It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Life on mars this is it! no doubt!

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenRobot
 

I remember how shocked I was at how shallow the sand is on the surface vs the image of Mars as a black 8-Ball sprinkled with" flour",a thin coat of reddish sand. The black carbon dioxide look is downlplayed in most Mars pics,and we respond more to the brighter colors and ignore the BLACK BALL that is Mars just under the thin surface. Black 90%, other 10% just under the surface. Yet Mars is "SOLD" as reddish orange if you trust all the Nasa images.




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I tip my hat to you ArMap, WitnessFromAfar and Internos as you guys have managed to not only clarify and ellucidate intelligently on what originally were curious objects on the Martian surface, identifying in the process the problems associated in analyzing low res images, but have done so without losing focus.

Now we know we're not looking at "trees", can we speculate as to what is forming these smears? The theory of them being isolated outbreaks of flora doesn't seem entirely unlikely:



The effect of soil and foliar application of different iron (Fe) compounds (FeSO4, Fe-EDTA, Fe-EDDS, and Fe-EDDHA) on nutrient concentrations in lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Australian gelber) and ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Prego) was investigated in a greenhouse pot experiment using quartz sand as growth medium. Soil application was performed in both the acidic and alkaline pH range, and foliar application to plants grown in the alkaline sand only. Lettuce growth was depressed by Fe deficiency in the alkaline sand, whereas the treatments had no effect on ryegrass growth.


www.cababstractsplus.org...

this is allowing for outside (Human) manipulation in the experiment described, but acknowledging that nature will succeed in the most inhospitable of environments, and assuming neccessary nutrients exist in the Martian sand.
And, of course, that there is sufficient water...



Since 1980, many geothermal artesian wells were drilled for complementary irrigation of some oasis in arid zones of Tunisia, where date palm is the most dominant crop. This water had to be cooled before irrigation. Therefore, the idea was to use this water firstly for heating greenhouses and then for irrigation; this gives the opportunity to produce earlier vegetables during the cold period for export...In this work, we investigated growth and fruit yield of tomato plants grown in sand or in perlite. this system with another one using perlite substrate. Plant growth was faster in sand than in perlite.


www.actahort.org...

Then again, if these smears are indeed plants of some kind, maybe a genus called Tillandsia may explain what we are seeing:



Tillandsia are epiphytes and need no soil because water and nutrients are absorbed through the leaves. The roots are used as anchors only. Reproduction is by seeds or by offsets called "pups". A single plant could have up to a dozen pups


en.wikipedia.org...

though these plants do need something solid to attach themselves to for survival. However, I had one many years ago and it lived quite happily on its own in a bowl of sand.

Another consideration is fungi:



fungi are heterotrophic organisms possessing a chitinous cell wall. The majority of species grow as multicellular filaments called hyphae forming a mycelium; some fungal species also grow as single cells. Sexual and asexual reproduction of the fungi is commonly via spores, often produced on specialized structures or in fruiting bodies. Some species have lost the ability to form specialized reproductive structures, and propagate solely by vegetative growth. Yeasts, molds, and mushrooms are examples of fungi.


and here:

nanotechweb.org...



Fungus makes silica nanoparticles from sand...On exposure to sand, the fungus leached out silica nanoparticles within about a day. The nanoparticles were crystalline and between 2 and 5 nm in size. They tended to cluster together.


is a long shot, but what if there is moisture beneath the Martian surface that could sustain fungi capable of producing this by product? Ok, I did say it is a long shot...

reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


With all due respect, why do you offer images that bear no relation to the subject of this thread, ie the blurred picture SeaMonkeys? We're we supposed to think they were Martians?



They're not, and using them as an example, IMO, does not help what is a serious discussion.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 


Very nicely done Beamish. I suppose you are correct, simply because they aren't trees doesn't mean that they are 'normal' and/or identified


I won't have time to get to work on this until this evening, but count me as interested in this mystery again.
Great post, way to take the initiative and start gathering comparison data!

-WFA



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beamish
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I tip my hat to you ArMap, WitnessFromAfar and Internos as you guys have managed to not only clarify and ellucidate intelligently on what originally were curious objects on the Martian surface, identifying in the process the problems associated in analyzing low res images, but have done so without losing focus.

Now we know we're not looking at "trees", can we speculate as to what is forming these smears? The theory of them being isolated outbreaks of flora doesn't seem entirely unlikely:







what made you SURE it's not trees we're looking at?

i believe, if I remember correctly, this non tree theory came from a certain "de iure" sceptic page where some guy used a bit of photoshopping on original images just to make them look like ordinary geology...
(I would appreciate if someone could link the original "analysis",I can't find it at this moment)

And the answer and critic rewiew to this article can be found here

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...



Furthermore about liquid water
I appologize if this has been discused before but...

I'll reffer to this page:

www.badastronomy.com...


that's all ok,but...
I'd like someone expert to analyze this picture that intrigued me quite a bit,but seems to be ignored or sth.




from original:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...


Thank you very much



[edit on 14-4-2008 by darkraver]

[edit on 14-4-2008 by darkraver]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by darkraver
 


I believe that the images ArMap et all supplied, seen from a different angle, really do indicate that these "objects" are not free-standing. Changing the angle shows that they are laying down.

I hope that I did not come across as a skeptic who's viewpoint has been justified by the diligence of others, as I did go on to hypothesise that though trees they may not be, these objects could well be floral or fungal life.

I've learned from ATS that drawing a conclusion from one source only is false economy. I have www.marsanomalyresearch.com... firmly embedded in my favourites list. Mr Skipper's tireless work simply cannot be ignored.

However, when you see the same images presented by others, complete with different, though related viewpoints, IMO then and only then can an informed viewpoint be formed. It is vital to see all sides of the arguement.

I saw trees initially, but now my opinion has changed.

Hope this helps.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Agreed with Beamish on this one. I saw trees at first too. But after exploring Sensfan's theory, and involving Internos in the examination process, and doing my own analysis, I don't think these are trees anymore.

This post by ArMaP was the clincher for me:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying there are no trees on Mars. That's a statement I simply can't make as of yet. But I do think that in these images (and in the stryations posted earlier in the thread) we are looking at something besides trees.

I'm completely open to finding out what sort of stains these are (what liquid is making them) but at this point I think they are stains, that appear seasonally.

-WFA



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkraver
that's all ok,but...
I'd like someone expert to analyze this picture that intrigued me quite a bit,but seems to be ignored or sth.



from original:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
I do not consider myself an expert, but I may answer.

That photo was the subject (or at least temporarily the subject) of a thread.

In my opinion it does not show any liquid but a very fine dust that is very common on Mars, from what I have seen on the rovers' photos.

A very fine dust, like Portland cement, behaves in a way that looks almost like a liquid (that is why Diesel engines could run on coal powder).

As you can see on the area marked with the red line, what looks like the same material is also on areas and in a way where a liquid would not be.


As usual in cases like this, the people that show these photos on their sites to support their "investigation" fail to point to the people who visit the site that in other photos of the same subject the "liquid" does not look like liquid at all.

In these photos, taken 7 hours, 13 minutes and 17 seconds and 4 hours, 33 minutes and 22 seconds before the one you posted, respectively, you can see that what most people present as liquid is making a small mound, so it can not be liquid.





Unless you were talking about a different thing and I did not understood it, it would not be the first time.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
As usual in cases like this, the people that show these photos on their sites to support their "investigation" fail to point to the people who visit the site that in other photos of the same subject the "liquid" does not look like liquid at all.

In these photos, taken 7 hours, 13 minutes and 17 seconds and 4 hours, 33 minutes and 22 seconds before the one you posted, respectively, you can see that what most people present as liquid is making a small mound, so it can not be liquid.





Unless you were talking about a different thing and I did not understood it, it would not be the first time.



hmmm...

although you do make a good point,I must stress that these two "dust" images compared to the "liquid" one have an evidently different texture quality to them

although it does look like a mount of dust on some pics,the position of sunlight makes it equally questionable concerning the texture of the rock and the "mound"

you should agree that the "liquid" one has a much better texture contrast quality than the "dusty" one due to the position from which the sunlight is coming from
that can easily be seen just observing the rock and the edge line which is dramatically different in these two images

now,I'm not gonna go into the Mars moisture subject,but in all considering there ARE visible cloud formations in many official MARS foto strings,it is more likely to me that this is MUD and posibble liquid accumulation of some sort



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar


This post by ArMaP was the clincher for me:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


-WFA


ups,sorry,obviously talking about different trees...

I wasn't talking about this case of sand dunes but of those all known "mega" trees that even A.C. Clarke commented

just look at my marsanomalyresearch link,you'll know what i'm talking about



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkraver
although you do make a good point,I must stress that these two "dust" images compared to the "liquid" one have an evidently different texture quality to them
That was probably the reason that photo was used as an "example" of water on Mars, because it is easier to have doubts with it.


although it does look like a mount of dust on some pics,the position of sunlight makes it equally questionable concerning the texture of the rock and the "mound"
If it looks like a mount in two out of three images (and on the third it still looks like a mount), why does the the one wins against the other two? What does that photo has that suggest so much that it shows water or mud that it makes forget the other two photos?


you should agree that the "liquid" one has a much better texture contrast quality than the "dusty" one due to the position from which the sunlight is coming from
Better? Better in what way?


now,I'm not gonna go into the Mars moisture subject,but in all considering there ARE visible cloud formations in many official MARS foto strings,it is more likely to me that this is MUD and posibble liquid accumulation of some sort
Considering that we can see dust everywhere on Mars and I have never seen any real sign of moisture on the ground (only what could have been the result of some liquid flowing in some specific areas), why should I consider it most probable mud than dust?

More images from that area.

From the previous (306) Sol.

This (in my opinion) shows better that this is not mud.



PS: I have many times compared the Mars dust to Portland cement, but nobody ever commented that comparison. Does anybody even know what is Portland cement? Am I using a comparison that is useless because nobody knows what I am talking about?



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by darkraver
 


Hey there DarkRaver, that was one of the pics that held my interest as well. Sensfan explained it earlier in this thread, with a close up from the same locale. What looks like fractal growth patterns from trees in fact turns out to be stryations (spelling?) from raised mounds. At least that's what I got from the close up shot.

I'm sorry I don't have time to find the specific post, as I'm about to leave work. But it's here earlier in this thread


-WFA


________________________________________________________
Oh, and ArMaP, I know of Portland Cement
Here's a link on it:
en.wikipedia.org...

You might well be right on the mark with that theory!

-WFA



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
You are absolutly right. Yes, there is probably some signifagance to your photos but it's question is no longer. Ofcourse there is and was life on Mars. It's no secret. Nasa air brushes so many alien things out of pictures it's an actual job. This is all fact so lets move on to the next chapter. That chapter is to find out the truth and stop letting our selves be manipulated and brain washed into believing and doing every thing were told simply because some hill billy sht kicking arsehole from Texas decided to make up his own rules(ofcourse I mean the higher ups, but he is the puppet so I use him as the example)and then try to keep us in fear with such things as fake terror alerts that slowly takes away our liberties. Unfortunatly, It seems to be working. The goal for the Illuminati is to reduce population drastically so the world will be more easily controlled. This has been the plan for a very long time. Can you notice how we are turning into a police state? Heard of RFID chip? Thw worl will eventually turn into a nazi Germany type system and this blue print has always been in the makings. One world, 1 leader. It's just that most of us are too dumb and cant see the real picture because were to busy uploading bull crap to our minds from the pictures on tv. Basically, watch this hand while this hand does what ever it wants. But dont worry! It's not to late. Only almost and probably to late. There are still plenty of us to join and unite as a whole and take down the powerfull greedy shadow governments. My email is kidjr27@excite.com. You can count me IN!!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
As to the "pooled liquid" theory: now shoot me down in flames here if I'm wrong, but if these are lakes and lagoons of muddy water, wouldn't at least one of the images show the reflection of the sun? Even taking into account the angle from which the photos were taken?

Here's another theory regarding these smears, just to stir the pot...


Seeps are direct evidences of hydrocarbon occurences and are associated with many major discoveries. Seeps provide significant targets for more intensive exploration efforts.




I hasten to add here that while this is, IMO, very reminiscent of the Martian images, this particular photo was gathered by a radar satellite.

www.mdafederal.com...

This got me thinking and further digging along the natural resources theme and it's appearance on our planet's surface turns up this:


Tar sands is a common term for what are more accurately called bituminous sands, but also commonly referred to as oil sands or (in Venezuela) extra heavy oil. The material is a naturally occurring mixture of sand or clay, water, and extra heavy crude oil or bitumen which is found in significant amounts in various countries throughout the world, but occurs in vast quantities in Canada and Venezuela.


en.wikipedia.org...

This stuff has been expoited for centuries, in one usage or another:


In 1788, Alexander MacKenzie wrote in his journal: “At about 24 miles from the fork (of the Athabasca and Clearwater Rivers) are some bituminous fountains into which a pole of 20 feet long may be inserted without the least resistance. The bitumen is in a fluid state and when mixed with gum, the resinous substance collected from the spruce fir, it serves to gum the Indians' canoes. In its heated state it emits a smell like that of sea coal.”


www.syncrude.ca...

And they account for a huge amount of the world's fuel supplies:


Second only to the Saudi Arabia reserves, Alberta's oil sands deposits were described by Time Magazine as "Canada's greatest buried energy treasure," and "could satisfy the world's demand for petroleum for the next century".


www.energy.gov.ab.ca...

Now this is just thinking outside the box, but what with the current panic regarding peak oil, how would it pan out if crude reserves were discovered on Mars? What if we were seeing the tip of black oil-bergs peeking out from the Red planet's sands...

Of course the logistics of mining and shipping it back to earth would be mind-boggling. But for a long term colony of settlers/explorers who take the correct equipment with them...

Humvee's and Peterbilt's racing across Cydonia?

Just a thought.





[edit on 15-4-2008 by Beamish]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I think people are so desperate to believe they just overlook all logic and start to assume its proof.

To me them pictures look more like the following.

Rock impact displacing the sand.

Mini tornadoes

They don't look anything like trees, water or secret underground bases.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I hope to defend my SeaMonkeys analogy.
Nasa wants you to see exactly what they want you to see,and nothing more. They cover life and I expose or uncover it.Nasa masks images.I unmask them. The question of water or powder in these pics is moot because you ask the wrong questions,while the nasa sea monkeys do their dirty work. If you look carefully at the originals and look for the outlines of EYES hidden in the "puddle" you'll realize life on Earth and Mars share symetry. What would you call this type of animal/face? What would you call the face that ArMap circled red without realizing it was a face? The animal in the "PUDDLE" is alive because it moved between frames because the eyes are slightly askew(motion). Click/Click...and it looks directly at OPPORTUNITY rover. The LIVE ones DO THAT. Shhhhh(they hear a noise Click/Click)



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Nasa wants you to see exactly what they want you to see,and nothing more.
And I suppose I could say the same about you, right? You want us to see exactly what you want us to see.


Did you ever thought that you might be wrong? Even if there is life on Mars, have you ever thought it possible that what you are seeing is just the result of some conditioning that makes you see faces in places where there are no faces and that you are missing all the real evidences of life on Mars?


They cover life and I expose or uncover it.Nasa masks images.I unmask them.
I have asked many times to many people to prove that they "unmask" anything, but all they do is just post more images altered by them and say that they are "unmasking" things.


What would you call the face that ArMap circled red without realizing it was a face?
You are right, I sometimes see what you call faces, but I fail to see it on that photo.


The animal in the "PUDDLE" is alive because it moved between frames because the eyes are slightly askew(motion). Click/Click...and it looks directly at OPPORTUNITY rover. The LIVE ones DO THAT. Shhhhh(they hear a noise Click/Click)
I supposed that you knew that light shining with different angles creates different shadows, but apparently you only think that this is proof that the rocks and sand move.

Are you aware of the size of the features on those photos? Are you aware that the fact that you see the same things regardless of scale and point of view only shows that you see those things regardless of what the image shows?

Having said that, have you ever tried to look for faces on the photos from the microscopic imager?

And why do you only see faces, do you have any explanation for that? Do the faces have bodies? Or are all of those underground and only with their heads out? And if that is the case, why can't we see the holes in the ground, only the faces.

And why I am still writing this at 01:44 AM instead of going to sleep?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   
www.youtube.com... It's very easy to see why Nasa would cover up 1971 discovery of an alien ship on the moon.That's 37 years cover up.At that rate they will reveal what's on Mars in 33 years.That's one third of your lifetime if you live 100 years.That's science for you right out the window. Yes the questions on Mars faces can wait for you to wrap around the NON-DISCLOSURE issue.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


This type of near thread derailment is becoming more and more prevalent...

I fully realise that I am adding to the problem by pursuing this, but what else is there to be done when a rational, intelligent, thought provoking discussion is subjected to obscure, openly manipulated images that have, IMO, no bearing on the subject matter?

vze2xjjk, where in your last post was there any explanation as to why you posted a pixellated picture of sea monkey's?

Do you consider offering further, completely inexplicable images that have been horribly filtered a suitable retort to what was a perfectly reasonable request for clarification as to the inclusion of a cartoon image of purchasable sea life in a conversation regarding possible life on Mars?

Are you saying that seamonkey's exist on Mars?

Please elucidate on this without relying on unacceptable visual aids, and without the usual rhetoric that invariably accompanies these outlandish claims.
No, I will not try and teach myself to see your Martians, nor do I believe it takes a leap of faith/a third eye/the ability to alter one's perception for them to leap out of the page at me.

The onus is on you to show me them because you are not promoting this as a theory, you are promoting it as fact.

Believe it or not, we share some common ground in that I too am under the impression that NASA may well be obscuring inexplicable objects captured by the orbiter and rovers. I cannot prove it, it is a gut feeling, and I am more than willing to be proven wrong.
Are you willing, too?

Does it not occur that something is wrong with your hypothesis and methodology, when your contributions invariably ellicit unfavourable, and sometimes hostile responses, apart from like-minded individuals? That would hurt me, I don't mind telling you.

I am open to any and all avenues of investigation, as I imagine are most of the members on ATS, but will only consider those that have some passing semblance to normality and logic.
We're not going to solve this riddle by using computer programmes to corrupt images to such an extent that they fit in with wishful thinking.

There's more than likely many things we're missing in these NASA supplied photos, and, as I stated previously, that is their intention. We're missing them.
To finally decipher these hidden secrets will take a joint effort from all on ATS, as I have no doubt this the forum where that momentous happening will take place.

You have to ask yourself one thing before that occurs: do you want to be part of it, or continue being and outsider by sticking obstinatley to obscure, unproductive practices?

I wonder if you'll even read all of this post...



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkraver
ups, sorry obviously talking about different trees...
I wasn't talking about this case of sand dunes but of those all known "mega" trees that even A.C. Clarke commented
just look at my marsanomalyresearch link,you'll know what i'm talking about


Hi darkraver! I'll bet my bottom dollar you haven't read my earlier post on those so called 'trees' that you are referring to.


Though Jo Skipper is an acquaintance of mine and I like the effort he puts into his work, there are a number of anomalies like the 'trees' that don't stand scrutiny. Take a look at my post I'm referring to below which I'm reproducing here as I know it's a pain going back several pages to look for it....


Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Arthur C. Clarke's 'trees' have not been explained properly either.


I'll wait until someone can show me a 'from the ground' image of the same location before I'm calling this one 'case closed' one way or the other.


Hi WFA! Ok, your wait is now over! Check out the images with progressive resolution (below) and you’ll see what I mean.




South Polar Region PSP_003443_0980
Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona


Do they look like trees or just cracks/fissures on the surface of Mars? But keep lookin’! You never know what turns up!!

The original images are here…

www.msss.com...
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...


So I'll leave you to your conclusions! But as far as I'm concerned, these are NOT trees but natural terrain features.

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I still haven't figured out if this is a Nasa-engineered hoax or some imaginative photoshop for a new movie. I'm not completely sold that this is REAL. I hope that it is real,but that doesn't make it so. I have seen some YOUTUBE videos that make it look like large animal head fossils existed on the moon where the Apollo astronauts stood and took pictures. This seems like a lot to believe all at once,so I'm very optimistic yet cautious before accepting the NEW evidence of very large life remnants on the moon.Nasa just won't tell us the whole story.That's certain.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join