It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Life on mars new real evidence to prove or disprove structures on mars

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Dam nice , thats something Nasa wont admit and show .

I dont know why you would think the ESA would fake it ?. that doesnt make sense.

2nd) its on another planet with a Diff atmosphere , So why wouldnt the Color of the ICE be different .... your thinking too linear .

you have to keep in mind - diff atmosphere ,Angle, distance to the Sun , lighting.
what exactly is the Ice made of . ect ect .




posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I remember when the news disclosed the information of the "Faces of Mars" articles in a tremendous amounts of different magazines and media situations. I was quite excited at first,you could actually make out the face and the pyramids and "Yes" even the so called "Mine Roads", but under closer inspection, I felt I left myself to believe to soon. I am some what of an artist and know how shading and light effects can do to any inanimate object. I have always hoped that the Government would explore this issue more intensely,so now "Here I am again!" Anticipating to have found a way to prove the "Existance" or "Nonexistance" for the sake of optimists and the nonbelievers a like.
Very interesting topic for this thread and I will be checking up on it regularly?
THNX



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923
I remember when the news disclosed the information of the "Faces of Mars" articles in a tremendous amounts of different magazines and media situations. I was quite excited at first,you could actually make out the face and the pyramids and "Yes" even the so called "Mine Roads", but under closer inspection, I felt I left myself to believe to soon. I am some what of an artist and know how shading and light effects can do to any inanimate object. I have always hoped that the Government would explore this issue more intensely,so now "Here I am again!" Anticipating to have found a way to prove the "Existance" or "Nonexistance" for the sake of optimists and the nonbelievers a like.
Very interesting topic for this thread and I will be checking up on it regularly?
THNX


thanks for the vote mate



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Briggs
Dam nice , thats something Nasa wont admit and show .

I dont know why you would think the ESA would fake it ?. that doesnt make sense.

2nd) its on another planet with a Diff atmosphere , So why wouldnt the Color of the ICE be different .... your thinking too linear .

you have to keep in mind - diff atmosphere ,Angle, distance to the Sun , lighting.
what exactly is the Ice made of . ect ect .


i dont know why i think its fake it just looks that way to me instinct i have no evidence how ever thats a good point why would they fake it and why would nasa not publish simular
and ice = water = co2 = oxygen and carbon dioxide *i think*

now doesnt that require plants and life to creat it ?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
well if i remember right , almost any gas can be frozen into ice form .

So the ice in the pic , may not be - ice = water = co2 = oxygen and carbon dioxide.

i dont think you need life to have water / ice / ect

2 moons in solar system - Ganymede and Europa has water / ice


en.wikipedia.org...

www.nineplanets.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(moon)



[edit on 17-2-2006 by Briggs]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Briggs
well if i remember right , almost any gas can be frozen into ice form .

So the ice in the pic , may not be - ice = water = co2 = oxygen and carbon dioxide.

i dont think you need life to have water / ice / ect

2 moons in solar system - Ganymede and Europa has water / ice


en.wikipedia.org...

www.nineplanets.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(moon)



[edit on 17-2-2006 by Briggs]


ive never really trusted wikipedia they dont always get it right but all this
ice if i am right about the oxygen is very intresting also it said theres oxygen on that first link



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is an intresting thread all about how these images wont be color i would say move this to there but its a seprate issue really

also i am saveing for 5000 point really above top secret access so keep posting guys i am here for any comments questions etc

also want to get in to the chat area

does any one have any reviews of what these areas are like are they good ? or empty ?

[edit on 17-2-2006 by scatterp]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Briggs
Dam nice , thats something Nasa wont admit and show .

I dont know why you would think the ESA would fake it ?. that doesnt make sense.

2nd) its on another planet with a Diff atmosphere , So why wouldnt the Color of the ICE be different .... your thinking too linear .

you have to keep in mind - diff atmosphere ,Angle, distance to the Sun , lighting.
what exactly is the Ice made of . ect ect .


I said almost looks fake, I realize there are alot of things that can make the ice look bluer then normal, one of them being the contrast between the red Martian land scape.

Just thought it looked cool and according to ESA it is water ice, similar to what you would see in the Arctics.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
just reminder one of the issues of this thread is we need a knowledgble person to submit the request maybe we should get it in early



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Briggs
well if you actually read what it says .

Quote ----- User-friendly web tools will be available to both the science community and the public to view/analyze HiRISE images and to submit observation requests. Processed images will be released soon after acquisition to allow everyone to share in the scientific discovery process.
------------------------------

it doesnt say anything about how long you may have to wait because of the back log of request -- 1 day ? , 1 week ?, 1 year ?.
Also it doesnt say , that just because you specificly ask for a location picture , Doesnt mean that the picture is sent to you - - it would prob be posted along with tons of other pics in a gallery - so unless you know what your looking for / at , your pic could be 1 of 1000000.

personally i think its PR at best .

2nd ) there is no way they will show the public anything that definitely
shows life on mars.

Mostly you will see pics that we have always seen - just in high res.
and more Color .

chances are Slim to None that you will ever see a Pic of the mars face again .. Atleast not by Nasa .. or Atleast not a real Pic of it .

I think you have your Hopes up about nothing .

It would be nice if there wer some other agency in world besides Nasa .
That could do the things they do , but give us a alternative look at space
besides looking at space through Nasa eyes.

Quote ---

Public suggestions will be filtered to minimize duplication and frivolous input. NASA Quest and other partners will host web events and workshops to educate the public to encourage high quality suggestions.
--------------------------------------------------------
So they decide what is frivolous . nice . no mars face pics i guess .



[edit on 16-2-2006 by Briggs]


yeah thats why i think we need to get a request soon



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by scatterp
ok i was doing some research and read a lot of old threads on mars i desided to start a new thread becase i wanted to talk about a new thing happening with mars we have a MRO heading towards the planet and its able to take very clear photos and send them back at 6mb per second thats almost video and it arives in march 2006 not only that i found this website hirise.lpl.arizona.edu... which sugests that we will beable to request specific pictures of specific areas i would like those with good scientific knowledge to request pictures of the areas that are claimed to contain intelegent life i.e the face the city etc etc and keep this thread updated
with details the MRO is also suppose to be able to use radar to look through rock so we will soon know if something that looks like a building is a solid object or a building type object also the resoloution is suppose to be good enough to see a table so this could get quite intresting any thoughts ?


So what are we trying to get at here? Alien presence on Mars?? You've gotta be kidding. Anything even giving the remotest indication of alien 'presence' on Mars is going to be brushed out or cut. You'll never get to know the truth.
BTW, one way to do it is to go to Mars yourself and explore. And don't forget to take some sandwiches along!



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Even though I'd love to believe there once existed a culture on Mars that was intelligent enough to build structures, I personally see no definitive evidence.
Though the pictures of the "face" and the "city", etc are interesting and I LIKE to believe what my mind tells me.....
Your mind can MAKE you see what you want, as per my discussion here in one of the other threads.
Though I think I see a face there, I posted it to see what others thought, and I'm open to suggestions and such. What I personally think, and what others with more experience with photos and lighting/shading can deduce much better what is going on.
Be careful not to confuse what you THINK with what you KNOW


*shrug*....just my $0.02.


P.S. My personal belief....I honestly think there's something to the "face" and "city" thing and that there may have been intelligent life on Mars at one time...but I'm not going to state it as fact or get too terribly excited until there's better proof

-Regards
Ahnikah



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
i think theres been life on mars not that there nessasarily is now maybe all that anchient indian tech was used and we was there once before



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
discovery science uk 2am today is showing a life on mars show may be intresting



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I was about to post the same exact thing.
We could make out those formations to be whatever we dreamed them to be.


Originally posted by Karper

Originally posted by scatterp
sure www.truinsight.com...


It would've been nice if they had actually used some decent photo's to support their claims. The images are so pixelated you can see almost anything you want if you look long enough. Sorry but their self claimed absolute proof has more holes then a swiss cheese.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
yeah the mars show on tv turned out to be nothing special but theres not much time untill the pictures are available the time is comeing



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I won't say that the face was built by someone, just as much as I won't say that it's a geological formation. I don't know either way, and neither does anyone else unless you've been there and looked at it.

The only thing I do believe is that it's possibly artificial. It resembles a face to me, so why can't it be? And if you rotate the image 180 degrees, it then looks like a portrait of an alien's head (or what we're led to believe that aliens look like). So maybe we've always been looking at it upside down, or maybe it was designed that way on purpose. One of those artistic creations that look like two different things depending on what you're focusing on. My mind is open. And it's also open to it being an interesting looking mountain as well.



Two things, however, that point my thinking toward something really being there. 1) NASA's or JPL's obvious manipulation of the 1st hi-res photo they released. You had to do a little work to make it look the way it did.

And 2) To the occupational debunkers, do the Egyptian pyraminds and the Great Sphinx look today like they did after they were built? The Sphink has gone through quite a bit of cosmetic upkeep, and it still looks like it's falling apart. And it's only been around for 5-thousand years at most.

The Face-like object on Mars has assumingly gone untouched for 10's of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer than that. Give the Egyptian structures that much alone time, and alien debunkers will be saying with great conviction that the rubble of stone is certainly a geological formation, even though it sort of looks like a few pyramids and a cat. Balderdash, foolish alien!

In short, the face on Mars (if that's what it really is), looks exactly how I would expect it to look after the elements had all this time to work on it: a battered and highly eroded looking thing that sort of looks like a face. Makes sense to me.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

heres the first image from the mro i figure if theres life it could be everywhere so i set about examineing the picture and the bottom right got quite intresting take a look at the ( shaped trench is that natural ? also just to the left of that theres what looks like perhaps a pyramid with a large spider crawling out of it thats also in a state of cosmetic decay it may just be me looking to hard what do you guys think ?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Most people who laugh at the artificiality claims of the Face on Mars typically have several traits in common. First and foremost, they have not read anything about the recent findings like the high reflectivity of the object and that the reflection shows rectilinear geometry (almost like shiny blocks stacked on top of one another.) The Face on Mars reflects light ~6x as much light as its surroundings! This means there is a common element composing this entire structure yet is nowhere to be found elsewhere on the terrain surface of miles and miles away from the object. I, as well as many others I’m sure, would love to hear the geological theory that explains how the forces of nature alone could group the common reflective element into a common place, how it grouped the reflective objects into the shape of a face, how it created the rectilinear geometry of the object. I would also like them to calculate the odds of their theory having any basis in reality with just those factors. Then I want to see the odds of that happening in a way that ½ the face looks like primitive man while the other ½ looks like a feline/cat face and how likely it would be for it to corroborate the story of Cherubims in the Bible. Please do share your knowledge of geology and statistics with us. Also, please share with us if you would place money on those same odds in a horse race.

Second, they formed their opinion when NASA released their highly edited version of the face called the “cat box.” The “cat box” image went through high-pass and low-pass filters to remove all 3D detail. I challenge those people to take an overhead picture of the Sphinx and run it through high-pass and low-pass filters and see how much detail is left. Even the Sphinx would look like a geological feature after being edited so much. Even thinking the cat box applies to reality shows that you are not at all concerned with the truth but, rather, what people can get the government to admit so they may agree with the government. Good luck with that plan guys.

Third, they tend to use the MOLA data to say it is nothing but a rounded hill while being completely ignorant of the fact MOLA data is unreliable. The vertical resolution of 3 ft. is good but do, please, have a look at the horizontal resolution of 1,000 ft. that makes it absolutely worthless. The first black & white images were of greater quality than the MOLA data. They only got data on ~10% of the surface if not less. The MOLA maps are created by averaging the 10% of collected data. Averaging is just another way of saying “make sloped between data points.” MOLA was intended to check the depth along crater walls so they know exactly where the water level would’ve been. MOLA was never intended to be used for measuring actual objects! Anyone who is familiar with this concept knows that using MOLA data in discussions of the face—and any other very large structure—is intellectually dishonest. Let’s face it (pun intended,) NASA used the MOLA data of the face in an intellectually dishonest way because are ascertained daily they know the strengths and weaknesses of their own equipment. Before moving on to the fourth trait these people have in common, I must ask our geology and statistics friends here to add in the odds of a natural formation—among which there are millions in the Solar System—being habitually avoided and handled in an intellectually dishonest way (MOLA, cat box, etc.) by NASA when there is supposedly “no reason” for it.

Fourth, they think that because it is not a perfect face now that it could never have been. I would also hazard a guess as to say most of these people do not realize the condition of the Sphinx when it was found—or should I say “dug out”? The Sphinx has had major work done to it since it was found. If the Face on Mars truly is artificial it has likely been there for much, much longer than the Sphinx on Earth and would likely be in a condition much worse than the Sphinx when it was first found—and that appears to be true. The people who expect to see a perfect face have no reasoning behind the argument insofar as making a slight gesture of the hand to dismiss the evidence.

Do I believe the Face on Mars is artificial? No. I do not like to “believe” anything. I want to know. Even the most die-hard of skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) must admit that if the face was artificial it would be the greatest religious and scientific discovery in the history of mankind. Not only would such a discovery prove that intelligent life was on Mars at one time but also add quite a bit of support for the idea that we may share a common ancestry with them. That would not be the first bit of evidence to support the hypothesis of common ancestry. Many of the genes that separate us from chimpanzees are completely unique to humans meaning they are found in no other vertebrate or invertebrate on Earth! This complete contradiction with evolutionary theory is the reason why materialist scientists think bacteria somehow altered our DNA and is responsible for nearly 2/3 of the difference between chimpanzees and humans yet the odds of this happening—excluding everything else—are 1 in ~28,700. Nonetheless, that is a topic for another day. My point here is that a common ancestry with the people that were on Mars should not be too surprising. And, in light of the fact that the Face on Mars could be the biggest scientific and religious discovery in the history of mankind and that this could be proved/disproved cheaply and quickly, one must ask: why is the Face on Mars habitually avoided? Indeed, it is hard to fathom an answer that explains it.

To be completely honest, I get disgusted when I hear people dismiss the possibility of it being artificial. It is one thing to have your own opinion but it is quite another thing to have formed a conclusion where no conclusion could be made. That is the fifth trait these people have in common. Not only are they ignorant of whether it is artificial or not but they are arrogant enough to scoff at others for not believing what they do. Let nothing stop you from voicing your opinion but please do stop yourself from presupposing conclusions and scoffing at others. It is truly unnecessary.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu

[Yeah, it's too bad Europe doesn't have a space agency... hey, wait a minute!

www.esa.int...


Great site. Thanks for the link! Great pics there.



With all the massive craters on mars if in fact there was life and some cataclysmic event happened in its past we would probably never know it unless we actually explored the whole place. Everything would have been pulverized. I wouldn't expect anything really soon.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join