If you believe Suliven was, that's fine. People are entitled to their own opinions.

Do you mean the 'face' or the object in the last picture you linked to? I reckon it's just a stone.

btw I'm just trying to point out that there are a lot of hills in Scotland which, were they transferred to Mars and photoed by the equipment we currently have out there, would look very much like the features claimed to be artificial.

No, not the face (which is not a face btw). You just said the word "hills" and I was just being anal about it. Ignore me.

No.

I doubt whether Mars has a blue sky as the atmosphere is only about 1% that of the earth's. Mars is red, a distinct characteristic of hydrogen. Earth is blue because it is characteristic of oxygen.

If NASA knew something as you people say it would be known. The people that work at NASA on the Mars projects are looking for what you conspiracy kooks are yapping about. They have no reason to hide anything.

Having life on other planets will not destroy religion. The ancients knew about such, it's just that now such texts have been banned and the entire understanding of which is shunned. Eden was't even on Earth, and Heaven is quite literally IN space. The 8th level of Heaven being THE Zodiac belt.

I did post an article here recently of a NASA team from the 80's who, when fixing Hubble said they saw 8 HUGE angels. Angels, real angels are usually always huge, and obviously with Heaven being in space, being there really isn't much of a surprise. Why isn't this widely known about in religous circles? Becuase Augustine who had a major influence on the Catholic church and Vatican believed Heaven was on Earth and the church was the 1000 year reign etc. The original texts which he tampered with or completely banned ALL state Heaven is in space, just as the Egyptians and Babylonians etc all believed it to be.

I believe you are refering to works of fiction and drunk Ruskies not hubble teams.

Personally I think if the cidonia region images are real there's no way so many "natural" formations would form close to each other specially when the area around them is mostly plain. I don't know if NASA is lying about it but Mars colors never seemed very real to me, how can a planet look so red/orange all over the place?

Id like to see what that region looks like from on the surface, they shouldve had one of the rovers land near there.

They Dont send missions into mountaineous regions because if something would go wrong, they would still have a better chance of landing the Vehicle in a flat region than on mountains.

Mars True Color - Reddish

Full Story Here


Hoagland is a fraud, with no real credentials, who is thought of in the scientific community as a manipulator of information.

Personally I don't see why people have to read into things like this.

It's a rock, no more, no less. Just because it happens to be very symmetrical in its features doesn't mean anything weird is going on.


"It looks sort of like a face when the lighting is right, and it has a symmetrical shape. WTF is going on???".



I guess what is going on is exactly what it is, one symmetrical object that sort of looks like a face when lit a certain way. Why does alot of people seem to think that is an impossibility?





As for the color correction, I do remember seeing that on some documentary about mars or some of the missions to mars. As they described it then, the photos from mars were manually colored by NASA, since for some reason they use weird cameras that catch color differently? Either way, at first they simply applied color to match the earth's appearance (more green and blue to create the blue sky and such. After a while though they realized that they probably shouldn't use earth as a reference for colors on mars, and so they re-colored the pictures. Don't ask me how they knew how to re-color them though, seems like a guessing game. And the new colored pics seem alot more blurred, so in my opinion it doesn't make any sense to use those over the alot sharper enhanced pics.


And don't ask me why they didn't use a "regular" camera that just takes a photo like here on earth. Atleast take one photo for frame of color reference.

Phil (BA) does a good job explaining the "true" colors of Mars,and here is another good link.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html

Nice Hazz,thanks for the links.

Yes, but why would they hide it? Also, I think that if you point yr telescope at Mars, you'll see red.

TeraLink Was Here!

Of course you will.

But I guess thats because those nasty NASA spooks tampered with every amateur telescope on Earth.

I'd just like to add that in would be a hell of a job for NASA to keep Mars' true colours a secret. Why? There's something called ESA, which is the European Space Agency. They did infact race with NASA to mars (whom got there first I can't recall). And I don't think the USA got the power to conceal the secret. And Russia, I guess, would just love to expose such a thing... Therefore I don't think NASA is trying to hide the true colour, maybe alter it a bit - but not hiding...

Do you think that maybe NASA is hiding the 'true' surface of mars from the world because of other countries planning to send their mars explores up there?

I think NASA or higher counter-parts are looking for extraterrestrial life but mainly they are looking for things that are depleting on our planet. Plutonium, Uranium etc

Remember nuclear power is rapidally becoming the main source of energy now so its only logical that USA finds an abundant source.

If you show a planet that is baron and looks "useless" people think that theres nothing there and carry on with their lives.

This is just a thought, could be true could be partly true.

If ur gonna send a multi-million dollar expedition on to mars "just" for some evidence of bacteria or single celled organisms, that seems ilogical?
For unknown nuclear material for energy to become powerful and have the world by the balls? hmmmmm

No i don't think it's irrational to send expeditions to Mars just for some evidence of water and perhaps some small lifeforms... Looking at what humans have achieved so far it's perfectly clear! And even if NASA is trying to make Mars look like useless it will never be that in the whole world of sceintists eyes. Looking at Mars gives us information at how the universe and solarsystem was created.

And I don't believe NASA could pull that off! Soon China will be all around in space and will start to make their own discoveries, Russia is still a "space-power" and so is ESA... All though, NASA got as much money as ALL these compined

I've heard that Mars is not as red from the surface as it is from space. I don't know the opticle reasons for it though. Of course, we'll never really be reasonalbly sure about it until we have the purely objective view of a private mission.

I'd really like to trust the governments take on it but, I kind of wonder. For all those years people asked about the face on Mars. Then when NASA finally gets around to sending a probe, they send it to the opposite side of the planet! The new pictures they eventually did release looked like they'd seen more doctoring than a hundred year old hamster!

It doesn't bode well on my honesty detector.

You see, this is where woo-woo theories always seem to fall down. They assume that science, in this case space exploration, is in the hands of a few elite that can be controlled by The Government (as if there were only one!). However, science is a thing that transcends borders, and the knowledge of foul play would spread all over the world and fast.

And no,Im not talking about kook sites filled with pseudo scientists and Trekkies that deals with Bigfoot,aliens and ghosts.

Yup. The new images of the face ARE doctored. Why? Because they dont reveal an artificially constructed face!

You wouldnt see red, you'd see an orangy sandy colour... which is probably what you'd see looking back at our planet if the whole of earth was one big desert....

Hey there,
Im not suprised by this as they alrady imploy staff to airbrush out other things on the images sent back...its a bit long but check this out

NASA Employed Photo Artists
To Airbrush Out Apollo Anomalies!

[url=http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/airbrush.htm]

http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/airbrush.htm[/url]

A former NASA employee has revealed how NASA managed to cover up and erase anomalies such as UFOs from satellite photos. The employee, DONNA TIETZE HARE Formerly of NASA, was a female slide technician and received numerous space awards including 1969 Apollo Achievement award from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1973 Skylab award, a medallion for success on the Skylab-Suez Test project. Other awards for her skill as a technical Artist includes a 1994 recommendation by Texas Governor Ann Richards to the Advisory Committee of Psychology Associates.

Consider the source,this is the same person that said she saw PINE TREES! on the moon,during Apollo.

http://www.ufoarea.com/conspiracy_nasa_airbrush.html

[quote] oy dont knock those pine trees...it took me ages to plant them, you kno what its like on the Moon everything floats off....lmao

dont be so stupid, she was refering to a picture taken on EARTH, clearly

She also mentions a continental outline.

Were the pictures of Mars altered? Yes, they were. But it's the other way round. The nice, earth-like pictures with the blue sky are an extremly simple alteration of the red originals.

For example: it takes only one (!) click in Photoshop to change the picture of the airbag marks or the Viking pictures on top from red to the pretty, earth-like colors. The operation is called "Auto Leveling". Anybody with only a little experience with Photoshop can change the red Mars pictures to the ones you see at the site http://xfacts.com/spirit2004/

One must be very carefull when altering photos digitally. Many of the automatic algorithms are for cleaning up bad pictures. These algorithms "know" how a picture should look like (color of the sky, contrast levels under light, color balance and so on) and so they try to recreate this image. You can easily try a filter on a nice, rosy sunset picture and voila: blue sky where there was none.

Please have a look at the attachments. These were two of the "red" pictures I altered to more natural colors. Every image took me around 5 seconds to change. With a little more work I could recreate any of the earth-like photos from NASA originals.

My conclusion is, that somebody "prettified" the pictures using standard Photoshop techniques. They are not real.

Oh, and there are real pictures of a blue atmosphere on Mars. It only turns red when there is dust in the atmosphere.

[attachmentid=20920]

[attachmentid=20921]

I'm confused.

I have a question.What in the name of all coverups would NASA gain with altering the colors of Mars?

well for some reason it seems apparent that the red planet is not THAT different from our own blue planet afterall. And the tell tale signs of canals and pyramids suggest that it once held life, when it was in the cradle orbit (as earth is in now)

Theres even possibility that all life on earth was migrated from mars before certain devistating effects took place there.

Now, all of this is not fact and Im not claiming it is, but for some reason the government seem to know this kind of information or maybe something along the lines but feel that the public cannot know about it, maybe as it will prove reputed science wrong (in some ways), or maybe because it will prove religion wrong (in some ways), or maybe they just feel that humanity isnt ready to accept that kind of information and hence cause mass panic or hysteria.

OR maybe its just that red afterall

None of us can truly say at this point in time

Iani Chaos

http://journals.aol.co.uk/gilliescarma/Sco...ufoparanormalf/

Take a look at the picture and you may see somthing then your thoughts on this.

This link is to picture enhanced to give you a better look at this.

http://groups.msn.com/CosmicView/general.m...548986531638701

I believe mars was once like earth....i think we are about to repeat history of the 'milky way'..

All I see is rocks.

Yes we can,have you never looked at Mars through a teliscope.Trust me,its more orange -red than blue.

Quite a big deal has been made of NASA not sending 'True Color' images back from Mars. The problem with this argument is the fact that no digital images are ever 'True Color'. They are all composites. We cannot at present make a digital camera that sees images as the human eye does. The human eye also has 3-color receptors, but, being biological, there is a range over which the receptors pick up the colors.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html

Some people have posed the question, 'why doesn't NASA tell us all this on their site'. The simple response is 'why would they?'. The images shown by NASA are as close to the actual appearance from the surface as they can get. The colors are as true as fifteen million dollars worth of camera and image processing software can get them. As accurate as any digital image can be.

Thirty some odd years of reddish pictures, + the fact that just a few days ago I saw it through the telescope...and yup, it looks red.

The red color of the planet comes from the oxidation of iron minerals in the soil. Science is awesome.