Green Martian valley?

Yarium

i apologize for reaching outside your realm.

liquid water requires a DEFINITE pressure/temperature gradium, and yes yarium, valleys are WARMER, and are under higher pressure.

think Mt. Everest/Death Valley.

that is all for now.

Btw, Arthur C. Clark isn't just some writer. I think it's pretty safe to call him a scientist and he has degrees in both physics and math. He has a reputation of being smart, intuitive and forward thinking, for example, he published a paper on Geostationary Satellites back in 1945, long before it's realization.

Does this make him qualified to speculate about Mars? Some would think so.

I would also think that someone who professes to believe that life might be possible under Europa's frozen crust should not be so quick to discount life nearly a billion miles closer to our sun.

Mars was quite hospitable to life long ago.

Perhaps, it may still harbor niches...perhaps much more.

There is a reason it is called a terrestial planet, after all.

leave your 5th grade paradigms behind, there is so much to explore...

and discuss.

Yarium:

BTW, when you say you don't see ANYTHING, does that mean you see a BLANK GREY SLATE?

not believing you.

not believing you at all...should we post in braille?

FINALLY TO END THIS

Well, I don't know why I didn't think of it before... but I finally thought of going to the site that the original picture is from and see if there was an explanation there.

First - TONS of the images have green in them. And so when I went to the FAQ I found this:

What are the green/blue patches we see in some of the images?

The colour of the greenish patches in Gusev crater in the first image released of this site is not correct. Unfortunately, an early version of Gusev image was released before the colour had been adjusted finally to be closer to true colour as the human eye would see it in a non-dusty atmosphere of Mars.

The early version of this image was replaced by a newly computed version with proper colours where the patches are grey to black with a blue tint. This is close to what a human eye would see under normal atmospheric conditions. Currently it is not easy to get true colours of the Martian landscape because Mars is very dusty and the scenes were taken with high sun angles. The scattering of light caused in these atmospheric and lighting conditions, by the dust in the atmosphere acting as tiny red filters, means that you see the surface with a diffuse reddish glow with somewhat fuzzy appearance.

Here's the site,
www.esa.int...

And here's the FAQ,
www.esa.int...

Also:

Are the colour photographs processed?

Yes, the images have been processed but that is quite normal. We are not taking colour photographs, we have to combine the different colour channels which requires processing time. Each of the four colour channels operate with a filter of different wavelength (red, green, blue and infrared) and produce data sets which have to be combined and calculated on to a digital elevation model.

The colour channels are absolutely real, but they do not reflect the true colour as we would see it with our eyes. These views can be obtained by processing the data, which does not mean ‘faking’ the colours, but fitting them to standard spectral curves which we know. We adjust the obtained colour image data to a standard spectral curve derived from Earth-based observations in terms of wavelength and intensity.

If we have dust, haze or other atmospheric conditions, various wavelengths get partially filtered. Obviously, images get more blurry and some colours become more dominant. Sun-exposed slopes reflect or absorb light in a different way to dark slopes or dark material (such as dark spots of possible sediments seen in some images).

The main limitation, of course, is that from orbit we do not have any colour adjustment possibilities as for example, the NASA rovers. They have colour references mounted on their rovers and even they have problems matching their colours.

So yeah, it's a problem with the images and the processing. The images aren't true images - but rather are the result of combining all the different filtered colours which has caused "some colours to show up more predominantly than others". So that's why green is so predominant here.

I hope that finally solves this mystery. Of course, if you guys really want to carry this on into the realm of absolute conspiracy, you'd have to start claiming that they're purposefully disguising this information. If you do start that, I won't take part in this discussion anymore. Suffice it to say, why would they post the image and then say "oh but it's easily explainable" when they could just as easily mess with the photos so the question never comes up in the first place.

So, the final verdict?

These pictures don't prove life on Mars.

I'm not saying there isn't, nor am I saying it's impossible, I'm just saying these pictures don't prove it.

that is the gusev crater, and that "explanation" came LONG AFTER a public outcry about the image release.

WE happen to be talking about the LOUROS VALLES.

an image that ESA has NEVER commented on, nor anyone else.

Why do you insist on talking about the COLORS? Obfuscation?

You are a debunker of poor merit, and I will cease my discussion with you.

here's a BW image of another area of Mars.

guess this is just an image of a crater and some sand dunes, right?

My My My!

"I can't really argue against your facts, so I'll just say 'the two aren't the same pictures - so the exact same problem couldn't possibily exist in both of them' and then call you a poor debunker and say that I cease my discussion - if that's what you'd like to call it - with you."

So why couldn't the same error occur twice? If it's in the FAQ as "some images" - then why not?

How low can one sink?

And of course this would appear in the FAQ - because lots of people probably questioned it, and they went "Oh, I guess we better say something.". Isn't that what FAQ means? Frequently Asked Questions? But I wouldn't place it as a massive public outcry.

Also, I STILL don't know what was in that circled imagine. I do want to know what you see in them! How can I possibly argue against if I don't know what the original problem is?

Finally, that last picture, I would like to see where it's from. Right clicking for properties only told me it's from "Picture Trail" - a source I don't recognize. Some more information would be useful.

As for what it may be a picture of - it looks like two types of terrain features. One is raised and "bumpy"/rough, and the other is lowered and smooth. I also don't know what the scale on the images is, nor do I know where this image was taken from. So I don't know what it's an image of. However, without knowing those two important facts, I don't think it's possible for anyone to say definitively what it is.

This is an image that has been enlarged and colorized, so it's only my 'interpretation' of an object caught by the Mars Global Surveyor MOC. Please don't yell photoshop everyone, because yes it's been photoshopped to hi-light what I think I see there. You can find the original filmstrip in the MGS archive @ ida.wr.usgs.gov... to compare for yourselves.



I believe this is some kind of mining or tunneling machine left behind by past inhabitants of Mars. Or maybe the planet is being mined by someone else right now? It would be nice if ESA shoots the same area and we can see if it's still there now.l



This has really got me beat. There's obvious symetry, it looks like a circular area has been cleared and leveled, and I see 4 objects arranged in an arc opposite a larger object. It doesn't look natural to me, but it also seems a little crude to be a remnant of an advanced civilization. It reminds me more of megalithic circles here on earth.

yarium

I apologize for being curt last night. But I was quickly reminded by an experience I had on BA about 18 months ago when I shared the same crops. Thread-derailers were hell-bent on dismissing any discussion w/ the pat FAQ of an entirely different image and situation.

I shall amend my behavior accordingly.

FYI, the image of the "lakes" is a zoomed crop of a MOC image. I'll dig around for the source image.

btw, picturetrail is my account where I have uploaded some images for sharing purposes.

There are many many interesting features in this valley, and it is those that
I would like to discuss, rather than go down the dead-end "color" road.

Frankly, I don't see why Mars CAN"T have GREEN areas. But that's just me.

What's the big deal anyway?

Thank you for the apology, it is well recieved . I can understand that there are many people out there who will deny things to the point of going overboard on them - and I can definitely see how some bad experiences could really hurt ones perspective on such matters. That's why I want to re-iterize that I'm not a debunker, but a truth-seeker. That's the whole point of the Order of Truth - not to prove, nor disprove, but to thoroughly research and investigate.

And as for the "miner" vehicle thing, I like the photoshopped piece to help me see it, but I still don't see it in the circled piece! Which is just more un-nerving for me, since it now is something that I should be able to see, but I just can't see. That means one of two things:

a) I'm blind
b) You have a very vivid imagination

I'm not ruling either out, because I have been very blind before ("Where are my glasses?" "On your face." -checks face- "Oh yeah...")

Originally posted by Yarium
And as for the "miner" vehicle thing, I like the photoshopped piece to help me see it, but I still don't see it in the circled piece!

My apologies Yarium. I confused the issue by posting two photo's that were unrelated. The first photo is something I came across almost a year ago, in a totally different area of Mars.

The second photo is a B&W version of the one starting this thread. In the area I marked, you don't see a large circular depression in the ground with objects perfectly aligned around the edge?



They look like spheres to me, and the lower valley is dotted with similar objects that seem to be reflective. There's also a tall spire or tower that jdjaguar pointed out, but that seems to be cropped out of this version of the photo.

If nobody told me this was a photo of Mars, I'd think it was a small village in a pleasant valley on earth.

yes, i would say the reflective objects are extremely interesting.

we have similar interpretations of this scene. Did you not see these two structures that I had cropped and posted earlier in the thread?




[edit on 9-2-2006 by jdjaguar] for missing verb

[edit on 9-2-2006 by jdjaguar]

Thanks jdjaguar. I did see those in your earlier post, but I didn't realize they were from the same section of the photo.

Do you have enlargements? I can't seem to enlarge the ESA photo's without getting grainy blurred images - they don't seem to release any true high resolution pics.

Ah, I see. I did see a kind of circle thing... but I didn't think anything of it at all. The mind searches for patterns - it's the way we live our lives. For example, ever stare into a carpet, or a wall, and start seeing faces in it? It's because your mind is searching for something it recognizes, and your unconscious mind is spilling out some information as well.

So when I see that image, with the run-off canals or however those depressions were formed, I see a naturally made circle with rocks inside it.

Since the rocks are on the outside, and not in the middle, it's easy to say that they're organized into a circle - but it's just as easy to say they're organized into a square.

I decided to research this a little bit more to see exactly what it's called (partly because I wanted to make sure I know what I'm talking about, and partly because I think optical illusions are cool), and I found these similar articles:

Ehrenstein illusion (2):
en.wikipedia.org...

Speaking of which, what am I supposed to be seeing in the newly circled areas? I see dark spots, and that's really it.

Also, can an unmodified image of the "mining vehicle" be posted? It was very interesting when highlighted with grey - and definitely made it stand out as something different. Is it possibile to see from the normal image? How large would it be according to the normal image? That image really did interest me and I'd like to explore it further.

What I like is the way ESA and NASA keep putting out all these photos which clearly show - without any doubt whatsoever - that there is life on Mars and that either now, or in the past, there has been intelligent life too.

Unless, of course, amateurs are somehow seeing things which just aren't there....

But, nah, that's not possible. It must be that the scientists and image experts at ESA and NASA just can't see exactly the one thing they're looking for, even when it stares them in the face! yeah, that must be it. They're all blind!

[sarcasm mode off]


Just because scientists tell you that what you think you see in a opicture is just a tick of the light or a fault in the image processing, doesn't necessaril;y mean that it isn't exactly as they say: a trick of the light or a fault in the image processing.

Believe it or not, some scientists actually tell the truth!


PS what do you think the aliens are/were mining on Mars? We know they have/had gorgonzola and cheddar mines on the Moon, but Mars? Perhaps it's a chocolate mine?

Essan

There has not been any comment to my knowledge from ESA regarding this image, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

NASA has imaged the Louros Valles area as well, but has not released any high-resolution MOC images of the valley itself.

There also appears to be some venting in the other image of the left side of this canyon that I posted above.

And please, save the "Statue of Liberty" cracks. I've heard them all.

I'll try and find that source image for the "lakes" today if I have time.

Originally posted by jdjaguar
Essan

There has not been any comment to my knowledge from ESA regarding this image

That's because there's nothing for them to comment on. The green colouration is explained in their FAQs.

You do not know why there has not been any comment.

Scientists do not comment if they do not have enough data to form a scientific opinion. Laymen do not have such restrictions.

And again, we are not discussing the coloration.

What exactly is your purpose on this thread?

You have made your derisionary comments, now run along.

jdjaguar, please read your U2U message(s).

Thank you.