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.

 

Water On Mars? Forget Just-Released NASA Image. Here’s The Proof!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The Viking took these split screen images of a geyser on Mars only 4½-5 seconds apart. Notice the difference? It’s quite obvious that the geyser is in motion!! Also notice the shadows cast by the water geyser.


Split screen comparison of the geyser in each of the Viking 775A10 and 774A11 images.
Courtesy: Dr Leonard Martin and JP Skipper
Source NASA JPL
Viking Orbiter 1, Image 1D
Longitude 279.640, Lat 16.250


The shape-change takes place in just a few seconds clearly demonstrating that this is an active dynamic changing object and the shadow clearly demonstrates its great height extending in the air far above ground level.

Why is NASA so cagey about revealing the truth? Perhaps it’s part of a strategy called 'graduated disclosure'!


Here


[edit on 8-12-2006 by mikesingh]




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
ermmm.....how do you get a geyser from that?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
No, it isn't obvious that the geyser is in motion. It isn't obvious that the object in the pictures is a geyser at all. Nothing is "obvious" about either of those picture, except that they're two pictures of roughly the same part of Mars. That's it. NASA isn't being "cagey" about the truth, they're just being honest. Maybe there is abundant liquid water on Mars, but maybe there isn't.

There's no such thing as "obvious" in science. Science requires something called "evidence" in order to "prove" that something is true. Sure, mikesingh, the picture you posted could be of a geyser - or it could be a picture of a particularly bright patch of Martian dirt. Or a number of other things - a localized frost deposit (either H20 or CO2 frost), a photographic error, etc. There's no way to tell for sure. Frankly, NASA is being a heck of a lot more honest about Mars than you are, because NASA admits that they don't know something about Mars, whereas you're claiming that NASA knows about this Martian geyser and that NASA is covering it up - and the only evidence you can offer is to say that it is "obvious".



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Well, looking at the photo,whatever it is has a fluidity to it that is certain. I don't know if it's a geyser or not, but whatever it is it is certainly moving from the center, outward..It's not static like a "frost deposit" or "frozen water" would be at all..



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
To my untrained eye, it appears that the image on the right has more light and is also from a slightly different position as you can see more of the craters

Perhaps this is just a trick of the light? If anyone has tried any still life painting you already know that when concentrating on a static object even the slightest difference in visual positioning can give you a whole new perspective on the object.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
NASA isn't being "cagey" about the truth, they're just being honest.

NASA not being cagey about truth? They've been lying through their teeth since time immemorial!! Have they been 100% honest? If they are, then why is NASA being controlled by Intelligence agencies? What's there to hide?


There's no such thing as "obvious" in science. Science requires something called "evidence" in order to "prove" that something is true.


Heck Phloyd, the only real evidence you can get is to go there and have a bath in that 'geyser'!! And then someone'll say that it's nothing but an illusion - tricks played by the mind!


Frankly, NASA is being a heck of a lot more honest about Mars than you are, because NASA admits that they don't know something about Mars, whereas you're claiming that NASA knows about this Martian geyser and that NASA is covering it up - and the only evidence you can offer is to say that it is "obvious".


What's YOUR evidence that NASA is telling us the complete truth? Are you sure they are not pulling wool over our eyes or know nothing about the anomalies on Mars contrary to the mounds of photographic evidence available?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
water geyser...get real.

Nasa wouldn't hide water on Mars...they would love to find it, and loads of it, it would make the future missions their much easier.

I'd put money on it being a dust devil...not a geyser.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Don't you need volcanic activity for a geyser?



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
*sigh* mikesingh, show me some evidence that NASA is "being controlled" by ANY quote-unquote "intelligence agencies".

NASA is being perfectly honest in this situation - they didn't issue an outrageous claim saying that they'd found evidence of a geyser in a couple photos from the 1970's, and they aren't claiming "proof" of water on Mars now - because they don't know. What's more they made the photos in question public so that people like you and me could look and them.

As for my evidence that NASA is telling the truth, I have only this: I've never seen any convincing evidence that they're lying. And don't make some vague reference to a massive, world-wide conspiracy to keep the public misinformed about outer space, either. NASA competed with the Soviet Union's space program for 30+ years during the Cold War - if NASA was covering anything up then, the Soviets would have known, and they would have paraded the evidence out for the whole world to see. Domestically, if NASA really was lying to the public for decades, someone, somewhere, would have noticed. Heck, it would be a coup for any investigative reporter to reveal a conspiracy behind NASA - it would probably make the Pulitzer Prize a gimme!

NASA's data is also publicly available - which is how you got those pictures - and thus open for peer-review by qualified scientists. If one of them discovered that information had been falsified, or that photos and been doctored, AND they had solid proof, such a discovery could make that scientist's career.

No such discovery has been forthcoming, and no reporter has discovered a massive conspiracy on the part of NASA to hide the truth, in whole or in part.

Back to your "geyser", I'd accept as valid other evidence besides going to Mars to take a bath in that "geyser" - although I'd be more than happy to go, if you're offering to pay for the trip! Show me a series (5-7) of pictures with a clear pattern of motion (and, ideally, a higher resolution) than the ones you posted and I'll accept that you've found a geyser of some sort. Show me a spectrographic analysis of the plume from that "geyser" containing some evidence that the plume is, in fact, water, and I'll be happy to admit that you found a water geyser.

Heck, show me some evidence that this region on Mars is (as Umbrax notes) volcanically active and I'll admit that a geyser is, at least, a possibility.

I'll also echo Murcielago's post and agree that NASA would not hide evidence of water on Mars - not only would it make future missions there a lot easier, it would greatly improve our odds of finding life on Mars, which would in turn increase the likeyhood of those Mars missions getting funded any time soon.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
u know wen i firsty heard about his i thought that mikesingh from ats would be one of the first to post a thread about it lol anyway great find keep the martian news up



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
There are 3 holes surrounding the "geyser" and they can form a triangle if you move your eyes from each one.

Why is the 2nd photo's holes in different places?

They didn't switch angles because, the ridge on the right is in the exact same place as the first photo.

Whats with the holes?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
*sigh* mikesingh, show me some evidence that NASA is "being controlled" by ANY quote-unquote "intelligence agencies".

NASA is being perfectly honest. What's more they made the photos in question public so that people like you and me could look and them.

As for my evidence that NASA is telling the truth, I have only this: I've never seen any convincing evidence that they're lying.
NASA's data is also publicly available..

No such discovery has been forthcoming, and no reporter has discovered a massive conspiracy on the part of NASA to hide the truth, in whole or in part.


Well, There are always two sides of the coin. But can you provide answers to these questions?

>If NASA was formed as a 'civilian space agency', why were so many NASA programs funded by the US Defence Department?
>Why are all astronauts subjected to US military security regulations?
>Why are all video and photographic evidence screened by the National Security Agency?
>Why are all the radio communications screened by the National Security Agency?
>After spending millions of taxpayers' dollars planning a 'Moon City', why has the Moon not been visited by NASA since 1973?
>Why are some of NASA's top photographic technicians employed to 'airbrush out' anomalies caught on film?
>Why are astronauts and other NASA employees threatened with long jail sentences if they ‘speak out’ about what were really discovered out there in space?


Do you realize that no information, either photographic or otherwise, reaches the public domain until it has been thoroughly scrutinized and sanitized by the US intelligence community, and has been in effect since the space program began?

How about all the UFOs photographed by American astronauts? NASA has given ‘explanations’ that defy logic. Water droplets on portholes, stars, Venus, hallucinations, internal reflections, ball lightning, and so on and on…But they’re telling the truth, yeah? Former Nasa photographic technician, Donna Tietze said in an interview with a radio station in 1995 'The job of a co-worker in a restricted area was to airbrush out any anomalies found on the Moon photos'.

You have the strong impression that NASA is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I feel otherwise. So let’s leave it at that!

There's more, but then I gotta leave for work a little early. Those darn traffic jams are a pain in the ass!!



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Hey I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, but opinions backed with empirical evidence are much more convincing. Mike, can you provide us with some evidentiary proof of your statements about the conspiracies in which NASA is involved? By evidentiary proof, I mean more than just someone else's statements that support your view (in legal terms, that is called heresay evidence). If so, I and everyone else would love to see it and would gladly prostrate ourselves before you asking for your forgiveness for ever doubting you. Personally, I think the photos show a rather large abominable snowman buried on Mars, with only his white fuzzy tummy exposed through the surronding soil. The differences in shape and shading are merely evidence that he is moving.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The three "holes" you see are actualy used to determine scale. If you look at the photo in the link you can see that they form a regular grid. They are not infact holes at all. it is part of the photographic prosess.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
You know, Mike, I'm sensing a, well, let's call it a "pattern" in your posts. Many fascinating claims, no supporting evidence. You'd make this thread a lot more interesting if you could provide some links supporting your claims, but I'll do what I can just the same.


Originally posted by mikesingh
If NASA was formed as a 'civilian space agency', why were so many NASA programs funded by the US Defence Department?

Because NASA's interests and DOD interests frequently overlap. Hence co-operation on satellites, launch vehicles, and test programs. It makes good fiscal sense to have agencies work together on large, expensive programs (like the space shuttle) whenever possible. NASA worked together on the Landsat program for this same reason - along with the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture.


Originally posted by mikesingh
Why are all astronauts subjected to US military security regulations?

Because NASA and DOD interests frequently overlap. Space Shuttles have launched a number of classified DOD payloads - see STS-33 and STS-36 for two examples among many.


Originally posted by mikesingh
Why are all video and photographic evidence screened by the National Security Agency?

According to who? Possible, but provide some links, please!


Originally posted by mikesingh
Why are all the radio communications screened by the National Security Agency?

See above. Again, possible - and probable on flights with DOD payloads - but show me some evidence.


Originally posted by mikesingh
After spending millions of taxpayers' dollars planning a 'Moon City', why has the Moon not been visited by NASA since 1973?

Actually, NASA hasn't visited the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972, but point taken. Congress pulled the funding necessary for more moon missions, and Nixon ordered NASA to focus on a reuseable craft - the shuttle. Since the shuttle was our only manned spacecraft, and the shuttle can't go to the moon, ipso facto we haven't been back to the moon since 1973.

As for the "moon city" - a stupid idea, I'll grant you, but hardly the most blatant instance in which the government has wasted taxpayer dollars.


Originally posted by mikesingh
Why are some of NASA's top photographic technicians employed to 'airbrush out' anomalies caught on film?

Proof? Evidence? Links? Anything besides hearsay testimony?


Originally posted by mikesingh
Why are astronauts and other NASA employees threatened with long jail sentences if they ‘speak out’ about what were really discovered out there in space?

Proof? Evidence? Links? Anything besides hearsay testimony?


Originally posted by mikesingh
How about all the UFOs photographed by American astronauts? NASA has given ‘explanations’ that defy logic. Water droplets on portholes, stars, Venus, hallucinations, internal reflections, ball lightning, and so on and on…

I'll freely admit that people - including astronauts - see things that neither they, nor NASA, nor myself can fully explain. But saying something along the lines of "Yeah, that mysterious streak of light was unusual, but we think it was just a star or an internal reflection" is a lot more honest than saying "Wow, that streak of light was unusual, it HAS to be a UFO. I mean it is OBVIOUS."



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
water geyser...get real.

Nasa wouldn't hide water on Mars...they would love to find it, and loads of it, it would make the future missions their much easier.

I'd put money on it being a dust devil...not a geyser.


Why then do they do their best to talk away the evidence? I am surprised than anyone still attempts to argue from this specific direction! Why do they include no astrobiologist? How can you find ( especially when you deny what you have found ) what you refuse to look for in any proper scientific fashion?

Stellar



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
Don't you need volcanic activity for a geyser?


Heres for those of you wanting volcanic evidence.


page 2, 1st column, 4th from the bottom

The caption reads
"A volcanic activity began to stir in the region adjoining tharsis, it stretched and fractured the crust."

full res pic



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Cool pics, manimal, but we're talking evidence of currently, ongoing volcanic activity - or at least ongoing during the time the Viking orbiters (the source of mikesingh's photos - were on orbit, call it June of 1976 to August of 1980.

I'm afraid that the scientific consensus is that Mars experienced occassional volcanism up until about 20 million years ago - possibly as recently as 10 MYA, but there's no particularly hard evidence on that count. Noctis Labyrinthus, the feature shown in your pic, certainly was formed as a result of volcanism, but it wasn't formed anytime recently.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by PhloydPhan]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   
the viking orbiter is moving

that simple , patently obvious fact seems to have been overlooked by the proponents of the " moving gyser "

the differences in its apparent shape , and shadow characteristics are all IMHO due to the change in perspecitive .

not any mutation or water flow from the " geyser "

lastly - size matters and mikesingh or any of the " gyser " proponents tell us how big that feature is , and why there is ZERO evidence of any water runn off , pooling , errosions ??

if it is a gyser where is the water going ?


apc

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Why do they include no astrobiologist?


I'm guessing because just about anyone can raise their hand and say, "I'm an Astrobiologist."

Water geysers are unlikely because as of yet Mars has no confirmed geothermal activity.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join