Thursday, 19 March 2015

Debunking Captain Kaye's Account of Living on Mars (and Battling Aliens)

A story appeared on my Facebook thread about a US Marine who claimed he spent 17 years offworld, a large amount of it on the surface of Mars:

My response, explaining why this story cannot be true follows below:
I heard about this and listened to large chunks of it ... I guarantee he has not been on Mars (I can explain why below).

First up. I'm not saying there is no contact between possible visitors to our planet and the military (a feature of this guy's story). But this is something we cannot prove - we can only prove that there is a cover-up when it comes to UFO related material held by the US Gov.

However, when he talks about Mars having an atmosphere and that the sky is always reddish except when it comes to the sunsets which are purple - he's spewing NASA propaganda about conditions on Mars with a very thin atmosphere. He's direct quoting from NASA.

The problem is that the Martian atmosphere works exactly the same way as what we have on Earth. Our sky is blue because the sunlight is split, like a prism, by the small gas molecules which tend to separate blue wavelengths of light. The glare from this blue blocks out the blackness of space. On the moon, where there is no atmoshere, or at 100,000 feet on earth, where the atmosphere is the same as on Mars (according to NASA), there are not enough gas molecules to cause the blue glare effect, so we see bright white sunlight and the blackness of space.

If Mars had a thick atmosphere like Earth, or even a thinner one like on the top of Mount Everest, we would be seeing blue sky. The only time the sky would be red is if there was a dust storm.

So the bloke cannot have been on Mars if the atmosphere was as thick [and breathable] as he describes (which gives us a blue sky), plus he cannot have been on the planet if the conditions were as described by NASA - he would be seeing black sky, with some dust storm reds from time to time.

Personally I do not trust what NASA or the ESA (European Space Agency) says about Mars - because their accounts do not make sense.

And if you look at some of the Hubble images of Mars, and amateur pics of Mars (image/video search), then you will notice the planet is fairly colourful. There is a lot of colour variation, something we don't see from space probe imagery.

Anyway, at the heart of my doubt is a factual understanding of why our Earth sky is blue. It applies to Mars. Note: Viking pics of Mars from the 70s also featured a blue sky, which is characteristic of a thicker than admitted atmosphere. So what is the real deal with Mars? ??!

Related Info [UPDATE to original post]:

The Martian Atmosphere Must be Thicker Than We've been Told

The Atmosphere of Mars - Thicker than Officially Admitted, Clouds, Liquid Water and Life?

NASA's Misrepresentation of Mars

The Red Planet was Once Blue... Giant Ocean Once Covered Third of Mars (broken links)

Was there life on Mars? Red Planet was 'wetter, warmer and rich in Carbon Dioxide' (broken links)

Did NASA Discover Life on Mars - 36 years ago?

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, March 19th, 2015.]


Jerry Ducasse said...

Then can you explain why the sky is orange in the evening on Earth at times? If your explanation for why Mars atmosphere would have to be blue if there was an atmosphere is true, then what conditions cause the Earth sky to be orange at times and why is it not possible for those conditions to be consistent on Mars?

You're obviously not a scientist. If you want to debunk something, I think you need to come up with something a little better than that. I'm not saying that this Randy Cramer character is a 100% genuine. I would like to know for sure if he is but your "debunk" doesn't have me convinced one way or the other.

SpookyOne said...


The colours of the sky on Earth are a function of our relatively thick atmosphere. The sky is orange when the Sun appears at a low angle in the sky because the light travels though more atmosphere and the blue wavelengths have been scattered away leaving the longer red wavelength.

Dust in the atmosphere also contributes to the sunset colours. The clouds and other aerosols reflect these colours.

If we believe NASA the atmosphere on Mars is as thin as on Earth at 100,000 feet. From near 70,000 feet and above the sky directly above on the daylight side of Earth is black. To have a red sky would require a lot of obstruction (dust or gas) to block out or scatter the blue wavelengths. According to NASA the red sky cannot be due to gas.

The problem is that we consistently get orbital pictures of Mars that does not show any of the dust haze that would be needed to get the consistent orange-red skies NASA shows. On Earth, if you get orange daytime skies it is in conditions of a dust storm. The clear orbital pics should mean we see black skies, like on Earth at high altitude. Either the orbital pictures are in error or NASA's red sky pictures are not true colour representations.

In fact early pictures from Viking and even some pictures from the current set of landers/rovers show blue skies. This is indicative of a thicker atmosphere. It also would account for surface features that look like water run off channels - near impossible in a super thin atmosphere, but easily explained if the atmosphere was slightly thicker (like on Earth at 29,000 feet - the top of Mount Everest).

The argument being made here is from basic scientific principles and observations.

To get the red skies NASA shows on Mars you need a LOT of dust. The fact that we often have clear skies (no haze) and no black sky pictures, and the fact that we sometimes see blue skies is indicative of NASA portraying Mars with false colour imagery.

If blue is eliminated from the colour pictures then you get lighter surface details. The problem is you also end up with false colour (red) images of the sky.

We even have NASA pictures that show the elimination of blue from the colour composition. In this picture from the Spirit rover mission you can see the colour calibration sundial and blue strips that come up pink:

Blue has been removed from the image. If blue is added back in, and we end up with a blue sky, then Mars has a thicker atmosphere than we've been led to believe.


Unknown said...

Idk... I'd like to know if this guy is telling the truth one way or the other but it seems kind of hard to believe that so many people would be involved in a conspiracy with nobody talking!!

Kain Cioffee said...

Oh and btw, you may want to rethink you're entire post after reading why Mars sky looks the way it does, ever heard of the "Mars sundial"... Just click this link and you'll see why this guy is right and your debunking is wrong

SpookyOne said...


The number of people tweeking the Mars pictures does not have to be that large, and regardless, if the motivation is right, then a lot of people could be involved in keeping a lid on the true Martian sky colours including the issuance of various forms of propaganda/disinformation.

And given a 'good enough' explanation, from an authority such as NASA, even learned academic experts will accept the answers without thinking critically about them. This has happened before. Plus politically, to challenge NASA and accuse them of engaging in a 'conspiracy' is a sure way to have your academic credibility shot to pieces.


You may have to rethink your (disinformation) link.

He uses the NASA excuse that the images are white-balanced that changes the natural 'red' sky colour to blue.

This argument still overlooks the issue (I already covered) of the dust which should cause a haze. This NASA excuse implies that there is a dust haze necessary to generate the red sky - from the wavelengths of sunlight reaching the camera. We don't see this haze from the orbital pictures. Most pictures we see are clear ie from Mars Express. We only get instances of this haze when we experience dust storms. To create the orange sky, requires a lot of dust, just like on Earth, otherwise there would not be enough material to obscure the necessarily (thin atmosphere) black sky. And we never see pictures of the black sky.

Also, you can see with the link I provided in my first response, that no blue filter has been used on this image:

And magically the sky here is orange. The sundial shows what is missing. (The blue tag turns out to be red! The green tag is yellow!)

The image at the link strongly indicates the sort of manipulation occurring with the pictures. I wonder what would happen if the sundial registered the blue tag in its correct colour, what might that do to the pale orange sky?

This is not simply an issue of white balance commonly used in photography - something is being left out entirely. We are not simply playing with the colour Kelvin temperature settings.

One of the comments at your link points out the problems with the Sundial comparison photo used at the top of the post. Maciej pointed out that:

"The first answer, with the images of the “sundial”, has a bit of information so misleading that it must be corrected. The dial (colour chart) DOES NOT look that different on Mars than on Earth!

Two first images in the first answer are mixed up. There is the Curiosity rover, and there are the MERs (two older Mars Exploration Rovers named Spirit and Opportunity). The drawing of the dial is for the Curiosity rover, as you can tell from the motto written on it, but the photo is from a MER.

That’s not what caused the difference, though, because the original (googlable) drawings for the Curiosity’s dial and the MERs’ dial look the same. But at least for the MERs, they *definitely* didn’t use the dial from the drawing! The final design has colours arranged differently than it was proposed in the drawings!"

And we know what the sundials of the MERs looked like on earth from photos, not just from drawings:

At your link, the photo of the sundial, as Maciej points out, shows the blue colour tag to be purple and is likely the result of using an ultra violet filter that distorts the colours. This is NOT due to the image simply looking different in a "dull muddy brown" lighting environment. The colour is very different. Plus going back to my linked example you can see that the colours NASA was using there are clearly wrong (blue becomes red!).

The Mars pictures are manipulated to make what is a blue sky, look red, that obscures its thicker than expected atmosphere.

Thanks for your comments