• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NASA Mars conspiracy stuff: Some help needed please!

Donn

Philosopher
Donn
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
7,758
Location
In my head.
I am not well educated in Science, nor am I on practised terms with Skeptical terminology and concepts. However, despite all that, I went ahead and roused the ire of a conspiracy-theorist who was sending me "interesting snippets" from Hoagland's site suggesting that the Mars landings have been faked in some way (they are looking at the 'red' colours of the returned images we see of the lander etc), by daring to send him some info about Hoagland's reputation and by saying that colour shifts happen... Just like ◊◊◊◊ happens!

His response was:

1) Certainly, colours shift as scenes change; however, there have been
thousands of pictures released of the Martian surface and, including colour
shifts, this artificial colouring remains. The example image that sent to
you certainly isn't the only one that has clear manipulations of colour in
it.
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/mercolor.jpg>

2) For the image I sent you: If reflection off the sand is to be responsible
for the red colours in the image of the lander then there could of course be
no direct reflection from the Martian surface on the objects that are facing
directly upward (i.e. the JPL logo and wiring).

3) If the red colour can be attributed to colouring due to atmospheric
reflection (e.g red dust in the air), then the diffuse atmospheric light
would have to be blue and not red (particles scattering red light in the
atmosphere would cause objects in the sunlight to appear blue, and NOT red).

4) Are all the NASA images ever released 'distorted' by the camera? I doubt
it. (Signal->dish cannot be distorted, it's digital, and analogue PC
monitors are capable of only 'so much' distortion.)

Being a painter and an artist, my only defence can be my own experience of light and conditions. It seems to me that the general reddish colour is because the bloody lander is on Mars. The colours are under the influence of the general reflection of red-light. No?
I don't understand his concept that objects in sunlight should appear blue.

Anyway - He has not spelled-out his actual 'conspiracy' yet, preffering to hint at arcane dishonesty by NASA.
I just wanted some real opinions and good, clean, logical silver bullets to shoot his way!

Thanks.

PS - Another hint of his is that NASA forbids any live web cam feeds from Mars or from the IIS. I have been googling for something and have not found any. Is there some good reason for not having web-cam views all the time?
 
Thanks for that link - I am trying to understand it. What I get from it is that the colour component of the image is very complex but made up from three filters that are carefully calibrated to set standards for geological purposes and this explains a lot of the strange colours.

I still don't know how to respond to his argument about :
"If the red colour can be attributed to colouring due to atmospheric
reflection (e.g red dust in the air), then the diffuse atmospheric light
would have to be blue and not red (particles scattering red light in the
atmosphere would cause objects in the sunlight to appear blue, and NOT red)."

I thought an object looked (say) red because all other colours where being absorbed into it and only the red was being reflected, hence read dust should reduce blue light.

?
 
Donn said:
I am not well educated in Science, nor am I on practised terms with Skeptical terminology and concepts. However, despite all that, I went ahead and roused the ire of a conspiracy-theorist who was sending me "interesting snippets" from Hoagland's site suggesting that the Mars landings have been faked in some way (they are looking at the 'red' colours of the returned images we see of the lander etc), by daring to send him some info about Hoagland's reputation and by saying that colour shifts happen... Just like ◊◊◊◊ happens!

His response was:

1) Certainly, colours shift as scenes change; however, there have been
thousands of pictures released of the Martian surface and, including colour
shifts, this artificial colouring remains. The example image that sent to
you certainly isn't the only one that has clear manipulations of colour in
it.
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/mercolor.jpg>

2) For the image I sent you: If reflection off the sand is to be responsible
for the red colours in the image of the lander then there could of course be
no direct reflection from the Martian surface on the objects that are facing
directly upward (i.e. the JPL logo and wiring).

3) If the red colour can be attributed to colouring due to atmospheric
reflection (e.g red dust in the air), then the diffuse atmospheric light
would have to be blue and not red (particles scattering red light in the
atmosphere would cause objects in the sunlight to appear blue, and NOT red).

4) Are all the NASA images ever released 'distorted' by the camera? I doubt
it. (Signal->dish cannot be distorted, it's digital, and analogue PC
monitors are capable of only 'so much' distortion.)

Being a painter and an artist, my only defence can be my own experience of light and conditions. It seems to me that the general reddish colour is because the bloody lander is on Mars. The colours are under the influence of the general reflection of red-light. No?
I don't understand his concept that objects in sunlight should appear blue.

Anyway - He has not spelled-out his actual 'conspiracy' yet, preffering to hint at arcane dishonesty by NASA.
I just wanted some real opinions and good, clean, logical silver bullets to shoot his way!

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are prejudiced, rather than skeptical.

You admit you do not understand, yet you just want to "shoot" his argument.

That, is neither skeptical nor rational.

It is ◊◊◊◊◊.
 
This can be difficult to grasp all at once. Having followed Marvel Frozen's link, I was almost overwhelmed the long and rigourous explanation - and I've built a CCD imaging device and I know some of the problems with wavelength sensitivity.

I built a device to measure the ammount of white light coming through a piece of blue film using a CCD device. The problem was that the film, although really dark to my eyes was practically transparent when I looked at it using the CCD. The problem was that the film was transparent to infra-red, my light source put out a whole load of infra red and I can't see in the infra red. When I put a filter on it, it was fine.

Now it takes a bit of reading and hard thought to get ones head around the problems with three colour channels covering the whole spectrum. Try to use the idea that the part of the camera which detects red may be more sensitive than the part which detects blue. Then, even with equal quantities of red and blue light in a picture, the picture still appears red.

That's somewhat oversimplified though.

PS - Another hint of his is that NASA forbids any live web cam feeds from Mars or from the IIS. I have been googling for something and have not found any. Is there some good reason for not having web-cam views all the time?
Click to expand...

Yes, several. I am not a space engineer but, generally, what would be the point? It would use up a large portion of communication bandwidth, have a several minute delay due to the distance and only be available for a short period each day due to mars rotation and for what? To convince a bunch of conspracy theorists that mars is really red? They could just say that the poor quality of the intermittant feed and the several minute delay is further proof that NASA is doctoring the feed. Yes, it would be cool, but hardly cost effective.
 
Ok, red more pervasive in the camera - got it. Thanks.

I suspected that a "web-cam" from Mars may be too expensive (in $'s and bandwidth), but do the NASA folks get some kind of constant feed?
If they do then could a single web-server not be set up to send from the data that is already in the computers on the ground?

Also, why no live feed from the ISS, also forked from the ground (so to speak).
Seems odd - I may be wrong, but I have not found anything interesting via google yet.

In reply to that other rude chap, Lucianarchy, I do not simply want to shoot him down for the sake of it. I have better things to do.
It is because he sends me a lot of this 'pseudo' stuff that I have been reading more and more skeptical info. (I should thank him!)

The time has come for me to start rebutting his arguments and so I turn to this forum for help in technical areas that I am not conversant in. I wanted a simple (i.e. concise and well argued) answer that would keep him thinking and help me to further differentiate nonsense from reality.
 
Donn,

It comes down to "why oh why oh why?"

The scientists themselves speculate on the possibility of life on Mars. Yesterday they reported ice on the southern pole. There have been discussions of supposed fossils in martian meteorites,

If they found "green areas" then BINGO ... funding.

So why would anyone want to keep it under wraps? And the suggestion of a conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people is just the ramblings of a disordered mind. Always remember that POTUS could not keep a BJ secret.

Sniff test(tm).

The problem is that if you (the collective "you") are not an engineer or a mission scientist that has lived and breathed this project for years, there are going to be things that you cannot explain. So what? I don't understand the logic of seperating some types of cardboard from others at my local recycling site. Does that suggest conspiracy? No, simply my ignorance.
 
Donn said:
...I thought an object looked (say) red because all other colours where being absorbed into it and only the red was being reflected, hence read dust should reduce blue light.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's why when you mix pigments, it is termed subtractive color mixture. The more different pigments you add, the more wavelenghts are absorbed and the darker and muddier the result. Some people use crimson and azure to make a warm shadow.
It is entirely different with additive color mixture, where the lights of different wavelenghts are added to eachother. Pointillism used the fact that tiny bits of color seen at a distance fuse together, so that red and green produce the sensation of yellow, just like your TV does.
And pay no attention to Looneyarchy. She can't even spell.
 
Donn said:
Also, why no live feed from the ISS, also forked from the ground (so to speak).
Seems odd - I may be wrong, but I have not found anything interesting via google yet.

Dunno but the woos have suggest that the delay associated with Hubble are due to some crackpot reason whereas the reality is that they give the project scientists first crack.

In reply to that other rude chap, Lucianarchy, I do not simply want to shoot him down for the sake of it. I have better things to do.
It is because he sends me a lot of this 'pseudo' stuff that I have been reading more and more skeptical info. (I should thank him!)

Luci seems to believe that, when faced with something anomolus, one ought to err on the side of belief or acceptance of things at face value, perhaps. It would be a more effective approach if he actually engaged in debate.

The time has come for me to start rebutting his arguments and so I turn to this forum for help in technical areas that I am not conversant in. I wanted a simple (i.e. concise and well argued) answer that would keep him thinking and help me to further differentiate nonsense from reality.

Ask him why. If he spins tales of vast conspiracy, fold your tent, have a glass of wine and watch a re-reun of The Beverly Hillbillys. You will thank me.
Click to expand...
 
Donn said:
Ok, red more pervasive in the camera - got it. Thanks.

I suspected that a "web-cam" from Mars may be too expensive (in $'s and bandwidth), but do the NASA folks get some kind of constant feed?
If they do then could a single web-server not be set up to send from the data that is already in the computers on the ground?

Also, why no live feed from the ISS, also forked from the ground (so to speak).
Seems odd - I may be wrong, but I have not found anything interesting via google yet.

In reply to that other rude chap, Lucianarchy, I do not simply want to shoot him down for the sake of it. I have better things to do.
It is because he sends me a lot of this 'pseudo' stuff that I have been reading more and more skeptical info. (I should thank him!)

The time has come for me to start rebutting his arguments and so I turn to this forum for help in technical areas that I am not conversant in. I wanted a simple (i.e. concise and well argued) answer that would keep him thinking and help me to further differentiate nonsense from reality.
Click to expand...

OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.

Oh, and there are huge worms up there, geneticaly manufactured by the Martians in order to recycle the remaining 'silt'. There was a thread here, but alas, it has been removed.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0400291.html
http://www.ebtx.com/mars/marsfaun.htm
 
Lucianarchy said:


OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, and I thought that there was no good reason:D
 
Ed,
Well put. This NASA conspiracy stuff that he is sending me is the least wierd stuff. You should see some of the hyper-dimensional-crystal-stargate-vibrational-galactic-empire stuff he sends... I have just become really bored with this stream of nonsense that I have started to try and understand why someone, really very clever and capable, could so utterly believe all this gumpf.

I am not all clued on Science and maths, but even with my limited insight into the workings of nature, I can see that the stuff he believes is deeply flawed, it's shining a light on those flaws that is really quit difficult to do.

I can't just say, "Oh you should stop smoking those little plants," or some such retort - this guy is using all his adult mind and energy to further the spread of nonsense!

It's like being in a bad movie man! Too wierd really. More wierd than ghosts or Gellers.
 
Lucianarchy said:


OK. Here's the deal.

Our origins go back to Mars.

Mars lost all its athmosphere and the water went underground.

Martians were aware of this impending disaster and had time to geneticaly alter the simian gene and reptilian gene. ITMT, the martians 'stored' their material bound 'souls' into holographic digital systems and assimilated themselves in various ways and methods throughout our evolution here on Earth. It's just that humans aren't ready to accept the implications of this and the world economy would suffer due to balances of power based on religuous doctrine. The best bit is the story is so unbelievable that it can remain a story quite easily.
Click to expand...
Watch it! You are coming dangerously close to plagiarizing the dementia of $cientology. If you persist, Vinny Barbarino and Top Gun will come around to your flat and pummel the Thetans out of you.
 
Donn said:
Ed,
Well put. This NASA conspiracy stuff that he is sending me is the least wierd stuff. You should see some of the hyper-dimensional-crystal-stargate-vibrational-galactic-empire stuff he sends... I have just become really bored with this stream of nonsense that I have started to try and understand why someone, really very clever and capable, could so utterly believe all this gumpf.

I
Click to expand...
If you look closely at certain woo beliefs you will find that the crackpots have transmorgrified Hollywood imigery into their reality structure. The old Star Trek is a mine of gibberish that gets recycled.
 
Thanks for the help.
Let me summarise:

1. Mars is mainly red.
This is due to the nature of both the dirt and the atmosphere - both scattering red light and absorbing other colours (to variying extents).

2. The camera on the lander sends back colour-biased images intended for scientific consumtion. The public gets re-re-biased images intended to provide an accurate picture to the best of our scientific knowledge.

3. If there is any life on Mars, it ain't great big swathes of green bush or we would all be talking about it by now.

4. There is no conspiracy because Occam slices that away, and anyway I have an old video I want to watch and better things to do with my time.

5. Once a Woo^2 always a Woo^2.

Am I on track?
 
1. Surface of Mars can be seen from earth.
2. NASA would be shouting from the trees if they found plants on MARS
3. A focus on a trip to a planet is inevitable and if there is actually a deposite of hematite on the planet the size of any state in America it represents untold mineral richs for any wood be colonizers.

*edit, those aren't typos that are puns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom