Your link goes to a picture, but no story. ESA= European Space Agency? Was this a fly-by shot? What filters were used to enhance the image?

I'm not saying there isn't green on Mars, just asking for further clarification.

*edited to add:

Are you referring to Mars Express? It uses a stereo camera, so the green would be a contrast color to help define different sides of a ridge etc.
Also, there are quite a few minerals that turn green when exposed to elements.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by Busymind]

Looks like a filter problem to me.

For one, the green is always to the northern side of a valley. Secondly, there's green in areas that are filled with sand (south of the valley) - so why wouldn't there be green elsewhere?

So yeah, looks like a filter problem involving the red martian dust, the shadows, and the atmosphere. It's an optical illusion really.

What is the mysterious cross shaped object approx 6" down and 2.5" in from the top right hand corner?

Took me some time to spot it, but I see it. Just some random outcropping of rock that happens to shape a cross. Does a potatoe that seems to resemble the virgin mary really have special powers? Or is it just coincidence?

Another optical illusion is at the very top, approx 1.5" down and 3" from the right - it LOOKS like a lava flow, but it's just the light and shadow contrasting each other really well.

Originally posted by Busymind
Your link goes to a picture, but no story. ESA= European Space Agency? Was this a fly-by shot? What filters were used to enhance the image?

Well sometimes pictures tell the story better than words will. I reckon it was a fly by shot as i dont honestly see alternatives. God knows what sort of filters they use as they always seem to be coming up with different shades of red.

I'm not saying there isn't green on Mars, just asking for further clarification.

Well it's best you go look into the topic then with your clear enthusiasm.

Are you referring to Mars Express? It uses a stereo camera, so the green would be a contrast color to help define different sides of a ridge etc.

Well if you dont know if it's the Mars Express why think about stereo camera's? You well know this is Mars Express photo's so why not just say so? Do they use green as contrast colour for sure and if so why not more green with all the other hills around? Why use green at all? Why did we have green on sides of rocks with the FIRST photo we ever got back from the Martian surface? Were they using green as contrast to better see the different sides of small rocks aswell?

Also, there are quite a few minerals that turn green when exposed to elements.

Rrrriiight....! As if there isnt always something "obvious" to explain away these strange situations on Mars...

Stellar

Originally posted by jdjaguar
Stellar:
The image you posted is of the Louros Valles, one of my favorite images (of the few) that ESA has released.

I just dont know enough to argue without researching but i dont see reason to doubt you at this stage. So if you say so it's good for me....

It was taken by the MEX color camera and the green is most definitely not due to filtering.

If your willing to link ( since you seem so familiar with it) the posters here to a official source that would go a long way.

Using your imaging software, adjust the gamma about 10-15% to bring out details in the right-hand side of the shrouded valley.

I would hate playing around with official photos even if i knew what i was doing but your photo's are really awesome.

I have a strong feeling you may find arguments over colors moot at this point.
Here's a sample of what I saw almost 2 years ago.

Well i find them moot but it's based on circumstansial evidence ( so many incidents over the years suggesting green valley's) so anything you have to add might lend crediblity to my instinct'. :0

Thanks again for the additional photo's.

Stellar

I'm sorry - I have to agree with Busymind. Green could be used so that you could better see hills and ridges in areas of low light (such as the valley). This would explain why "outside" the valley there is some green, since it's shadowed or dark areas. As why green? If you may remember art class in Grade 7, green is the "opposite" colour for red. Since most of mars is photographed red, green is therefore an excellent colour to use (much better than red, which would disguise the depth of valley, or yellow, which would look too bright and once again disguise the depth).

And if this was life, why hasn't it made it to any newspapers anywhere in the world?

Also, I don't think Arthur C Clarke would be what we would call a professional opinion - especially considering that he's an AUTHOR. He writes stories, and so he has a very creative imagination.

I'm sorry, but I still do not find this as evidence of life - just evidence of green used in pictures by the Mar Expressed.

Yarium:

Why don't we set aside the issue of color and actually examine some of the quite interesting structures that appear when the shroud is lifted.

Why don't you save the source image, adjust the gamma slightly to reveal details, zoom in and report back what you see.

the reflective points are of note as well.

take your time.

Originally posted by jdjaguar
Using your imaging software, adjust the gamma about 10-15% to bring out details in the right-hand side of the shrouded valley.

I have a strong feeling you may find arguments over colors moot at this point.

What do you see in the details?

Originally posted by Yarium
Looks like a filter problem to me.For one, the green is always to the northern side of a valley. Secondly, there's green in areas that are filled with sand (south of the valley) - so why wouldn't there be green elsewhere?

Well why should there not be green on the Northern side? Do you know how what the prevailing wind directions in that area are like? Grass and bushes/trees dont grow in sand? I can agree with the fact that there is no reason why there should not be green everywhere....

So yeah, looks like a filter problem involving the red martian dust, the shadows, and the atmosphere. It's an optical illusion really.

The red martian dust AND the Shadows AND the atmosphere? If you dont mind at all can you please explain to use the mathemical formula you employed to arrive at your conclusion? I would in fact be pleased&surprised if you can at all clarify how you connected those issues to arrive at your stated conclusion. I am clearly just extremely ignorent and in dire need of your expert knowledge.

Stellar

I'm sorry if you think I meant some of that in an insulting manner StellarX - for I did not. For example, the part with Arther C Clark as an author - I thought it was something that could have been overlooked by yourself. I did not try to imply that you thought him "the greatest thinker of our time".

As for the JFK case, why do we still question it? Because either a) the right answer has not been found or b) no one that perpetuates the myths will accept the right answer. It's become a question that, whether answered or not, will always be requestioned, simply because there's a sort of fun in perpetuating the conspiracy.

It's like a rubix cube. It comes already ordered - and then you jumble it up on purpose, and then try to work it back together. Except this rubix cube that we call cult conspiracies was jumbled up by someone else, and then claimed to be unsolvable.

Now I'm glad to see that you agree that, if there's life in these pictures, why isn't there life everywhere else on Mars. That's a definite weakness in this proposal that these pictures prove life. Yes, it did look like a filter problem to me, but that was before I read Busymind's post.

And I will stick by the fact that a discovery this size, especially when displayed on a public site, could not be suppressed. Independant Newspapers (which is nearly all newspapers) would reap tons and tons of $$$ for printing this story. That's why the company exists, to make money, and so they would want to publish these stories. And there are many amatuer papers in the world too, that would also do this. No alien-supressing Men In Black the world over would be able to stop this from becoming common knowledge - especially, as stated, it is online at a public webpage.

So, there's 2 big holes into this claim that there is life on Mars. Ignorance would be to brush these over and claim it is life.

And by the way, I would like an apology for saying that I wouldn't belief in alien life until it came up and knocked my door down. Just because I'm a skeptic doesn't mean that I don't believe. I search for the truth StellarX - and nothing short of it. I am not an expert on knowledge, I'm an expert on questions. And I have two questions here that have not been resolved.

In fact, I do believe alien life exists. I see the Drake equation as a thing of wonder. I've actually even myself have had an abduction experience. I believe UFOs do visit our planet, and I do believe that our government acknowledges their existance within their own closed circles, but don't know what to do about it.

But just because I believe it doesn't mean I'm willing to throw the truth to the wind and believe anything I'm handed on those subjects. I know that just because there's a good probability of other life, according to the Drake Equation, doesn't mean there is life. I know that my abduction experience can be explained in other ways (a very vivid dream, perhaps - and the marks on my body simply coming from some childhood experiences I simply can't remember).

If I were to place my bets, though, on finding alien life - I would place it on Europa. I'd be thrilled to see a submersable probe visit the moon, melt through the ice, and then show us what's down there. Maybe there's nothing - just a bunch of water. But maybe there is life there.

So no, I don't question this because I'm a disbeliever - I question it because I'm searching for the truth.

Well, to the "what is this!?!" picture with the circled area... I HONESTLY don't see anything. What is it that's trying to be pointed out? Perhaps a description of it would make it clearer to me, because as far as I can see right now it's a piece of ground like almost all the ground around it.

Next, no, I do not agree that life requires water. Life on earth has the tendency of requiring water - but that's because we pass water through our system so often. We use it as a cooling device essentially. On Mars, I doubt they need cooling. Not only that, but remember MIR? Remember how some fungus started growing on the OUTSIDE of the station? It fed straight off of the solar panels and the chemicals therein. It didn't even need an atmosphere. This wasn't extraterrestial fungus, it was earth-born fungus that, since no other fungus could survive in space, thrived in a competition free environment.

Next, liquid water doesn't require a certain pressure gradient - it's just that lower pressure makes it easier to bring to a boil.

Now, a valley, if anything, would also be the coldest areas on Mars. First, sun-light reaches it less often (ie shadows). Secondly, warm air rises, and cold air falls. A valley floor will actually be cooler than the air above it.

Also, if life existed there, why would it be green? If you mention photosynthesis, I will once again state that it's in a very low-light area on a very low-light planet. To conserve energy, there would be LESS chlorofil-like cells in an earth-type plant's body, resulting in something substantially less green.

It's just this seems rather counter-intuitive. Greener structures would appear in areas where light reaches the section often, and would appear less in areas of shadow. However, these images seem to show the opposite - of greener areas being in shadow, and lighter areas being pale green.

And finally, let us not forget, why should it be green at all? If they were feeding off another chemical process, it would much more be likely that the colours would something other than green.