Wednesday, July 30, 2008

No Blogging 'till Tuesday

I'm headed out of town for a few days, so no new posts until Tuesday, when I hope to have a new Hyperdimensional physics post up. You can still leave comments but they won't be moderated until Tuesday at the earliest.

Everybody have a nice weekend!

Mike

20 comments:

david nineteenpointfive said...

Headline: "NASA confirms water on Mars
Until now, the evidence for ice has been circumstantial"

Response: Big f'n deal. Why doesn't NASA explain everything else.

Mystic-Creations said...

Very true david.... I doubt we will ever get the truth from NASA. Have you noticed that many of the more recent photo's of MARS from the landers are not nearly as red as they used to be?

Supposedly NASA admitted to creating a harsh looking environment and that the orginal photo's they posted showing a fairly light blue sky were in fact true images. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to find the "official" proof of that.

More and more people are comming to terms with their deception, hopefully that will work in our favor.

david nineteenpointfive said...

Subject: Report #067, May 12, 2004, Joseph P. Skipper

Check out his moon tower observations on his website, in what are tower structures with digital blurring over them. You can view the same photos directly off of the gov't website, which he provides.
www.marsanomalyresearch.com

david nineteenpointfive said...

Direct link to what looks most like a skull on Mars, credit to Mr. Skipper's website.

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/513/2P171912249EFFAAL4P2425L7M1.HTML

Mystic-Creations said...

WOW great site! Thank you so much for the link. I can't believe some of those pics....ever more difficult to believe is how NASA expects us to believe what they say. I mean without a doubt if anyone would see many of those photo's and not know they were from Mars, they would immediately say those look like artifacts.

Sphinx said...

Moon has water!

Today, researchers announced that they've found water molecules in moon matter retrieved by NASA Apollo missions in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Here is the link for the article

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/09/moon-has-water.html

But why the announce that now? After 48 years......Jeez

marsandro said...

L-Fivers knew about the "Moon
water" back in the seventies.

Funny how NSS has followed the "NASA Party
Line" on the subject ever since L-5 and NSI
merged.

But then, Keith Henson ain't exactly Keith
Henson anymore....

:-)

Hathor -- Mistress of Riddles

;-)

T'Zairis Shirzah said...

I guess the fact that we have water and potting soil on Mars is just too much for NASA/JPL. Now-- supposedly-- Phoenix is picking up traces of perchlorate in the Martian soil. While the actual NASA article about it is rather neutral (it states that scientists were 'working to rule out site contamination by the lander') most of the articles that have been spun off are saying that contamination has been ruled out and that the perchlorate presence now proves that Martian soil is indeed different from Earth's.

Pardon me, but the simplest explanation of traces of perchlorate in the soil around the lander is that it is contamination from the lander. The only way to definitively rule out local contamination would be to send a for-sure-uncontaminated rover a goodly distance away from the lander and take more samples. Instead, we now have articles trumpeting toxic chemicals in Martian soil-- so there can't be life on Mars-- and all those rumors of NASA briefing the White House about withheld info (and the possibility of life) are left to die on the vine.

Let the (NASA proprietary) games begin...

The url below is for the article at NASA's site. To see how 'minute traces of perchlorate' have suddenly morphed into full-blown toxic Martian soil chemistry, just Google 'perchlorate Mars' and start reading.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/aug/
HQ_08199_Phoenix_Results.html

I am SO not amused...

Peace,

T'Zairis

Michael said...

NASA is so full of it. First they said the presidential science adviser briefing reports were bogus, then they say they have evidence indicating that life on Mars is impossible, and now this.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080805-phoenix-perchlorate-update.html

david nineteenpointfive said...

Glad you liked the link, mystic. I have also noticed the colors seemed to be less red.

marsandro said...

Hi T'Zairis,

Hmmm...perchlorates....

Sounds like rocket fuel. Or traces thereof.

Contamination from the lander is indeed the
most likely explanation.

According to WikiPedia:

Perchlorates are the salts derived from perchloric acid (HClO4). They occur both naturally and through manufacturing. They have been used as a medicine for more than 50 years to treat thyroid gland disorders. They are also used as an oxidizer in rocket fuel and explosives and can be found in airbags and fireworks. Both potassium perchlorate (KClO4) and ammonium perchlorate (NH4ClO4) are used extensively within the pyrotechnics industry, whereas ammonium perchlorate is a component of solid rocket fuel. Lithium perchlorate, which decomposes exothermically to give oxygen, is used in oxygen "candles" on spacecraft, submarines and in other esoteric situations where a reliable backup or supplementary oxygen supply is needed. Most perchlorate salts are soluble in water.[1]

"Natural perchlorates" don't quite ring true,
especially not with a "0.01 Tor" atmosphere
composed mostly (?) of CO2 and such, on a
"barren, lifeless" world.

And notice that last part about the solubility.

"Natural" perchlorates MIGHT be caused by
lightning striking open water, but...on Mars?

The other source---clearly not natural---is
MANUFACTURING....

So says the WikiPedia.

NASA/JPL must think that NOBODY knows
any chemistry but them---or how to read
online sources like WikiPedia, if nothing
else.

"Oh, DUHHHHHHH, guys...." !-

:-)

Hathor -- Professor Emeritus of Chemistry

;-)

marsandro said...

Hi T'Zairis et al,

Upon further reflection,
I am constrained to point out that lightning
on Mars is a tough proposition at 0.01 Tor.

The amperage level in the bolt (which is
presumed to be high) is a function of the
available free charge, which in turn is a
direct function of atmosphereic density,
among other factors, such as solar flux,
friction due to high-altitude winds, etc.

At 0.01 Tor, you can hardly scare up a spark,
leave alone a lightning bolt. (We're talking
trying to start your car with an "AA" cell
borrowed from your pocket penlight.)

And just where did this perchlorate generating
lightning strike on Mars? Lake Steadman?

Which naturally begs the question, just how
did the perchlorates get all the way from
Lake Steadman to the polar lander site?
A hastily formed Martian BUCKET BRIGADE?

More likely, these NASA/JPL dotes are indeed
reading their own retro-rocket exhaust.

What morons....

They obviously don't ever think before they
speak... either that, or this is one BIZARRO
form of misdirection for all us "plebes" out
here....

:-)

Hathor -- Laughing At Fools

;-)

P.S.: Most modern solid rocket fuels are
composed of something like potassium
permanganate and paving asphalt, with
various perchlorates used as burn boosters.

P.P.S.: Also---if it isn't traces of rocket
exhaust, and it wasn't lightning striking
open water, then we can start looking for
those MARTIAN FACTORIES!

:-)

T'Zairis Shirzah said...

Marsandro--

I think NASA is looking for anything (no matter how far-fetched) to make the 'Mars potting soil + water' equation go away. So I don't think the folks floating the perchlorate hooey are morons at all-- they know that the exhaust of the rocket engines on the lander will leave traces of perchlorate around the lander. What they are trying to do is lie by misdirection/misapplication.

The bottom line is, Martian earth-like soil and water WILL produce green stuff, and that in turn means that the original European probe pix of big green swathes of something on Mars are correct. It is the altered/re-calibrated versions of the pix-- showing the swathes as black-- which are the lie. NASA is now in too deep-- if they come out and say 'the soil and water on Mars is the same as that on Earth', then it becomes obvious they have been tinkering with the pix to make the green go away. Then comes the question, 'Why have you been lying all this time?', the answer(s) to which will make NASA look foolish at best, and malicious at worst.

Right now, I am sure that they would be utterly content to make their own scientists look like dolts who don't know that rocket exhaust can contaminate the soil where the probe bearing the rockets lands if it means they can keep a lid on things. The problem is, though, that there is now enough in the public record to make the 'perchlorate excuse' look like the flimsy tissue it is.

The horse has not only escaped through the open barn door, it has galloped away clean into the next county. The longer the 'no life on Mars' game goes on, the more severe the trashing of NASA will be when the truth emerges, and it is emerging even as we watch. If I were working for NASA at present, I'd be looking for another job so that my reputation wouldn't go down in flames with theirs when they are finally and publicly outed.

In the meantime, I think it is important to talk back to the 'dog and perchlorate-pony show' stupidity that NASA is trotting out yet again instead of the real data.

Peace,

T'Zairis

marsandro said...

I'm popping more popcorn
even as we speak....

:-)

Hathor -- Indulging The Munchies

;-)

marsandro said...

The really neat part for me
is how all this leads back
to a truly dense Martian
atmosphere.

With the available sources for perchlorates
well identified, NASA had *better* prove it
was their own rocket exhaust, unless they
want to "prove" that the Martian atmosphere
"ain't no 0.01 Tor," or that, worse yet, there
are FACTORIES on Mars.

Run by Rodabears, maybe? ... %:>

Only Keith Laney knows....

(Small joke there....) ... ;-)

:-)

Hathor -- Leading the expedition

;-)

Mystic-Creations said...

Great info and links people. NASA's position in all of this is...interesting. I mean as long as the general public continues to believe what they say....were screwed.

Hopefully more people can get a sense of the whole picture through these blogs, forums etc and test the evidence for themselves.

I'm extremely fascinated with all of this.

marsandro said...

Just wait until you get to see
a rodabear looking right into
the rover camera point blank,
so you can even see the whiskers.

Now THAT will be funny!

"Hmmm...how to explain it away...."

:-)

Hathor -- Director of the Martian Petting Zoo

;-)

P.S.: There was one YouTube video where the
rover was centered looking at the same point
on a crater wall constantly, and yet the "top
edge of the crater" kept coming down in each
successive frame.

Probably a rodabear wandered into the
picture, if I had to guess....

Made 'em have to think fast....

:-)

marsandro said...

Here is something that may be
a link I was trying to find a
while back:

A Martian fire fountain?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR9wJTBI9AE

I was trying to find that crater video, and
came across this instead.

:-)

Hathor -- Searching through the stacks

;-)

P.S.: I'll throw THIS one in just for laughs:

A little surprise for the Phoenix
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHt4vSLjQgA

:-)

Starborne said...

I've been looking at those pictures of the "rodabear", while it is interesting to think of fuzzy little rodants running all over the place, does anyone think it could be a cephalopod that has evolved to live on the land? If that is the case it would be hard to spot most of them from still images as they would be blending in with the surroundings. What would be interesting is to have a probe much like what the Japanese sent to the moon recently, to go to Mars. Think of the rich High Def. videos we could get back of Mars.

marsandro said...

Hi starborne,

That's some evolution you are
suggesting.

The "rodabear" has four legs (based on the
now-pulled video clip at YouTube) and is
clearly fur-covered.

The ability of the rodabear to stand erect
strongly suggests a vertebrate, and the fur
strongly suggests a mammal.

A direct line of evolution from the form of
a cephalopod, while perhaps not impossible,
would seem highly unlikely, at least for the
Rodabear.

That's my opinion, anyway.

This is not to say that you might not have
a point where *other* types of Martian
creatures are concerned. Certain of them,
such as the "tortoise," appear to be clearly
reptilian, and might well descend from sea
creatures of one kind or another.

It's interesting how close together the
"tortoise" and the small "mouse-like" creature
are in that particular picture. Mammals and
reptilians don't usually "hang out" together,
at least not on Earth.

The mouse-like creature, moreover, appears
to be mammalian. Green fur (?) with a white
underside, with eyes, ears, a nose and a
mouth, and front legs with some sort of
appendages (like paws?) that clearly show
articulation.

The "weiner-mouse" appears to be surprised
by the passing of the shadow of the rover.
You can see the reaction from frame to frame.

You can also see the "tortoise" move its head
for a better look.

One day we'll see it all up close....

:-)

Hathor -- Tourguide for the Martian Zoo

;-)