Mars color

[Freezer]

Secrets can be kept, and have been in the past.  How many people knew about the atomic bomb before it was detonated, and how many people worked on that project?  How many years did they keep the f117 secret?  It was developed in the early 1970's..Do you believe the F22 or the B2 stealth is the latest and greatest?  Not by a long shot..

The way they keep secrets is compartmentalization.  The project is divided into sections, with each person only aware of what they themselves are doing, and even some interviews with these guys stated they weren't allowed to read their own material which they wrote!  None of them know the whole picture.  Then there's the contracts they sign.  Its a big incentive to keep quiet if divulging sensitive information will land you in prison.  There is also the threats. No they won't threaten you personally, they will go after family members, friends, even your dog..That way a person will take it too the grave, and not release his information on their deathbed, as they can still go after them long after you've gone.  I've heard the interviews with these guys who do the dirty work, and believe me, you will keep your mouth shut.  They have many brilliant tactics in place to deal with anyone who might be perceived as a threat.

I believe we did go to the moon, although what was seen there was too sensitive for the public to be exposed to.  There's no doubt that they faked multiple images, and video footage.  The use of the same backgrounds both in video and images is one tell tale sign.  If I have some extra time I might dig that one up for ya, as its very clear they used the same back drop for two different sequences with completely different foregrounds.

I won't even get into memory manipulation..

[shruggedatlas]

Secrets can be kept, and have been in the past.  How many people knew about the atomic bomb before it was detonated, and how many people worked on that project?  How many years did they keep the f117 secret?  It was developed in the early 1970's..Do you believe the F22 or the B2 stealth is the latest and greatest?  Not by a long shot..

That's not the same thing.  There is nothing to be ashamed of, technically speaking, in being involved in those projects.  It was simply Americans working for American interests.  There is no controversial book to write - nothing to cash in on, really.  Everyone had an incentive to keep it secret, because we wanted to win the war, win the arms race, whatever.  But these conspiracies that you guys propose are counter to american interests.  I am referring to exploiting Mars for private interest and other similar outlandish theories. 

I am not going to touch on photo manipulation, because I do not know the chain of people that are exposed to those photos.  But I do know something about NASA construction projects, and I can tell you that as far as space travel, those contractors are building pretty much what you think they are building.

[shruggedatlas]

I'll add one other thing, and this sort of applies across the board.  It's the easiest thing in the world to just say, hey, all those people, NASA, the military, the government, big industry, they are all working together to perfectly exploit us and blow smoke at the sheeple. And then you can stop your analysis, because there, it's done.  Puzzle solved.

But the reality is that that things do not work that way in NASA, in politics, in private industry.  I work with people in these fields, and they are people just like you and me.  Government is corrupt to a certain degree, but it's more inefficient and incompetent than anything else.  In most lawsuits I have seen between the government and private industry, the private industry has it together much more so than NASA and the Corps of Engineers and so forth.

What I am trying to say is that all these parties out there have their own interests and do not implicitly trust one another, and to assume some kind of mass conspiracy to take advantage of the little man is really naive.  The world is way more complex than that.  There are not just a few people calling the shots.

Anyway, I have to get back to work, but trust me on this, it's not so dark out there.

[Koen1]

Well you're probably right on most of that.

But that does not at all mean that it is impossible for some
secret operation to build and maintain a Mars base and to
keep it from the public.
In fact, because there is no such big integrated network
of agencies and departments working together to keep their
various operations under wraps, it is possible for one
"shadow" organisation to operate almost completely
unseen, as long as they have either the ability to hide
their actions from the other agencies and the majority of
the public, or the ability to make sure the evidence
disappears. And you don't need to be in a big global
conspiracy with governments, secret services and aliens
to do that.

To get back to the original topic/thread title, the colour of Mars,
allow me to think aloud for a second...
We know Mars as the "red planet", it does indeed look red-ish in the sky,
Nasa told us and showed us on all of their pics that it is quite deep red,
and so is the sky, and on the more recent Rover pics that apparently
the light itself falling on the surface and the Rover is red already...
After all, you can clearly see what in our normal light spectrum is a
bright yellow cable look orange under Mars light on the Rover pics,
so either the picture was taken under our normal light spectrum and
coloured red by Nasa before they released the images, or the light on
Mars is red and this results in the red colouration in the pictures, and
Nasa did not do anything to cause the red colour.
Well, let's think about that for a second.
The light we have here on earth comes straight from the sun, then passes
through some atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen which, according to
biology, filters out most of the UV radiation and results in a colour spectrum
as we know it, with a peak in red light intensity on the planet surface
(followed in order of abundance by yellow and the other colours).
Of course the Rover pics from the Nasa construction lab were under artificial
lighting, but that is still our imitation of sunlight and what looks yellow in
sunlight also looks yellow in artificial "white" light.
Ok, now Mars.
Mars is supposed to have a thin atmosphere of mostly CO2 (95%), then
about 3% of nitrogen, 1% argon, only 0.2% oxygen and very little of anything else.
Our own Earth is supposed to have had an atmosphere of mostly CO2 for quite
a while, and if I recall my evolutionary ecology right all the time it was impossible
for plant life to survive above water because the CO2 did not filter or block out
enough UV. Only after waterbound plant life had evolved and had produced enough
oxygen in the atmosphere to block out (part of) the UV could plant life slowly
start to adapt to surface life. And at about that same time plant life started to
develop more efficient ways of using the light that was now available to them.
Which was, believe it or not, mostly the red frequency range... (yes it seems
to make more sense to go for high energy light like UV but apparently there is so
much more red light than UV that is is more economic to absorb that)
Anyway, this seems to imply that the little filtration/blocking and thus discolouration
of the uncoming sunlight that might occur on Mars with its flimsy little atmosphere
of CO2 should be high on photons in the higher frequncy ranges of the visible
spectrum as well as UV. After all, it is the same sunlight as we get here, just
not filtered by nitrogen and oxygen...

So why would the light be red?

If you google it you invariably come up with articles referring to the reason for
Mars or its rocks or soil looking red, which is just about always simply
that there must be a lot of iron oxide there, which was indeed proven by the
soil samples from the landers, and its waterless "rusting" process was even
experimentally proven (UV + oxygen + iron => rust, basically).
That takes care of why the rocks and the soil are red on picutes.
Seems like a very good explanation.

But it does not explain the yellow cable that looks orange on the Rover pics.
That still implies the light itself is red on Mars.
And I can't find any good explanation as to why that would be so.

So, untill anyone comes up with a very good reason for the light on Mars to be red,
I am inclined to conclude Nasa did indeed alter the pictures colour,
either using a lens filter on the camera or altering the colour afterward.

Anyone for a reply?

[Freezer]

Anyone for a reply?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=29240