Mysterious ‘Tracks’ On Mars And The Moon!

Hey Mike...

Stll no answer to my letters... but they may not have gone through as I attached an image... I will try again...

Here is the track closeup brightened up a little and I added a closeup of that "ramp"





Mike's Martian Page 2

Two things to add...

Look at whats below and above your question mark...

And for the "rolling rock crowd" please tell me where the "rock" that created the large straight track disappeared to



[edit on 10-4-2007 by zorgon]

I did not had time yesterday to post here what I posted on the Moon pictures thread, so here it is.

I think it's rock number "1" in the image bellow. The track starts on the right, like all other tracks, and ends on the left. The rock started to climb the ramp on the left but it did not had enough energy for that, so it turn a little to the right and stopped.

All other arrows point to things I think are rocks that made similar tracks, some more visible than others.

This image has been zoomed in, you can see it in its normal size bellow.
The scale is 25cm/pixel, so rock number "1" should be around 1 or 2 metres.

Sorry Ron, I was out of town for a bit! And hey! That was good!!
By the way I dunno whether you received my Mars images I sent you in a Power Point format. No reply from U2 so far!!




ArMap, though it was a good analysis, there are still a number of question marks!

1. Notice the slope. It is very slight towards the left of the image. Not enough for the 'stone' to have travelled a distance of about a km or so. The incline had to be much greater than that. And also notice the softness of the soil as the tracks are clearly visible. How could the 'stone' have moved this distance over soft soil? It would have got stuck a couple of feet away from its start point.

2. If the incline was toward the left of the image, how come the upper stone has gone against this incline toward the top of the image?

3. How can a near perfect arc be made by this 'stone' where at some stage it has gone against the incline? What force made it do so? Volcanic activity? I think not!

4. How come there are two parallel tracks by 'stones' at different locations? Must be a billiard table top for this to occur, but it isn't.

5. What's that ramp like structure where this 'stone' has started from? Check out Zorgon's enlargement of the ramp.

All said, there's more than meets the eye here. But hey, what do we know about tectonics on Mars??

Cheers!

The distance travelled by the rock, if we use the 25cm/pixel that they say is the image resolution, is something like 100 metres, not 1,000. And I don't think that the ground is as soft as that, from what I have seen from the ground on Mars, it usually has a thin layer of dust over rocks.

Because there are two inclines. That dusty area in the middle is between two higher areas, one on the left, the other, higher, on the right.
That stone came, as all other stones, from the rocky area on the left, down the slope, through the more horizontal area until it reached the slope on the other side.

That is a perfectly common thing, let a stone or a ball run down a slope until it reaches another slope but not perpendicular to the face of the slope and the stone (or ball) will make an arc whose shape and radius depend on the steepness of the slope and the angle between the initial trajectory of the stone (or ball) and the face of the slope.

The is no need for any other force than gravity to do such thing, if we disregard the initial force that unblocked the stone to let it run down the first slope.

They are not parallel, they are almost parallel, and they are not straight. If you look closely, or even better, if you use a graphics program where you can draw a line over those tracks, you will see the one makes an arc in one direction and the other makes an arc in the other direction.

I will use my image, if you don't mind, I don't like those colours.
That "ramp", to me, looks like two areas of the rock that are more salient than the rest of the face of the rock, in the same way as to the left of the "ramp" there is an area where the rock is less salient than the rock face.


What bothers me is that from a huge picture we are only looking at a small area and ignoring the rest just because of something that probably is only a rock.

Do yourself a favour, if you haven't seen the complete photo, go to this page and download the "Full-Scale JP2".

You will need a program that can read JPG2000. Photoshop has a plug-in to read them, but I am using a plug-in from Lizardtech (ExpressView Browser Plug-in) that works with Netscape, Internet Explorer and Safari web browsers.

It is worth the trouble.

PS: I hope I did make any sense in my answers, I am too tired and I did not had enough time to re-read it.

Where did you get the 25cm/pixel and for which image is it? Seems their site is not responding so I cannot go check right now (also no word back from the emails I wrote yet)

The reason we are looking at only a portion of the image and not the whole thing is simply because NASA posted only the small section that has the tracks right in the center where they are not only easy to spot, but stand out like a sore thumb... They KNOW that us anomaly hunters will be out in force on that one...

Now if the 25cm/pixel is for the complete image, you cannot use that figure to calculate distance on the zoomed in clip, but I am sure you know that.

As to the sand... first of all the article is about an alluvial deposit main by "rain" as NASA puts it. Having seen and walked on many such deposits here in the western USA trust me lots of deep sand. Furthermore that gully with the tracks has clearly collected sand from the action of wind. So unlike the flat plains of Mars where the wind blows away as much sand as it deposits, here it acumulates and would be much softer and deeper than 2 inches

But you are also forgetting the wobbly track the spacing remains constant whether on the up slope or down it...


[edit on 13-4-2007 by zorgon]

That page that Mikesingh posted as the source for the image has a link to the full image, a JPEG 2000 image with 25827x35250 pixels and 261MB, on the right side of the page.


As far as I know, all the resolutions posted on that site are for the full-size image.

Yup I had that but for some reason the page was not accessable last night for some time... maybe to much traffic

On the Moon Tracks...

Mission Recordings... Apollo 15
Apollo 15

David Scott, Alfred Worden, James Irwin; went to the Appenine Mountains of the Moon, July 26 - Aug. 7, 1971. Conversation about discovering strange "tracks":

Scott: Arrowhead really runs east to west.

Mission Control: Roger, we copy.

Irwin: Tracks here as we go down slope.

MC: Just follow the tracks, huh?

Irwin: Right we're (garble). We know that's a fairly good run. We're bearing 320, hitting range for 413 ... I can't get over those lineations, that layering on Mt. Hadley.

Scott: I can't either. That's really spectacular.

Irwin: They sure look beautiful.

Scott: Talk about organization!

Irwin: That's the most *organized structure I've ever seen*!

Scott: It's (garble) so uniform in width.

Irwin: Nothing we've seen before this has shown such uniform thickness from the top of the tracks to the bottom.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by zorgon]

It's no point Ron. Some guys on ATS will never agree that there could be something odd going on, on the Moon and Mars! The conversation between astronauts though crystal clear, is goin' to be put down as a hoax transmission, heard by some ham operator, made up conversation that never took place etc etc.

The darn problem here on ATS is that people go all out to debunk everything that doesn't fit into their scheme of things, using all their expertise, (Those who have it). But they will not use that expertise to try and go deeper into the issue and get to the bottom of it by intelligent analyses. And that's sad. ATS is not what it was. It's become more a place of pointless duels, of banal arguments. of oneupmanship, arrogance and discourteous posts. These guys have arrogated on themselves to trash everything and anything which could be termed an anomaly without intelligent arguments.

It's simply...

Oh that's trash!
You're imagining things.
Hoax.
I can't see anything.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
You're denigrating our scientists.
Stop wasting our time.
What a load of crap!!
Etc, etc.

I'm seriously thinking of quitting ATS for good as one cannot even discuss things here in an intelligent friendly fashion, except for a few members who are few and far between.

So I'll think I'll call it a day on ATS and join a site where at least we can discuss things in a analytical and friendly manner.

I haven't seen "all-out debunking" on ATS... If you want to experience "all-out debunking," try the Skeptical Enquirer or any of the other hardcore skeptic sites — those guys will really give you grief. In my observation, the ATS "believers" seem to outnumber the "debunkers" by hundreds-to-one, which makes ATS a pretty liberal arena for kicking around ideas.

When I postulated gravity, seismic activity and meteoritic impact as likely explanations for any perceived movement or tracking formations on the Moon or Mars, I was using what I know of natural phenomena to explain that which you perceive as a mystery. That's not my "analysis," it's just conjecture — which is all we can accomplish by gazing at two-dimensional images. To my knowledge, nobody in ATS (nor on planet Earth, for that matter) is "qualified" to draw iron-clad conclusions regarding the surface of the Moon or Mars from two-dimensional images... If anyone was so qualified, we could save untold billions of dollars on interplanetary probes and hands-on exploration. We could just stay at home and learn everything in the universe from photos.

However, simply posing intuitive conjectures based on photographs is not "analysis," any more than is posing intuitive conjectures of aroma, texture and taste based on photographs of food. Hmmm, that looks good! If we study this photo dilligently, we may be able to deduce the recipe!!

Drawing conclusions (or, worse, jumping to conclusions) based on such sparse evidence is much less than science... It's more like anti-science.


Well, Mike, if you think Science is a friendly endeavor, I've got one more piece of discouraging news for you....

Just don't let criticism bring you down so easily, or you'll be miserable for the rest of your life. The best that you or anyone can do is remain true to your beliefs and wait for your critics to be proven wrong. In the meantime, have fun with your speculations, but don't expect scientists to be very accepting of anything that they didn't think of first.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 4/14/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Doc, thanks for the encouragement! I fully understand that just based on 2-D photographs, one can't jump to conclusions. Right. Where on Earth have I ever categorically stated that 'hey! That IS proof of aliens. Or OMG! Have a look at that structure! It's been made by them aliens! Or Wow!! That dark shadow IS an alien sitting on an ice floe on Mars south pole!'

Those are outrageous claims that anyone in his right senses wouldn't venture to make. There's always a 'question mark' because a particular thing or structure looks intriguing. But when you get it out on ATS to get opinions, all one mostly gets as comments are:

You've really gone over the edge!
Rocks! Nothing but rocks!
Wild imagination.
You need to do your homework!
What a load of crap!
No offence, but I'm going to avoid your threads. A waste of time.
Etc, etc, etc.


Now that ain't intelligent conversation / debate. At least a scientist / analyst would tell you what it can't be and what it actually is, by intelligent analysis and reasoning. NOT one line wonders, as above. That's what gets my goat!


So I honestly think it's a darn waste of time reading the replies of these self styled pseudo analysts / scientists with hardly anyone (Which I can count on my fingers now) contributing to some good intelligent / analytical debate.

So what the heck am I doing here?

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mikesingh]

I'm certain there are plenty of people here on ATS that are genuinely interested in seeing your work Mike, though only few will post. Most of the idiotic 'one liner' responses come from the ignorant trolls on ATS, trying to get their points up or whatever. Put those on ignore, and only reply to those with an intelligent/valid question or comment.

There are quite a few other forums out there, but I don't think theres any other that will get your findings across to as many people as here on ATS.

Don't let them get to you... The search for that 'smoking gun' picture is out there somewhere, and I'm sure you'll be the one to find it.

Thanx Nav! Now that's what I call a conspiracy to get me to keep posting here on ATS!! You guys are right! Lemme give it a thought!

And hey, this is what ATS says it is - "We are the Internet's largest and most popular community dedicated to the intelligent discussion and debate of "alternative topics."

Yeah right! Intelligent discussion and debate!!

Cheers!!



[edit on 14-4-2007 by mikesingh]

The fact that there could be anything odd does not mean that there must be something odd.

And what may be odd on Earth may not be odd on the Moon or on Mars.

But don't let that put you down.

Here, have some more "mysterious tracks" from Mars.

Some are even from jumping rocks instead of the common rolling rocks.

Those images are smaller areas of the full-size photo from here.

Don't worry and dave a nice weekend.

Now Now Mikey stop teasing the Lemmings... You know perfectly well that this is still the best place to post well except maybe OUR forum LOL

True there are those that make a living out of pouncing on any free thought, but there are some really cool people in here...

I too have often wondered "why bother?" but then I simply tell myself that I am searching for myself and if along the way a few others get to see and enjoy the work, well there ya go there is that reason to stay

Now what is it really? You going back to that cold harsh north for another stay?

Besides its quite obvious that those that only see rock have a long way to go on the enlightenment ladder (yeah I know I'll get flak for this one)

I have a question...

Can you prove to me that those are rocks?

Are you not in fact just making a bold assumption?

Yer right! There ARE some cool people in here. And then, it takes all types to make this world!!

Heck! It's approaching 45C here! So I'll be heading North to a one-horse town, 12,000 feet high! Darn, but this time no snow, no skiing. Global warming and all!

But hey! I'll still be on ATS with beer as company, under the garden umbrella at minus 5C! Cool eh?

Cheers!

You remind me of that Smirnoff commercial... Bikinis in Siberia LOL Hey I lived in Winnepeg for 5 years -40c for 5 months straight. There is a little town outside of Winnipeg that has a huge thermometer at the entry... Its only claim to fame is that it records the coldest spot on Earth with temps dipping to -72c regularly. No one knows why that spot gets so cold but it does.

So ermmm you training for Mars missions? I hear NASA has a base for that in the Arctic as well as Antarctica

Now can anyone tell me whats special about THESE Martian Rocks?



And here are some really interesting structures in a crater, in one of the polar regions...



While you all are studying those, it has come to my attention that the Martian Astronauts won't have to mess with those silly Moon Buggies... they will get to travel in style in a Humvee!!!



Now I wonder if its one of THOSE leaving all the tracks on Mars...

[edit on 15-4-2007 by zorgon]

No, I can not prove they are rocks and I can not even prove that those things at one of the ends of the tracks were the ones that did make the tracks.

I based my opinion on the fact that, from what I have seen, things that look like those, with more or less the same shape and size, when seen on the Rover's images, are rocks, the fact that rolling rocks make tracks like those and on the fact that all those tracks have one of those objects at one of the ends, that I assumed is the end of the track.

And I called them rocks on purpose, I assumed that some "lemming" would be teased with that.

That looks different from what I am used to see on photos from Mars.
The rocks do not have those peculiar shapes and all have more or less the same colour.

The ground also looks different, from what I have seen in the rover's photos, Mars' ground looks smoother, with a finer.

One of the polar regions from what planet, Earth or Mars?

That is just a trick of light, and the coarser grain is due to pixalation as I only had a thumbnail to work with....