any geologist here? which among 500 minerals would GLOW blue with just a little light

[link to fotolog.terra.com]
[link to fotolog.terra.com]
[link to fotolog.terra.com]
[link to fotolog.terra.com]

Thanks for the data, I'll check it out.

[link to www.ama-science.org]

Hematite in a gem and mineral show here on earth within the confines of a auditorium or building infrastructure will appear black for the most part, smoky grey when held to sunlight as filtered through our atmosphere...

How does NASA show blueberries as blue in photos when we all can verify independently that hematite is dark grey to smoky black?

The answers lie within the optical observing filters applied to the raw data that NASA uses when triying to establish what we may perceive.... And that is where a lot of speculation comes from.

Take a high end digital camera from Kodak or Nikon from earth, and use it on mars, will it show you the same wavelengths of primary colors?

What we perceive as primary colors here on earth and not what the rest of the universe appears to be to all other living forms. Our genetic adaptation of our optic nerve are what we need to perceive the environment around us, and of the animal species....is quite different.

NASA attempts to adjust and manipulate the data by way of filters and wavelength so that we can see something we can say is a basaltic rock with various straitions of mineral deposits, and that is where a lot of confusion as to what the brain perceives from person to person. I see a rock, you see a skull.

The Hoagland photos are a direct result of over saturation and NASA compensation of the data through filters of a predetermined subset which renders the images with color bloom.

You have to remember this: Hoagland knows all of this, and he knows how to say things to make the uneducated of his field wonder if there is more to what is shown.... NASA does the best it can based on the budgets it gets and if you think they are withholding data and facts, then please recount the last time you personally donated to the NASA space agency personally.

I can't make a million dollar floor out of limestone when you asked for Italian marble and only funded the limestone from Spain.

I hope this helps a lot of you, it is a reality check for some but overall I wrote this as an informative response to a lot of posted speculation.

But Hoagland didn't take this photos nor altered, did he? I understands this was THEMIS and Odyssey. I understand what you say. Problem is even NASA uses red filters to "martianize" Mars and make it look more red than actually is. I don't have to trust just Hoagland's ideas. I bought me an expensive book made by National Geographic and Pathfinder with 3D photos with a couple of glasses and I have seen photos of blue Martian sky with pink clouds while NASA says the sky is orange as in the movie Red Planet with Val Kilmer. How would I know if NASA uses red filter for practical reasons like hiding green chlorophyle? Why? Obvious. USA wouldn't wanna lose their technological achievments with no country and keep ... if not ALL, some secrets!

Even on earth there are people who can't see in colors like Paul Newman and others confuse red with green, so many things depend on interpretation made by our eyes. Yet NASA is something working for USA government and only took photos of Mars' Face after public demand and even after a storm swept away the whole planet. The Face was shown UPSIDE DOWN without shadows in a bizarre angle to turn eliptical what was circular and stretching the image for Christ's sake and that was not just discovered by Hoagland. Even if the problem is the "color" as you suggest, the reflectivity is OBVIOUS and not just in the Face. If whomever alters a color... let's say using a red filter to turn green chlorophyle into dark spots or blue filters to make the same thing almost invisible... the question still remains why the Face depicts a different color from an area just above other.

I don't know if I made myself understood, if you say NASA filters renders tne images with color bloom...... so EVERYTHING IN THOSE PHOTOS WOULD BE WITH THAT WHATEVER COLOR BLOOM AND NOT JUST THE FACE.

I guess there's a difference between watching colors in distant galaxies or stars and a planet like Mars
[link to curious.astro.cornell.edu]

Copper compounds glow a light blue.

Perhaps I need to ask you a straight question. Do you think the Face presents reflectivity considering not only what it's obvious but the surrounding area and colors? In your opinion -as someone who probably know about this whole thing better than myself who opened the thread as a question- , what would be the real color of the Face? Red, brown or what?

Even in the dark?

And who is that Don Davis painting Cydonia to make it in " true colors" ? He didn't work for Hoagland because he was hiding the obvious!

[link to keithlaney.net]

And how does the guy from Bad Astronomy knows the color of basaltic rock ON MARS? Do we have to believe the rules of the universe spin around earth's?
[link to tech.groups.yahoo.com]

geologist's test FAILS under analysis
[link to keithlaney.net]

And the answer is....Benitoite!
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]

To the many of you who have responded, I thank you for the interest, and what I may fail to deliver to you for an answer, seek elsewhere with a skeptical eye like you do here at GLP.

Lets first address the quality of the photos from the color bloomed images we speculate upon. The two of us go into a store 15 years ago and buy a digital camera, the quality we buy off the shelf is by personal choice and options of features we personally need.

What we both walked out with was nearly identical in lenses, yet my 4X zoom is Optical and your 4X is digital. Now we both go to the south pole and take various photos from an airplane from 20,000 feet. We both photo'd the glacier at sunrise and we both used our cameras at max zoom as well as whatever the low light capabilities were for our cameras at the time.

Whose camera would bloom first?, whose would be used to the fullest under best intent to capture a glacier with the best camera on the market at the time?

NASA used what it could at that time, to take the best photo it could using the best telemetry available and resolution filters possible.... And yet by today's standards this same photo could have been taken by 6th graders anywhere in the world on a model rocket using today's cameras and still have been better.

Hoagland finds and knows the weakness of the programs of NASA, he is an outstanding man who saw a different purpose than the master plan for mars and was booted. Hoagland is a guy I followed far before Art Bell ever took of and the 19.5 theory became popular...(let alone the mars tidal theory)

Long story short"........

We may never actually know what anything on any planet actually truly looks like until MAN can step foot upon that surface and transcribe through unique vernacular the exquisite details he shall witness to a LIVE AUDIENCE.

it does boggle my mind the steps NASA takes to just get a damn picture as the human eye would see mars. My government is a colostomy bag of high school nerds with no experience ever doing anything themselves for themselves, and thus this is the reason why we can all argue left and right as to what it is we are shown in an image as to what mars might look like.

Personally, I believe that Bad Astronomy website does not always tell the exact truth, it tells the truth for the most part but avoids the true intent of what most question as a whole and are asking about. BA is a useful site for general I formation but not the true sole answer to a lot of what some have questions about.

IMO.

Ive read that site within the first month it ever hit the net, and I've never forgotten how it can be shown that those with the originals will and can manipulate anything.

I trust no one.

I'm not saying all photos are color bloomed, but this particular series is poorly shot using what NASA at the time was calling "bands" of wavelength. The bands used at the time were the wrong bands for what the intent was, was it on purpose?....hard to say but even I was driving the push on NASA at the time to release images to quell speculation of the cydonia region. ( <------cydonia wants to auto spell check into cyclonic)

I want to know. I want to without question after the tens of millions of images taken by earth spacecraft to really see what may or may not be there. I still to this day have a hard time understanding how NASA pulls off the bullshit it does and releases images that clearly only ask for more answers.

Fun fact: the twin rovers sent to mars never had a basic camera to shoot a basic image like anything you could do here on earth. Every single image from the rovers is digitally altered through filters and spectral emissions to "represent" a similarity to what the human eye might see.

..... And that's a whole can of worms people were only told about after the rovers landed. I wonder how they will twist the new curiousity images representing the geological record in colors to be coming eventually.

Lies can only be told for so long, unless you control all the information the lies are coming from.

Last Edited by Redpaw360 on 09/04/2012 12:33 AM

When I opened this thread I thought there would be no answers. I like your honest answers, Redpaw. It's always good to research and find people who are doing homework too and are not afraid to say it straight "we don't know", cos usually we see most have opinions and certainties without knowing shit.
I was very dissapointed buying that official book "Unravelling" planet Mars and from all available photos of the Cydonia area they chose the WORST of them all and blurred. The very fact not only you can play with colors but they inverted upside down the Face, wiped out shadows and contrast, stretched the image, using a poor angle which made a circular crater look eliptical, waited til a storm swept the whole planet.. can only mean one thing: ortorectification was done to HIDE the truth from the people.
Thanks everyone who replied. Many posts with different code numbers were written down by miself so it looked as if it were done by several posters. The fistful who answered know who they are and I thank you.

A personal question, Redpaw, considering the conclusion is we really don't have a clue, what's your opinion of the complete "sphinx" guarding Twin Peaks. The book I bought and mentioned before includes that in 3 D in a marvelous 2-pages folding image.

My personal opinion like stated before is people see what they want to see in digital artifacts and image manipulation. I've always felt they manipulated the images to gain attention to the space program rather than have people ignore it...... So they do what they do at times to get funding, attention, distract certain people, and create conspiracies.

Back tonight, contracts call that need completion.

In my case, for the reason explained right above about NASA's attitude hiding or half-revealing or officially using the worst and more blurred photos among many availables suggests indeed there's something they wanted to hide to the public. Knowledge is power, their interest in Mars is obvious and TPTB wouldn't want to share with anyone else otherwise Russians, Germans, Japanese,Chinese or whomever else would've gone to the moon. They just can't. In many cases they can't even send satellites!

That attitude convince me and also the fact the bizarre Face is not randomly places like a travelling cloud with a shape of something. Pareidolia doesn't apply here because using different angles and shot taken during YEARS show the same Face even with additional details. And not just the Face but everything else. Clear pyramids and other geometrical constructions near the place. The arguments lf this guy from Bad Astronomy hasn't denied what it's actually there. I guess if he were an alien and saw aerial photos of the eroded Egyptian sphinx close to HUGE three pyramids or the statues of the presidents' faces in USA mountain.. he would be so skeptical to the point of being CYNICAL and wouldn't see that. Even a Russian geologist who could put his academic reputation back in the older days recognized the DARK RING near the complex is always seen and perhaps the center of Cydonia. NASA saying that ring was "a drop of water on Viking's camera lens" is a pathetic lie because there are tons of photos of the same ring seen in different angles during many years.

[link to fotolog.terra.com.br]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.br]

[link to fotolog.terra.com.br]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.br]

These images clearly further my standpoint on resolution of images over time, and it is clear to me that there are certain features on mars that need another look and yet where do we find the newer images?

Using NASA archives to find a specific roll of film with the right swath of coverage is not an easy task, I've burned many of nights trying to find the right spectral bands for certain areas and it seems they have a way of not making it easy to get what you look for.

We have a space craft right now orbiting Mars that can photo the damn heat shield crater left by Curiosity and was able to do so within minutes of the touchdown.....but yet we cant quite seem to get decent images or a true look at the cydonia region?

Nothing but frustration felt here.

Under black light or not?

An exposed nuclear reaction will glow blue...

[link to www.youtube.com]

Indeed they have a way to make things difficult. Who are "they"? This is one of them, the ALLKNOWING Egyptian who not only studies the inner chambers of Great Pyramid, not only CHOSE the lunar landing for Apollo mission but also TRAINED American astronauts lemme introduce him:
[link to www.bu.edu]
Even in Star Trek Generation and Tom Hanks' (Apollo 13) production all of them kneel before his brain as you could read by yourselves in the link above.

Interesting considering some areas look like collapsed....

Others who filter photos and keep them for themselves;
[link to www.enterprisemission.com]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to solarsystem.nasa.gov]