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.

 

Mars, An Alpine Vacation

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
well the way its shooting out reminds me of water from a fireman's hose, rocketing out towards a building during a fire. yet, the one on the right seems almost frozen up to the half way point, then it seems like liquid spurting out at the end. the left hand one, almost looks thicker than water, and more like a sludge of a slightly different and darker shade (that could just be that it was more in shadow, i dunno).

Do they still look like water on the following image?



PS: give me some time to post the pictures, I cannot be as fast as you type.




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
mikesingh,

oh, yeah. you think the eggs pic is airbrushed? lemme get a closer look at it in graphics program...

hrm, well i see some odd shapes that are kinda blended in to the background on the lower portions of the lumps i call eggs. but i'mnot sure what they are because it requires zooming in so close, the possilbility of correctly determining what is is, is nearly nil, especially if its been tampered with.

what'dya think about the fact the pedestal has been edited out of the malin pic but not out of the arthur c. clarke pic, of the original glass tubes photo? that's a curious thing, doncha think?



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
ArMap,

Hi. Well here's a bigger section of the "eggs" pic, which shows the water/gas/dust, whatever it is, spurting in the lower left corner. Supposedly, if this was a liquid, it wouldshow up as accumulating on the landscape below. Well, if you look at the area i've outlined in pink in this image, you'll notice it is alot darker and better defined than the surroundnig landscape which may very well be lighter and less defined because it is covered in a transparent liquid of some kind.




if the water/liquid were shallow and full sunlight was on the area, this might explain the effect, as sunlight on shallow water tends to make the object in the water lighter than the objects sticking out of the water, as the water diffuses the light and bends it around, which would have the effect of lightening but only if the liquid is in a shallow layer. that doesn't make sense though, because these things would be huge in scale so shallow would still be quite deep. i'm not sure how light works in thin or non-existent atmosphere, however. ? but notice however the lower lying objects in that area are all glossy and waxy looking, not as crisp and sharp, as if a layer of something were effecting the way the light is strikign their surfaces by comparison to the thing outlined in pink?



[edit on 2-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
This is the closest I could find here on Earth to something that looks like those glass tunnels.

You can see why I think they are sand dunes.



Maybe if you copy the image to an image editing program to make it grey-scale to look more like those Mars pictures.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
In don't see any spurting liquid or gas. All I see is typical erosion formations just like you see in satelite photos of dry places on Earth. There are quite similar formations in the US Death Valley or the Mojave. Sure, these geological formations are unique, but no such that they defy conventional explanations.

I just think it's cool that we get to see such detailed photos of another planet. More are on the way and in better detail. They are doing some great scientific work and the more they look the better we understand our own world.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Terapin

are you looking at the "Eggsactly" pic? Maybe you're looking at the wrong thing. It's pretty obvious something is rocketing, squirting, spurting out of those tubes. Here, look again:




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I think that the "liquid squirting" is something like what can be seen in the next image.



There is nothing squirting, its only a different coloured dust that was left on those areas.

This is near Amboy, in the US.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
That would work if the bottom stuff where the "dust" drains was the same color, like in the earth example. i also have excellent depth perception and the "dust" as you've decided to call it now, is emitting from the ends of those tubes which are a different color than the dust. wuoldn't the tubes, which you're assuming now are not tubes but just erosion rivulets, be the same color from the top to the bottom as the dust, like in the earth example?

[edit on 2-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
UNDO Perhaps it might be helpful if you took some time to study EARTH based photos so that you could make educated comparisons. What may seem to the uneducated eye to be tubes, liquid, or even eggs, can be logicaly explained as natural geological formations that are not at all rare. Special, yes, but not unimaginable. Scientists spend a great many years studying a subject before making postulations. Sure, when you look up at the night sky it looks like the moon has a face. We all know that it is formed by dark regions and impact craters. There are many Earth based satelite photos that show the same type of formations you claim to be liquid or gas spurting out of a tube. Quite often erosion reveals different mineral types of different colors. it is nothing all that uncommon.

This is much like the natives of South America upon seeing a man on a horse for the first time thought it was one animal, not two. They simply didnt have anything to compair it to. Geology is a very interesting subject and there are tons of Earth photos I am certain you would enjoy looking at.

I applaud your interest and urge you to keep studying more photos of both Earth and the other planets.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Terapin]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Go back to your beer, Terapin. I'm not interested in your insults. If you can't deal with this subject truthfully, I'm not remotely interested in what you have to say. You haven't proven a thing other than how to character assassinate people. Worse than you have tried it buddy.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Umm I never attacked your character at all > I simply suggested that you make some comparisons to geological formations that we have here on Earth. Playing the " it looks like" game makes no sence if you dont know how to interpret photos based on known geological facts. You asked for scientific information on your photos and when presented with them you asked about color. I pointed out that erosion often reveals different minerals of different colors and that you can find perfect examples by looking at Earth based photos. If you refuse to study the subject at all then you are just playing games.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
That would work if the bottom stuff where the "dust" drains was the same color, like in the earth example.
OK, I will try to find something like that on Earth.


i also have excellent depth perception and the "dust" as you've decided to call it now, is emitting from the ends of those tubes which are a different color than the dust.
Depth perception means nothing when looking at a 2D image where there is no depth, only things that may hint that there is a difference in height.

And I didn't decided to call that "dust" now, I always saw that as dust or dirt, I don't know exactly what I should call it, sometimes I have some difficulty in finding the right words in English to translate what I am thinking in Portuguese.


wuoldn't the tubes, which you're assuming now are not tubes but just erosion rivulets, be the same color from the top to the bottom as the dust, like in the earth example?
I never thought they were tubes, you were the one that call them tubes, I always saw them as erosion marks.

The biggest difference between my (poor) example on Earth and that photo from Mars is that those things you call tubes are narrower than those on Earth. If those on Earth were narrower then they would look more like those on Mars and would not be the same colour as the dust/dirt on them.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Tube close-up.

Among other things, I'm a graphical artist. My eye is trained to see depth and variation in color. The right tube is not only emitting the "dust" which looks as likely to be liquid as not, it's also raised above the landscape and emitting the "dust".





posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Terapin,

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. Stop now while you're ahead. I don't like having to quote people in the same thread, just to prove how obnoxious they are behaving, so save us both the trouble and just drop the issue.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Given that this is a 2D image taken from Space What evidence do you have to show that the "tube" is elevated above the surface of the planet?



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Anybody willing to research this further, I encourage you to look for more pedestals in association with the tubes. What you are looking for, when laying horizontally, is something that appears like a nail or screw laying on the ground. Head on, it appears like a hexagonal shape. If standing on end, they are going to be harder to spot, as it could be assumed they are simply vertical growths without the benefit of seeing the larger "head" feature and the elongated and thinner "stem" feature of the nail shape. If more are found, we can assume some new geological, biological or artificial feature is inherent in their design and give them a fitting name of some sort.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Terapin,

The same evidence as this 2-D photo that tells my eye that the palm tree is behind my son's body.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Arthur C. Clarke liked those Trees on Mars.

Indeed he was pretty excited about it in 2001 but here’s what he said in a more recent interview in 2004.

www.avclub.com...


O: So you believe fairly strongly that there's intelligent, active life out there somewhere?

Well, of course, there isn't any evidence. But it seems incredible to suggest that in this enormous universe, we are the only intelligent life form. I'm very fond of the quote--I don't know who said it first--"The best proof that there's intelligent life in the universe is that it hasn't come here." Now, on Mars, we may have detected life, but not intelligent life. Of course, there's lots of rumors that the Pentagon already has it and is sitting on it, but I don't think that's very likely.

Perhaps the MIB got to him and made him change his tune?


(you may find the rest of the interview interesting)


it's obviously something a science minded guy wuold be interested in, but nothing, nada. just one fellow...and you of course.

Hey I’m still trying to dig my way through all the mind control stuff I’ve been asked to look at in another thread. Here’s one theory about the trees which might also explain the “water jet” you see in one of those pictures.

Martian Mystery Solved?
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...

Gas jets spawn dark 'spiders' and spots on Mars icecap
themis.asu.edu...



Defrosting Polar Dunes--"They Look Like Bushes!"
www.msss.com...



Now as far a being interested goes, you bet I am. Mars is a strange alien world full of mysteries we’ve yet to fully understand and we’re discovering even more every day as we speak. I check the HiROC page daily for the latest images coming in.

HiRISE Operations Center
hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu...

Like this one.

Channels on Dunes in Russell Crater


Check these out, mind blowing stuff…

hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu...

Personally I’d rather be one of the first to see and analyze them rather than wait for a photoshopped version to show up on some UFO site.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The photo of your son comes with several pre known conditions and have numerous visual clues. You know what your son looks like. You know what a Palm tree looks like. You can very clearly see the shadow on the ground of the plam tree and that the shadow also crosses over your son. You have a solid familiarity with what you are looking at. In the Mars photo, it is something you have never seen before. You do not see shadowing that would indicate elevation. You do not have specific knowledge of geoligy and efluvial flows. You do not have the same personal experience with the subject mater as you do with the photo of your son.

When you were presented with similar Earth based photos you didn't seem to take them into much consideration. There are some great sat images of Death Valley, the Mojave, the Namib and other areas that are well worth looking at.

I have done professional work with simulating Martian aeolian landscapes and well understand the type of formations that could occurr. I built much of the Mars Quest exhibit for the Space Science Institute and have a solid professional background in graphics.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Terapin]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
The Savior of the Real

Erm, aren't you that same guy that was really getting obnoxious on the moon thread? Amazingly, you are here now visiting little ole' me. How interesting, or confusing, as the case may be. I'm trying to decide.

Thanks for the links and great images.

*walks off scratching head in puzzlement*



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join