Forest on Mars !?!?

Yes, unfortunately rainforest destruction is reality..specially deforestation occurs related to valuable hardwood trees ( which is illegal .... but obviously we can not live without mahogany ). The full notion of the true scale damage came thanks to new satellite technique.

Oh no - they are going to cut all my Martian forest!

Enjoy your trip Zorgy!



."....................And while you are surfing beneath the Olympus Mons volcano, which rises three times higher than Everest and boasts 20,000-foot-high cliffs rising straight up from the beach, you may just notice two moons overhead: Diemos and Phobos......."

So, ArMaP don't forget your sufrboard



source



[edit on 28-6-2007 by blue bird]

Originally posted by ArMaP
blue bird

All those images of forests on Earth and of "something" on Mars show, to me, that those areas do not have the same type of pattern............

So , what you are saying - that what looks from satellite view on earth like forest or city - on Mars can be similar - but it is always 'dune' or 'dark spots' or 'dark strikes, because Mars is 'red, dry and dead planet'!

Just a wee bit of random interjection , that waterfall isn't known as "the black spout" , locally and regionally its known as "the mare's tail"

*edit for spell*

[edit on 28/6/07 by Scotlandshope]

Thanks much Scotlandshope for “inside“ information - and yeah - looks like tail



[edit on 28-6-2007 by blue bird]

Originally posted by blue bird
So , what you are saying - that what looks from satellite view on earth like forest or city - on Mars can be similar - but it is always 'dune' or 'dark spots' or 'dark strikes, because Mars is 'red, dry and dead planet'!

Could you rephrase that, please?

I don't understand what you mean. Sorry.

I am saying that comparisons Mars/Earth are not allowed, because obvious difference exist. Earth is alive and Mars is a dead planet.

And if something look like water or organic life- it simply could not be the case. Because 'there is no life on Mars' assumption. Mars is just our 'dusty' neighbor.

If I clearly see melting -seeping - wet Mars all over - I must conclude it is not water...but maybe 'wind'.

Polygonal ''defrosting' in springtime - could in no way be something else, like ancient civilization - no matter how it really resemble for example 'city' seen from satellite.


Of course - how could anything be artificial structure - it must be very, very popular , you guess - mesa...never mind how symmetrical it looks.



[edit on 28-6-2007 by blue bird]

David Sadler:

"We have not seen structures like these on the other moons and planets in our solar system. Aren't you, and isn't NASA, the least bit curious as to what these structures are? Do not give us the dune remark and then expect us to move on. Show us the multi-angled, high-resolution (1.3 meter) images of these objects. We have the technological capability and we are paying for the missions...NOW SHOW US THESE FEATURES.

"We have missions underway that can do real science on these features, IF NASA is still interested in civilian science. We want answers. We want cooperation. We want the full imaging and sensing capability of U.S. taxpayer space assets on and around Mars to zero in on these targets, and we want open data channels on all returned data and telemetry with critics of NASA's data handling in the control rooms at all times. No more data embargoes and sequestering by NASA contractors. This is the public's data. It is not proprietary to contractors or agencies doing the public's work."



One tactic being used by...is to persuade the reader to ignore anything they've heard about the Crinoid like fossil found on Mars. The intent is to make the reader believe only the experts at NASA can determine what a fossil is. They do this by convincing the reader that it is nearly impossible to identify fossils in general, let alone one on Mars.

Does the intelligent, scientifically oriented reader detect...a stacked deck? --- a packed jury and a show-trial to persuade you, the reader, that "There's nothing to see here. Move along. There are no fossils on Mars and nothing even comes close to looking like one, so move along. Nothing to see here."...
NASA, in this article, is telling us what to do. "Don't believe your eyes. Forget your education of the sciences. Do not rely on your own intellect to determine what you see. Let us tell you what you see. Let us mold your reality. We are official. We have credentials. We have authority. Just hand over your tax dollars. You pay --- we play."


Scientician,' is a word combining 'scientist' and 'politician' coined years ago by Dave Powelson to describe the political corruption of a 'scientist.' A scientician is willing to alter and/or ignore observations and research to conform to the political correct thinking or policy of any particular age. No longer an objective scientist, the person becomes a 'political' scientist --- a scientician.
I am confidant that time will expose the corruption and co-opting of 20th-21st century science. But every age hides a truth. Every age has its scienticians. And every age has its objective scientists willing to confront conformity and battle to have paradigm-shifting evidence considered for its scientific merit. In our age, this is especially true with regards to life beyond Earth and revolutionary energy sources.

Originally posted by blue bird
I am saying that comparisons Mars/Earth are not allowed, because obvious difference exist. Earth is alive and Mars is a dead planet.

I may be a little more dumb than usual today, but I don't see where did you got that idea.

Of course comparisons can, and should, be done, it's the only way to try to understand it when we are not there.

And if something look like water or organic life- it simply could not be the case. Because 'there is no life on Mars' assumption. Mars is just our 'dusty' neighbor.

Well, and if it does not look like water or organic life? I do not think that it is impossible to find water or living creatures on Mars, I think that it is not very likely, but my interpretation of what many features on Mars "look like" differs from other people's interpretation, just that, in the same way I may think that Spinger's avatar (at this time) looks like Luis Figo and you may think that he does not.

If I clearly see melting -seeping - wet Mars all over - I must conclude it is not water...but maybe 'wind'.

When I see melting or seeping I may conclude that it is a liquid, but water is not the only liquid on the Solar system...

Polygonal ''defrosting' in springtime - could in no way be something else, like ancient civilization - no matter how it really resemble for example 'city' seen from satellite.

It can be something else, but to be the remnants of an ancient city, why would they only appear during spring time defrosting, specially when it looks like springtime defrosting?

Of course - how could anything be artificial structure - it must be very, very popular , you guess - mesa...never mind how symmetrical it looks.

That is something that gets on my nerves, when people talk of symmetrical things as if they are only man (or alien ) made and do not occur naturaly.

And I also said - that it reminds me of tundra in the spring time, with this polygonal shape.

I am sorry people 'getting on your nerves' with symmetry being somewhat property of artificial...our body, face is symmetrical. - nature is full of bilateral symmetry, l like to collect shells and am aware of there line ( reflectional )symmetry beauty.......but some 'mesas ' feature artificial /architectural symmetry.

Originally posted by blue bird...but some 'mesas ' feature artificial /architectural symmetry.

What do you mean by "artificial/architectural symmetry"?

When I see melting or seeping I may conclude that it is a liquid, but water is not the only liquid on the Solar system...

Of course not - there are possibly ethane/methane oceans on Titan....but sure not on Mars.

Clear evidence ( and now nobody is disputing) of erosion, floods, river systems, lake beds, lowland northern region suggest possible ex -ocean - well water being obvious fluid to me. Much more than other possible Mars liquid -CO2.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by blue bird...but some 'mesas ' feature artificial /architectural symmetry.

What do you mean by "artificial/architectural symmetry"?

Geological structures in nature are not symmetrical.Rocks and mountains does not look like they are build.

What is this -highly reflective object - something diffuse in nature, emanating from it !?




msss

Another one from the same strip:







And this one I find interesting // same msss strip //:

Ok, we have a different kind of dune - but exactly what kind of wind would make this ladder type of “dune“ in Aram Chaos!?

msss

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't fell that need, it was just a figure of speech (I suppose that is the right name).
We do not need to consider anything, but we can do it, and if we can do it why shouldn't we do it?

Quite right but why is it that you are always trying to find a reasons , employing at times quite suspect reasoning, in support of the most mundane explanations possible? Why are you drawn towards interjecting your horrible dull and worn out opinions at every turn? How many here do you think appreciates the fact that you can turn what looks exactly like a tree into a odd shaped pond? Do you feel there are too few people on these forums defending convention?

I don't know, I don't think that anyone must spend time whith that, only if they want to.

So why do you apparently feel the compulsion to spend so much time telling us what you do not think is possible?

It could be the most likely explanation to you, but it's not the most likely explanation to me.

It would be the most likely explanation for 99.9% of people ( and scientist who do not know that the pictures are of Mars) on this planet so why exactly are you in that minority? Why is what looks like a tree not a tree in your opinion?

One of the reasons is that I do not remember seeing trees without any other type of life near them. Another thing is that I do not see anything that looks like the shadows of the trees.

If you do not see the shadows you are not looking as they are on almost ALL of the photos.

That you should ask to someone from the science establishment.

As you are behaving in exactly the same fashion i will once again direct the question at you. Why do you have to consider a dozen ever more unlikely alternatives instead of just admitting what it looks like? We both know that according to NASA earth like trees can not grow on Mars but we also know NASA lies about many things so why continue to shoot down to play down that possibility?

I deny the idea of those being trees because, to me, they do not look like trees.

members.shaw.ca...

members.shaw.ca...

So how do they not look like trees?

And to add there are dozens of other pictures showing these trees on the preceding pages and very many more on Skippers site.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Yes, no shadow. Those things that look like shadows could only be shadows if the direction of the light was the same.

Unless NASA regularly changes the sun angle information or just twists the pictures whichever way they please? Skipper has numerous examples on his site and we have NO reason to try explain thing that looks like shadows as anything but shadows.

According to the information available for that image here, the direction of the Sun was not the same direction of those things that look like shadows, it was close but it was not the same, as I tried to explain with my poor graphic skills in the image bellow, where the yellow arrow shows the direction of the Sun light.

So after having caught NASA blatantly tampering with science data your still doing to take their word for the sun angle despite the shadows telling us exactly where the sun were at the time?

Why?

Stellar

And they need to change not even the whole degree - like in this case...just half of a second!





NEW MEXICO - MARS



Zoom - alt Cedar tree in the Google satellite image (above, left) and the spots in the MGS image SP2-50805






New Mexico - Mars

In a desert environment, this additional water benefits plant growth. Note the increase in plant life (curved line of dark spots) growing on the lfeft side of the dune in the satellite image from White Sands, New Mexico, while the right side of the dune is free of spots/plantlife. The same is true of many northern polar dunes on Mars.

A member of the Geographic Science Team, EROS Data Center, USGS stated, “...it does appear that the dark spots are some form of vegetation, since they are on the "lee" side of the dunes, they are in a cooler and perhaps more moist environment - it appears that there are few on the predominately sun lit side of the dunes.

The bottom image looks a lot like some that we see in Iraq and Afghanistan - the dark spots here also appear to be trees or shrubs - very sparse, most likely because of the low levels of precip. and organic soils.”

Chief Scientist, Earth Surface Processes Team, USGS, “...best guess, which is shared with one of our sand dune experts, is that the dark spots and streaks are vegetation (probably shrubs rather than trees).”

BRD/USGS/DOI, “The dark areas look like shadows to me.”

source : trees on mars


[edit on 29-6-2007 by blue bird]

msss


* banyan tree













.....Ta Prohm, fantastical, banyan trees ...






[edit on 29-6-2007 by blue bird]

Originally posted by blue bird
What is this -highly reflective object - something diffuse in nature, emanating from it !?




msss

Wow, that is interesting indeed.

Dust devil? Mmm....

Originally posted by StellarX
Quite right but why is it that you are always trying to find a reasons , employing at times quite suspect reasoning, in support of the most mundane explanations possible?

What's wrong with mundane explanations? They may be dull but if they really explain something why should we disregard them?

Why are you drawn towards interjecting your horrible dull and worn out opinions at every turn? How many here do you think appreciates the fact that you can turn what looks exactly like a tree into a odd shaped pond?

That is the problem, it does not look like a tree, to me.

Is it that hard to believe to I may see things in a different way? And I did not meant to say that they look like ponds, my idea was that they also look like the spreading of liquid from a central area with higher liquid concentration to the outer area through capilarity.

Do you feel there are too few people on these forums defending convention?

No, but my idea is not to defend convention or any other thing, my idea is to try to show to other people that there may be other possible explanations. If those explanations are the same or if they follow the conventional explanation that is (usualy) just a coincidence.

So why do you apparently feel the compulsion to spend so much time telling us what you do not think is possible?

I have already answer that question from another member, maybe on another thread.

I don't like to see people spending their time and efforts on something that may be completely wrong, that is why I try to show to other people that maybe there is another explanation. My idea is not to force any explanation on anyone. My way of doing it might not be the best, but it's the only way I know.

It would be the most likely explanation for 99.9% of people ( and scientist who do not know that the pictures are of Mars) on this planet so why exactly are you in that minority? Why is what looks like a tree not a tree in your opinion?

The main reason is that they do not look like a 3D object, they look flat.

If you do not see the shadows you are not looking as they are on almost ALL of the photos.

Some things may look like shadows and not be shadows at all.

These may look like shadows here

But they do not look like shadows when seen closer.

As you are behaving in exactly the same fashion i will once again direct the question at you. Why do you have to consider a dozen ever more unlikely alternatives instead of just admitting what it looks like?

Once more, it does not look like a tree to me, that is why I don't admitt that it looks like a tree. I can see similarities but I don't think they are enough to consider those things trees.

We both know that according to NASA earth like trees can not grow on Mars but we also know NASA lies about many things so why continue to shoot down to play down that possibility?

I have no intention to make anyone not consider the possibility of those things being trees, I just want to show that to some people (to me, as I do not speak for anybody else, but surely I am not the only person in the world with this opinion) that explanation is not the most obvious or even the most likely to be the true explanation.

So how do they not look like trees?

And to add there are dozens of other pictures showing these trees on the preceding pages and very many more on Skippers site.

I think I already answered it.

Unless NASA regularly changes the sun angle information or just twists the pictures whichever way they please? Skipper has numerous examples on his site and we have NO reason to try explain thing that looks like shadows as anything but shadows.

OK, if we consider that NASA changes all the information that goes against what they defend, why should they allow those photos to appear? Wouldn't be easier for them to just not publish the photos?

Once they have the photos published, the only thing I have to use as reference for the photos is their information.

So after having caught NASA blatantly tampering with science data your still doing to take their word for the sun angle despite the shadows telling us exactly where the sun were at the time?

Why?

Because I wasn't there and because my paranoia does not affect me that way.