See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: What NASA Isn't Telling You About Mars
Source:
rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general68/nasaisnt.htm
Published: Oct 27, 2005
Author: Ted Twietmeyer
Post Date: 2005-10-27 08:56:52 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: Telling, Isnt, About
Views: 52
Comments: 1
What NASA Isn't Telling You About Mars Ted Twietmeyer tedtw@frontiernet.net 10-26-5 This book is a brand new look at what Mars really must be like, and reveals numerous important ancient Mars artifacts that NASA knows about and has been hiding all along. We,ve all listened for years since we were children, to the endless stories about what the environment on Mars is and how no life could have ever lived on the planet. So let's get right to the point. This author felt it was past time to look at the overall picture of what we have been told, using the tools of logic and common sense. And use NASA data to start connecting the dots. Let's look at some of the common statements made about the planet: * The atmosphere on the planet is 1% that of earth * Gravity on the planet is 1/3 that of earth * The ground is red, and the sky is red * Its always been a lifeless planet Let's look at these common beliefs about the "red planet" using the illuminating and sanitizing light of common sense: THE PROOF: COLOR SHIFTING TO MAKE THE SKY RED There are the NASA statements from about two years ago - "It's very hard to get the color right on Mars, images." Utter non-sense! ALL the spacecraft sent to Mars over the past 30 years have color calibration charts in one form or another, and have even included the American Flag. The vertical line scan camera of Viking and the CCD cameras used today could always be used to view the color charts. However, scientists often have not calibrated the cameras using a color chart as they should have. As a result, we are usually shown a red sky and a surface with rocks which are reddish. The color chart's blue squares clearly become red, indicating a shift across the entire visible color spectrum. Green is in the middle of visible spectrum. Anyone with common sense knows that if the colors on the color chart are correct in a picture, then the remainder of the image MUST also be correct. We are talking about the SAME sun on Mars that illuminates our earth! Even so, about two years ago a scientist was asked about the colors on Mars. He stated on television "it's very hard to get the colors right on Mars." Hard for who? Perhaps it is hard, if you must change it to red all the time. That would be a full-time job, and probably done behind closed doors. WHY would they do tamper with color? Because it's psychological: since the early days of astronomy the planet has appeared red as viewed from earth in a telescope. But wait a minute! Viewed from the moon, our earth appears like a "big, blue marble" as one astronaut described it. Are rocks and dirt on earth BLUE? Of course not. NASA conveniently forgets this "minor detail" and INSISTS that their images remain reddish, no matter how much their science data will be compromised. What nerve it takes to do this! Every now and then, an image comes from the "red planet" with a blue sky. The scientists go along with this insane theory in spite of wrong color chart colors. Why? THE FOUNTAIN OF TRUTH? How many space agencies on earth have successfully landed a rover on Mars? Only one: NASA. That agency has been THE source for all so-called "facts" about the planet's surface - facts which are tailored for human psychology. Isn't it nice to be treated like a mushroom, kept in the dark and fed well, you know. In short, we are told (and shown) what we are supposed to believe and absolutely nothing more. I proved this with more than 160 selected images taken straight from NASA computers. THE GRAVITY IS TOO WEAK TO RETAIN AN ATMOSPHERE First, we know ICE and weather exist on the planet. If the atmosphere is 1% that of earth, any ice would have boiled away or just evaporated. One doesn't need a physics degree to understand this. Water BOILS AWAY at room temperature in a laboratory vacuum chamber on earth, well before reaching .01 atmosphere (1 %.) For all practical purposes, .01 atmospheres is a VACUUM to water's boiling point and to air-breathing life-forms. Here is a direct quote from a paper [3] written about the atmospheric pressure as measured by the Viking Landers: The day to day atmospheric pressure variability, low in summer and higher in fall and winter, (especially at the northern site), is due to weather "fronts" quite similar to those on Earth Along with the annual cycle, meteorological fronts are indicated by the increasing variability of the pressure between fall and spring at these northern hemisphere sites as previously mentioned. The Lander 2, VL2, site is similar in latitude to Seattle, Paris or Vienna, while the southern, VL1 site, like Pathfinder, is similar in latitude to Hong Kong, Havana or Calcutta. Like on Earth, the frontal activity is less in the tropics and sub-tropics, e.g., the VL1 site. Typically, the fronts pass every few sols (mars days) on Mars, often resembling those of Earth except for the lack of rain, while at other times, they are far more regular. Note the author's statement above, that planet has weather fronts like that of earth, except it doesn't rain. But a 1% atmosphere which is essentially a vacuum - having weather? How can the planet have weather without an atmosphere? Evidence of frozen water on the planet is abundant. It's now claimed by NASA that any water at the poles is trapped under "a layer of frozen carbon dioxide" - what most of us commonly know as DRY ICE. Of course, it was never rationally explained just HOW that could happen. If you have you ever worked with dry ice you know of its strange behavior. Frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice) is what NASA claims are laying on the ground at the poles. If you wrap up dry ice, no matter how well it is insulated what happens? In the span of a day or so it just DISAPPEARS without a trace. It returns to the gaseous state, unless you could lower the ambient temperature to less than -109.3F, or -79C. This is the known constant temperature of the surface of dry ice. The ONLY WAY to keep dry ice solid is to keep it in an environment colder than -109.3F, or -79C. And if the air pressure is lower it will evaporate even faster. Mars is CONSIDERABLY WARMER than the temperature of dry ice by about 60 degrees. Could there be some sort of special physics on Mars that prevents any kind of ice from evaporating over millennia or even eons of time? So how can we know for certain the planet's overall surface is far warmer than -109.3F, or -79C? The solar panels on the rover tell us the answer! All solar panel technology is based on semiconductor technology, which places definite limits on the lowest temperature it can operate at, and also the lowest temperature a solar panel can be exposed to without permanent damage. Solar cell operating temperatures are -40ºF to 176ºF, or -40ºC to 80ºC [1]. Below -40ºC, solar cell output begins to drop dramatically. This is a long way from -109.3F. Most semiconductors can be permanently damaged when exposed to extreme cold below -60ºC. Temperatures measured by the two Viking Landers varied from + 1° F, ( -17.2° C) to -178° F (107° C). This is far from being cold enough to keep carbon dioxide frozen, but just warm enough for solar cells to work. The surface temperature in WINTER at the polar caps is BELIEVED (though not actually measured) to drop to -225° F, (-143° C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81° F (27° C.) This is an estimated value from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper. [4] Solar cells will stop working, and could be permanently damaged at -143°C. Thirty years ago the Viking Landers were powered with nuclear thermoelectric generators, not solar cells. These generators created 950 watts of heat to heat the inside of the Lander to keep electronics within safe operating limits. Only 50 watts of heat was converted to electricity for powering instrumentation and electronics. Today we have rovers which are solar powered and without nuclear generators. If the average Mars temperature was cold enough to keep dry ice solid, solar cells on the rovers simply could not function. But we know this is not the case. What does all this mean? ANY carbon dioxide ice on the surface would have evaporated long ago, since the planet is not cold enough all the time to keep ice in solid form. It might be possible for ice to still be present at the bottom of a deep crater according to orbital images, but this hasn't been proven conclusively by ground exploration. We simply can't know for certain whether some or all of the ice at the bottom of those craters which have been found is water and/or CO2 ice. All of this ties into whether or not the atmosphere is actually denser than we have been led to believe. And we shall see there is evidence it most likely is far denser than we have been told. SOLAR PANELS DUSTED OFF BY A WIND - IN A NEAR VACUUM? Then we have the interesting situation with the rovers themselves. Why have the rovers outlasted their design life? Do you recall the 1% atmosphere? On-board cameras have observed occasional dust storms which are apparently cleaning off the solar panels. NASA has released several videos on JPL's website comprising a number of still images sequenced together, which show dust-devils in action moving across the surface. A number of these movies can be viewed at http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050506a.html Note: As you read the following quote from a paper about dust accumulation, keep in mind that a SOL is one Martian solar day, equivalent to 24 hours and 39 minutes on earth. "The rover solar array is accumulating dust at a rate of about a quarter of a percent of coverage per day according JPL. This is very close to the coverage of 0.22% predicted [G. Landis, "Dust Obscuration of Solar Arrays," Acta Astronautica, Vol. 38, No. 11, pp. 895-891 (1996)]. The deposition rate seems to be the same on the sols when the rover is in motion as it is on sols when the rover remains in place, indicating that the deposition is probably due to dust settling out of the atmosphere, not dust kicked up by Sojourners' motion." But wait a minute - how could a planet with a near vacuum atmosphere have enough "air" to clean off these panels? Dust and dirt isn't weightless even on Mars and it still has mass, even in a lower gravity environment. Apparently NASA figured this out too, and the undeniable presence of dust devils soon became a problem for their 1% atmosphere theory. But they had a cure for the conflict that would allow them to keep the 1% value. The solution? They simply changed their dust-devil theory to eliminate the atmospheric vortex part of the equation. The agency now claims these Martian dust devils are "Electrical vortices." The agency reminds one of an old Rockford Files episode. Jim Rockford in a state of frustration and disbelief after a series of problems from another character, just smiles and says "It just keeps on comin,, doesn't it?!" What the space agency scientists must do to backup their new theory about dust-devil formation, is to provide a credible theory showing the cause of these "electrical vortices." This has not been done because their scientists answer to no one. And even more important, they regularly hide ground-breaking images which you shall see for yourself later. There are no known thunderstorms on the planet, or any known sources of electrical disturbances. So why base a theory on this? Does that follow common sense? The European Space Agency's orbiting spacecraft has recently detected METHANE from orbit. This gas will float in the air. We know that on earth ORGANIC MATERIAL generates the majority of methane on the surface. Every living person generates methane, too. It is one of the byproducts of life, and keeps products like Beano on the market. So what's methane doing in Mars, orbit, a planet with no active volcanoes and supposedly no life at all? No answers or theories are forthcoming on that one, either. Yet there are images taken from orbit which have shown large areas are well populated by what appear to be huge circular shrubs or trees. Remember - these plants are living in a near vacuumjust 1% that of earth! And what happened to "Beagle" - the European Space Agency's little robotic surface exploration vehicle that was scheduled to land on Mars? It went silent when it was about to land and no one knows why. Scientists believed it never made it to the surface in one piece. Was Beagle about to prove NASA's statements about the planet wrong? We know the planet has a blue sky and has a far denser atmosphere than we have been told. It makes one wonder if ANYONE has ever MEASURED the atmosphere scientifically. Here's another statement: "ITS COLD AND DARK ON MARS BECAUSE IT's SO FAR AWAY FROM THE SUN" The rovers on Mars operate in the DAYTIME. Most of their systems are shut down at night to extend daytime operating time, according to JPL. Solar cells are not very efficient. Therefore, they require light levels close to that of earth outdoors to recharge the batteries, power the transmitters and instrumentation, the computers AND power the rover's SIX drive and SIX steering motors at the same time. Could a dim environment accomplish that? Not with today's solar cells, which have a peak efficiency of just 21%, as of this writing on Oct. 2005. Here is another quote from an expert on solar cells: Regardless of size, a typical silicon PV cell produces about 0.5 - 0.6 volt DC under open-circuit, no-load conditions. The current (and power) output of a PV cell depends on its efficiency and size (surface area), and is proportional the intensity of sunlight striking the surface of the cell. For example, under peak sunlight conditions a typical commercial PV cell with a surface area of 160 cm^2 (~25 in^2) will produce about 2 watts peak power. If the sunlight intensity were 40 percent of peak, this cell would produce about 0.8 watts. [2] Outside of the environmental issues discussed above, are there MORE LIES to deal with? Yes, and I,ve saved the best one for last! WOULD NASA FIND SIGNS OF INTELLIGENT LIFE AND NOT TELL US? This definitely has been answered with a deafening YES, and I have the proof. Reviewing more than 10,000 images from the Spirit rover for 655 days of exploration has resulted in the discovery of DOZENS of artificially made objects. Most are only a few yards from the rover's camera. One must not be naïve, and think that since NASA has been silent about these objects, that they cannot exist. This is far from being the first time this trick has been pulled. Again the mushroom treatment is used on the public. On this subject, the BS is suffocating. BACKGROUND ON SOME STARTLING ARTIFACTS These objects include bricks and what appear to be building blocks and cubes, standing on one corner or just lying on the surface. These objects are apparently made from solid rock or a material like it. And there are the ultimate in smoking guns: three different objects with CHARACTERS clearly visible on them, which are easy for anyone to see. Two of these images are included in this essay. These are not images taken from orbit which are open to wild speculation about what is or is not artificial. These artifacts are just as real as the computer you are reading this on. Below are only a few artifacts from the book which have been minimally sharpened or enlarged for clarity. NO manual "pixel twiddling" was ever performed on any image in this essay or in the book. Those artifacts with a yellow background are from the book's cover. The others are from pages in the book itself. NO changes were made to the artifacts themselves. What you see here is what they really are, for better or worse. And then there are 160 more artifacts in the book that defy any explanation that cannot be easily debunked, if at all. Keep in mind that the distance of these artifacts from the camera is between 2ft. and 100ft. Panoramic camera source images for these artifacts were only available in JPEG form on NASA archive servers searched. Therefore, they cannot be sharpened much more than what you see below. Most objects are only 1 to 3 feet in size. Descriptions are not in any way meant to be absolute answers, just possibilities. All the objects below are covered in far more detail in the book, including the exact SOL day they were photographed: Block object bearing lettering in an unknown script. Who could have written it? NASA knows about this because they took this close-up. Note the shadow from the rover's strobe lamp and the closeness of the ground around it. This object is similar to the strangely formed steel suspension arm found under some motor vehicles. This object was found lying up against a rock, in the position shown here. Rock was carefully removed from the image for clarity. Note the artifact's inside right angle bend (darkened area This book is a brand new look at what Mars really must be like, and reveals numerous important ancient Mars artifacts that NASA knows about and has been hiding all along. We,ve all listened for years since we were children, to the endless stories about what the environment on Mars is and how no life could have ever lived on the planet. So let's get right to the point. This author felt it was past time to look at the overall picture of what we have been told, using the tools of logic and common sense. And use NASA data to start connecting the dots. Let's look at some of the common statements made about the planet: * The atmosphere on the planet is 1% that of earth * Gravity on the planet is 1/3 that of earth * The ground is red, and the sky is red * Its always been a lifeless planet Let's look at these common beliefs about the "red planet" using the illuminating and sanitizing light of common sense: THE PROOF: COLOR SHIFTING TO MAKE THE SKY RED There are the NASA statements from about two years ago - "It's very hard to get the color right on Mars, images." Utter non-sense! ALL the spacecraft sent to Mars over the past 30 years have color calibration charts in one form or another, and have even included the American Flag. The vertical line scan camera of Viking and the CCD cameras used today could always be used to view the color charts. However, scientists often have not calibrated the cameras using a color chart as they should have. As a result, we are usually shown a red sky and a surface with rocks which are reddish. The color chart's blue squares clearly become red, indicating a shift across the entire visible color spectrum. Green is in the middle of visible spectrum. Anyone with common sense knows that if the colors on the color chart are correct in a picture, then the remainder of the image MUST also be correct. We are talking about the SAME sun on Mars that illuminates our earth! Even so, about two years ago a scientist was asked about the colors on Mars. He stated on television "it's very hard to get the colors right on Mars." Hard for who? Perhaps it is hard, if you must change it to red all the time. That would be a full-time job, and probably done behind closed doors. WHY would they do tamper with color? Because it's psychological: since the early days of astronomy the planet has appeared red as viewed from earth in a telescope. But wait a minute! Viewed from the moon, our earth appears like a "big, blue marble" as one astronaut described it. Are rocks and dirt on earth BLUE? Of course not. NASA conveniently forgets this "minor detail" and INSISTS that their images remain reddish, no matter how much their science data will be compromised. What nerve it takes to do this! Every now and then, an image comes from the "red planet" with a blue sky. The scientists go along with this insane theory in spite of wrong color chart colors. Why? THE FOUNTAIN OF TRUTH? How many space agencies on earth have successfully landed a rover on Mars? Only one: NASA. That agency has been THE source for all so-called "facts" about the planet's surface - facts which are tailored for human psychology. Isn't it nice to be treated like a mushroom, kept in the dark and fed well, you know. In short, we are told (and shown) what we are supposed to believe and absolutely nothing more. I proved this with more than 160 selected images taken straight from NASA computers. THE GRAVITY IS TOO WEAK TO RETAIN AN ATMOSPHERE First, we know ICE and weather exist on the planet. If the atmosphere is 1% that of earth, any ice would have boiled away or just evaporated. One doesn't need a physics degree to understand this. Water BOILS AWAY at room temperature in a laboratory vacuum chamber on earth, well before reaching .01 atmosphere (1 %.) For all practical purposes, .01 atmospheres is a VACUUM to water's boiling point and to air-breathing life-forms. Here is a direct quote from a paper [3] written about the atmospheric pressure as measured by the Viking Landers: The day to day atmospheric pressure variability, low in summer and higher in fall and winter, (especially at the northern site), is due to weather "fronts" quite similar to those on Earth Along with the annual cycle, meteorological fronts are indicated by the increasing variability of the pressure between fall and spring at these northern hemisphere sites as previously mentioned. The Lander 2, VL2, site is similar in latitude to Seattle, Paris or Vienna, while the southern, VL1 site, like Pathfinder, is similar in latitude to Hong Kong, Havana or Calcutta. Like on Earth, the frontal activity is less in the tropics and sub-tropics, e.g., the VL1 site. Typically, the fronts pass every few sols (mars days) on Mars, often resembling those of Earth except for the lack of rain, while at other times, they are far more regular. Note the author's statement above, that planet has weather fronts like that of earth, except it doesn't rain. But a 1% atmosphere which is essentially a vacuum - having weather? How can the planet have weather without an atmosphere? Evidence of frozen water on the planet is abundant. It's now claimed by NASA that any water at the poles is trapped under "a layer of frozen carbon dioxide" - what most of us commonly know as DRY ICE. Of course, it was never rationally explained just HOW that could happen. If you have you ever worked with dry ice you know of its strange behavior. Frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice) is what NASA claims are laying on the ground at the poles. If you wrap up dry ice, no matter how well it is insulated what happens? In the span of a day or so it just DISAPPEARS without a trace. It returns to the gaseous state, unless you could lower the ambient temperature to less than -109.3F, or -79C. This is the known constant temperature of the surface of dry ice. The ONLY WAY to keep dry ice solid is to keep it in an environment colder than -109.3F, or -79C. And if the air pressure is lower it will evaporate even faster. Mars is CONSIDERABLY WARMER than the temperature of dry ice by about 60 degrees. Could there be some sort of special physics on Mars that prevents any kind of ice from evaporating over millennia or even eons of time? So how can we know for certain the planet's overall surface is far warmer than -109.3F, or -79C? The solar panels on the rover tell us the answer! All solar panel technology is based on semiconductor technology, which places definite limits on the lowest temperature it can operate at, and also the lowest temperature a solar panel can be exposed to without permanent damage. Solar cell operating temperatures are -40ºF to 176ºF, or -40ºC to 80ºC [1]. Below -40ºC, solar cell output begins to drop dramatically. This is a long way from -109.3F. Most semiconductors can be permanently damaged when exposed to extreme cold below -60ºC. Temperatures measured by the two Viking Landers varied from + 1° F, ( -17.2° C) to -178° F (107° C). This is far from being cold enough to keep carbon dioxide frozen, but just warm enough for solar cells to work. The surface temperature in WINTER at the polar caps is BELIEVED (though not actually measured) to drop to -225° F, (-143° C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81° F (27° C.) This is an estimated value from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper. [4] Solar cells will stop working, and could be permanently damaged at -143°C. Thirty years ago the Viking Landers were powered with nuclear thermoelectric generators, not solar cells. These generators created 950 watts of heat to heat the inside of the Lander to keep electronics within safe operating limits. Only 50 watts of heat was converted to electricity for powering instrumentation and electronics. Today we have rovers which are solar powered and without nuclear generators. If the average Mars temperature was cold enough to keep dry ice solid, solar cells on the rovers simply could not function. But we know this is not the case. What does all this mean? ANY carbon dioxide ice on the surface would have evaporated long ago, since the planet is not cold enough all the time to keep ice in solid form. It might be possible for ice to still be present at the bottom of a deep crater according to orbital images, but this hasn't been proven conclusively by ground exploration. We simply can't know for certain whether some or all of the ice at the bottom of those craters which have been found is water and/or CO2 ice. All of this ties into whether or not the atmosphere is actually denser than we have been led to believe. And we shall see there is evidence it most likely is far denser than we have been told. SOLAR PANELS DUSTED OFF BY A WIND - IN A NEAR VACUUM? Then we have the interesting situation with the rovers themselves. Why have the rovers outlasted their design life? Do you recall the 1% atmosphere? On-board cameras have observed occasional dust storms which are apparently cleaning off the solar panels. NASA has released several videos on JPL's website comprising a number of still images sequenced together, which show dust-devils in action moving across the surface. A number of these movies can be viewed at http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050506a.html Note: As you read the following quote from a paper about dust accumulation, keep in mind that a SOL is one Martian solar day, equivalent to 24 hours and 39 minutes on earth. "The rover solar array is accumulating dust at a rate of about a quarter of a percent of coverage per day according JPL. This is very close to the coverage of 0.22% predicted [G. Landis, "Dust Obscuration of Solar Arrays," Acta Astronautica, Vol. 38, No. 11, pp. 895-891 (1996)]. The deposition rate seems to be the same on the sols when the rover is in motion as it is on sols when the rover remains in place, indicating that the deposition is probably due to dust settling out of the atmosphere, not dust kicked up by Sojourners' motion." But wait a minute - how could a planet with a near vacuum atmosphere have enough "air" to clean off these panels? Dust and dirt isn't weightless even on Mars and it still has mass, even in a lower gravity environment. Apparently NASA figured this out too, and the undeniable presence of dust devils soon became a problem for their 1% atmosphere theory. But they had a cure for the conflict that would allow them to keep the 1% value. The solution? They simply changed their dust-devil theory to eliminate the atmospheric vortex part of the equation. The agency now claims these Martian dust devils are "Electrical vortices." The agency reminds one of an old Rockford Files episode. Jim Rockford in a state of frustration and disbelief after a series of problems from another character, just smiles and says "It just keeps on comin,, doesn't it?!" What the space agency scientists must do to backup their new theory about dust-devil formation, is to provide a credible theory showing the cause of these "electrical vortices." This has not been done because their scientists answer to no one. And even more important, they regularly hide ground-breaking images which you shall see for yourself later. There are no known thunderstorms on the planet, or any known sources of electrical disturbances. So why base a theory on this? Does that follow common sense? The European Space Agency's orbiting spacecraft has recently detected METHANE from orbit. This gas will float in the air. We know that on earth ORGANIC MATERIAL generates the majority of methane on the surface. Every living person generates methane, too. It is one of the byproducts of life, and keeps products like Beano on the market. So what's methane doing in Mars, orbit, a planet with no active volcanoes and supposedly no life at all? No answers or theories are forthcoming on that one, either. Yet there are images taken from orbit which have shown large areas are well populated by what appear to be huge circular shrubs or trees. Remember - these plants are living in a near vacuumjust 1% that of earth! And what happened to "Beagle" - the European Space Agency's little robotic surface exploration vehicle that was scheduled to land on Mars? It went silent when it was about to land and no one knows why. Scientists believed it never made it to the surface in one piece. Was Beagle about to prove NASA's statements about the planet wrong? We know the planet has a blue sky and has a far denser atmosphere than we have been told. It makes one wonder if ANYONE has ever MEASURED the atmosphere scientifically. Here's another statement: "ITS COLD AND DARK ON MARS BECAUSE IT's SO FAR AWAY FROM THE SUN" The rovers on Mars operate in the DAYTIME. Most of their systems are shut down at night to extend daytime operating time, according to JPL. Solar cells are not very efficient. Therefore, they require light levels close to that of earth outdoors to recharge the batteries, power the transmitters and instrumentation, the computers AND power the rover's SIX drive and SIX steering motors at the same time. Could a dim environment accomplish that? Not with today's solar cells, which have a peak efficiency of just 21%, as of this writing on Oct. 2005. Here is another quote from an expert on solar cells: Regardless of size, a typical silicon PV cell produces about 0.5 - 0.6 volt DC under open-circuit, no-load conditions. The current (and power) output of a PV cell depends on its efficiency and size (surface area), and is proportional the intensity of sunlight striking the surface of the cell. For example, under peak sunlight conditions a typical commercial PV cell with a surface area of 160 cm^2 (~25 in^2) will produce about 2 watts peak power. If the sunlight intensity were 40 percent of peak, this cell would produce about 0.8 watts. [2] Outside of the environmental issues discussed above, are there MORE LIES to deal with? Yes, and I,ve saved the best one for last! WOULD NASA FIND SIGNS OF INTELLIGENT LIFE AND NOT TELL US? This definitely has been answered with a deafening YES, and I have the proof. Reviewing more than 10,000 images from the Spirit rover for 655 days of exploration has resulted in the discovery of DOZENS of artificially made objects. Most are only a few yards from the rover's camera. One must not be naïve, and think that since NASA has been silent about these objects, that they cannot exist. This is far from being the first time this trick has been pulled. Again the mushroom treatment is used on the public. On this subject, the BS is suffocating. BACKGROUND ON SOME STARTLING ARTIFACTS These objects include bricks and what appear to be building blocks and cubes, standing on one corner or just lying on the surface. These objects are apparently made from solid rock or a material like it. And there are the ultimate in smoking guns: three different objects with CHARACTERS clearly visible on them, which are easy for anyone to see. Two of these images are included in this essay. These are not images taken from orbit which are open to wild speculation about what is or is not artificial. These artifacts are just as real as the computer you are reading this on. Below are only a few artifacts from the book which have been minimally sharpened or enlarged for clarity. NO manual "pixel twiddling" was ever performed on any image in this essay or in the book. Those artifacts with a yellow background are from the book's cover. The others are from pages in the book itself. NO changes were made to the artifacts themselves. What you see here is what they really are, for better or worse. And then there are 160 more artifacts in the book that defy any explanation that cannot be easily debunked, if at all. Keep in mind that the distance of these artifacts from the camera is between 2ft. and 100ft. Panoramic camera source images for these artifacts were only available in JPEG form on NASA archive servers searched. Therefore, they cannot be sharpened much more than what you see below. Most objects are only 1 to 3 feet in size. Descriptions are not in any way meant to be absolute answers, just possibilities. All the objects below are covered in far more detail in the book, including the exact SOL day they were photographed: Block object bearing lettering in an unknown script. Who could have written it? NASA knows about this because they took this close-up. Note the shadow from the rover's strobe lamp and the closeness of the ground around it. This object is similar to the strangely formed steel suspension arm found under some motor vehicles. This object was found lying up against a rock, in the position shown here. Rock was carefully removed from the image for clarity. Note the artifact's inside right angle bend (darkened area.) A strange triangular artifact lying on the ground was about 50ft. from the camera. It has two protruding cylindrical objects on the right end, similar to vehicle headlights. A dark vertical disk-like object on the rear has what appears to be a shaft in the center. It was the triangle on the front laying on the ground up against it, which first caught my eye. The housing of the artifact is very similar in shade to the surrounding soil, probably because it is covered with dust. One could jokingly describe it as "an upright vacuum cleaner without a bag or handle." One can only guess at what this really is. ARCHEOLOGISTS - WHO WERE THEY, WHAT YEAR AND FROM WHERE? In the image below, it appears that a catalog number may have been written on this artifact. Archeologists do this when excavating a site. This object appears to have been lying there far longer than we can imagine. The artifact isn't buried deep under dust, dirt or debris or from winds that blow (dust devils) that cross the planet - which of course has no atmosphere. HOW is all this possible? This artifact was about 50ft. from the camera, and is shaped like the letter "Y" with a bar across the top. It is reminiscent of the "Y" in the YMCA logo. It appears to have four handwritten numbers along the top edge, which upon close examination are closest to the numbers "5563." There is a white coating or cladding peeling back on the left end, and the bottom edge of the image reveals its thickness. Perhaps it was a vertical ornament which fell from the top of a building (More about that later.) Above you have seen only 4 of the objects from more than 160 images. Not all may be as striking as this, and yet some are far more amazing. Another one (shown in the book) has a knife or metal edge clearly protruding out of a rock or handle. The image was a close-up, taken about 1 foot from the camera. The edge is so sharp and well defined, that sharpening the image with professional image processing didn't change the blade's appearance. Since this was also a close-up, NASA KNOWS it's there. There are MANY other artifacts too numerous to mention. All of these artifacts - most LESS than a stone's throw from the camera, are undeniable. This ancient extraterrestrial artifact collection is like nothing else ever published before. About two years ago I stated on a radio show that if NASA ever found any signs of life they would not tell us. These discoveries prove my statement was correct. The hand-writing on the artifact above raises some very tough questions no one is answering: 1. Are these an archeologist's CATALOG NUMBERS? 2. WHO was the archeologist? 3. WHERE did the person come from? 4. Was the person who wrote these numbers from our future and they traveled to Mars? 5. Is this confirmation that that we already have a base on Mars? Many in black projects have been saying this for years. This could mean the catalog numbers were written by someone in that program. Some have called it "Alternative 3." 6. A movie titled "Capricorn 1" 25 years ago was about a staged moon landing. Could it be the entire Spirit and Opportunity rover explorations are STAGED - and what we are looking at is a mistake, an exposed number like those used for stage productions to keep track of props? Let's hope not! Everyone who has examined these images has been astounded, just as I was when first finding these artifacts. WHAT HAS NASA DONE ABOUT THESE TREASURES? Silence is what we hear. When discovery of new objects averaged 2 to 3 per day, they moved the Spirit rover AWAY FROM THE AREA to again "look for signs of water" elsewhere, despite all these groundbreaking discoveries. Here is an analogy of what they,ve done: A beachcomber with a metal detector finds two items together - one is a rusted modern iron nail and the other a solid gold ring. The unappreciative beachcomber keeps the rusted nail and throws the gold ring into the ocean! With NASA staying on their pointless, pathetic and absurd search for signs of water they have tossed away many such gold rings. At that location up to three artifacts a day were being found. Then they sent the rover on a one-way trip AWAY from this area to featureless, sandy terrain. That is where it is roaming today. All they explored was a 2 mile strip of a 90 mile wide crater! This is L.I.E.S. - Lies and Intentionally Engineered Stupidity. The discovery of signs of LIFE and a denser atmosphere present on the "red, barren lifeless planet" may force them to swallow their pride. This is the same brand of pride and arrogance of always being "right" that caused the first and second shuttle failures. And several other deep space missions to fail - failures that happened some 25 years AFTER the Voyager and Viking spacecraft missions which all worked perfectly. All four of those vehicles outlived their design lifetimes by many years. That's because 25 years ago, engineering employed common sense - a very rare commodity today. I challenge ANYONE to explain away the mechanical objects as "products of erosion." Where are those debunkers when we need them? In hiding. The agency NEEDS a discovery of life on Mars to obtain the massive funding required for a manned mission to reach Mars. If the artifact with "5563" written on it is a fake, (which requires someone on the INSIDE to confirm this) then the ENTIRE rover mission has been faked. A POSSIBLE THEORY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT GUSEV CRATER IN THE ANCIENT PAST Gusev doesn't have the usual deep concave shape - instead, it's like a giant, shallow 90 mile wide plain with a wall around the outside according to orbital imaging. Here's what we can see: there are blocks from Giza pyramid size down to brick size, scattered everywhere at Gusev. Most of these are BLACKENED on just one or two faces, indicating a tremendous explosion took place. These artifacts are most likely the remains of a city or town that was present, perhaps many millennia ago. And then there are numerous MECHANICAL ARTIFACTS. A likely scenario is that a space vehicle exploded high above the surface, blackening the rocks and blocks, destroying the city or town and forming the crater. Then shortly afterward, mechanical fragments from the space vehicle rained down on the area which are still lying there today, although they are now probably fossilized. The implications of this are enormous and cannot be overstated. What we don't know - is just how deep down the debris field goes. IMPLICATIONS AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Someone credible in the space agency needs to come forward and say, "Yes, they already know about the artificial objects but don't want the public to know." They can open the door by setting the example for others. Then they too, can step through the doorway out into the sanitizing light of day - opening it wide for all to see the proverbial wizard inside, pulling levers which manipulate public information behind the curtain. Let's push the barn door open all the way, and send the antiquated Brookings Report from 50 years ago into the repository of all obsolete documents - the shredder. That cursed document laid the foundation for the on-going cover-up to this day. The report instituted a cover-up program that has created employment for many thousands of people whose sole function is to enforce "security." "Security personnel" have ruined the lives of untold thousands of people by intimidation and discrediting them, who have had close encounters they didn't even ask for. They have also ruined the lives of those who have stumbled upon "forbidden artifacts" or have had contact with certain ET races living on earth. This author is waiting for the trouble to start for him, too - for bringing these images out into the sanitizing light of day. I don't expect the images to remain on their servers for very long. This is why I provide in the book ALL the information on where to find the original source images. Nothing is hidden from the light of day, as some who have sold other Mars images have done. The barn door MUST remain open. THIS BOOK CAUSES FEELINGS IN THE READER NEVER FELT BEFORE The artifacts on Mars are startling, revealing and in fact some have called them "amazing, almost scary." Frank Whalen stated repeatedly on his radio show Frankly Speaking Radio (RBN) with this author on Oct. 21 2005, that "this is explosive, ground breaking and will shake the world." He said it did hit him "like a hammer." He also stated "he has never read anything like this before." Be warned that the book's contents are outside the paradigm you are comfortable with. If you want to escape the mushroom treatment once and for all, this book is for you. But if you are someone whose religion believes that God only created life on this earth and no where else - then you will be in for the shock of your life. After you read the book, all the images instill in one a feeling that you,ve been to Mars yourself and have seen it firsthand. The book covers more than 10 times the material of what you have just read. You can see 10 sample pages for free taken from the book at http://www.data4science.net/book These pages also show other artifacts not included in this essay. Ted Twietmeyer Author of "What NASA Isn't Telling You About Mars" References: [1] Temperature specifications from two different solar cell companies: http://www.solarenergyalliance.com/flexible_solar_modules.htm [2] Details about solar cell output vs. light level: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/pvt/pvbasics/ [3] http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_ data-information/pressure_overview.html 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine, diana, flintlock, itisa1mosttoolate, formerlurker, grumble jones (#0)
***gasp**** they lied to us!!
Whenever people ask me, 'hey, you know what you should do? I always say 'What? Buy a monkey?'
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest