Originally posted by thedangler
if it is a forest those trees would be huge.
take a comparison picture using google earth from the same distance see if thye look similar. i doubt it.
Enough absolutely huge trees in the fossil record, as for living? no idea, how big do redwoods look on google?
Mars gravity is slightly less, allowing for bigger trees... theoretically.
Also I haven't seen anything on the "trees" that conclusively indicates height..
How about somekind of giant moss... or giant spore/mushrooms.. what was that biggest lifeform on earth.. a few miles across. of mushroom? (will look
it up later)
As for the pictures, beautifull pictures..
Mars though also has huge plumes that rise on occassion, maybe those?
As there's no colour information I don't think you can conclude much. If they had all the raw color information, I would be interested what
analysis/color corrections by Keath Laney would yield on this..
Originally posted by WOGIT
Some great pic's !!
Does NASA not have a sat in orbet of mars that could take some very up close pic's of just about any spot on Mars that could tell everyone once and
for all what the heck is realy there ?
I for one am hopeing google with all its money can one day soon bring us google mars , or at the very least a google moon.
I would expect them to have, so either they don't have one or they really are not telling us everything...
I just would not know why? if mars is greenier, and has plant life, such a news item with color pics etc.. would be absolutely sweet news... so why
hide it.. erm..... straying sorry, on topic again.
Really wish they were colored, including a well colored part of the craft taking the picture, in frame (color reference, in case adjustments are
needed like on the mars surface (see Keith Laney, he does some wonderfull work on mars images, in a scientific way without any manual coloring, i
won't expain here. But revealed snow/white stuff, where without correction it looks like part of the ground. just to give an example...)
Beautiful picks but trees? or even life? in all honesty could be a lot of things higher on the probability list that we would need to look at first.
If we want to keep any research scientific around here.
And decent source material, greyscale photo's can only tell you so much.
Originally posted by zeeon
I don't mean to be condensending, or ignorant - but guys, what exactly is the point of this endeavor?
I'm enjoying wonderful beautiful pictures tbh, and allow myself to indulge a little. Also There has been a lot of evidence in more qualitfied circles
that in the least form, the colors are very off on mars surface pictures.
You can verify this by looking on e.g. pathfinder pics at the logo's on the vehicles. some colors are invisible.. flushed out... so to see the
correct colors you need to color correct.. this revealed amongst other things, blue (blueish at times) skies on Mars, a lot more color distinction on
ground objects (not all the rocks look red anymore), white snowish deposits (flushed in the background, by oversaturated red) and a lot more..
Nothing super revolutionary like positive life of any kind but it means the pictures are not correct (i'm not saying, tampered with, i'm simply
saying the colors are not quite correct)
Basicly what i'm saying is, me personally, i'm looking to explore and discover, not all is known about mars. and some assumptions seem to have been
wrong.
you know what, ill give you 2 pics
(in a sec....)
not such a dramatic picture, but good enough anyhow:
this:
actually looks more like:
Mars is a lot more beautiful then most of the red photo's show you.
For more on color correcting mars visit
keithlaney.net...
Really sweet pics. And be sure to read how he got to the corrections he's applying. It's not hogwash.
[edit on 8-4-2007 by David2012]
Nice post blue bird!
