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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


You certainly do contribute a lot of content here, don't you? Question is, do you ever actually read anything? That particularly poor video, from which that still is taken, was soundly ripped to pieces some time ago, right here at ATS.




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Mr. Penny, Beamish and ArMaP, MikeSingh, and all of you wonderful others...

I think it might be time to let this thread go.
Each of us (and MANY others) have done our part here in this thread to not only engage in rational and polite debate, but to illustrate our points well in our search for the answers to these mysteries.

At this point, as hard as it is, I propose that we allow this guy/gal and others like him/her to go ahead and pollute the end of it, if their bent on doing it.

The work done in this thread stands on it's own merit, and by that same token this latest attempt to derail the thread will fail on it's own merit.

It is honorable, your attempts to deny this ignorance. I just hope that great minds like yours are not distracted by these tactics. I surmise that is the intent of the poster.

-WFA



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


A sensible idea, WitnessFromAfar.

Though we haven't succeeded in solving the initial question, we have furthered our knowledge. That is a victory, in my book.


At this point, as hard as it is, I propose that we allow this guy/gal and others like him/her to go ahead and pollute the end of it, if their bent on doing it.


I concur, no matter how frustrated I feel.


It is honorable, your attempts to deny this ignorance. I just hope that great minds like yours are not distracted by these tactics. I surmise that is the intent of the poster


Great mind? Me?


Distracted? Never! Inadvertant, or even deliberate, disinfo should never get in our way. But it does have to be weeded out before we can continue.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
minds like yours are not distracted by these tactics.


Distracted? Huh..you gotta' be kiddi.......hey.......do I smell pumpkin pie?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Agreed.

Perhaps a good way to move forward, since you are at the forefront now (as far as ATS is concerned) in the quest to find out what these stains actually are representing...

would be to start a new thread, citing this thread as a source for where you got your starting information.

Just a thought, I'll be behind your research into this question no matter how you pursue it
But that might be a good way to establish what we've learned here as a basis for moving forward.

-WFA



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


That was awesome. Star for making me laugh so early in the morning!


-WFA



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 


Beamish, I forgot to say, if you do start a new thread on it, picking up where this one left off, please let me know through U2U (or post the link to it here in this thread). I'll do my best to assist you


-WFA



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Beamis and others,yes the Moon thing was a hoax and I was offline a year and a half(back on in Nov 07) so I missed a lot.It's a self-correcting system. The reference to Sea Monkeys was that Nasa monkeys with the images,which I have been hoping to show people 100 times over by unmasking life on Mars. Even if you don't view my work as interesting or worthwhile,it will help others who find things like Skipper with Anomalies pages,and 100 others looking for evidence of life on Mars.Youtubers are also in the game.Even if you never saw one of my images,I pointed out that the thin layer of sand on the surface covers a mostly dark surface.We are shown overly orange pics even since Viking missions. We are given color images from nasa of a false colored sky,much more orange,and more recently corrected from public pressure(I believe) from the scientific community to just get the color of the sky right at least. The sea monkeys analogy was inspired by these stains out of the ground sands at the tops of sand dunes.That Moon hoax looked like a fat pen with a pocket gripper and looked a little too fake for me with the exterior markings like a zebra.Stripes on a spaceship just don't compute for me.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
To show I'm not trying to derail the noble quest of this inquiry into the mystery of the stains,let me add that Lowell and the like noticed seasonal changes in Mars coloring,so that would give credence to temperature changes and "blooms" of coloring slowly spreading.These could be living or chemical,or a combination. Canali/canals or seeming straight lines of the bands of coloring may be a clue. Circular stains or blooms spreading like ink blots/spots on wet paper give me the impression of gradual motion that resembles "growth" but could be similar to seepage or outgassing/sublimation. The relatively evenly spread spike looking tops of sand dunes,as flat stains of a dark (carbon-looking) chemical vary from the round "blooms". It might be topography that determines how those stains "move". I think something as regular as gradual heating cause these stains to grow and perhaps when cooled later recede,or just get covered again by sand mixing,erasure like an ETCH-A-Sketch.Sandstorms. So I thinks it's a regular ebb and flow like high and low tide for the stains to be visible. That's why I mentioned that the surface of Mars was really mostly DARK,and so posted a darker than ususally seen pic of Mars globe on the previous page. I don't rmember other people complaining about how the globe of Mars is usually false colored as BRIGHTER than it actually is. If that sounds ridiculous,why anyone would WANT a DARK true image of the globe of Mars,then let me emphasize the dark stains as more the "Norm" than the light sand covering which is more sparse never covering the entire surface when compared to the dark colored "Majority" of total surface area. Of course you exclude brighter ice caps at the poles. That's why I believe temperature is the dynamic force at work,moving winds,and covering or uncovering the larger dark mass in sections. The dark stains could be chemical or could be alive.I'll wait for further analysis.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Picture the situation of the dunes upside down or from just below the surface.Let's say they are not pure loose sand from crest to trough.Perhaps the reason the black stains appear toward the crests first is that the pattern of hills beneath the "sugar coating"(thin coating) powdery weak,wispy blowing sandy TOP drops away from the crests first or gets uncovered or "UNMASKED" first. Perhaps the underlying/more solid hills(more pemanent,compacted,compressed,unyeilding to winds) structurally OUTLAST the temporary sands and re-appear.The staining "appears " to seep downhill perhaps,or in a similar direction perhaps. It's like hill-tops or peaks getting uncovered from the top down. Perhaps the sand doesn't actually get blown off,but just gets stained. I'm just thinking what an oil stain does to sand,but only for illustration purposes. I'm not at all suggesting OIL.Whether the staining is chemmy or crystal or liquid or alive,I have no answer.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I keep forgetting to add an "ice melting on dark black asphalt" as another analogy.The heat of the sun gets absorbed by the dark colored tar in the road and helps melts the ice. Likewise a black car in the hot sun gets hotter than the light colored car. Heat absorbtion is at play here with the stains I believe.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


In all sincerity, I tip my hat to you. Truly I do. Why? I'll tell you.

These boards are populated by a lot of folk who have outlandish ideas. In my experience they are blinkered, near obssesed and issue blanket refusals to change their viewpoints. Indeed, it may well be the case that they cannot change not only their viewpoints, but their opinions, too. Often, they are incapable of joining in with "normal" conversation.

You will notice that I have deliberately not aimed this at you, even though up until I read your last few posts I included you in this group. Forgive me if the following sounds condescending; it's not intended to be.

You have proved me wrong with the content of these posts, and I applaud you for that. And I also admire you for doing something I thought you incapable of; contributing to a thread.

Nice one, vze2xjjk.



Perhaps the reason the black stains appear toward the crests first is that the pattern of hills beneath the "sugar coating"(thin coating) powdery weak,wispy blowing sandy TOP drops away from the crests first or gets uncovered or "UNMASKED" first.


That's a feasible theory, and something that the scientific community promotes as a possible answer. In my humble, completely non-scientific opinion, I have a problem with it, in that the unmasking is uneven. Even allowing for the randomness of wind's effect, surely if there were undulating, darker hills beneath this "staining" would be exposed from the top down. Their peaks stripped bare right along their lengths, so to speak?

Here, you can see sporadic outbreaks.



here the stains appear at top and bottom simultaneously. What I'm seeing is not fitting in the popular explanation.



this photo (obviously from earth) show remarkably similar patterns.



www.kellscraft.com...

I am leaning toward the cause of this staining to be plant related, possibly fungal.

Maybe something that has evolved similar to puffball mushroom:


The spores of puffballs are statismospores rather than ballistospores, meaning they are not actively shot off the basidium. They are called puffballs because a cloud of brown dust-like spores is emitted when the mature fruiting body bursts.


en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, this is all supposition. I am far from expert, just an enthusiatic amateur.


Perhaps the sand doesn't actually get blown off,but just gets stained. I'm just thinking what an oil stain does to sand,but only for illustration purposes. I'm not at all suggesting OIL.


Well, that's another angle, and one that I've toyed with (see my post above).


[edit: resized oversized image]
Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   



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.




hmmm...
wouldn't agree just jet....




(this is all close aproximmation)

Yellow line represents cca the incoming sunlight,whilst the minor orange line represents the dimension of height...you can see now,I believe ,how due to the position of the sun the dimension of height is relativised in this picture....

Green circles are areas of interest where you just can't recognize the two peak points on the stone edge,visible in the other picture

The blue triangle is for demonstrating the levelness of the edgeline of the stone, on three separate pinpoints, which is of course best visible on a photo with height dimension traceable as is the other picture
it can be seen the apex touching the "mound" is the lowest point of the three

in surplus,the two slopes of the "mound" are in different shade of gray which means the sun is not lighting them equally,assuming naturally that there is an elevation in question
however I do notice the same shade of gray on the smaller slope and on the entire left side of the rock,which by the way is shadow-less. Logic would assume that the sun would light the same substance sloping at same degrees (left edge of the rock and the bigger -darker slope of mound) the same way...would it not?


now...



The yellow line is the direction the sunlight is coming from

orange line represents the dimension of height...I hope you can see now how due to optic physics this picture is better in determing this third dimension of space...

red arrows are approximations of height in certain points WHICH are non recognizable(not visible) in the prior picture

The Blue triangle is exactly what it was in the prior picture and with the same reference points,the apex is visibly lower based than the two peak points which means that the stone's plate at that point of edge touching the mound-pond is lower,which again may explain the illusion of a mound in the prior picture
The "mound" here is in equal shade of gray....
No matter the position of the sun...where are the 3 slopes?at least one of them should be recognizable due to sunlight extracting the height dimension of the area in question.See the peaks throwing shadows now?



All in all I just wanted to say that I personally wouldn't bet on dust so firmly...nor on liquid at this point but....
I say again,I've seen too much cloud formations on Mars in original strips (See mr. Skipper's page marsanomalyresearch.com for reference) that I would discard the possibility of liquid that easily...



p.s.sorry for the bad english if there is any



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

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....




I read almost entire thread


well,I'm just not too convinced myself mike...
would like your comment on the analysis given on marsanomalyresearch about the photos debunking the "trees"...

It seems to me Skipper did show on example you can photoshop the originals exactly to the progressive resolution ones...

Seems to me the question is...whome do you believe in the end?

I just don't believe NASA...



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by darkraver
 


I think I understand what you are saying, and I will try to explain better my point of view.

When I posted the other photos I was to trying to show that the difference in shading on both slops of the mound was the result of the difference in direction of the sunlight, because if it was a pool of some liquid all of its surface would look the same regardless of the direction of the light.

I did not thought of that as a mound because of the way it "interfaces" with the side of the rock slab, it looked to me like a mound because of the difference in shading, more visible on the image bellow, after I had reduced the number of colours used.



To me, it looks like a mound with a sloop almost facing the camera, one to the left and one to the right. It also has a smaller slope from the mound itself to the side of the rock slab.

The fact that the right slope of the mound and the dust on the left of the rock have more or less the same shade is only because the sunlight is not completely vertical but slightly from the left, as you can see by the shadows.

Edit: could some mod please change the size of image that is messing up the layout of the page? Thanks.

[edit on 17/4/2008 by ArMaP]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


I am glad that you showed us this new aspect of your posting behaviour: a well presented and explained post where you point your opinion and why do you think it valid.

Personally, I like it more than the previous, image filled, posts. Some people say that a photo is worth a thousand words but they forget that there are things that can only be expressed through language (like the expression "a photo is worth a thousand words", try to make a photo expressing that idea
).

I don't think that the dark areas are just what lies bellow the sand because of two things:
1 - some of the dunes have moved since first photographed, and they still show that behaviour
2 - in some of the photos that show those dark areas on the rim of the dunes we can see that the dark area almost looks like it melted, so I think this is really the result of the melting of some substance.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Beamish and ArMaP, thanks for making me re-read his/her last few posts.


I agree with what you both said.

Darkraver, thank you also for this latest entry! I'm glad to see you putting this kind of thought into a post. Welcome to the think tank!


-WFA



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoeknows
 
Where you at john boy? You put up evidence from Skippers site then you disappear. It's on page 8. If you can't take the heat from the members on this site you may want to think twice about putting Skippers evidence here. He doesn't need you or anyone else stirring the pot at this point.
These good folks here will tear into you like you wouldn't believe, even more so when you post something that you cannot backup and they have every right to. EMail Skipper the next time you decide to use his work on ATS. You might not have to hide the next time you post his evidence without knowing anything about it.
"Just a little advise from a friend of his."



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by darkraver
 


I think I understand what you are saying, and I will try to explain better my point of view.

When I posted the other photos I was to trying to show that the difference in shading on both slops of the mound was the result of the difference in direction of the sunlight, because if it was a pool of some liquid all of its surface would look the same regardless of the direction of the light.

I did not thought of that as a mound because of the way it "interfaces" with the side of the rock slab, it looked to me like a mound because of the difference in shading, more visible on the image bellow, after I had reduced the number of colours used.





[edit on 17/4/2008 by ArMaP]





the difference in shading is the main point of observing,however i mentioned the interfacing with the rock edge as an add to my claim

the surface of liquid is most definitely not all the same looking when the light strikes it at near 90 degrees...there is less refraction so the liquid seems more transparent,you see the bottom better
of course it all depends where your view point is but given that viewpoint is almost exactly the same in both photos...


hmmm,never thought of reducing colors but....
seems we differ in opinions about slopes...

this picture of yours just firms my opinion about liquid even better...
it is more obvious now that it really is denivelated
the slopes don't match with the previous photos

on the quick run also...depending on the position of the setting sun somewhere near the horizon,concluding by approximation again and taking to mind other long casting shadows, this mound would also produce a slight shadow if it were elevated
I believe the darker shade in this pic represents deeper

butt....could be I'm going totally the wrong way about this
ahh,I don't know...


[edit on 18-4-2008 by darkraver]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkraver
the surface of liquid is most definitely not all the same looking when the light strikes it at near 90 degrees...there is less refraction so the liquid seems more transparent,you see the bottom better
What I meant to say is that when a light shines on a liquid, the way the surface of the liquid reacts to light is the same for all of the surface at a given time.

So, if that is not a mound but a hole filled with some liquid, the surface of the liquid would be visible (and more visible on the images where the Sun is lower), unless the liquid was completely transparent to all the wave-lengths used.

Also, if that was a hole and not a mound, a shadow cast over it would not look like this.


Edit: I have found another image that may be better at showing that this is not a hole filled with liquid but a small dust mound.



The area from the other photo is on the left lower part of this photo.

[edit on 19/4/2008 by ArMaP]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join