True Color of Mars

[tucker]

Why does NASA deliberately alter the color of the Mars photograhs ? Just because science mistakenly has always referred to Mars as the "Red Planet" is no reason for NASA to be deceptive about the planet's real color . Below are some of the Martian pictures before and after NASA changed their real color . They show the true color of Mars . Something the world has been denied until recently .

"Investigation shows that there are several indications that the NASA is tampering with the colors, and changes them from an Earth-like environment into a red inhospitable environment. But it seems that the young scientists at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are not convenient with this.

At the press conference last saturday, the JPL-scientists showed the latest picture of the Martian landscape. It showed a salmon-coloured desert with a blue sky. It seems that they did it on purpose, since previous pictures were all extremely red. Below the pictures of the conference are shown:"

This is the link to the article discussing how NASA changed the color of Mars and shows more before and after photographs.

http://xfacts.com/spirit2004/

[EmpressStarXVII]

Maybe there is life on Mars.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I find it rather a shame that, having gone to great length to explain in another thread to tucker why these images vary in colour tucker should chose to ignore fact and link to a website which has plenty of accusations but not a single fact to back them up. Such is the way of those who will believe anything they find on the internet but never engage enough common sense to ask the obvious questions.

One such question would be this:

There are tens of thousands of geologists, astronomers and planetary geologists in the world. If NASA is so obviously doctoring these images how is it that a conspiracy site hinting at alien life on Mars has noticed but the people actually educated in the subject haven't?

Here is an example of the sort of half truths that site tucker has linked to:

The guys from JPL say, in the press conference: "On the ground, the warmest temperature is around five degrees Celsius (37 Fahrenheit) and the coldest is -15 degrees Celsius (5 Fahrenheit)". But the NASA-site says: "This graph shows the predicted daily change in the atmospheric temperature one meter above the surface of Mars at Gusev Crater, the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's landing site". With a picture above it with a curve shown from -70 degrees celcius to -5 degrees celcius! Who has right? De guys of JPL (The good guys), or the administrator of the NASA?

This sort of thing relies on the fact that the people that believe this sort of rubbish will not be able to work out the truth for themself. The link to the press conference will take you to an article where you will find the first temperature range in FULL CONTEXT:

During daytime, martian rocks were colder than objects made up of fine particles, said Phil Christensen, the scientist tasked with the temperature readings.

"On the ground, the warmest temperature is around five degrees CelsiusFahrenheit) and the coldest is -15 degrees Celsius (5 Fahrenheit)," he said.

(my emphasis of the word daytime. Compare that to the second range of temperatures given:

"This graph shows the predicted daily change in the atmospheric temperature one meter above the surface of Mars at Gusev Crater, the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's landing site". With a picture above it with a curve shown from -70 degrees celcius to -5 degrees celcius!.

(again my emphasis of the phrase "predicted daily change")

The daily change will include night time temperatures. Which of those figures is right.. both of them.

The authors of that site are either deliberately lying, too incompetant to understand what they are talking about or, quite possibly, both.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf

[airika]

I find it rather a shame that, having gone to great length to explain in another thread to tucker why these images vary in colour tucker should chose to ignore fact and link to a website which has plenty of accusations but not a single fact to back them up. Such is the way of those who will believe anything they find on the internet but never engage enough common sense to ask the obvious questions.

One such question would be this:

There are tens of thousands of geologists, astronomers and planetary geologists in the world. If NASA is so obviously doctoring these images how is it that a conspiracy site hinting at alien life on Mars has noticed but the people actually educated in the subject haven't?

I have to agree with you, although I do find disagreeing with you a bit....exciting. Your passion and reactions to ones that don't agree, are quite refreshing. I find it wonderful when someone stands up for their beliefs. Keep it up..and I'll make it a point to disagree with you at a later date

[tucker]

This is not a question of "believing anything on the internet". It is a question of why did NASA intentionally alter the color of the Martian photographs . I read your explanation on the space forum and told you that your information was incorrect . If you work for NASA then I can understand why you would not want the evidence of them tampering with the real color of the Mars photographed to be revealed. Most scientists already know that this has been done . Why more of them are not upset by this deception is another question .

Here are two more photgraphs which prove that NASA has deliberately altered the color of Mars to suit their own agenda . What a shame they felt the need to do this . You would think they would know that their reputation was tarnished enough with their very questionable Apollo moon photographs .

NASA's Flag.

http://rense.com/1.imagesC/viking%202%20original.jpg

The real flag.

http://rense.com/1.imagesC/viking%202%20correct%20flag.jpg

[Adam2006]

Ever thought someone outside of NASA has altered the contrast of the images? The 2 pics u just posted are an extremely poor example as it is clear that the entire print screen has been altered (look at the toolbars on both), not just the image supposedly 'altered'.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I find it wonderful when someone stands up for their beliefs. Keep it up..and I'll make it a point to disagree with you at a later date

This is not about my beliefs, this is about scientific facts.

Belief is a wonderful thing when it is in agreement with, or at least not in contradiction of, reality. Things become problematic when beliefs simply don't fit the reality. The logical choice is to disregard the belief and embrace the facts. Sadly too many people do the exact opposite.

[truethat]

I'm no science buff and don't really care about the topic.

But as a regular person just looking at the pictures I'll tell you that the reddened pictures make the planet look uninhabitable.

The natural shots look more earthlike and would make me believe that perhaps with the right technology it would be possible to sustain human life on the planet.

SO perhaps they are trying to keep that thought out of the public mind.

[tucker]

Here is another link to an article explaining how NASA deliberately altered the Martian photographs along with more photographs to prove it .

These articles are written by very credible sources and it is dishonest of you Waspie_dwarf to claim otherwise just because you want to disagree with the evidence. There is an even more damaging article about NASA concerning this unfortunate matter but it may take me some time to locate it again . It explains in detail how NASA employees were ordered to change the color of the Mars photographs two hours after they had come in . Too late to hide the fact that the "RedPlanet" is not really red .

http://mars-news.de/color/blue.html

Edited March 26, 2007 by tucker

[tucker]

Ever thought someone outside of NASA has altered the contrast of the images? The 2 pics u just posted are an extremely poor example as it is clear that the entire print screen has been altered (look at the toolbars on both), not just the image supposedly 'altered'.

You make a good point but no one "outside of NASA' altered the color of Mars or would have any reason to. The flag photographs originally came from a science web site which included more information about NASA employees being orderd to alter the color . I will post it here when I find it .

[Waspie_Dwarf]

This is not a question of "believing anything on the internet". It is a question of why did NASA intentionally alter the color of the Martian photographs . I read your explanation on the space forum and told you that your information was incorrect . If you work for NASA then I can understand why you would not want the evidence of them tampering with the real color of the Mars photographed to be revealed. Most scientists already know that this has been done . Why more of them are not upset by this deception is another question .

Here are two more photgraphs which prove that NASA has deliberately altered the color of Mars to suit their own agenda . What a shame they felt the need to do this . You would think they would know that their reputation was tarnished enough with their very questionable Apollo moon photographs .

NASA's Flag.

http://rense.com/1.imagesC/viking%202%20original.jpg

The real flag.

http://rense.com/1.imagesC/viking%202%20correct%20flag.jpg

NASA has tampared with nothing. I will repeat in this thread what I said in the other. You might not get it but hopefully others will.

The cameras on most NASA spacecraft only take black and white images. Colour images are made by adding together images taken through several different filters. As well as the three primary colours there are a variety of other filters ranging in wavelength from infra-red to ultra-violet. Many images will use only two filters so as to give a colour range which best differentiates different types of mineral. Many of the images are also "false-colour", processed to exaggerate colour differences, again so that differences in rock and soil type are more obvious. The up-shot of this is that most of these images are not as the human eye would see them. Spacecraft are sent to Mars and other planets with the primary purpose of returning data that has scientific value, not to return pretty pictures for the public. Sadly all this is ignored by those claiming some nefarious purpose behind NASA's motives.

NASA make all this clear, including specifying which filters images were taken with and whether the image is "true-colour" or "false-colour". These facts are totally ignore by the conspiracy theorists (as the facts tend to get in the way of a nice story) and this information is never posted on the anti-NASA conspiracy sites.

The fact that the Martian sky appears pinkish as a result of suspended dust particles has been known since Viking in 1976. Indeed it was the colour first image from Viking 1 that many of the conspiracy theorist use as their "proof" that NASA changes the colours of images. That first published image did show a blue sky. This was as a result of being published without being correctly calibrated. NASA generated a series of images very quickly in case Viking malfunctioned almost immediately. When the colour was correctly calibrated (Viking, like the Mars Exploration Rovers, carried a colour chart so that true colour could be determined) it was discovered that the sky was pink and not blue.

The fact that Mars IS the "red planet" is known by the millions of people that have ever looked at it through a telescope.

Now would you care to tell me which part of my explanation is incorrect?

Given that even you admit that scientists know that there are differences in colour from image to image which explanation do you consider most likely, that there is a good reason for it, ie along the lines of the explanation I have given or that NASA is doing something naughty and every qualified scientist on the planet is either in on the conspiracy or is too stupid to notice?

[tucker]

Here is another article which explains how and possibly why NASA has deliberately altered the color of the Martian photographs . It doesn't matter in the least bit to me what some people like Waspie_dwarf choose to believe about this or why they post the misleading information they do . I just thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss here . I didn't consider this to be a conspiracy theory because it is a scientific fact that NASA has deliberately altered the photographs of Mars but maybe the reason they altered them is a conspiracy. I just read another article which shows how NASA is airbrushing out Martion images on the surface and is photoshopping in faked images of the sky . Maybe there is much to hide about the "Red Planet" after all . I will post that article on this thread too.

THE MARS RECORDS

Evidence that NASA is altering

the true colors of the pictures of Mars

http://themarsrecords.com/mars_red_planet_colors.html

Edited March 26, 2007 by tucker

[tucker]

This article explains how NASA is altering more than just the color of Mars. It does seem like they are hiding the truth about the "Red Planet" from everyone for some reason.

"Why Is NASA Editing These Images?"

"These "raw" images are in fact being edited with simple graphics software

NOTE: Some of these images have been removed from the NASA site."

Go here for the article and altered pictures of Mars.

http://xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK.htm

[jaylemurph]

NASA is clearly protecting the Ice Warriors who live on Mars; they are clearly collaborating with them to make us dull and unresponsive to the CLEAR THREAT OF INTERPLANETARY WAR they offer us.

--Jaylemurph

Edited March 26, 2007 by jaylemurph

[badeskov]

Here is another article which explains how and possibly why NASA has deliberately altered the color of the Martian photographs . It doesn't matter in the least bit to me what some people like Waspie_dwarf choose to believe about this or why they post the misleading information they do . I just thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss here . I didn't consider this to be a conspiracy theory because it is a scientific fact that NASA has deliberately altered the photographs of Mars but maybe the reason they altered them is a conspiracy. I just read another article which shows how NASA is airbrushing out Martion images on the surface and is photoshopping in faked images of the sky . Maybe there is much to hide about the "Red Planet" after all . I will post that article on this thread too.

THE MARS RECORDS

Evidence that NASA is altering

the true colors of the pictures of Mars

http://themarsrecords.com/mars_red_planet_colors.html

By all means of respect, but your notion is leaning up against being outright absurd. Mars is read and is is due to an abundance of iron oxide (which is rust). You might believe that NASA is hiding the true color of Mars, but if it isn't red, what is it then? Iron oxide makes things red (just look at anything rusty) and spectral analysis shows it's there in vast amounts (I have a vague recollection of up to ~10% of the Martian soil being iron oxide).

When mars is closest to Earth, amateur astronomers can and do take pictures of Mars, like this. And, lo and behold, it is red. But I guess that, even though he is from Sweden, the astronomer behind this picture is in on the conspiracy as well. And so is the European Union and Russia, and anybody else with a large telescope. I guess you are the only one left out

Thus, Waspie_Dwarf is absolutely correct in his assessment. Secondly, pictures aren't always enhanced to show what it really looks like in true colors, but to enhance certain features that could be interesting. And, finally, why on Earth would they make Mars another color? If they really wanted to convince someone that Mars was completely uninhabitable, why not make it yellow or gray, like the moon? With the current explanation you are putting forth, they are placing themselves between two chairs. You claim that they don't want us to think that it is habitable, but now they are saying that with some work it could be habitable? Doesn't make any sense. Make it gray and call it absolutely uninhabitable

Best,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

NASA is clearly protecting the Ice Warriors who live on Mars; they are clearly collaborating with them to make us dull and unresponsive to the CLEAR THREAT OF INTERPLANETARY WAR they offer us.

--Jaylemurph

Where did you get that picture of my Mother in Law from?

Best,

Badeskov

[undersquiggle]

LMAO! Ice Warriors. everyone knows they're ACTUALLY protecting the Fire People for their Technology.

wow. i never thought i would come across a forum saying that the mars pics were tampered with. if youi dont believe the planet is red, get a telescope. who is to say that JPL didn't tamper with the pics? i mean, get the right programs for like, 50 bucks and you can enhance certain colors too. i can make a red mars look green with some of the stuff on my computer.

[tucker]

I see more misinformed people have shown up in NASA's defense . The color of Mars is only red to the naked eye and through telescopes from Earth . It is a myth that the planet is really red or the sky pink . Here is the article I was looking for that explains how NASA employees were ordered to alter the color photographs of Mars two hours after the images came in . This was not an accident or a mistake on NASA's part . It was deliberate tampering with the photographs to disguise the fact that Mars looks very much like Earth . Below is a few paragraphs from the article and the pictures of the American flag which shows beyond a doubt that the pictures were altered on purpose to make Mars a color it really isn't .

Here's part of the article.

"The "witness" is the son of the scientist in charge of one of Viking’s three historic "biology investigations," the Labeled Release Experiment: Principle Investigator, Dr. Gilbert Levin. His son’s name is Dr. Ron Levin, now also a scientist a physicist -- at MIT.

In the summer of 1976 (when Viking landed), Ron was a newly-graduated high school student, assisting his father at JPL during that incomparable "Viking Summer" (where this writer was also present, covering the extraordinary Viking story for millions of readers of a major magazine, and a couple of broadcast television networks …).

The following is from Levin’s first-hand recollections of the whole affair, recounted in a recent book by science writer Barry DiGregorio -- the remarkable "over reaction" by JPL that occurred in response to Ron Levin’s naive efforts to "correct" what seemed to him that July afternoon to be "a deliberate – if perplexing – methodical distortion of the incoming Viking Lander data" (Mars: The Living Planet, B. DiGregorio, G. Levin and P. Straat, Frog Ltd, Berkeley, CA 1997).

According to DiGregorio’s narrative:

"At about 2:00 P.M. PDT, the first color image from the surface of another planet, Mars, began to emerge on the JPL color video monitors located in many of the surrounding buildings, specifically set up for JPL employees and media personnel to view the Viking images. Gil and Ron Levin sat in the main control room where dozens of video monitors and anxious technicians waited to see this historic first color picture. As the image developed on the monitors, the crowd of scientists, technicians, and media reacted enthusiastically to a scene that would be absolutely unforgettable – Mars in color. The image showed an Arizona-like landscape: blue sky, brownish-red desert soil, and gray rocks with green splotches ...

"Gil Levin commented to Patricia Straat [his co-Investigator] and his son Ron, ‘Look at that image! It looks like Arizona’ [below].

"Two hours after the first color image appeared on the monitors, a technician abruptly changed the image from the light-blue sky and Arizona-like landscape to a uniform orange-red sky and landscape [below]. Ron Levin looked in disbelief as the technician went from monitor to monitor making the change. Minutes later, Ron followed him, resetting the colors to their original appearance. Levin and Straat were interrupted when they heard someone being chastised. It was Ron Levin being chewed out by the Viking Project Director himself, James S. Martin, Jr. Gil Levin went immediately and asked, "What is going on?" Martin had caught Ron changing all the color monitors back to their original settings. He warned Ron that if he tried something like that again, he’d be thrown out of JPL for good. The Director then asked a TRW engineer assisting the Biology team, Ron Gilje, to follow Ron Levin around to every color monitor and change it back to the red landscape.

"What Gil Levin, Ron and Patricia Straat did not know (even to this writing) is that the order to change the colors came directly from the NASA Administrator himself, Dr. James Fletcher. Months later, Gil Levin sought out the JPL Viking Imaging Team technician who actually made the changes and asked why it was done. The technician responded that he had instructions from the Viking Imaging Team that the Mars sky and landscape should be red and went around to all the monitors‘tweaking them to make it so. Gil Levin said, The new settings showed the American flag (painted on the Landers below as having purple stripes. The technician said that the Mars atmosphere made the flag appear that way [emphasis added].’"

As someone who was also at JPL that afternoon, and vividly remembers a similar shock -- when the "Arizona Mars" initially flashed on the JPL monitors was suddenly transformed into a Martian "Red Light District" . I now kick myself for not asking lots more questions.

But, it was 1976 -- and we all trusted our Space Agency back then ….

One of the basic questions that I should have asked involves the physics behind JPL's abrupt color alterations. Or, as Gil Levin put it:

"If atmospheric dust were scattering red light and not blue, the sky would appear red, but since the red would be at least partially removed by the time the light hit the surface, its [the direct sunlight’s] reflection from the surface would make the surface appear more blue than red. There would be less red light [in the direct sunlight illumination] left to reflect. And what about the sharp shadows of the rocks in the black and white images yesterday? If significant scattering of the light on Mars occurred [from lots of red dust in the atmosphere], the sharp shadows in those images would not be present, or at best, would appear fuzzy because of diffusion by the [atmospheric] scattering [emphasis added]!"

Levin was describing the well-known phenomenon of "Raleigh scattering" -- whereby the similar-sized molecules of all planetary atmospheres (be it the primary nitrogen of Earth; the carbon dioxide atmosphere of Mars; or even the predominantly hydrogen atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn!) all produce blue skies when sunlight passes through them.

If you examine the long Martian photographic record which encompasses hundreds of thousands of images, acquired by dozens of observatories even before the Space age dawned you can see blatant evidence that Levin's right and JPL is wrong regarding the scientifically expected color of the Martian atmosphere."

The rest of the article is here .

http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors.htm

Edited March 26, 2007 by tucker

[jaylemurph]

I see more misinformed people have shown up in NASA's defense . The color of Mars is only red to the naked eye and through telescopes from Earth.

SNIP

No, I'm just here for a right old laugh, really, not to defend NASA.

--Jaylemurph

And I'm told on good authority that NASA have been doctoring radar reading to make Santa Claus disappear at Christmas, as well. Bas*****s.

[badeskov]

I see more misinformed people have shown up in NASA's defense .

This has nothing to do with NASA, just trying hold on to the facts.

The color of Mars is only red to the naked eye and through telescopes from Earth .

What?!?! Do you have any idea how color is defined? Do you really believe that the color of mars changes as the light traverses space from Mars to Earth? I would read up on physics if I were you. Admittedly, it has been a while since I have heard anything so absurd.

It is a myth that the planet is really red or the sky pink .

No, it's a fact. Sorry to break it to you.

Here is the article I was looking for that explains how NASA employees were ordered to alter the color photographs of Mars two hours after the images came in . This was not an accident or a mistake on NASA's part . It was deliberate tampering with the photographs to disguise the fact that Mars looks very much like Earth . Below is a few paragraphs from the article and the pictures of the American flag which shows beyond a doubt that the pictures were altered on purpose to make Mars a color it really isn't .

I won't even bother. The Enterprisemission is not a place to look for facts, and one shold only go there if one deliberately wants to be mislead. And did you even read Waspie_dwarfs post on how "color" cameras mounted on space crafts work? You know, the one with the different wavelength filters? If so, you wouldn't even suggest that the colors had been altered.

Best,

Badeskov

[War-Junkie]

this is hilarious keep the bull coming tucker

[Stellar]

Do you really believe that the color of mars changes as the light traverses space from Mars to Earth? I would read up on physics if I were you.

Actually... it can be argued that it does... due to redshift and blueshift... but with these distances it really doesnt affect color much.

[flyingswan]

Actually... it can be argued that it does... due to redshift and blueshift... but with these distances it really doesnt affect color much.

It's velocity that affects red/blue shift, not distance, and the few km/s difference in velocity between Mars and earth is too small compared with the velocity of light to have any noticable effect.

Edited March 27, 2007 by flyingswan

[Pax Unum]

The color of Mars is only red to the naked eye and through telescopes from Earth .

this is not correct, Mars is reddish in color because it is covered with iron oxide...

in your picture you can see the rust covering the landscape

you can see from these rover tracks, under the rusty covering, Mars has other colors...

what would be gained by making Mars look too red? and wouldn't the truth be uncovered when the E.U. or China gets there and sends back pictures? surely you don't think NASA will be able to cover that up...

Edited March 28, 2007 by Waspie_Dwarf
Resized bottom picture as it was badly distorting page

[flyingswan]

what would be gained by making Mars look too red? and wouldn't the truth be uncovered when the E.U. or China gets there and sends back pictures? surely you don't think NASA will be able to cover that up...

The EU has already got there, and its pictures look decidedly reddish:

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsex..._Pack_Ice_H.jpg