It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


!!!Mars Blue Sky & Water!!!

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by Grimholt

actually it appears something brushed the top of the joystick.

I am not saying a hand, but, it sure looks like something has touched it, since, it is dusty orange on the shaft and most of the sphere, but the top.

It also looks like there was a light rain, or some form of oily-fluid containing lines are leaking extremely slowly considering how long it has been there.

The biped does sort of look like the 'bigfoot' type of gate ... I originally though 'the thinker' statue, but bigfoot works so much better. That or a Martian on a unicycle ... or something in the process of slipping and falling.

It does seem like a defined bipedal lifeform with arms, torso, and head.

As much as I would like to think water ... the angle of the hill and gravity combined would pretty much negate that theory, logically.

As far as sky color ... have you paid any attention to how much our sky is of non-blue color? It was white a lot last year. Alaska has some quite pretty colors of blues and purples for long periods of time.

Even though they may put out a lot of red (orange to my eyes) photos, I never for once assumed that is all there was to it.

It would be nice to start getting large sets of true color images ... running 24 hours to watch full day cycles. Even if the information sent to them is in monochrome ... there is enough from different spectrums to form quality real color photos. Not much different than how component cables work to transfer HD signals to your television ... through varying degrees of current (voltage?) in three color bands.

I won't get into theories of Mars, because I have some non-mainstream thoughts, but as far as I can tell, science has plenty of odd theories they claim as well. The only difference is they get paid to say them, I keep them to myself

Thanks for the picture and those who found interesting tidbits

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by varsityeagle089
Well at least we know THat JOHN LEAR and Sleeper lied about Mars having BIG Gorgeous Cities and all this technology.blah blah blah

seriously i don't know who to believe anymore.

lol come on dude, i'm not trying to defend john or sleeper but..... lets talk about earth, earth has BIG Gorgeous Cities and all this technology right? ok it also has places like the tundras or desserts, places that are not inhabited by people yes? so.. this pic could be a pic of the martian dessert. unless john and sleeper said that the whole planet is covered with BIG Gorgeous Cities and all this technology inch per inch, your comment was really not smart sorry.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:13 AM
this picture is now pic of the day on the BBC news website.......interesting

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:14 AM
First post for me but couldn't help myself...i've been going over the pic and although i don't know how to embed a picture there is something a little to the right of the humanoid figure that almost looks like an armadillo, seems to have a trail leading up to it as well. Has anyone else noticed this or have any idea what it is?

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:15 AM
First post for me but couldn't help myself...i've been going over the pic and although i don't know how to embed a picture there is something a little to the right of the humanoid figure that almost looks like an armadillo, seems to have a trail leading up to it as well. Has anyone else noticed this or have any idea what it is?

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:22 PM
It is obvious that we are looking at an area where water ran through. Anyone can see the erosion on the rocks as well as the dry bed areas where water once was. All of the "black" rocks are nothing less than debris left over from the cities/towns that were destroyed after whatever cataclysmic event took place. I would vote for nuclear destruction by an advanced race. Look at the aritifacts in the following cut from the image. Please give your thoughts on these objects.

1. Appears to be a large cauldron type object.
2. Looks like the lower half of a statue face. One can see the chin, mouth, nose, cheeks. Maybe even what appears to be a beard on the chin.
3. Anyones guess. Frying pan shape. Does not look like the other rocks around it. Looks man made.
4. Seemingly perfect round object.
5. Again anyones guess on these 2 objects.

There are many more artifacts. You only have to look closely. Keep in mind "city debris" after a city has being destroyed.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:38 PM
zoom in on the rover itself. it looks like it got rained on, there is still water in various places on the rover itself, around the wires....

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:24 PM
are you guys idiots? I'm looking at the picture from the link, its not from mars. Look at the bottom, there are structures. and on the right side theres half an object

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:47 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, however it has reminded me of an image i was playing with a short while ago.

Showing the difference between the colour of the mars rover on earth compared to a Martian photo.


and here is the same image after only adjusting the hue to match that of the photo on earth. I am in no way implying my image is accurate however in light of the recent NASA photo i thought i would share.

Mars - adjusted

[edit on 6-1-2008 by kyote6]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by kyote6]

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by housegroove23

Those sure look like fluffy white clouds covering the horizon to me....back there in the opic...
Look in a field of anomalous rocks and sand stone youll for sure find artifact looking thingys.But that dont mean they are...
We need a pop bottle or a snap cap....a used condom or obvious relic....perhaps a ray gun clutched in the boney skeletal fist of some long forgotten defender of the planet....
Something indesputably manufactured.
The martian desert could just as easy be a studio out in the middle of Area 51,and the films could all have been made with filters....
Theres really nothing to prove the rovers are further away from a grarage than a hundred meters...
Witness the oh so convenient storm whch cleaned the dust off the solar array back when....
The rovers are so small that their perspective gives little indication THEY HAVE EVEN BEEN TO ALTOONA LET ALONE MARS...

[edit on 6-1-2008 by bergle]

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:50 PM
I watched a documentary about Mars which was produced by Carl Sagan. He explained that an engineering team screwed up the first pictures that were sent from Mars. I believe how he explained it was that they made the incorrect assumption that the atmosphere of Mars must be the same color as our own so they proceeded to adjust the color filters of the cameras accordingly.

I will post a link to that show if I can find it again.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Damien_Hell

Are you talking about the rover itself?

It is the only structure that I can see.

Or did you thought that this image from Mars was taken by some tourist?

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by FutureAbductee

Those things may look like debris to you, but to me they just look like the other rocks that can be seen on the other Rover's photos, and they have made hundreds of those.

And what explanation can you come up with for the lack of more debris? If that was a place where once stood a civilisation don't you think that just some small debris are too few?

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:51 PM
OK. You people are completely deluded and probably on some new kind of drug. The photo you are talking about is a barren picture of rocks and rubble. The atmosphere of mars has always been blue because of its high nitrogen content. The surface is mainly red rock which is why the planet looks red from a distance. The 'blue water' or 'green grass' that you are talking about is clearly GREY RUBBLE!!

You people really do make up some serious rubbish!

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:57 PM

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Damien_Hell

Are you talking about the rover itself?

It is the only structure that I can see.

Or did you thought that this image from Mars was taken by some tourist?

He probably doesn't even know what the rover is, amuzing post isn't it haha.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by the m0nit0r
The 'blue water' or 'green grass' that you are talking about is clearly GREY RUBBLE!!

Grey Rubble, what do you mean by that?


posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:22 PM
I am new and just started following some threads. Great site! This one caught my eye. Good catch and it seems like they just keep coming on this photo.
I tried to look at it with a photographer's eye and here are some thoughts. Right or wrong, I don't know, but all are possible.
1. Humanoid figures - You don't really know their size because you don't really know their distance from the camera. If NASA states it, can you believe it, whatever the distrance? They are on a rim of some depression which size is unknown too, but appears huge. Even if the figures were only a few meters away(as some one said), couple that with an obvious wide angle lens to create a panorama scene. Wide angle lenses always push items farther away and that makes them appear smaller than their real size too. In reality, they would not be Tinkerbell size at all, unless they were extremely close to the rover (like a couple of feet). On the other hand, regardless of size, does it matter? Who says that any ET has to be "our likeness"? One only has to look at the diversified species of life on this planet to realize that. I do find it hard to be just a rock formation unless it was carved that way and not that long ago. I say so because we are told of these "horrific" sand storms and high winds on Mars. Okay, how long would a smaller "arm" projection last in those circumstances? You might say ok look how long the face, heck, the nose lasted on that mountain in NH? But, consider this - there are more than one of these "figures" nearby. True one is real hard to distinguish - a head only. The second although not as clear does at least appear to be of similar size and shape. Very unlike that both or all three ,if it is three, could have been made naturally. One, okay its possible maybe, but more thanone?? So if that is true then they are either manmade (or should I say ETMade) or are alive beings. Neither of which NASA would ever admit to.
2. Water on mountainside. Again think of it as a photo. How many times have you taken a shot that wound up slightly off-kilter? It happens. If the rover which is the camera's platform was not perfectly level, it would make thinks appear sloped that in actuality may not be. Look at the photo as a whole and you will see the illusion of a concave horizon. It would appear flat at least but with the expanse of area in photo would most likely be convex and show the curvature of the planet, be it Mars or Earth where the photo (which again remember is a conglomeration of many photos) was taken. So the "water" on a slope may be on flat ground after all. That greenish area on the hill/mountain looks more like vegetation that water to me. But if the rippled area is water it can be flat. Looking at the photo as a whole like I said, and mentally flattening out the horizon, you'll see this area is flat and in the bottom of this whole depressed basin like region.
3. Whitish item on the horizon. If you download the 24MB photo you can plainly see that is mountains in the distance.
4. Assorted anomalies - the broken column rocks is certainly noteworthy. They appear to be just that and they line up with no other simialr rocks nearby. The "purse" rock, albeit not a purse, does show mulitple right angles that do not occur in nature. IMHO, other than the "rock formations" noted above, the rest of the rocks are not clear enough to really say much except hmmmm??.. Yeah, they could be this or that but they are more subjective to me, like the clouds. I may see a bear and you may see an elephant in the same cloud.
5. Sky color. I could see an argument either way here. Looking at the color wheel picture from Earth and then the same in the photo it has been altered. It is clearly more than just red dust on it. What filters were on the camera? What changes were made in Photoshop? Does NASA use their own image manipulation program? Who knows? Too many questions to have an answer to that one.
Anyway, thanks for the great site!

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:50 PM
"" border="0" alt="Photobucket"> "" border="0" alt="Photobucket">
I am going to be brief because I hope to convince a few of you about life on Mars. People who look like us and wear clothes,I've captured from the rover images since 2004.Old Mars man wearing brimmed cap is from Op 2004.Other image is from Spirit,and much harder to see because I only provided a yellow box,no processing. for further info.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Sublime620
What's all that other stuff in the pic? The tower, the joystick looking thing (lol)?

Just wondering.

That would be the Mars rover Spirit.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:06 PM
The image using false color(panorama) is fine in detail,and yes the white blob on horizon is puzzling.If you are very skilled at processing images and wish to see some muppet-like faces appear from seemingly out of nowhere,then turn your attention to the rover's solar panels,which offer a regular,plain,flat unobstructed backdrop for just a few feet away reliability of image.They would be the Mars animals faces that appear so faint as to avoid detection,because they move,yet stare at the cam lens. It's much harder to see the faces when the irregular backdrop of dirt interferes.I've been doing this since 2004. The mirage effect is probably not water ,but just coloration from filters.There's still water under the surface.The animals and people wear no breathing devices that I've seen so far.I can't say that I've seen PLANTS or HAIR yet,however. This animal is from a 1975-76 Viking lander .

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in