People,
A tremendous Mars article.
http://www.rense.com/general68/nasaisnt.htm
Before you even start to consider the hollow earth theory, get that NASA
nonsense out of your brains.
Then ask yourself, why do the space agencies of the world keep their mouths
shut? If there is aconspiracy like this going on, what are the other
implications?
Dean
Posted by Slowswimmer
The vapor pressure of water is 1 percent of the pressure of Earth's
atmosphere at around 50 degrees Fahrenheit. At 32 degrees it drops to
4 millibars. The boiling point of water on Mars runs 40-50 degrees
Fahrenheit. Water in the air also protects the water on the ground
from further evaporation by raising the dew point. Mars's atmosphere
is probably the dustiest atmosphere in the solar system, so there are
a lot of nuclei for droplets to form on.
One percent of the Earth's atmosphere is still a significant amount of
air for wind, weather, and chemistry. A space shuttle going in at
Mach 18 will experience the same friction as if it were travelling
Mach 3 on Earth. A 300 kilometer per hour wind on Mars exerts as much
pressure as a 50 kph wind on Earth. This is not anywhere near a
vacuum. To an object travelling at Mach 18, it is still pretty much a
brick wall. In a real vacuum, a ship can travel at speed with no
substantial heating of the hull and needs no aerodynamic design.
Mars has a substantial amount of atmosphere, enough to shield it from
small meteors, enough to glide in on, enough for a parachute to slow a
vehicle down to about 60 mph, and enough to hold water down for many
years.
Excuse me, but one percent of atmosphere is not enough to create drag for a parachute . And what causes the wind to blow at 300 kph? There is no atmosphere to speak of, to create updrafts and such.
And how about the formation of thick clouds at 15 miles of altitude? Not even on this planet with our thick atmosphere. Mars has a thick atmosphere, and enough ionization to spread out the density in terms of altitude.
Do scroll down to the bottom:
http://www.holloworbs.com/july.htm
Again I say, the planets are not as depicted, and the evidence is usually obvious and blatant.
Dean
List Members,
Check out these comments from Daniel Ross's book UFOs and the Complete
Evidence from Space-
Back in the early 1960's, a famous Russian scientist carried out a long
study of Mars at the Crimean Observatory, which left no doubt that the red
color of Mars seen from Earth-based observation is not the color of its
surface. The astrophysicist, Dr. N. Kozyrev, published his sensational
report in April 1962, based on years of spectroscopic observations which
proved that the red appearance was the result of the sun's interaction with
an upper layer of a dense Martian atmosphere. Further measurements convinced
the scientist that the density of the Martian atmosphere was very near to
the density of the Earth's atmosphere .
This study could not be confirmed until space probes could travel to Mars
and photograph the planet. By now, everyone has seen the standard hemisphere
photograph of the " red planet," taken by Viking 1 in 1976 and reproduced on
Plate 13 ( Attached as RedwashMars on the right ). That picture has been
published in numerous magazine articles and science journals, and of course,
in all the school textbooks. In actuality, that is not a true picture of the
planet. It is a black and white image taken through a red filter by the
Viking Orbiter camera, as the space probe neared the completion of its
journey to Mars.
The brilliant Russian scientist was entirely correct in his studies. With
this book, for the first time the truth can be shown. The Viking probe did
carry color television cameras, and from a distance of 336,000 miles , filmed
the planet as it really is. That picture is reproduced on Plate 14 (
Attached as MarsTrueColor on the left ).
Mars is finally unveiled! The supporting evidence in this book should
finally vindicate Percival Lowell, Dr. Slipher, Cedric Allingham, George
Adamski and others, who courageously told the world that Mars was inhabited
with an telligent civilization.The false-grey, computer-processed,
red-orange surface and pink sky photographs can be thrown away, or filed
away as irrevelant. The latter were specifically processed to supplement,
and boost, the rigid theories of orthodox science.
NASA is altering the true colors of the pictures of Mars:
It is quite a decent site.
Dean
From outer space, the Earth is seen as blue, but here on the planet, the desert looks sandy colored, the trees are green, ect.
Mars seems to be red from Earth. When light from the Sun passes through a sufficient amount of atmosphere, it has its frequency reduced (let's just say it that way to make a long story short) all the way down to orange and red. For example, the sidelong rays of the Sun turn the sky red when The Sun sets, but when the Sun is directly above us, the sky looks blue. The light that we see from Mars passed through the Martian atmosphere once in order to reach the surface of the planet, bounced off that surface, traveled back out a second time through the Martian aymosphere, and finally passed through our Earth's atmosphere in order to reach our eyes. So this light made it down to red by the time it reached our eyes. Here, to ours eyes, after passing through three atmospheres, so to speak. But when the Mars Rover is on the surface taking images, that light has only passed through the Martian atmosphere, one time. So why should the planet be so awash in red in the Rover pics? Why do they doctor it up?
Why? Well, if we knew that the planet had enough of an atmosphere that was causing light to turn red, "scatter" down to red, as they say: and that Mars was, therefore, survivable; then we would want to go there, which would be a problem if the planet is already occupied.
Also, this would raise some uncomfortable questions about Newtonian gravity and inspire anti gravity research. Because Mars is not supposed to have enough mass to generate enough gravity to hold down an atmosphere.
And NASA would be put in an uncomfortable position.
Dean