Forest on Mars !?!?

page: 57
28
<< 54  55  56    58  59 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPIs this from HiRISE? If it is I will try to see if I can make a false colour image of that area.


Oops sorry No not HiRise
www.msss.com...




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   


Sponges!?




There are also other Martian crater floors with relief honey bean structure - like sponges does have.

source



[edit on 13-7-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   





msss


* Earth sponge fossil:




source



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
2x post ...sorry (again)


[edit on 13-7-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Zorgon, since bluebird is on vacation I will bring this to your attention. On her post Regarding Crinoids 7th image Image source picbin.net... You will notice on the left hand side of photo 1/2 way down from the top of the photo aprox. 1 inch from border you will see the code cE6b go 2 inches to the right you will see the letter c over a backward S next to the number 5.

This is similar to the rock formations where I discovered the Microtechs, highly intelligent tiny life forms, I have described in my previous posts on other threads about these type of rock formations. This sounds wacky but under closer scrutiny you will see some very strange looking beings within these formations and I am not talking looks like rock formations. Rik Riley





[edit on 15-7-2007 by rikriley]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rikrileyThis sounds wacky


LOL it just might , yes... but don't forget this is the science forum, not the anomaly forum



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Zorgon, I got your drift I will post On the Mars Critters for further discussion on Mars anomalies. Rik Riley

[edit on 15-7-2007 by rikriley]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rikrileyI will post On the Mars Critters for further discussion on Mars anomalies.


If I may interject here, I would remind our good colleague to make a distinction in the future between the anomalistic "critters" of the UFO variety and your Martian "critters", as we have made considerable progress sorting out UFO critter qualities from other unidentified material. I look forwards to your posts on the anomaly forum in hopes of addressing Martian UFO activity.

O-K, back to the regularly scheduled programming...



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Just thought that I would take a moment to link to a topic I just read on msnbc ;
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Is this possibly a forthcoming of disclosure of forests on Mars?
I read this and immediately thought of this thread. Just thought you all might find it interesting!



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
If I may interject here, I would remind our good colleague to make a distinction in the future between the anomalistic "critters" of the UFO variety and your Martian "critters", as we have made considerable progress sorting out UFO critter qualities from other unidentified material.



Ah yes those elusive plasma sucking giant amoebas
but I digress...

You know I have noticed that many Rover pictures look a lot like they were taken in the Nevada Desert... well now I know why...

Remember that Sojourner Rover from the Pathfinder Mission?

Well I found it, in the mountains behind John's house in one of those "special" areas....






Its no wonder NASA uses heavy red tint on their Martian pictures



[edit on 21-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Its no wonder NASA uses heavy red tint on their Martian pictures
Considering that most pictures are greyscale I wonder where do they use that red tint...

PS: you forgot to say where did you find that picture.

PPS: I know its off-topic, but can someone tell me what is the correct phrase, "where did you find that picture" or "where did you found that picture"? Thanks.

[edit on 21/7/2007 by ArMaP]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
No way.
The Nevada Desert, and Mars look NOTHING alike.


I mean look at these pics.

Nevada Playa:

Photo by "spacedoubt"

Mars Spirit at Gusev:

Image courtesy NASA



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Considering that most pictures are greyscale I wonder where do they use that red tint...


Well maybe the pictures you use are gray scale.. the ones at Lyle.org are color, but I am talking about the ones seen all around on the net like this sample...



or this one...




what is the correct phrase, "where did you find that picture" or "where did you found that picture"? Thanks.


Where did you find that picture is correct...


[edit on 21-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
No way.
The Nevada Desert, and Mars look NOTHING alike.



LOL so where in Nevada do you hide out?


How about this one? Has a very original name... Sand Mountain, Nevada



or maybe this one... just add a few Blueberries... adjust the color...




Yuppers never mind the Moon landing hoax... we got em on this one


[edit on 21-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well maybe the pictures you use are gray scale.. the ones at Lyle.org are color, but I am talking about the ones seen all around on the net like this sample...


Yes, there are many "red tinted" pictures, but they are beginning to look like an endangered species, and I think that they do not use that much red tint.



Where did you find that picture is correct...
Thanks.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I don't know if anyone saw this (it is from July 13), but I think it's an interesting article.


The origin of perennial water-ice at the South Pole of Mars

Thanks to data from ESA's Mars Express mission, combined with models of the Martian climate, scientists can now suggest how the orbit of Mars around the Sun affects the deposition of water ice at the Martian South Pole.

The mapping and spectral analysis by OMEGA has shown that the perennial deposits on the Martian South Pole are of essentially three types: water-ice mixed with carbon dioxide (CO2) ice, tens-of-kilometres-wide patches of water-ice, and deposits covered by a thin layer of CO2 ice.

The model has shown that water at the North Pole was in an unstable condition and was easily transported to the South Pole in the form of water vapour, to then re-condense and freeze on the surface. Up to 1 millimetre of water ice was deposited at the South Pole every year. After Mars has spent more than 10 000 years in that climatic configuration, this accumulation led to a layer up to 6-metre thick.

Source

It's interesting to know that Mars has at least an active atmosphere with all that flow of water vapour between the poles (and maybe some other places).



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Water Vapor On Mars????


Nice to see your getting with the program ArMaP


Nice find... I will have to look it over



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Sorry for my late reply but my new service provider is not really.


I am only posting this because i typed it up earlier and don't believe you have changed your mind in the course of the last ten pages i have not had time to read....

I don't think i will be doing much more posting on these topics as it looks like a quite a few members are now active and building up the type of data sets that i have.



Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think that I have made unreasonable assumptions or made illogical means, but I may have made them, they may have looked reasonable and logical to me at the time.


They are perfectly reasonable and 'logical' if one has already disregarded non conventional views as impossible..


I cannot find a better way to describe what I have in mind, but its not a pool or a pond, its not a deposit of liquid on the surface, what I am thinking of is just a variation of concentration of liquid on the ground in the same way that a drop of wine on a table cloth may look darker on the middle, with ramifications from its centre.


And i hope you understand that i do not understand why you wish you are spending so much energy imagining into existence better 'suiting' alternative explanations. Again i must ask why convention can be defended by generous applications of imagination but that observation itself is disregarded when it contradicts the presumptions the science institutions have settled on defending.


There's no heroism involved in posting on the Internet, only on same rare cases.


And that's a fact!


I have seen some cases where people really do not think first of the more mundane explanations, so I think it is a good idea to point them when people do not state that they have already thought of those possibilities and have discarded them.


Such a valuable public service you do, and i am only half kidding, but it's my experience that there are dozens of people on this forum who believe in , and feel compelled to defend, the most mundane and widely accepted views for every one of those who can efficiently present factual material and observations that stands in open contradiction to it. I have very little sympathy with those who pretend to be acting in the service of the community when they so slavishly defend what they themselves have decided to believe and defend.


Well, I do believe in coincidences, but I don't have any problems with people who don't.


And apparently you only believe in the coincidences that serves the interest of a general defense of the very mundane!


I don't like to see people taken in by any lie, official or unofficial.


I suppose that's a start.



Between you and me, you are the one presenting alternative views, and I never claimed to be presenting novel views, where did you get that idea?


I basically call trees, trees and water, water ( wherever it seems to grow or flow ) while you seem to be doing your best to find ways to discount what we are seeing however exceedingly unlikely, illogical or unreasonable the data you must muster. Why does Occam's razor not apply for Mars when we know up to thirty percent of the planets surface have conditions suitable for standing water?


Well, I respect you regardless of your ideas...


Thank you. I would love to say the same but that is hard when i believed i have proved that you are simply misrepresenting too much data and quite on purpose; this is long past the stage where i just consider it a idle disagreements.


The Earth trees shown on those satellite photos looked 3D.


Again your observational powers seem quite efficient when they are applied to discount data and defend established views. Why not apply these skills to a fair evaluation of ALL the data?


I didn't had in mind your ignorance or lack of it when creating my explanation, that was just a way to try to explain what I was thinking, but once more it looks like it was a failure.


The fact does seem to be that your 'explanations' always assumes that you know something , and when it makes sense it's either very unlikely or perfectly mundane, more than the readers or viewers do while i tend to focus on WHY NASA and other agencies are not telling the people the truth as they clearly know it; i assume people don't know because they are misinformed but you just assume they don't know because their ignorant.


I don't even know what NASA said about those things and I don't care what is NASA's opinion about anything when I post my opinion,


Must be one of those coincidences, that you say you do believe in, as you seem to be towing the NASA line without much difficulty.


that is why I said in a previous post that I don't think that their explanation is the most plausible for that case.


Sometimes their lies and deceptions are more obvious than other times....


OK, what other photos from that area but not from NASA can I see?


I did not make it clear enough that NASA does have perfectly good data but that what they publish or attempt to focus our attention on is at best distracting and not representative. We can now look at ESA data as well but in most instances you just need to dig into the NASA archives to find the pictures they do not want to discuss.


My opinion is mostly based on the photos, I only used NASA's information about the lights direction because of what other people see as shadows, forgetting that the validity of that information would be frowned upon.


All i said is that it was interesting that you would so easily discount your own observations when NASA asked asks you to by supplying a mixture of accurate and false science data...


You are right, there is no reason not to apply common sense, but when I see flat features on the ground with no shadows, I do not see any reason to use what I do not see as shadows as a pointer to the direction of the light.


Next time just keep in mind that NASA can and do flip, invert, obscure certain details, change the sun angle or just lie about the location. Beside for the obvious shadowing and tampering with the pictures themselves it seems they believe they might eventually be able to explain away these deliberate tampering efforts as mere 'mistakes'.


Also, I should have thought of more options and of what other people may be seeing when they look at those photos, in that way it would be easier to put myself in their position.


Never a bad idea as long as you don't believe that in science the majority has a better chance of arriving at the truth.


I have seen with my own eyes high resolution TIFF images pulled from a website and replaced with lower resolution JPEGs some time ago, so I know what they can do.


And as long as you do not believe these are 'accidental' or 'coincidental' 'mistakes' we are definitely going to arrive at a more representative truth and sooner rather than later.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
They are perfectly reasonable and 'logical' if one has already disregarded non conventional views as impossible..
The fact that I may consider some explanation reasonable and logical does not mean that that explanation is the correct one, it means only that that explanation was what I considered the most reasonable at the time and with the information I had.


And i hope you understand that i do not understand why you wish you are spending so much energy imagining into existence better 'suiting' alternative explanations. Again i must ask why convention can be defended by generous applications of imagination but that observation itself is disregarded when it contradicts the presumptions the science institutions have settled on defending.
You see, to me, it does not require any generous application of imagination or much energy to think of those explanations, to me those are the ones that "appear" in my head when I think of a possible explanation.

I think that I have said before that I am not a very imaginative person, maybe my lack of imagination keeps me from "seeing" those other explanations, but that does not mean that I think that "my" explanations are the correct ones.


And apparently you only believe in the coincidences that serves the interest of a general defense of the very mundane!
No, I believe in coincidences, just that.


Why does Occam's razor not apply for Mars when we know up to thirty percent of the planets surface have conditions suitable for standing water?
And how do we know that?


I would love to say the same but that is hard when i believed i have proved that you are simply misrepresenting too much data and quite on purpose.
That was what I thought...


The fact does seem to be that your 'explanations' always assumes that you know something , and when it makes sense it's either very unlikely or perfectly mundane, more than the readers or viewers do while i tend to focus on WHY NASA and other agencies are not telling the people the truth as they clearly know it; i assume people don't know because they are misinformed but you just assume they don't know because their ignorant.
My explanations assume that I know something, if they didn't then I couldn't consider them explanations, I would consider them doubts or questions. And I keep away of the "NASA is lying" party because I don't have any proof of those lies. If you ask me if I have proof of them keeping away from the public good quality photos and show them bad versions of those photos then I am an eyewitness and I do have proof of that, but I do not have proof of anything else neither do I have any explanation for that possible behaviour.

And you are assuming that I assume that people are ignorant because of the content and format of my explanations.



Never a bad idea as long as you don't believe that in science the majority has a better chance of arriving at the truth.
Do not worry, although I am an "aries" I do not like to keep in herds...


And as long as you do not believe these are 'accidental' or 'coincidental' 'mistakes' we are definitely going to arrive at a more representative truth and sooner rather than later.
You may be sure that I do not see those as coincidences, I believe in coincidences but I also believe in consequences, and, to me, that action was a consequence of some post(s) here on ATS.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I don't know where to post this, so, to keep this thread going, I decided to post here.

One of last week's photos from HiRISE shows an area with many gullies made by those famous "flows" that make the ground darker and sometimes look like shadows.

(I used a little of "Gamma Correction" because the image is too dark)


But the most interesting part is the end of the gullies. In this image, most gullies have a round end, almost looking like what made the gully also made a pond at the end, but they also show many other round holes around the final part of the gully, and for those I do not have any explanation.




These last two images are screen-captures of the full-size JPEG 2000 image with a 25.3 cm/pixel resolution, available here.

Edit: here is another of my attempts to make a colour version of that image.





As I said before, this is not true colour, and is only a low resolution image just because making a colour version using the full-size images takes me almost a hour and I am lazy.


[edit on 5/8/2007 by ArMaP]






top topics



 
28
<< 54  55  56    58  59 >>

log in

join