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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It is obvious that a fair amount of image tampering covers the background terrain in both the 77A10 and 77A11 images giving the terrain in both images a very grainy quality.

If you look closely at the images after zooming them in, they have a tiny overlapping geometric pattern tampering application on them around this water geyser completely covering up the true terrain. The tiny geometric forms can be seen at maximum zoom factors.

And that is the reason one can’t see the ‘run offs’ and probable other ‘features’ like water gullies etc.

About it being a dust devil, I don’t see evidence of any tracks. Dust devils are fairly common on Mars, so what was the necessity of airbrushing the tracks? What’s there to hide? So it's most unlikely that it's a dust devil. If it’s not, then what is it?




posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Ah, mike, you're back with your wry observations about what is "obvious" - obviously the "true terrain" has been tampered with, thus, as you put it:


completely covering up the true terrain. The tiny geometric forms can be seen at maximum zoom factors.


Except back on page 1 you said:


It’s quite obvious that the geyser is in motion!! Also notice the shadows cast by the water geyser.

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.


So which is it? Has the true terrain been hidden by some unspecified form of "tampering", or is this picture obvious proof of a water geyser on Mars? Because it can't be both - and, by the way, how do you propose to prove that the image has been tampered with, unless you have an original, un-tampered image to compare it to? Please, share this image with us!

As for your tiny geometric forms, that happens when you zoom in too far on pictures you are viewing on a computer - pictures of Mars, pictures of Earth viewed on Google Earth, pictures of your family you took over the holidays. The same thing happens with pictures taken by the HiRISE camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - and the resolution on the MRO pics is orders of magnitude better than the resolution of your Viking images.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan

So which is it? Has the true terrain been hidden by some unspecified form of "tampering", or is this picture obvious proof of a water geyser on Mars? Because it can't be both - and, by the way, how do you propose to prove that the image has been tampered with, unless you have an original, un-tampered image to compare it to? Please, share this image with us!


Phloyd! You know, it's great to have guys like you posting some very valid points. Goes a long way in improving the quality of discussion!!


So, as you asked, which is it? Actually a bit of both! Having said that, I have a couple of points. First, someone pointed out that they couldn't be geysers because of lack of volcanic activity. Buit this could be due to some kind of unknown subsurface geothermal activity. After all, is there anyone who knows for sure the geology of Mars?

Second, you always come out with the same time tested word, "EVIDENCE"! So according to you if there's no 100% evidence, then it's poof! False! Ficticious! Imaginary! And so on.

What evidence do you have of God? Black Holes? The age of the Universe? The Big Bang? The Moon's origin? And heck! Even our own origins?
So why are we so fired up about a small 'geyser' on Mars?? Do we know Mars geology enough to be absolutely sure that there can't be anything going on out there?

Remember, all these are theories, conjectures, deductions, inferences. Even Einstein's theory of Relativity!! Now the only real proof one can ever get is to go and have a bath under that geyser! I'm game if I had the resources. There's nothing like an out-of-this-world shower, what? (Pun unintended!!)


Now to proceed further. You had wanted the original Viking Orbiter images of the geyser for comparison. Well, here they are...

775A10
775A11

And now for the latest news from Mars..

Images from a camera orbiting Mars have shown the 100mph jets of carbon dioxide erupt through ice at the planet's south pole, Arizona State University says. The orbiting camera, called the Thermal Emission Imaging System (Themis), is on the Mars Odyssey probe.

The scientists said geysers erupted when sunlight warming the ice turned frozen carbon dioxide underground into high-pressure gas.


Frozen carbon dioxide? It could be water!! So what's the big deal with this geyser on Mars??


BBC

Cheers!


[edit on 12-12-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
It is obvious that a fair amount of image tampering covers the background terrain in both the 77A10 and 77A11 images giving the terrain in both images a very grainy quality.


no it is not " obvious " that is your hand waving to attempt to get the thacts to fit your prenotion

at the risk of repeating myself - size matters , please go back and check the dimension of each pixel and the altutude / offset angle - they explain why the picture is " grainy "

that and the proccessing used , transmission type to relay it back to earth , compresion for web hosting -

no evidence of " tampering "


If you look closely at the images after zooming them in, they have a tiny overlapping geometric pattern tampering application on them around this water geyser completely covering up the true terrain. The tiny geometric forms can be seen at maximum zoom factors.

And that is the reason one can’t see the ‘run offs’ and probable other ‘features’ like water gullies etc.



hmm................. i sense a contridiction

earlier [ tghis thread ] you claimed :


Also notice the shadows cast by the water geyser.


they edited out the terrain , then put the shadow back ontop of the etited terrain ? is that the claim



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Well, Mike, first things first - your links are broken. You might want to check into that...

Second of all, I'd like to point out that is was YOU who, in the title of this very thread, claims to have "proof" of water on Mars:


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


So where was the proof? You had none, which is why you are now arguing

Quote by mikesingh
Buit (sic) this could be due to some kind of unknown subsurface geothermal activity. After all, is there anyone who knows for sure the geology of Mars?


So now we've gone from "proof" to some unspecified, unknown form of geothermal (actually Areothermal, since we're dealing with Mars) activity.

Regarding your observations on my need for "proof", I've said before that I'd accept evidence other than actually seeing this "geyser" up-close and personal, such as spectrography data, evidence of Aerothermal activity (of which there is none), etc. You have yet to provide any such evidence.

As for this comment:

Quote by mikesingh
Frozen carbon dioxide? It could be water!!


Frozen C02 and water are not the same thing - I'm going to assume you know that. You should also be aware that C02 boils at a much lower temperature than water, at all relevant atmospheric pressures, which means that, while a C02 geyser can be powered by sunlight (as suggested by your BBC article), water geysers cannot. You need volcanism, and Mars hasn't been shown to possess that...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Here's some more proof of water on Mars. Heck, I shouldn't say 'proof' for fear of kicking up a huge storm! So this is a pointer to water on Mars. And boy! What a pointer!




While the general tenor is against the probability of surface liquid water, the possibilities discussed do include some providing liquid water in the soil to depths of several centimeters.

While there is abundant evidence that large quantities of liquid water existed and flowed on Mars eons ago, water on the surface of Mars has been seen by orbiting spacecraft, landers and rovers only in solid form, as surface frost, snow and polar ice. However, radar data indicate that subsurface permafrost, with possible subsurface liquid lakes, contain the considerable bulk of water remaining on the planet.

Pathfinder’s meteorological station returned data supporting and extending that of Viking with respect to liquid water. Air temperatures ranging up to 21° C were reported at the surface of the planet(!)

" Commenting on this finding, the chief Pathfinder scientist said "It implies there are eddies of warm air bubbling off the surface … All our jaws dropped when we saw that data."


If you are interested in the technicalities, take the plunge here.... This is serious stuff, so some may find it a trifle difficult to comprehend!


P.S. I fried my brains trying to figure out those equations!!



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Hey I just found water on Mars!



Sorry I couldn't resist.


[edit on 14-12-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Congratulations, Mike, I think you might have just hijacked your own thread. I didn't know that was possible...

Yes, there is water on Mars. There's probably not a whole lot - although the jury is still out on that, in terms of specifics - and most of it is probably frozen, either at the south polar cap or in permafrost, but it is there. We know this. In December of 2004 the Opportunity rover sent back evidence of what could be clouds of water ice in the Martian atmosphere. Conditions are right, from time to time and on certain parts of the planet, for a frost of water ice to form on the Martian soil. I repeat, we know that this is possible.

It is even possible that, from time to time, liquid water might still flow on the surface of Mars. We know this; your picture is old news, and it does not in ANY WAY suggest that there might be geysers on Mars - which, if memory serves, was the original point of this thread.

So, getting back to our original topic - and, coincidentally, my last question to you, which is it? Were the pics you originally posted proof of a water geyser on Mars, or were they somehow tampered with? It can't be both, so which is it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join