• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Phoenix Mars Probe Succeeds!

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

>

Gene Steinberg

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
I was talking to Jim Moseley and predicted that the Phoenix Mars probe would fail, based on prior negative experiences with such excursions by NASA.

I happy to say I was wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358027,00.html

So, folks, do you think there's life under the ice?
 
This the one that is too big to use airbags? Saw talk about this today, but changed the channel.

My guess is, no life on Mars. I think we would have found it by now. I hope I'm wrong, and would be thrilled if there was though. I'm all for looking still.
 
Maybe they don't want to be found :D

Knowing what I do about Earthlings, if I happened to be a Martian, I wouldn't want people from the third planet to have any evidence of anything, other than microbial life.
 
I read something about a disgruntled NASA scientist ( or group of ) that were questioning NASA's omission of a certain test that would have been their "ideal" test for life. Instead that got sidelined by a bunch of geology nerds. Sure there is a test going down, but no matter what the result, it's still going to be inconclusive. Seems like they set up these tests in such a way that if successful, all they prove is that life could have been there at some point?

I'll dig around and see if I can find the story. I read about it on the interweb awhile back.
 
The tests will be inconclusive. The results of the various experiments will be open to debate and interpretation, just like it always is.
Even if a martian bunny was photo'd jumping onto the lander and making faces into the camera, it would still be inconclusive.
But I do think it's super cool the lander made it in one piece and is sending back pic's.
 
I really got to find this article. Basically the experiment they had—ready to go—was canned to make room for geology experiments—made no sense to them.
 
Canadian news won't shut up about it. Apparently our space agency has an atmospheric lab on the probe or some damn thing. Whoopie.

Better question is (as always) if they find life, will they TELL us?
 
Are they already trying to blurr artifacts on the Mars surface??? Take a look at the top right picture of the mosaic... Looks like a white pole or something sticking out of the ground. The funny thing is that it looks to be touched up...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/230114main_S_000EFF_CYL_SR10CA8_R888M3_8868.jpg

230114main_S_000EFF_CYL_SR10CA8_R888M3_8868.jpg
 
Paranormal Packrat said:
...My guess is, no life on Mars. I think we would have found it by now. I hope I'm wrong, and would be thrilled if there was though. I'm all for looking still.
Click to expand...

..Would have found it by now? I've heard this kind of statement before, but I can't imagine where that sort of assumption comes from. Please explain your logic...

-Mike
 
Fitzbew,
Can you explain why it's a photo artifact? To my untrained, non-techie eye, the white streak looks like it's part of the landscape. Not saying it's "alien" or anything, but would just like to know how you know it's a photo processing issue, that's all. I might learn something!
Thanks.
 
Loose Leaf Tea said:
Fitzbew,
Can you explain why it's a photo artifact?
Click to expand...

When the image is enlarged, it doesn't look real. I mean, it doesn't look like a real object would at that distance. The bottom of the artifact is very fuzzy and the top is much sharper. It doesn't fit in with how the rest of the horizon is "focused".

If it's not a real object on the surface, it must be something that appeared in transmission or processing of the image.

You don't have to take my word for it. We will be seeing a lot more of these photos, we can just check the next photo taken in that direction.
 
Welp, they're giving us black and white pictures when they could have been in color. (We'll see the color later. Why?)

Doesn't bode well for our being told what we'd like to hear, but I understand the argument for more geologic studies since we've never been to the poles on Mars. It's a follow up to one of the Viking missions which performed a geologic study of soil samples in that location. Location name slips my mind.

I hope we get the truth about whether there is life. Hope is about all we have.
 
Loose Leaf, I watched a program which finally debunked Escamillas rods last night as image artifacts. There was a very good explanation for how the camera is really no better than the human eye at processing some images due to shutterspeed, speed at which objects may move, focus and other things. A camera, video or still, is designed by humans who program or design the devices to pick up more than the human eye is supposed to be able to see, but that doesn't always happen.

In the instance of rods, video experts filmed them with two cameras and a precise timer which showed up in each of the video images. One was a video camera which was the typical thirty frames per second and the other was a high speed thousand frames per second. Both were aimed at a precise location with the same focus.

What showed up when a man stirred up the plants inside the focused area ... on the 30/frames per second video, was a very clear rod with many rippling wings. The super fast camera showed a common moth in flight.

Prior to the results of that particular test, scientists tried to explain the rods with things like double image processing that occurs, something I'm sure David knows a lot more about than I ever could, but the video test was conclusive and damning. Artifacts can explain a LOT.
 
Hmm, interesting technical points, thanks for those, people.

If the thing isn't an artifact glitch, maybe the white "stick" is a bit of parachute...
...or the Mars North Pole?

Where's Hoagland when you need him?
 
CapnG said:
Better question is (as always) if they find life, will they TELL us?
Click to expand...

I don't know the mission of the probe is, but you're absolutely right, will they tell us??
I'll have to do a little delving, but I wonder what protocol they might have in place should we encounter life. Of course, again, we may have the protocol we are told and the MJ-12 protocol or secret protocol to cover up or restrict information.
 
[/quote]
When the image is enlarged, it doesn't look real. I mean, it doesn't look like a real object would at that distance. The bottom of the artifact is very fuzzy and the top is much sharper. It doesn't fit in with how the rest of the horizon is "focused".

If it's not a real object on the surface, it must be something that appeared in transmission or processing of the image.

You don't have to take my word for it. We will be seeing a lot more of these photos, we can just check the next photo taken in that direction.
[/quote]

If you download the picture to your workstation and use Windows Picture & Fax Viewer or what ever you have available to really zoom in on the artifact you'll see what I mean about being blurred. Nothing else in the picture has the same characteristics with the small vertical blocking. Most blocks are running horizontally and not as small...
picture.php
 
Back
Top