It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Interesting photo of mars...

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:52 PM
one I edited

In this picture you can see a crater impact and below it a river worn away the edges of the crater snaking out to the larger stream. So apparently and very recently large amounts of free flowing water had done this. I drew a line showing it and numbered a few craters. My big question is where did all this massive water go?? Why is mars littered with craters and earth has none like this?

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:03 AM
Hi, and thanks for posting those pics.

The main difference between the topography on Mars and that of Earth is the fact that we have a more dymanic system of weather than Mars does. Mars is reasonably dry, and therefore the surface features don't wear down as much, since there's no water nearby to wear them down. While, on Earth, we're constantly in a state of change, with all of the water moving around the globe. All of this together is why there aren't as many visible craters on Earth as there are on Mars.


P.S. Wow, looking back at this, it sounds kind of childish and book-like. Ah well, I hope it suffices.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:34 PM
I agree with Borg.

Also, just a guess but perhaps Mars receives more impacts than Earth as it is closer to the asteroid belt?

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:39 PM
With a very thin atmosphere, chunks of "stuff" doesn't burn up before reaching the surface.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:57 PM
Your absolutely right that weather changes land all the time floods, rain, wind. Whatever changed the edge of that crater happend after the crater impact. It was either wearing it away over time or all at once like a flash flood, notheless it had to be liquid of some sort. If they could find out the age of that crater they would have an idea how long ago water was there.

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:35 AM
Trying to age a crater is quite difficult, considering the fact that the ejecta from the impact is all mixed in with that of the other sediments in the area, making an accurate estimate nearly impossible. The best guess would be to use the commonly thought theories to surmise how long it MIGHT have taken. Granted, they would all just be guesses, but they'd be educated ones.


P.S. Wow, I just realized, after a full day, that I spelled dynamic wrong in my last post. Oh well, glad everyone knew what I meant.

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:14 PM
Just seeing those dried river beds makes my imagination take off.
Imagine a planet much like Earth that was bombarded by meteors, forcing the population to starvation, and possibly knocking the planet out of its orbit closer to the Sun. The planets atmosphere dissapating and the surviving people burning.
But we would see remnances of citys and other buildings wouldnt we? What if the civilazations of Mars were not that advanced? If they were around the same point as the Egyptians then concrete buildings and massive citys would not have been there to begin with. Hence the reason we have pryamids and a great face on Mars?

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:32 PM
Look "north" of the riverbed... it looks almost like an ancient coastline. The outlines of several almost-eroded-away craters are still visible. It really appears that Mar's was very different not so long ago (geologically speaking).

Oh.. and I thought more recent photographs have shown that the "great face" is just a natural formation.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:31 AM
If there is probably no active volcanism anywhere near the crust of Mars so we see an accumulation of craters over a very long period of time that are covered on Earth by changing geology and of course vegitation.

There was a program on TV discussing meteors and such and they made a map of Earth without vegitation and the topographical changes made by the active crust and it freakin looked like the moon!

There are other pics that show dry riverbeds better than the above image even in that they portray all the flow capilaries branching out for miles and miles. They are identical to photos of places on Earth yet they say they aren't sure.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 03:48 PM
I like the pictures of Mars you posted. The close-ups really do show how lonely Mars truely is. However we never know what gets airbrushed and what doesn't, I wonder what could really be there?

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:48 PM
nice riverbed

clearly visible

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:04 PM

apparently and very recently large amounts of free flowing water had done this

What makes you think it must be recently? Those craters could be older than the "river" for all I know. Do you have a method for dating these things or are you just guessing?

Why is mars littered with craters and earth has none like this?

We are finding more and more impact sites all the time. It's difficult to tell because of the earth's lush vegitation. Others covered some of the additional reasons so i'll leave it at that.

nice pics.

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:16 AM

It looks recent to me because of the way it's flat and smooth even looks darker 'wet look' in middle of the larger branch like water is trapped below the surface or something. So how long would it take a river to wear a gorge like that, like the grand canyon size and depth?

new topics

top topics


log in