Mars Anomalies Summary

31 Aug 2012
Andrew Johnson

I recently posted the video below:

I received a comment from someone on my e-mail list, who also posted a similar comment on the video (the first comment I have seen him post on any of my videos).

With due respect, I think it is just too much speculation. You guys find ‘conspiracy’ in everything… It is good to ask questions, etc… but, we also need to do more research in fields we don’t fully understand (like astronomical photography) — we (in general) are not expert in everything.
– All the best astronomical CCD image sensor are greyscale.
– Colour CCD image sensors are far less ideal for this type of exploration.
– Even Hubble returns Black & White images. It’s only when multiple grayscale images are shot through multiple filters that a single colour image can be formed.
– Same applies to the Curiosity Mars Rover. That is the best way to get proper scientific data.
– B&W is smaller file than colour and it is quicker to transmit back to Earth than a high resolution colour one.
Also – just wait for the Curiosity results… the party just started…
By the way, Curiosity has many cameras – (twelve, in fact)…
Here some info for the Hubble’s tool box as an…
Here a nice article about – Why do the Mars Rover’s images look so bad? –…

It’s good to know the Gizmodo site agrees the images look bad! In any case, I thought it was worth sending this person a summary of what I’ve "collected" since 2004. So here it is:

With due respect – I am aware of what you said. Why can a BBC science program NOT check scientific facts about the Viking Probe when I can check them myself? You don’t appear to have checked these links:

Levin Mars Colours Paper:
Holger Isenberg’s Analysis:…
Charles Schultz III: www.checktheevidence… (Archived)

NASA is covering up the history that is on Mars. Or do you have an explanation for this structure?

Here’s the link to the NASA image:
[And there’s more on this page:…]
Why did they change the HiRise image page for this object from this (2009)

to its present version (where this object is not shown):

I thought NASA were "in the business" of collecting and showing us interesting data?

What about this?

Why is there a precise correspondence between features in "Cydonia" on Mars and features in Avebury?

Why would NASA NOT find what Ron Bennett found?

Or Sir Charles Schultz and his clear discovery of fossils on Mars?

Sorry if you think it’s "conspiratorial" to point out these anomalies and ask questions…. I look forward to links on any NASA or ".edu" website that you can find CLEARLY explaining these things.
I’ve collected the evidence for you – if you can get anyone at NASA to give a sensible response to this, then please send it to me.

All the best – I do hope the tone of this message hasn’t discouraged you from checking the available evidence…

Forgive me, I do think it is wrong to spend millions of dollars and then withhold the most interesting data – or just ignore it. You might like to read the comments posted on my little video, exposing the BBC propaganda for what it is (or maybe you wouldn’t):



Related articles...

Comments are closed.