We can dig up plenty of information and strange things that NASA has done regarding how it has released information on other planets and been caught censoring data in various ways. Yet there's a lot that has leaked through and it becomes evident that they are hiding something when we consider specific missions.
Take your pic, there's the Mars rover's, the numerous objects showing signs of artificiality in their images would be interesting enough. Yet looking up NASA's "Science Filters" gives away that they are not showing us the true colors and resolution of Mars.
The mission to Ceres was also highly relevant, Hubble could have focused on Ceres and bought out much more detail then the images released that it did take. Yet Dawn's images were even poorer in quality in some ways. Not even being in color and there is evidence that they obscured some things.
This is just two examples. The reason why this is such a fertile topic is in part because there are multiple independent researchers who have analyzed not just NASA's images but images from independent sources. They have been able to consistently show that the truth rivals our best science-fiction.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlsNIXKIkRTN5WL6fe_wtQ/featured
Thoughts?
Our universe is inhabited by particles and space
Like, why make so many planets for all of them to be empty.com
>>16940895
I hate how NASA makes planets now. Gotta download a fucking patch every other day because it won't save or you can't get past a certain part.
>>16940895
Ties into an interesting interpretation of various creation epics as passed down by Earthly cultures. These narratives don't make much sense as tales made up about impersonal aspects of natural forces coalescing to create Heaven and Earth.
The details are too specific across multiple cultures and descriptive of personal individuals associated with bringing our world into being.
Think back to when you were a child and ask yourself what kind of narrative you would have constructed to explain the existence of Earth and the Cosmos before your impressions of that were informed by religion.
If, however, we consider them as diluted reports of the terra-forming and construction of a solar-system. Then things start to get much more provocative and consistent not just with ancient narratives but also with what we can still find active in the solar-system. Starting with the Sun itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWW8rvuDptI
Mars Anomalies and co. had a good discussion on this recently, long but worth it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVYezVkAiz4
>>16943003
Meant to quote: >>16940904
On Mars Anomalies' discussion of NASA's images.
>>16940737
>Hubble could have focused on Ceres and bought out much more detail then the images released that it did take.
No, it couldn't. Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arcseconds: It can separate two objects just 14 millionths of a degree apart on the visual field.
Ceres is 1.77 AU from Earth on closest approach, roughly. (Earth's 1 AU from Sun on average, Ceres is 2.77, so when they're lined up they should be roughly 2.77 AU apart, ignoring eccentricity and inclination.)
So that means the smallest separation Hubble can resolve at Ceres' distance is 1.77 AU * tan(0.05 arcsec) = 64.2 km.
So that's effectively the size of one pixel on a Hubble image of Ceres.
Ceres is 952.4 km across, so a Hubble image of it at close approach would be 14.83 pixels across.
The actual Hubble Ceres images are more pixels than that, with a resolution of 50 km, because they were taken in the ultraviolet spectrum and smaller wavelengths give higher resolutions because you can focus them more finely.
So no, I really don't think Hubble could have gotten much more detail from Ceres.
>>16943053
Oh, and if you have a problem with "science filters", Hubble used them too. All Hubble images are in black and white; any colored Hubble images are from taking several greyscale images at different wavelengths, artificially coloring them, and combining them.
So if you think "science filters" are just another way for NASA to lie to you, Hubble's images are in exactly as much color as Dawn's - they both take greyscale images at different wavelengths through filters.
>>16943053
If Hubble couldn't focus on objects, they wouldn't call it the Hubble Space Telescope. Note that SOHO stands for Solar and Heliospheric Observatory? That's because It's an observation platform, meaning it doesn't have the specialized instrumentation and technical components required to bring objects into focus. Hubble does, that's why It's called a telescope.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/great-attractor.html
http://www.cnet.com/news/hubble-focuses-on-star-cluster-messier-9-photo/#!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/12/jupiter-moon-ganymede-ocean-nasa/70203402/
You imply that I trust images from Hubble when the point is that Hubble should have been able to get better images of Ceres. I'm betting they did. If a "Science Filter" is used as an excuse to give us images from the surface of Mars that reduce the quality of how they would appear to the naked-eye. Then yes, Science is being filtered and they've hinted at exactly that with how they've named these filtering processes.
From: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/
>>We often use color as a tool, whether it is to enhance an object's detail or to visualize what ordinarily could never be seen by the human eye.
>>16943554
Hubble can focus on objects. Specifically, it can focus on objects with 0.05 arcseconds of angular resolution. This is actually really good, as telescopes go - it's near the fundamental physical limit of how well you can focus visible light with an aperture that big (2.4 meters).
Those images don't disprove my point in any way.
Messier 9? Fucking huge - 12 arc-minutes across. At 0.05 arcsec resolution, that comes out to it being 14,400 "pixels" across. Of course they can get a clear picture of it!
Ganymede? It's as far as Jupiter, but it's also a very big moon - works out to being 30 pixels across. Which is indeed what Hubble images of Ganymede look like. They found out it had an ocean by looking at the aurora and figuring out what that meant for the magnetic field, which in turn implied a conductive liquid layer; the auroras they were looking at looked like this, in all their blocky glory. (The high-quality image underneath was taken much closer up, by the Galileo probe.)
That picture of the Great Attractor? That galaxy in it is ESO 137-002, angular size 1.3 arcminutes. Which suggests we should be getting around 1,560 pixels of detail across it, on average.
Hubble's great at focusing on things. Ceres is just really tiny compared to how far away it is.
>>16944164
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/transit-mirror.html
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/solar_system/comet/
It's always funny how NASA's own data contradicts what they claim their imaging capabilities are.
Anyway, looking not just inside our Solar-System but outside, we find something else very interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topopolis
Gunkel describe how these tube-structures could eventually reach other stars in length. What have enterprising independent researchers found in Google sky?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcRBreHxDs
>>16944383
Going back closer to home and the next planet out from the Sun, we have Mercury, associated with the messenger. Makes sense that you'd set up a planet with installations near to the Sun, once you look at images like this often enough. You start to recognize a common technological building material that these structures are built from. Don't just look at the brightly lit areas, pay attention to their shape. They are composed of photo-reactive materials -possibly nano-engineered- that capture and absorb light and other high-energy impulses. Much like catching lightning in a bottle. Don't believe me? Here's video of this technology in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNA4L5H837o
>>16944383
>http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/solar_system/comet/
Let's take this one for example. Let's see, 177 million miles away times tangent of 0.05 arcseconds equals a resolution of 70 km.
ISON's tail was 300,000 km long and 5,000 km wide. You'll note that this is rather larger than 70 km.
I'm not really seeing how this is in any way in conflict with Hubble being able to take a high-resolution picture of ISON's tail.
>>16944383
Or oh, let's look at this one, with its big shiny high-res image of the Moon.
>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/transit-mirror.html
Let's see, the Moon's about 400,000 km from Earth, so 0.05 arcsec gets us a resolution of 97 meters. This is, indeed, on the same order of magnitude as the real resolution claimed in that article of 177 meters; the reason it's lower is because the Hubble's not designed to take pictures of objects that close, so to take pictures of the Moon they have to manually spin the Hubble so that it's moving at the right speed to reduce motion blur and briefly snap a picture mid-spin. This does not work perfectly.
