed alot in this forum) is just what these organizations need, and also what the topic itself needs...
We owe it to science to be thorough in our investigations, don't we???
Take Care,
Me

Draconis
2006-Apr-13, 11:14 PM
No, you didn't. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were anything but on the up-and-up about this. :sad:

It's a reflex of sorts, with me - hearing those same few names far too many times, really. The obverse of that usually being that all others who have decided that there is nothing there to investigate must be deficient somehow.

I am always hearing the same list of names in reference to this topic, and was curious why that is. If these anomolous sites are truly so compelling, why aren't there more people willing to speak out?

:think:

Reticuli
2006-Apr-13, 11:21 PM
Hi Draconis,
Each one of us who truly cares should take up the "mantel" as it were...
If we can get one scientist at a time to just take a serious look at the evidence...
Who knows?:question:
Take care,
Me

Draconis
2006-Apr-13, 11:46 PM
True, true. I figured you seemed to be much more "in the know" in the subject matter than I am, and might have a thought or two.

I find the overwhelming hopeful attitude of "believers" to be a good thing, refreshing even - and their frequent inability to accept sensible scientific thought maddening as hell.

Perhaps many researchers are just plain not willing to accept the opprobrium they'd receive if they said, "hmmm...there may be something to this" Then again, perhaps not.

Gillianren
2006-Apr-14, 02:29 AM
I have been meaning to ask a question here...
Does anyone suspect that NASA is tampering with the Rover images??? If not, why not, and if so, why?

Not in the sense I expect you mean.

I fully expect that NASA is, say, balancing the lighting or colour or whatever, just as professional photographers do before they release pictures. Certainly I think it reasonable that they'd only--as with Apollo--emphasize the really good pictures.

However, no, I don't think they're "tampering" with the images. I think that the whole purpose of the Rovers, aside from that pesky "scientific discovery" thing, is to show people the wonder of visiting, well, a strange new world. If there were, in fact, anything in those images that was proof of life--even what the layman would consider boring life, like plants--their funding level would pretty certainly shoot up. Since all they're showing is pictures of rocks, I find it a pretty safe assumption that rocks are all there is to see.

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-14, 03:37 AM
I have been meaning to ask a question here...
Does anyone suspect that NASA is tampering with the Rover images??? If not, why not, and if so, why?

I'd have to agree with Gillianren, it really depends on what you mean by tampering. As soon as you take 3 images and colour match and combine them to produce a quasi-real colour image, you are tampering with the images. When you lighten an underexposed image by pushing it, you are tampering with an image. If you mean that they have been removing things from images, then no I don't think they have. Those that generall claim such things don't tend to understand how the images are produced and what problems can occur due to over-exposure bleeding and frame drop outs. Added to that that most of the so called "anomalies" in the images are pure speculation about what this looks like, then ignoring anything similar in other images. I think that NASA is doing things right, you don't start jumping up and down until you have proof, and an odd shaped rock isn't proof no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.

As an example, the photo below has been "Tampered" with. The original exposure is too dark to see any detail in the shadows, including the bridge, so I pushed that part of it and left the sky and mountain at the original exposure level so they didn't get washed out. That classes as tampering, but it's still an honest representation of what was seen. This is exactly what I suspect NASA does.

Van Rijn
2006-Apr-14, 06:22 AM
I have been meaning to ask a question here...
Does anyone suspect that NASA is tampering with the Rover images??? If not, why not, and if so, why?


Flatly, NO. All images are processed. They must be. This is data being recorded by digital cameras, sent millions of miles, received, collected, and images formed from the data. A similar process happens when you load images from your digital camera onto your home computer.

But tampered with? No. I've heard no credible reason for it and seen no credible evidence for it.

Let's reverse the question. Do you think the rover images are being tampered with? If so, why?

Alberto
2006-Apr-14, 02:42 PM
Here are some amazing sites and hih level scientists on mars...

SPSR
The Society for Planetary SETI Research
http://spsr.utsi.edu/

Society for Scientific Exploration
http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Science Frontiers
http://www.science-frontiers.com/


Also I found a Journal of Scientific Exploration at Stanford University
...


That kind of journals and magazines are not very trustworthy. I remember an article (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v17n3a2.php) in the Journal of Scientific Exploration about the Apollo 16 UFO. The author made a thorough work just to conclude: "We believe that the object is a huge extraterrestrial artifact. (...) this is the only hypothesis that is consistent with the data."
Thorough but pointless work, indeed, because just a check up on the original source of the video or asking NASA about it would have helped to solve the "anomaly". See here (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/no_ufo.html) and here (http://home.earthlink.net/~zeus001002/apollo_16_ufo.html).
I have not seen any rectification in the later numbers of the journal. Maybe I missed it.

Also, the other topics they usually talk about in these journals (reincarnation, telepathy, bigfoot, ESP, Cydonia, etc.) gives an idea of their scientific level, much closer, I think, to Hoagland than to science.

Gillianren
2006-Apr-14, 08:48 PM
That's a lovely picture, Phantom Wolf.

Reticuli
2006-Apr-18, 02:59 AM
Just me...

With all the links I listed above, there really are very good ones, FUFOR seems to be very conservative...
Is there anyone willing to give some of these sites a chance?
eburacum45, Dr. Hynek WAS a skeptic turned knower. I say Knower as opposed to believer for obvious reasons...

Alberto, who said telepathy dosen't exist? Or the continuation of our bodies' energy, if you will, after the body dies? I have witnessed too many things to deny their existence...

Yes, nice photo Phantom Wolf! :)

And Van -Rijn, I think your little quote is very cute about invisible elves, and it may be true, however with real UFO's, and mars anomalies, the evidence has always been there and is not invisible, if only we would peel away the layers of coverups and image tampering...

Has anyone seen the Brazilian ufo film footage taken with several cameras at the same time over several days in the daytime, and there were thousands of eyewitnesses...? It is very true that, with all the evidence we have for the reality of the existence of Ufo's, meaning the alien visitors type, that evidence would be more than enough to convict a man, if not thousands of men, and sentence them. :think:
Also, Van-Rijn, that you were curious as to why I think NASA is tampering with the rover images? I should rephrase my statement... in saying that the images are being tampered with, somewhere between the rovers sending back the data to NASA, and the images allowed for public viewing. Now that could mean the photos are tampered between NASA and the release for public viewing, but wether by NASA itself or another part of government working alongside NASA is the question. I do agree that if evidence of Martian life were made public, funding for them would increase... however then the proverbial "pandoras box" would open, with more pressure on the governments to "come clean" about the UFO coverups. What, the government lie???
Best regards,
Me

Van Rijn
2006-Apr-18, 09:52 AM
And Van -Rijn, I think your little quote is very cute about invisible elves, and it may be true, however with real UFO's, and mars anomalies, the evidence has always been there and is not invisible, if only we would peel away the layers of coverups and image tampering...
[snip]
Also, Van-Rijn, that you were curious as to why I think NASA is tampering with the rover images? I should rephrase my statement... in saying that the images are being tampered with, somewhere between the rovers sending back the data to NASA, and the images allowed for public viewing. Now that could mean the photos are tampered between NASA and the release for public viewing, but wether by NASA itself or another part of government working alongside NASA is the question.

What is your evidence of image tampering?

Reticuli
2006-Apr-20, 02:23 AM
Yes, Van Rijn,
sorry for not mentioning why I know the tampering... I've been trying to find out how to put photos from the NASA site on this board, hopefully will do that soon...
If I could present the photos for you to see, you would find that there are certain areas that even my 7 year old niece would be able to spot, the areas being blurred, smudged, parts "cut out", etc. It's all there and I look foward to showing you the photos in question as I'd like to hear your opinion...
Kind regards,
Me:razz:

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Apr-20, 03:01 AM
You could just link to it.

Like this: Armstrong (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/armstrong_ambassador_of_exploration.html)


Armstrong (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/armstrong_ambassador_of_exploration.html)

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Apr-25, 01:14 PM
Mr Skipper talks a lot about spouts (water, liquid, whatever).

My gut says that it might not be so unusual...but have no science to back that up.

N C More
2006-Apr-25, 02:27 PM
Speaking of anomalies on Mars, here's one about a door on the D&M Cydonia pyramid. (http://www.weirdload.com/marsdoor.html) Interesting stuff there, complete with links to Mr. Carlotto and Mr. Hoagland.

sts60
2006-Apr-25, 04:20 PM
Does anyone suspect that NASA is tampering with the Rover images??? If not, why not, and if so, why?

No, of course not. NASA has only to gain funding and prestige by releasing images showing evidence for life on Mars.

But you say it would force them to "come clean" about UFOs? Why exactly would evidence for life on Mars make the case for UFOs? If it was microbial or animal, that has nothing to do with UFOs being real alien spacecraft.

On the other hand, if there's super-duper advanced Martian stuff there, why is NASA sending ever-more-capable spacecraft there, which would force them to edit an increasingly enormous amount of data to conceal it?

It makes no sense whatsoever. And those accusing NASA of a coverup on Mars are frankly crackpots (like Hoagland and his gibberish "hyperdimensional physics"), or simply haven't made the effort to learn enough about the subject and think things through.

P.S. John Mack a "skeptic"? LOL. He was a credophile who did a great amount of damage by walking his victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H patients into a delusion, rather than helping them understand they had experienced a natural neurological phenomenon with cultural reinforcement. He was a quack.

Orion437
2006-Jul-10, 02:39 AM
What is this? Lake (?)

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M09/M0901354.jpg

And this? Grass (?)

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/full_jpg_non_map/R09/R0903461.jpg

??? Tress ???

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/full_jpg_non_map/R06/R0600983.jpg

And...? A swamp and a lake (????)

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M10/M1000628.jpg


I see that a lot of marsanomaly doesnt make any sense; but i really need an explanation of all these images, one by one. A real explanation of all of them.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-10, 02:46 AM
I'll tell you what they are. They're pictures that are way too big for the format of this forum. Can you just link to them from somewhere? (Welcome, though.)

Orion437
2006-Jul-10, 02:48 AM
Sorry for that.

Thanks for the welcome, this is my second post :)

Here are the links, from Nasa:



http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M09/M0901354.jpg

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/full_jpg_non_map/R09/R0903461.jpg

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/full_jpg_non_map/R06/R0600983.jpg

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M10/M1000628.jpg

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 02:59 AM
So you know, you can edit posts, and that is what she was saying. If you would change the picture to a url in the first post so it isn't so big. Thanks. :)

Welcome to the forum!

Orion437
2006-Jul-10, 03:04 AM
So you know, you can edit posts, and that is what she was saying. If you would change the picture to a url in the first post so it isn't so big. Thanks. :)

Welcome to the forum!

Edited, thanks for the welcome !! :)

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 03:06 AM
Nope, thank you. :)

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Jul-10, 12:47 PM
What is this? Lake (?)

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M09/M0901354.jpg

And this? Grass (?)

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/full_jpg_non_map/R09/R0903461.jpg

??? Tress ???

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/full_jpg_non_map/R06/R0600983.jpg

And...? A swamp and a lake (????)

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M10/M1000628.jpg


I see that a lot of marsanomaly doesnt make any sense; but i really need an explanation of all these images, one by one. A real explanation of all of them.

I haven't found any other individual who puts as much effort into discussing, theorizing and discovering images like these, other than Mr Skipper. I would like to know of any official NASA or Malin hypotheses, if anyone finds them. Efrain Palermo takes a stab at the seepage looking images.
I am open minded about Mars, it sure is a place with some peculiar looking images, but no real answers yet.

And I still can't understand why NASA sent the two rovers Spirit and Opportunity to places so similar?
(but the Russians went to Phobos?)

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter should offer greater details of the surface of Mars ... in theory.

V-GER
2006-Jul-10, 07:04 PM
I haven't found any other individual who puts as much effort into discussing, theorizing and discovering images like these, other than Mr Skipper. I would like to know of any official NASA or Malin hypotheses, if anyone finds them. Efrain Palermo takes a stab at the seepage looking images.
I am open minded about Mars, it sure is a place with some peculiar looking images, but no real answers yet.

And I still can't understand why NASA sent the two rovers Spirit and Opportunity to places so similar?
(but the Russians went to Phobos?)

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter should offer greater details of the surface of Mars ... in theory.

Mr. Skipper presented the Spirit heat shield and Opportunity parachute(or was it the other way around?) as anomalies while failing to disclose that the same "anomalies" were published by Nasa as pictures of the said heat shield and parachute(obviously Nasa web site is where he gets his "evidence").

Later he defended this policy by saying he wanted people to make up their own conclusions. Sigh, that just about sums the guy up.

Orion437
2006-Jul-11, 02:36 AM
Mr. Skipper presented the Spirit heat shield and Opportunity parachute(or was it the other way around?) as anomalies while failing to disclose that the same "anomalies" were published by Nasa as pictures of the said heat shield and parachute(obviously Nasa web site is where he gets his "evidence").

Later he defended this policy by saying he wanted people to make up their own conclusions. Sigh, that just about sums the guy up.

Yes...well.

Im still waiting for some scientific explanation for the links i posted , because i dont understand what they are.

PhantomWolf
2006-Jul-11, 04:05 AM
Without knowing more information like where they are from, and what scale, most people would be guessing

Orion437
2006-Jul-13, 10:08 PM
Without knowing more information like where they are from, and what scale, most people would be guessing


http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M10/M1000628.jpg

This is the page for this image:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M10/M1000628.html

Ancillary data for MOC narrow-angle image M10-00628
Acquisition parameters

Image ID (picno): M10-00628
Image start time: 1999-12-06T00:33:55.48 SCET
Image width: 1024 pixels
Image height: 3584 pixels
Line integration time: 0.7231 millisec
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.60
Crosstrack summing: 2
Downtrack summing: 2
Compression type: MOC-PRED-X-5
Gain mode: 4A (hexadecimal)
Offset mode: 14 (decimal)

Derived values

Longitude of image center: 291.50°W
Latitude of image center: 78.47°S
Scaled pixel width: 2.75 meters
Scaled image width: 2.83 km
Scaled image height: 15.82 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 257.68°
Local True Solar Time: 1.03 decimal hours
Emission angle: 0.15°
Incidence angle: 76.56°
Phase angle: 76.47°
North azimuth: 255.04°
Sun azimuth: 60.45°
Spacecraft altitude: 370.18 km
Slant distance: 370.18 km


http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M09/M0901354.jpg

This is the page for this image:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M09/M0901354.html


Ancillary data for MOC narrow-angle image M09-01354
Acquisition parameters

Image ID (picno): M09-01354
Image start time: 1999-11-05T19:10:54.68 SCET
Image width: 512 pixels
Image height: 2432 pixels
Line integration time: 0.4821 millisec
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.08
Crosstrack summing: 2
Downtrack summing: 2
Compression type: MOC-PRED-X-5
Gain mode: 4A (hexadecimal)
Offset mode: 30 (decimal)

Derived values

Longitude of image center: 292.28°W
Latitude of image center: 78.75°S
Scaled pixel width: 2.75 meters
Scaled image width: 1.41 km
Scaled image height: 7.25 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 238.52°
Local True Solar Time: 15.32 decimal hours
Emission angle: 0.23°
Incidence angle: 61.76°
Phase angle: 61.77°
North azimuth: 105.21°
Sun azimuth: 51.23°
Spacecraft altitude: 370.07 km
Slant distance: 370.08 km


http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/full_jpg_non_map/R09/R0903461.jpg

This is the page for this image:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/images/R09/R0903461.html

Ancillary data for MOC narrow-angle image R09-03461
Acquisition parameters

Image ID (picno): R09-03461
Image start time: 2003-09-25T20:21:25.96 SCET
Image width: 1024 pixels
Image height: 3200 pixels
Line integration time: 0.7231 millisec
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.52
Crosstrack summing: 2
Downtrack summing: 2
Compression type: MOC-PRED-X-5
Gain mode: 8A (hexadecimal)
Offset mode: 34 (decimal)

Derived values

Longitude of image center: 299.78°W
Latitude of image center: 82.65°S
Scaled pixel width: 2.89 meters
Scaled image width: 2.97 km
Scaled image height: 14.10 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 267.72°
Local True Solar Time: 15.63 decimal hours
Emission angle: 17.85°
Incidence angle: 60.74°
Phase angle: 46.64°
North azimuth: 113.78°
Sun azimuth: 56.01°
Spacecraft altitude: 371.81 km
Slant distance: 388.65 km


So,what are those images?

Orion437
2006-Aug-21, 07:34 PM
Somebody?

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-21, 10:03 PM
If you want to find out what experts think Martian features are, than look up or keep an eye out for ongoing research by the experts. For instance, see this topic:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45774

which references an article on the Martian Southern ice cap.

Nobody here is a specialist in interpreting Martian surface features. Image interpretation, without the proper skills and extremely detailed knowledge of the subject, is doomed to failure.

Now, given Martian conditions, I can say that large bodies of open water are virtually impossible. Along similar lines, so are grass and trees.

V-GER
2006-Aug-28, 02:09 PM
Here's a Nasa explanation for the dark spots on the polar regions:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/main/index.html

jt-3d
2006-Aug-28, 08:03 PM
And APOD's (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060823.html).

Orion437
2006-Nov-03, 10:46 AM
Edited.

cran
2006-Nov-05, 09:26 PM
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M09/M0901354.jpg

purely based on a quick scan, Orion, I believe the imaged area is in the higher latitudes ... and the "lake" is an ice field ...

I'll look at the others shortly, but I'm running late ...

01101001
2006-Nov-05, 09:44 PM
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M09/M0901354.jpg

purely based on a quick scan, Orion, I believe the imaged area is in the higher latitudes ... and the "lake" is an ice field ...

M0901354? Mars Global Surveyor MOC Image m0901354 - Browse Page (http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m09013/m0901354.html) Definitely high southern latitude:


Latitude [center areographic latitude] -78.75°
Longitude [center longitude] 292.28°

Orion437 even supplied that: MOC narrow-angle image M09-01354 (http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M09/M0901354.html)

===

Such as http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r03_r09/images/R09/R0903461.html were just in the news, Orion437, if you follow Mars Express developments. Decoding Mars’s Cryptic Region (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMMT0O7BTE_0.html) (And August 17 Nature magazine)


How does the dust get on top of the slab? The answer could be provided by the mysterious markings that dot the cryptic region. Known as spots, 'spiders' and 'fans' depending upon their shapes, they were discovered in 1998–1999 by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor.

Planetary scientists believe they are caused by sunlight passing through the clear ice and heating the soil underneath. This causes pressure to build up in carbon dioxide bubbles below the ice until a geyser erupts throwing dust onto the surface, creating the spots and fans. In this model, the spiders result from erosion of the underlying surface by rapid gas flows below the ice. Langevin believes that this process could significantly contribute to the dust contamination of the icy surface, which OMEGA observed.

Good article and artist's interpretation of process: ASU Themis: Gas jets spawn dark 'spiders' and spots on Mars icecap (http://themis.asu.edu/news-polarjets) (Same/similar to the APOD reference above.)

Orion437
2006-Nov-06, 10:19 PM
Very interesting, didnt know about this, thank you.

cran
2006-Nov-07, 04:12 AM
for the confirmation ...
my dial-up connection is so slow, I only had time to download the image, look at it quickly ... jump to a conclusion ... and then run away ...

I still haven't done any more than that ... sorry ... I've been in another discussion about plate tectonics and extinctions ...

I will try and get back to the other images ... but I'm confident that other enthusiasts will likely beat me to the punch ...

Orion437
2006-Nov-07, 11:59 PM
Found this (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/clarke_mars_banyon_010709-2.html).

Van Rijn
2006-Nov-08, 12:37 AM
Found this (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/clarke_mars_banyon_010709-2.html).

Yes, we've talked about this before. Clarke is a good science fiction writer that is given to speculation. I recall where he speculated that relativistic jets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_jet) were artificial.

By the way, please provide a discription with your link next time.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Nov-09, 06:07 PM
Heh, this reminds me of when I read Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon" for the first time, where Michel Ardan, Barbicane and Capt. Nicholl especulated on the possibility of life in the moon based on images that supposedly suggested plant life seasonal changes...