Life on Venus? (and other planetary musings)

[lux]

It seems a Russian scientist has just published an article claiming that photos from an old Russian Venus probe show evidence of life on that planet.

NASA and other establishment authorities have jumped in to debunk the claim. A list of articles can be found on this Google page.

I can't say if the Russian scientist is right or wrong or if Russia ever really sent a probe to Venus at all but I always find it interesting when NASA takes the trouble to debunk something. It makes me suspicious. One establishment publication went so far as to say the Russian is losing his mind in a manner typical of establishment debunking tactics.

Of course "everybody knows" there is no life on other planets in this solar system. According to NASA anyway who says these places are too hot or too cold or are otherwise barren deserts unable to support life.

Or, is this whole paradigm yet another long-term NASA hoax? Are the other planets actually full of people who laughably think that Earth really is The Planet of the Apes?

[icarusinbound]

I'm reminded by something similar to this that I haven't been able to track-down any proper links on the internet to.

Does anyone else remember the weird controversies that NASA attempted to defend regarding inaccurate colour/color translation from the pictures sent back from earlier predecessors to the (curiously long-lived) 'Rover' series?

As I remember, for reasons of long-distance signal processing, all the earlier pictures were sent as greyscale, and then computer colorised back on earth based upon a colour-bar scale that was painted on the side of this early immobile(?) probe. This had been calibrated for maximum accuracy (but of course), however, there were a number of episodes of serious disagreement from certain sectors, which seemed to be of the opinion that NASA was deliberately downplaying any green/chlorophyllic and emphasising a red/desolate/"nothing to be seen here folks, move on" ecosystem.

Does this ring any bells with anyone else? This could be quite a few years back, and I have no idea if it was a pile of scatlogical nonsense one way or the other, but the resonance with the above Venus stuff was especially strong about NASA attempting an interventionist debunking.

[edit] Just found this, which capturing some of the flavour, but not the exact detail I'm talking about...http://rense.com/general68/nasaisnt.htm....also makes mention of the mysteriously dysfunctional EU- Beagle project, which disappeared en route to the surface of Mars, despite looking good all the way up to that point[/edit]

[pov603]

I remember reading something similar regarding images from 'Hubble' being coloured after receipt rather than already being in colour.

[I@N]

I read this news last week and I tried to figure out who the hell is Leonid Ksanfomaliti. On google I could not find any other news or article about him or that he wrote on any other subject. On google images there's a couple o pics of an old man and all scorpions for the rest.
Smells like fake even from Italy.

[icarusinbound]

Does anyone else remember the weird controversies that NASA attempted to defend regarding inaccurate colour/color translation from the pictures sent back from earlier predecessors to the (curiously long-lived) 'Rover' series?

This is more along the lines that I remember, and very-much in line with the 'investigating imaginary imagery' focus of this forum-

http://home.comcast.net/~truecolorsofmars

There is overwhelming evidence that NASA has been intentionally altering the color of their Mars lander pictures, making the planet's environment appear to be extremely red and inhospitable to life. This practice began in 1976, with the very first color picture to be sent back from Mars during the Viking Mission and it continues on to this day. The question is: Why?

Mars Color Comparison: The photo on the left shows the Spirit Rover's "air bag marks" on the surface of Mars. This is the dark, rust-tinted version that NASA released to the public. As you can see, much of the detail in the picture is masked by the dark, muddy shading. The photo on the right is the same picture, but with a more accurate color calibration. It shows the salmon-colored soil of the Spirit Rover's landing site and as you can see, by balancing the color, much more detail is visible.

Way back, this ran and ran and then suddenly went quiet. I'm actually surprised that it even made it onto the net for a 'second round' in 2004. I remember there being counter-debunking in 'Scientific American' and 'New Scientist' that stridently dismissed the alternative non-NASA imagery colour coding, and deflating any 'green versus red' ecologial implications regarding the planet. There is of course an extreme cynic interpretation for this saga, whereby the 'corrected' (ie non-NASA color decode) may have been the truthful one, and as a consequence revealing the somewhat-more terrestrial origins of some (all??) of the source imagery. A case maybe of not so much "through a glass darkly", but redly...

I read this news last week and I tried to figure out who the hell is Leonid Ksanfomaliti

Hmm, I wonder....Leonid... (niet Brezsnyev, comrad?)

November 16/17, 2012, late night November 16 until dawn November 17 Leonids Radiating from the constellation Leo the Lion, the Leonid meteor shower is famous. Historically, this shower has produced some of the greatest meteor storms in history – at least one in living memory, 1966 – with rates as high as many thousands of meteors per hour

And anagrammatically KSANFOMALITI= A FILM? I ASK NOT! .....or does it??

[lux]

NASA has a base on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic. The place is called "Mars on Earth" because it looks like Mars. Or, at least it looks like the photos NASA shows us which they claim were taken on Mars.

If you take photos of Devon and tweak the color balance (turn up the red) it really, really looks an awful lot like the photos NASA shows us that were "taken on Mars."

[simonshack]

And anagrammatically KSANFOMALITI= A FILM? I ASK NOT! .....or does it??

Brilliant anagramming - I must say!

K S A N F O M A L I T I
A F I L M I A S K N O T


******************************************

So NASA is able to snap sharp, close-up pictures of the MARS surface - but not of the many APOLLO remains on the moon?


http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2358917

[icarusinbound]

So NASA is able to snap sharp, close-up pictures of the MARS surface - but not of the many APOLLO remains on the moon?

NASA would claim that this is because of the capabilities of their Mars unmanned probe missions, both early static ones, and also the implausably-energetic mobile 'Rover' probes. I'm not sufficiently informed on this topic (yet) to find-out what unmanned photographic probes have ever been sent to the moon- superficially, it would seem a considerably-more trivial project to have sent a long-term 'roving reporter' probe to the Moon in the 40+ years since it was last...surveyed.

I would strongly recommend that you take a look at this content: http://www.keithlaney.net. It is the work of an extremely-dedicated individual/enthusiast, who, whilst maintaining a conventional 'realwelt' interpretation on the topic, is showing-up some interesting paradoxical photographs amongst the official testament. The guy has done a bucketload of admirable work.

See this lunar imagery.....

For example, he notes the apparent angular blocks, and the inargaubly-curious small cogged cylinder next to the left-side dark block. These he all paradigms as being archeological evidence of an extra-terrestrial alien constructed nature...which could perhaps be alternatively interpreted as being geopoliticial evidence of a terrestrial theatrical man-made nature...

This stuff all really worries me. The more I look into it. (Lux, I thank you for the information re Devon Island, a Mars-on-Earth...yes...)

Consider the current Mars Science Laboratory mission, which is eight weeks today on it's way to deliver a new super-rover named Curiousity. Will land in Summer 2012....the size of a Mini Cooper, running on Pu-238, and able to travel 12 miles.

Whilst this pdf is intended as a guide for schoolchildren, I am really concerned about this kind of information:


Seriously? Amongst quite a few other things, I'm an engineer. With a lot of science in my background. And a genuine hard-bitten skeptic. How on earth (pun intended) is this remote sensor working? Is it using some form of reflectance spectroscopy during a vapour phase? In the absence of any wind, presumably? How could meaningful data be returned by zapping a stone 30ft/10m away with an (energy-sapping/RTG-dependant) laser beam? Whilst I can rationalise a robotic coffee-grinder remotely interrogating a captured Martian or lunar pebble, or being able to suck-up some damp sand in the search for microbial life, this just looks far too 'Star Trek' (happy to be corrected...in fact, fire away, anyone, please, I am genuinely interested to find-out how the hell this works....)

[simonshack]

...in fact, fire away, anyone, please, I am genuinely interested to find-out how the hell this works....)

Well, I'll fire away my instinctive thoughts about all this - and pardon me for sounding "un-scientifically pissed-off": my gut feeling is that NASA (along with the entire, terminally corrupt "scientific", space-exploration-related community) is only concerned about one thing: to test the limits of their ongoing social/global experiment (using all of us as guinea pigs) which can be summed up in one sentence: TO GAUGE THE EXTENT OF THE HUMAN RACE'S INTRINSIC GULLIBILITY.

[lux]

To further illustrate my earlier comment

Photo of Devon Island:
http://www.marsonearth.org/images/2007/webcam2/webcam2.jpg

Photo that NASA says was taken on Mars by Spirit Rover (from Keith Laney site):
http://keithlaney.net/SCI/2P127071642-2416colorbestcopy.jpg
(note inconsistent shadows of foreground objects)

[reel.deal]

TRIP TO MARS, ANYONE ?


http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/martian_landscapes.html

November 6, 2009 Email to a friend Permalink

Martian landscapes
Since 2006, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) has been orbiting Mars, currently circling approximately 300 km (187 mi) above the Martian surface. On board the MRO is HiRISE, the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment camera, which has been photographing the planet for several years now at resolutions as fine as mere inches per pixel.
Collected here is a group of images from HiRISE over the past few years, in either false color or grayscale , showing intricate details of landscapes both familiar and alien , from the surface of our neighboring planet, Mars. I invite you to take your time looking through these, imagining the settings - very cold, dry and distant, yet real. (35 photos total)

so many unbelievably great & beautiful HiRISE photos... martian landscapes?
or earthly microforms thru macro-lenses?


http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/1 ... capes.html

[fbenario]

TO GAUGE THE EXTENT OF THE HUMAN RACE'S INTRINSIC GULLIBILITY.

Exactly right. And very well said.

[hoi.polloi]

What kind of energy does it take for such a LASER and how does that rover have that level of energy?

[Dcopymope]

I don't really have much of an opinion on this issue about life on Venus at the moment, but it seems to me that there isn't a clear understanding of the game that is being played by NASA and their handlers concerning life in space and specifically Mars, and the fairy tale they are trying to set us up for. They are telling us that Mars was once like Earth ages ago based on their "findings", but because of the loss of the magnetosphere, the atmosphere has been eroding ever since, making it a dead planet. They can't tell us exactly how this happened, and this is where the Curiosity Rover comes in, and even a possible future manned mission to Mars. Postulating a possible alien hoax, some people have suspected for many years that the fairy tale that will be told will be along the lines of an advanced alien race destroying the planet in warfare as the reason why Mars appears to be a dead planet, and they had to live underground as a result of this disaster, where no Rover or lander has ever searched in great depth if at all, which the Curiosity Rover plans on doing with its Star Trek laser. This will be part of the story for the disclosure event, the hoax. You can see this kind of conditioning by Hollywood even concerning the Beagle 2 lander.

Beagle 2 attacked by aliens (deliberately portrayed as a Rover):
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ItK90yvA44

CNN discussing what hoaxes NASA has in store for us in 2012:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jcgiP_yQKo

[aa5]

I was reading the Wikipedia page on Venus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

The Wiki page has Venus' gravity as 9/10ths of Earth's, and looking at its orbit it looks to me that it might be a temperature range where life could be.

But as I read through the page, the confidence of the scientists in knowing everything there is to know about Venus gets harder and harder to believe. First they say there is a hardcore atmosphere that is a shell so you can't see what the surface looks like. Next they say that Venus has a weak magnetic field relative to the Earth. Ok - how would they know, and it just strikes me as unlikely that if Venus is so close to Earth in size, that the magnetic field would be radically different. But lets go with it, they say the weak magnetic field means solar winds just blow away any incipient atmosphere from forming, blowing all the gasses into space.

Ok if the planet is stripped bare of all the gasses, then how come the atmosphere is so thick we can't see through it. And if the atmosphere is so thick we can't see through it, how do they know 100% exactly what the surface looks like.

They say Greenhouse gasses have heated up Venus to some absurdly hot temperature making life impossible there. Ok - how do they know the temperature on Venus, how could the temperature on Venus be anything more than a speculative guess. And I question even their notion that they know exactly the mixture of gasses in Venus atmosphere, especially in light of them also knowing that the weak magnetic field causes all gasses to be blown into space.

But not only do the scientists claim to know exactly what the surface looks like, and how hot the surface temperature is at every part and a whole section on the different volcanoes active and inactive on the planet - even more impressively the scientists also know 100% what is beneath the surface, the rock & lava mixture.

Which they say is way different than what Earth's core is. Ok last time I checked the deepest drilling is less than 10km below the surface here on Earth. So how do they 'know' what the inner cores of Earth are made of - let alone the inner cores on Venus.