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.


Trees on Mars?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 20 2004 @ 08:14 AM
So strange objects big or not that have been studied enough to know that change whit stations. And no one cared to take a color picture of them? I already saw some color satellite images of mars, I think its not so hard to aim the color camera to a strange phenomenon

So NASA says that are freezing matters while they does not give us color images to prove it. ( or even doesnt distribute them easily that anyone can find them )

Ok, now I think I believe in Martian trees

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 09:54 AM
Re: size, remember that even on earth a banyan tree left alone can cover a vast area, 100s of square metres.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by harrisjohns
Re: size, remember that even on earth a banyan tree left alone can cover a vast area, 100s of square metres.

Geeze thats huge! I didn't know they got that big. WOW

That puts a California redwood to shame, and those are huge too!

I'm sure that anything big growing on Mars would be REALLY big...gravity and all, but didnt realize things got that big here...I should go read up on Banyan trees.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 05:43 PM

not quite

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 06:48 PM
Are those banyan trees? Are they huh huh??

I love sattlelite photos!!

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 06:21 PM
the suggestion that these photos are of an ancient coral reef is a good one to.

They STILL look like trees to me though.

Acidhead has the best avatar ever.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by theRiverGoddess]

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 12:01 PM
They could be some sort of crystalline growth. There are pictures of what look like tree branches scattered about, and some which appear to show star patterns growing outwards underground.

We naturally attempt to draw comparisons with what we know, which are of course earthly. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this is some form of crystalline growth or other lifeform.

Like the previous poster said, why weren't the Rovers sent here? They seem to favor deserts and rocks for landing places - safer for landing, but rocks are not trees or whatever these things are.

The Mars Orbital Camera has a resolution down to 1.5 metres/pixel or less, they don't take too many at that resolution though - not sure what this one is, but can probably find out. A search for 'Arthurs bushes' (As they have become known) should reveal the original with all the relevant data.

Most of the images are about 3Km wide.

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 12:06 PM
Okay, well I found it, it's 5.5m per pixel and 2.83 Km wide.

The original is here:

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 12:47 PM
Ok. I have to say that these pictures look very interesting. Iam still preplexed as to why I have heard nothing in the news or main stream science journals as to these pictures and possible vegitation.

The objects look to be fairly huge (judging buy the shadow angles and size). They also seem to be fairly detailed or "serated" which would indicate either ridges, holes, or something of the kind on the surface of the objects. Either that or multi layering of an object as seen from above, which could be leaves, branches, or other physical characteristics of the objects in question.

It just puts a sour taste in my mouth that main stream news either does not report this, is told to not report this, or just plain dont know about this (Which is highly unlikely). Something isn't right hear thats for sure.

Can anyone please clear up why these discoverys are not main stream, or is this just another typical ATS phenomona as to why ATS knows about these discoverys and no one else in the WORLD does?

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 12:57 PM
You didn't hear about them because they were found by a private individua trawling through Malins 100's thousands of Mars images. He posted them to a board like this, and it got shared around between a few dedicated Mars enthusiasts.

It was even posted on Hoaglands own bulletin board - but he didn't notice it until Arthur C Clarks name cropped up - at which point he pricked up his ears and opened his eyes.

This is over 3 years ago now.

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:00 PM
So basically we are beating a dead horse so to say...

Has there been any new information since this came out 3 years ago? Iam wondering how this came up again if its 3 years old?

[Edited on 5/25/04 by HumptyDumpty]

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:03 PM
Not everyone is enthusiastic about the idea of life - plant or otherwise - on Mars. To my knowledge it has yet to hit mainstream space science!

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:09 PM
Thanks for that link Trevor! I didnt even want to go throught the MGS images again, when they first startied coming out I spend weeks and weeks and weeks looking at photos. Man, my head was so burried in MGS pics I almost died from lack of oxigen. Thank you very much!

"So basically we are beating a dead horse so to say... "

Not at all, a lot of people are not aware of the photos like this. Won't be a dead horse until we get someone up there or some sort of rover up there in that area, or much better photos to show what they are exactly.

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by Darkblade71]

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:18 PM
I don't know how it came up here, I only joined 2 days ago!

I did a google search for arthurs bushes - and got steered to hoaglands site, where the link to the original was.

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Darkblade71HumptyDumpty:
"So basically we are beating a dead horse so to say... "

Not at all, a lot of people are not aware of the photos like this. Won't be a dead horse until we get someone up there or some sort of rover up there in that area, or much better photos to show what they are exactly.

I appologize for my somewhat inconsiderate comment Darkblade

I too had not heard anything about this topic too, and when I relised that this was a three year old topic....well you can understand. I, like you I assume, would like to see more light spread on these photos to the public...assuming that there isn't, or at least that the public knows.

Needless to say this is very interesting. I need to do some info searching (when iam not at work like iam now) and see if there is anything out there from gouvernmet officials to scientists that debunk this...or help prove it. Please carry on.


posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:42 PM

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:45 PM
No, wasnt meaning that you were saying something bad at all.
Nasa gave an "explination" but I don't buy it totally because, they don't know any better than anyone else does at this point. And they are way to fast to dismiss, or were when this photo surfaced, even the remote possibility of life..
Anyways, let everyone know. Would be very curious to know if anything else is out there. I am not saying that they ARE trees, just that, they sure do look like it. And they do change in a seasonal pattern. Could be ice melt or oxidizing or whatever they called it, or it could be a bizarre form of plantlife. As far as I know, they gave a cheezy explination and then it quickly faded into obscurity.

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:54 PM
Interesting article. I note that noone actually addresses the question of the trees/bushes from the professional side - they concentrate on black and white spots that change with the seasons.

It's far easier to address that subject - with the seasonal melting/freezing of the polar regions, than it is to venture an opinion on what looks distinctly plant-like.

I'm not saying it is a plant - but they're not saying anything about it at all - they avoid it completely. That's safe for them I guess.

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:41 PM
On a Google for trees on Mars images there might be some
stone formation cause.

But we don't see much of that on Earth except for erosion.

A flickr photo page with a tree growing from a candle flame

From experiments with 100kV, 2mA to 200kV, 1mA (both equal to about
200 Watt) and the frequency was about 100kHz going through a candle
flame. There is a point when electricity makes a flame which Tesla
made at times.

Well we don't see tree structures like that every day.

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:48 PM
Theory alert.

Maybe when and if there was life on mars, that "life" was huge. Think about it; primitive things were usually bigger than things are now. It really does look like a type of coral reef maybe. If it is, the "life" on Mars must have been huge. It is also said that Mars did have lakes and even maybe an ocean. In that ocean there would have been coral.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in