Home Page + Blog Site Contents TV Interview 9/3/2017 10/5/2016 TV Interview Radio Interview Report Contents &Section Links MSL Ultraviolet 2018 Global Dust Storm Seismic Activity on Mars ALL MSL WEATHER MSL Yr 5 FALL MSL Yr 5 Summer MSL Year 5 Spring MSL Years 4-5 Winter MSL Year 4 Fall Weather MSL Year 4 Summer Weather MSL Year 4 Spring Weather MSL Yr 3-4 Winter Weather MSL Yr 3 Fall Data MSL Year 3 Summer Data MSL Year 3 Spring Data MSL Yr 2-3 Winter Data MSL Yr 2 Fall Data MSL Yr 2 Summer Data MSL Weather Year 2 MSL Weather Year 1 155-Mile high Mars Plume March 25 2017 Plume Sol 370, 1160,1161, 1300&1301 pressure anomalies MSL Hi Air & Ground Temps MSL Low Temps Warm winter ground temps & life RUNNING WATER ON MARS Report Abstract to 1.2 Report Sec.2-2.1 Report Sec.2.2-2.4 Report 2.5-2.5.2 Report 2.5.3-2.7 Report 3-4 Report 4.1-4.2 Report 5 to 6 Report 7-7.2.1 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Global Dust Storm Report 12 Report 13-13.2 Report 13.3-13.5 Report 13.6 Report 14-15 Report 15.1 Report 15.2-15.3 Report 15.4-15.6.2 Report 15.6.1-15.6.3 Report 15.6.4-15.7 Report 16-16.1 Report New 17-20 Report Afterword Report References Report 21 Annex Links Report figure links Diurnal air temp. variation Oxygen&Trees on Mars? Phobos Monolith Beagle 2 found Adiabatics Concession by Ashima Old MSL Weather 1 Old MSL Weather 2 High and low pressures normalized Soil 2% water MSL Temp. ∆ Mast to Ground Relative humidity Mars sky color Tavis Sensor Suspicion Vailsala Sensor: Phoenix&MSL Mars Temps Fahrenheit Pathfinder pressures Wind Booms & Disinformation Ingersoll Debate Daylight-math-fix Curiosity Geology Early MSL Weather Reports Landing altitudes Mars Mission History & Sites Nuc on Mars? Ashima/MIT GCM Critique NASA alters temp. data Viking pressure sensors failed Dust Storm Nonsense JPL Press Conference Critique 1 Navigating Mars Phobos Grunt Failure Moving sand & Mars winds Moving rock Data Fudge Fossil found on Mars? Organic Chem found on Mars MSL Sol 200 Anomaly Gil Levin & Labeled Release - Part 1 Levin & Labeled Release - Pt. 2 - Roswell Link Brine on Mars Lights on Ceres Yr 1 Table 1 Spherical life on Mars? Scale heights REMS flaws MSL Daylength &Temp Missing data ExoMars crash Lima 3 Desai & EDL Sea at Utopia Planitia Mars Mars winter vs. summer temps Rebuttal of REMS Report Unrealistic Ground Low Temps Mt. Sharp pressures & scale height Opacity at MSL Helo to Mars Custom 2

While not as convincing as is the case for higher than advertised Martian air pressure, there are reasons to question the accepted oxygen content of Martian air. Updated on 1/25/2018.

On June 30, 2016: JPL moved closer to our position of Mars having much more oxygen its atmosphere and possible photosynthetic life - at least in the past. At the link just given, the article starts out by informing us that:

Researchers found high levels of manganese oxides by using a laser-firing instrument on the rover. This hint of more oxygen in Mars' early atmosphere adds to other Curiosity findings -- such as evidence about ancient lakes -- revealing how Earth-like our neighboring planet once was.

This research also adds important context to other clues about atmospheric oxygen in Mars' past. The manganese oxides were found in mineral veins within a geological setting the Curiosity mission has placed in a timeline of ancient environmental conditions. From that context, the higher oxygen level can be linked to a time when groundwater was present in the rover's Gale Crater study area.

"The only ways on Earth that we know how to make these manganese materials involve atmospheric oxygen or microbes," said Nina Lanza, a planetary scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. "Now we're seeing manganese oxides on Mars, and we're wondering how the heck these could have formed?"

Microbes seem far-fetched at this point, but the other alternative -- that the Martian atmosphere contained more oxygen in the past than it does now -- seems possible, Lanza said. "These high manganese materials can't form without lots of liquid water and strongly oxidizing conditions. Here on Earth, we had lots of water but no widespread deposits of manganese oxides until after the oxygen levels in our atmosphere rose."


It was recently announced that atomic oxygen has been found high in the mesosphere of Mars. The oxygen that we breathe on Earth is diatomic oxygen (O2). Atomic oxygen also forms high above Earth when ultraviolet radiation splits diatomic oxygen. Single oxygen atoms combine with diatomic oxygen to form ozone (O3). The new finding does not address oxygen levels on the surface of Mars. We note that greenish objects have been seen by Viking 1 and Mars Science Laboratory that might be photosynthetic. We also show that in using ultraviolet radiation values between 1 (low µV) and 5 (extremely high), over the first two Martian years (nearly 4 Earth years) the average µV value was only about 2.75 (between medium and high).


       It's long been accepted that oxygen is a rare gas in the current Martian atmosphere. Table 1 shows accepted values for molecular weights and percent of gases found on Mars. But there is reason to question the percent values. While the thrust of this web site is to challenge accepted Martian weather, and in particular atmospheric pressure, this article will present a debate about why accepted atmospheric composition might be wrong. The debate hinges largely around an initial image of greenish rocks on Mars taken by Viking 1 in 1976 and later seen again in December, 2015. The 2015 sightings were on spherical objects photographed on Mars Science Laboratory (see Figure 1). On Viking 1 Sol 1 NASA Administrator Dr. James Fletcher ordered color monitors at JPL to be manually tuned to make a blue sky look red. Eventually, 36 years later with MSL, we learned that the Martian sky is indeed blue. The color distortion in 1976 wiped out apparent green patches on at least one rock. If the true color was green, and if the rock then and on the spheres seen in 2015 held photosynthetic life, there is reason to believe that the composition of Martian air has far more oxygen than accepted values.

Figure 1 above shows green patches on rocks at the Viking 1 landing site on its Sol 1 and green spheres seen by MSL from 2015 through 2017. If something like algae or lichens, the rock patches may manufacture oxygen. Ditto for the green spheres, which may be a higher (multicellar) form of life. Figure 1 also shows how sky and flag colors were distorted by Dr. Fletcher's strange order. Figure 2 shows results from Mars MAVEN. Note the oxygen band around Mars.




     There is something else that has been gnawing at me for years that is most likely related to the temperature anomalies your research has alluded to.  NASA has reported that Mars' atmosphere is composed of 95.3% Carbon Dioxide and 2.7% Nitrogen. 








Carbon dioxide




















Carbon monoxide





Water vapor










         That all sounds swell...except isn't Carbon Dioxide what we are all fearful of here on good ol' planet Earth? Why do we fear it? Because we have been told by the scientific community that it is a powerful GREENHOUSE gas. It is supposed to create global WARMING...right? In fact, we have LAWS in place worldwide to control CO2 emissions...right? These laws have been put in place to THWART global warming. So they must be pretty sure that CO2 is a substantial warming agent. 

       And yet the temperatures of Mars are being reported in ranges that are not indicative of a globally warm environment. How can that be?

      NASA et al. will tell you that it is not warm on Mars, like it should be from having an atmosphere that is completely dominated by CO2, because it has a "tenuous", near-vacuum atmosphere...and of course they back it up with the pressure data being reported from their "flawlessly" designed systems.

       However, what if their pressure data is wrong? What if we are being misled? What if the atmospheric pressure were actually 75% that of the Earth's, for example? How then would they explain the temperature data they have been reporting? It seems as though that would be quite difficult to explain away.

       It seems like we have a good deal of conflicting data. So is it the pressure data that is wrong, the temperature data...the atmospheric composition...or maybe all of them?

        Let's address the question of the atmospheric composition since I find that the most interesting. So, could it really be the atmospheric composition that is wrong? Well, we are told that Mars is the "red planet." Why is that? It is explained by those "in the know" that it is because of the oxidized iron dust layer covering the entire planet. OK fine. So we have a bunch of rusted iron what? Well iron can only rust in the presence of...Oxygen...and, most commonly, moisture laden air or liquid water. So the atmosphere definitely had Oxygen (and probably significant water) at some point. So why doesn't it still?  

        We will be told that there is little to no Oxygen in the atmosphere because it was all chemically absorbed by the Iron. So their contention seems to be that there was more Iron to bind to than free Oxygen molecules...and they again point to the pressure data to back that up. The data indicates that the total atmosphere (including CO2 and Nitrogen) is practically nill. So it isn't hard for them to convince anyone that what little Oxygen there was simply vanished into the surface dust. 

       But, if the pressures are higher than they have been reporting...MUCH, MUCH higher. Then maybe the CO2 and Oxygen levels aren't really what they have been reporting either. Because if we have an atmosphere on Mars with a measured pressure that is 75% of Earth's (100% if you take into account the effect of the lesser gravity of Mars), and an atmosphere that is comprised of 95% CO2, then Mars should be SCORCHING hot. Shouldn't it? 

      If it turns out that Mars really isn't an inferno, then maybe the CO2 levels are MUCH lower than we are being told...and maybe the Oxygen levels (and perhaps some other gases) are MUCH higher.

        So where is all of this going... Well, humans can actually function with effective Oxygen levels well below 10%...on Earth at least. I say "effective" because, although the percentage of Oxygen in the air doesn't change with altitude, the "quantity" of Oxygen does. And the "effective" level of Oxygen at the summit of Mt Everest is about 7.5%. In other words, if you wanted to train for climbing Mt Everest and your training center was at sea level, you would have to breathe air that was 7.5% oxygen. And humans can probably be trained to function normally with an even lower percentage. 

       So it obviously doesn't take much Oxygen to "breathe" life...into life. And perhaps that, as I am sure you and your constituents already suspect, is the "dirty little secret" that compels NASA to falsify all of its data.


Figure 3 shows images taken in the Martian Antarctic (about 80 degrees South). The images taken by the Mars Global Surveyor look something like large banyan trees, but the image taken by a superior camera on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter may support a geologic process not seen on Earth.


Hi Dan,

   Every question that you have just asked I have personally brought up with astronomy classes that I taught before I retired from teaching. The only thing I added was that in places like Utah the red rock we see is due to cyanobacteria in ancient oceans that produced the oxygen. Your question is addressed on our site at There I wrote

With respect to the geology, it has long been apparent to us that the ancient oceans of Mars almost certainly supported photosynthetic life. The very color of the planet, red, and the cause of that color, iron oxide, are almost enough to draw a firm conclusion. We were in Utah on August 7, 1996 when President Clinton made his announcement about a possible fossil found in a meteorite from Mars (ALH 84001). Putting aside the issue of whether or not the rock was a true fossil, as we looked outside our hotel room we noticed that most of the rocks there were red - due to iron oxide just as is the case on Mars. Why is there so much iron oxide in the rocks of Utah? Ancient seas there contained cyanobacteria. When it produced an abundance of oxygen, that oxygen reacted with iron in rocks to form the iron oxide (which is basically rust). Oxygen is a highly reactive gas that is not likely to form on its own (without photosynthesis) in an atmosphere in uncombined state. So it took life on Earth to color Utah red, and the same is likely true of Mars - so much so that the theory of panspermia often has life evolving first on Mars, and then being transferred to Earth via meteorites. 

       The only issue here is what happened to the oxygen, and is it still there with over 0.13% of the atmosphere in a form uncombined with iron, hydrogen, or water? Mars MAVEN showed a layer of oxygen at altitude (see Figure 2 above) - supposedly from broken water or CO2 molecules. I think it's possible that the oxygen is still there, but it needs lots of greenery to replenish what combined with iron. It would help to prove the disinformation if we had had spectroscopic studies that were done before NASA went big time into disinformation. At Wiki I see "When astronomers mistakenly thought they had detected the spectroscopic signature of water in the Martian atmosphere, the idea of life on Mars became popularized among the public." Well, actually we recently found up to 100 times more water vapor in the air there than expected; and 2 pints of water in every cubic foot of Martian soil. That will certainly help form rust even today.  See

        In 1934, Adams and American astronomer Theodore Dunham, Jr. found that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere of Mars was less than one percent of the amount over a comparable area on Earth.[77] 

       I think we can safely say that Mars once had diatomic oxygen in abundance. But we will have to terraform the planet to bring it back UNLESS Tom is right about trees on Mars (see Figure 3 above) or unless the green stuff seen on rocks (Figure 1 above) at the Viking 1 landing is photosyntheic life. NASA Administrator Dr. James Fletcher ordered the monitors at JPL to show red rather than blue sky. When he issued his order it may have been with the deliberate purpose of hiding life seen. Whatever his purpose, MSL showed that he was clearly wrong about the sky color.  There is also a small, but non-zero chance that our government is currently (secretly) terraforming Mars. Maybe that explains the mysterious 155-miles high plumes seen on Mars that I'm writing up now at

Best regards


Figure 4. The top photo is a lake at Vastitas Borealis in the Martian Arctic that is clearly water ice. This may melt, but it has never been seen in the liquid state. The bottom photo taken in the Martian Antarctic looks like a lake, but the surface of it is likely frozen carbon dioxide.


      Thanks for the reply. I understand that we don't have incontrovertible proof that the atmospheric pressure of Mars is 700+ mb. However, we do have considerable "smoking gun" evidence that strongly suggests that the atmospheric pressure is substantially higher than what is being reported.

       I guess I am just trying to prepare us with a preemptive awareness of the REAL implications of 700+ mb coupled with an atmosphere that is supposedly composed of 95% CO2. Those two things combined almost guarantee extraordinarily high surface temperatures. Either that, or Carbon Dioxide doesn't really dominate the atmosphere. Think about this...the scientific community of Earth is totally freaked about atmospheric CO2 levels on the Earth even though it is only 0.04%...and on Mars we are talking about 95%!

     If the atmospheric pressures are anywhere near what you think they are...this is enormously significant. In any case, have you, your son or Tom speculated on what the REAL temperatures on Mars are?



Hi Dan,

     Tom will have to speak for himself as to his speculation. What he has seen is that there is a very strange rise in temperature of up to 30 degrees Celsius that is shown on the data between 1.5 and 2 m above the ground on Phoenix. The ground temperature sensor used on Phoenix is only accurate to 10 degrees Celsius/18 F.  The best way to address your question about the effects of COon temperature requires intense modeling that is beyond me (but maybe not Tom or David), however I would start by stressing the following:

  1. Distance from the sun. For Venus:

Mean distance from Sun:

0.723 AU = 1.082x108 km

Maximum distance from Sun:

0.728 AU=1.089x108 km

Minimum distance from Sun:

0.718 AU=1.075x108 km


For Earth:

Mean distance from Sun:

1.000 AU = 1.496x108 km

Maximum distance from Sun:

1.017 AU=1.521x108 km

Minimum distance from Sun:

0.983 AU=1.471x108 km


For Mars:

Mean distance from Sun:

1.524 AU = 2.279x108 km

Maximum distance from Sun:

1.666 AU=2.491x108 km

Minimum distance from Sun:

1.382 AU=2.067x108 km


So the mean distance of Mars from the sun is 2.1 times further than for Venus. In terms of sunlight per square meter or any other unit, using an inverse square relationship, this means that the heat or light energy received at Mars would be only (0.723/1.524)=0.225 = 22.5%. 

The mean distance of Mars from the sun is 1.524 times further than for Earth. In terms of sunlight per square meter etc. this means that the heat or light energy received at Mars would be only (1.000/1.524)= 0.43055 = 43.055%. The COmight be an issue here. If that was you at looking at Fahrenheit temperatures on our site today, you noticed that almost all days at MSL from late winter until the first day of summer had ground temperature highs above freezing although the air temperature highs were more often below freezing (but likely warmer than a lot of days in Indianapolis or Tom's Michigan).

  1. As you know, Mars is a desert world (but with a lot of water just under the surface). On Earth in deserts temperatures can fall by 40 Celsius from day to night.  I think it's safe to assume that the denser the atmosphere the more likely it is to retain heat, but I am offering an estimate of 511 mbar at areoid compared to 1,013.25 mb on Earth at sea level. So if the density of air there is only half that of Earth, then I would expect it to lose more heat on Mars  than a desert on Earth. In the link I just referred to above, there is a column with air temp range in Celsius divided by 40 Celsius. Where there is data in aqua, the ratio is less than 1.5. More often it's up around 1.7 or 1.8, but the landers were not at areoid. Phoenix was 4.126 km below areoid and MSL is 4.4 km is below areoid. By scale heights if I'm right about the 511 mbar figure, pressure would be over 700 mbar at the landers. BUT the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 910 meters below the surface of the ocean.So in terms of what the COwould do to temperature on Mars, I think it's not fair to compare it with Venus. HOWEVER, I think that the low temperatures offered by NASA may be way too low. In Fahrenheit terms, the first link above shows a variation at night from as cold as -112 degrees F to as "warm"as -76 degrees F (revised) or -77.8 degrees, a difference of up to 36 degrees. This seems like too much variation if air density and pressure is as low as NASA claims. 

   If you want to see how pressure and temperature varied at Phoenix, I have 2 days of data that Tom got us at I'm still playing the with the times. Time 0.000 is not midnight local time, but 13 hours 19 minutes 57 seconds local Mars time (early afternoon). The file is 1,653 pages long with data every 2 seconds. 

Best regards,


Figure 5 - The Face of Disinformation: NASA Administrator Dr. James Fletcher (left) is the villain in this story. He ordered the alteration of sky color (and rock colors) after Viking 1 displayed a blue sky and green on rocks.



         Regarding Mars' distance from the Sun impacting its atmospheric temperature...I definitely agree with you in regards to your assessment outlined below as to how much sunlight REACHES Mars. However, the amount of sunlight ARRIVING at Mars only represents a "potential" energy source. The reflectivity (or albedo) of the planet is what dictates how much of that energy is retained. 

       Mars has an average albedo of 0.15, meaning that it absorbs 85% of the sunlight it receives and reflects 15% back into space. Venus has an average albedo of 0.65, meaning that it only absorbs 35% of the sunlight it receives. So even though Mars only receives 22.5% of the sunlight that Venus does, it actually absorbs 22.5% X (85% / 35%) = 54% of  the amount of sunlight that Venus' does. Also, since Earth has an average albedo of 0.37, Mars (at 0.15 albedo) actually absorbs 43.055% X (85%/63%) = 58% of what the Earth absorbs.

       Including the effects of albedo in the calculations took it from 22.5% up to 54%. So the difference between Mars and Venus, in terms of absorption of sunlight, isn't as much as it initially seems.

       Composition of Venus' atmosphere vs. Mars'...I don't know about anyone else, but I find it suspicious that the atmospheres of Venus and Mars are reportedly nearly identical (see below)...not just in CO2 composition but in Nitrogen as well.

Mars: 95.3% CO2, 2.7% Nitrogen

Venus: 96.5% CO2, 3.5% Nitrogen

       That seems like an extraordinarily unlikely coincidence. So I don't believe that the composition of Mars' atmosphere is being honestly reported to us. In fact, I have an intuitive feeling that Mars' has significant levels of Oxygen in its atmosphere and it is being purposefully withheld. I say that because I have seen Arthur C Clarke's "banyan tree" images and dozens of other images containing vast expanses of what closely resembles vegetation. If it is vegetation, then that vegetation likely feeds on sunlight through photosynthesis...which typically produces molecular Oxygen. As I mentioned in my previous email, it doesn't take much Oxygen to sustain life.

       If the atmospheric pressure and temperatures are being misreported as well, then there might actually be liquid water on the surface of Mars. In fact, I have seen images that to me look exactly like lakes of water. And I think most would agree that the positive identification of atmospheric Oxygen and liquid water on Mars would make it a MUCH more interesting place to study.




Hi Dan,

    I thought more about the oxygen content issue today and I'm close to changing my mind. You and Tom both mention the tree and lakes (see Figure 4 above). I gave two UNLESS terms about accepting the high oxygen content yesterday, but it dawned on me today that the one about what looked like lichens seen on the landing day might be more germane. What caused Dr. Fletcher (shown on Figure 5 below) to order the color distortion on the monitors at JPL when Viking 1 landed? The rock with the green on it is shown on the attachment (Figure 1 above). This is the first time I've seen it. The picture is found in an important article by Gil Levin at

    As the article points out, the color imaging of the camera was not that good, but what if it was life something like lichens or algae that was seen on Viking 1's Sol 1? Here the next question would be, How likely is it that life would be rare on Mars, but Viking 1 would be lucky enough to find it on its first sol? Obviously, not likely at all.  WHICH MEANS that there may be primitive photosynthetic life all over the planet. This implies that there is a mechanism to replenish the oxygen. It makes it easier accept the possibility of trees too, because during night photosynthetic plants breathe in more oxygen than they breathe out. 

      Your other points, especially about albedo, are excellent. 

Thanks again,



Figure 6 - Possible trees on Mars.

AN INITIAL DISCUSSION WITH TOM ABOUT POSSIBLE TREES ON MARS. Tom initially contacted me about images that looked like trees on Mars on MGS photo E0700860 shown on Figure 6 above. At that times I asked him to look at the objects assigned red numbers and letters.  The number corresponds to a suspect tree (1, 2, 3 and 4). The letter S after each number corresponds to what might be a shadow. Objects 1 and 2 look like almost the same size, but the "shadow" for 1 looks a good bit longer than for 2. Object 3 is a lot smaller than object 1, but its "shadow" is about the same size. Object 4 is bigger than 3, but its shadow is comparable or smaller. What does this mean?  I wrote that the shadow lengths should be in the same ratio as the object sizes if they are shadows.  However, what we may be seeing here are dust remains that generally point in the same direction due to the prevailing winds. Also, each "tree" rather resembles a flame, with a bright area up top and to the right. These bright areas might also be due to dust.  How can both be true, that the dust appears light and dark?  If the wind scoops the dust out of a depression, it would catch the sun's rays more when lifted (thus appearing light) and then the dust would appear dark when it reaches the ground again. This is where color becomes important. We lose a lot in black and white.

       Tom wrote, "The shadow belonging to what you've labeled object 3, actually contains a smaller object which is extending the shadow. Another factor that can affect the length of the shadow is local topography, or small hills, which can make a shadow longer or shorter depending. Over all, I'd say the shadows seem proportional to the height of the objects."

Figure 7 - Tree stump-like anomaly seen by MSL Curiosity of its Sol 1647.

A discussion about what geologic process could cause the banyan tree-like images (starburst channels) seen on Figure 3 is here. Candy Hansen wrote that translucent carbon dioxide ice covers the polar regions of Mars seasonally. It is warmed and sublimates (evaporates) from below, and escaping gas carves numerous channel morphologies. In this example the channels form a "starburst" pattern, radiating out into feathery extensions. The center of the pattern is being buried with dust and new darker dust fans ring the outer edges. This may be an example of an expanding morphology, where new channels are formed as the older ones fill and are no longer efficiently channeling the subliming gas out.

TREE STUMP-LIKE OBJECT SEEN ON MSL SOL 1647. We are not yet ready to declare that the object on Figure 7 is really a tree stump, although it certainly looks like one. Care is needed because sometimes in a geological process molten material may rise to the surface, be denser than the surrounding surface material, cool and remain while surrounding material erodes away. When this occurs what remains may resemble a tree stump, but not be one. However there are two items in conjunction with the MSL Sol 1647 anomaly that are worthy of discussion. First, in looking at the track of the Curiosity rover it can be seen that the rover went about 10 meters further east the next sol, but then turned around and went back to the area in question. We may assume that it reexamined the object from another angle, but we don't see the images of it then. We need to see them, and know if there was any attempt made to examine the geological property of the object. Second, at about this time ground temperature reports from the REMS Team went berserk. MSL was in its summer season for MSL Year 3 at Sol 1647. During MSL Years 1 and 2 the coldest ground temperature seen was -87° C. But look at an extract from our record of REMS Team daily weather reports for MSL Sols 1643 to 1650. The night time air temperatures (Column F) are consistent with each other with variation from -73° C to -75°, but the ground temperatures (1.5 meters lower) vary radically (see Column J) with variation from -78° C to -110°.














L M N O P Q R S T  





















































year 2














<60 °C




> 0 °C




Yellow numbers

= -80 to -89 °C,

red background =

-90°C or colder 





= >10°C

> 7 Pa)




3/21/2017 -11 -74 63 1.575 14 -81  -95 25 -7 843 -11 336 N/A  H H. Year 1 was H (975)  




3/22/2017 -10 -74  64  1.6  13 -102 -115 23 -28 842 -10 337 N/A  H M. Year 1 was H (976) Once more the low ground question is hard to accept.  There is no corresponding great drop in air temp. Watch for a revision. Greatest variation in ground temp. ever!
  1645 337 832 3/23/2017 -3 -74 71 1.775 14 -83 -97 17 -9 841 -9 337 N/A  H M Year 1 was H. (977)
  1646 338 831 3/24/2017 -8 -74 66 1.65  11 -93 -104 19  -19  842 -11 338  N/A   H M Year 1 was H.  (978) This night time low in ground temperature is not backed by a corresponding low in air temperature. 
  1647 338 831 3/25/2017 -3 -73 70 1.75 6 -78 -84 9 -5 841  -10 338  N/A   H M Year 1 was H. 



  1648 339 830 3/26/2017 -14 -73 59 1.475 7 -79 -86 21 -6 840 -10  339  N/A  H M Year 1 was H.  (980)  
  1649 339 831 3/27/2017 -14 -74 60 1.5 11 -93 -104 25 -19    841   -10  339  N/A  H M Year 1 was H.  (981)  
  1650 340 833 3/28/2017 -8 -75 67 1.675 12 -110 -122 20 -35 840 -7 340 N/A  H M Year 1 was H.  (982) The record 35 degree night time decrease in temp air to ground is extraordinary. This is equal to a 63 degree Fahrenheit drop in 1.5 meters. It must be an error.




THE BOTTOM LINE. A standard scientific approach to answer questions about Martian sky and rock color seen in 1976 requires an analysis of how colors were transmitted and interpreted. Dr. Gil Levin and Dr. Patricia Ann Straat provide that in their article entitled Color and Feature Changes at Mars Viking Landing Site. However, it is obvious from looking at the sky color pictures taken from the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity Rover that we have been given the wrong color of the Martian sky for 36 years. The initial decision to manually alter sky color (possibly based on rock color) was made by NASA Administrator James Fletcher. That we were provided with incorrect sky colors through both Viking landers, Mars Pathfinder, the Mars Expedition Rovers Spirit and Opportunity plus the Phoenix likely means that there was an ongoing policy of disinformation by NASA/JPL. This means that great care must be taken before accepting as untainted any NASA data relating to Mars. However, this does not mean that all wild speculation is confirmed.

      With respect to oxygen, the existence of favorable spectrographic studies of oxygen before government-directed disinformation began would be expected, but unless such studies have been censored, the only study that I was able to find (from 1934) concluded that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere of Mars was less than one percent of the amount over a comparable area on Earth (Adams, Walter S.; Dunham, Theodore, Jr. (April 1934). "The B band of oxygen in the spectrum of Mars". Astrophysical Journal 79: 308. Bibcode:1934ApJ....79..308A. doi:10.1086/143538).

      The exact color/shade of green shown on the rocks at Viking 1 is debatable due to limited abilities of the camera system used on Viking 1. There was no chemical analysis of the rocks in question, nor was the Viking 1 a mobile lander that could drive up to and drill into the rocks in question. We need trustworthy people on Mars at the scene to examine the rocks in question. The tree-like objects seen have alternate geological explanations. Again, we need trustworthy people on Mars at the scene.

       Figure 5 above shows Dr. Fletcher, a key villain in this investigation. With him is President Nixon. Nixon cancelled Apollo missions 18, 19 and 20 ( President Nixon was also a villain. Figure 5 shows that Fletcher helped give him what he needed to keep our astronauts in low earth orbit after Apollo 17. As for what motivated Nixon (and presidents after him) to prevent a crewed mission to Mars, that is beyond the scope of this article.

       On January 29, 2015 I delivered a presentation to about 33 people in the condominium where I live in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Many who were present work at our space center. At the beginning of my presentation I told my audience that I had an hour to cover 57 slides in my PowerPoint. No question is stupid, and all questions were welcome if they could be answered quickly. But some questions required long answers, with related stories. For such questions I suggested that they see me at the pool when I was not under a time constraint. I know more about Nixon’s motives than I will write here. For those like Tom and Dan who want to work with me, I will share what I know. Others may want to reach me through my other web site. There I discuss issues that are generally considered taboo in conservative scientific communities. For here I will conclude by saying this. The data that we get about Mars is colored by individual talent (or lack thereof) and agendas. In this world there are too many incompetents and too many liars. When the data does not support what can be plainly seen, caveat emptor.


NOTE TO OUR READING AUDIENCE ABOUT TOM AND DAN: Tom is a physics professor who also teaches astronomy. Dan is an engineer.

Since 2008 my son, David, and I have worked together to learn what the true atmospheric pressure is on Mars. We have both been guest speakers on this topic at International Mars Society conventions in 2010 and 2011. In 2015 Tom and Dan, both highly knowledgeable people, offered to help our research and join our Mars Correct Team. Dan initially suggested we should try to get an additional pressure sensor made by ST Microelectronics with a range of 260 to 1,260 millibars onto an upcoming Mars lander. His recommended sensor is found at Dan says this transducer is compact, dust-free and water resistant and has a fairly good operating temperature range (-40° C to 85° C)...and it is already being used in the automotive industry. Obviously it would need to be shielded or heated at night to protect it against temperatures that are colder than -40° C, but since none of the sensors sent to Mars so far could measure above (an inadequate) 18 millibars, this would be a tremendous improvement.

Note: Dan had some second thoughts about the pressure sensor he recommended. They are included here in blue fonts for the record. I suggested to him some ways to overcome the problems. If any of you can make constructive comments, please feel free to write us via the blog. Your comments will be added to this article if you so desire.

Barry, something else came to mind as I was reading through the specs and implementation of the Pressure Sensor. After I sold my engineering company, I spent the next 12 years in the filtration industry. I was involved in all aspects of filtration...liquid mediums, gaseous mediums, HEPA, ULPA, etc. 

            The HEPA filter the Pressure Sensor uses to inhibit contamination of the interior of the sensor assembly…is apparently single-stage. It does not pre-filter utilizing a multi-stage filtering system. This means that ALL particulate sizes impinge upon the HEPA filter regardless of their size. HEPA filters are designed to catch particles that are typically 0.3 to 0.5 micron in size. 

            In air applications, 3-stage filtering is used in all manufacturing plants and hospitals where you need relatively clean operations. The 1st stage starts with an inexpensive, low-efficiency pre-filter (25 - 30% efficient). Then, the 2nd stage follows up with a 95% efficient filter. After catching most of the larger particles in the first two stages, the 3rd and final stage ends with a HEPA filter to clean up the remaining fine particles. A typical HEPA filter is 99.97% efficient down to 0.3 micron. The point of filtering in that manner is to extend the life of the HEPA filter, which is considerably more expensive than the filters in the 1st and 2nd stages. 

            So…without any pre-filtering, a HEPA filter (especially a very tiny one) would clog very quickly. I don't know what the dust size distribution on Mars is, but I would be willing to bet that it has a fairly populous range above 5 micron in size...which would kill a HEPA filter in short order.

            Also, if this particular filter is not a depth-style filter (meaning pleated through its depth to increase the surface area) it wouldn't stand a chance in Mars' dusty environment. For example, if it is just a single membrane HEPA filter blocking a narrow tube then you only have a surface area equal to the cross section of the tube to filter through. That might work in a laboratory clean-room...but not on Mars...especially when you consider, as you have, the debris kicked up by the landing sequence.