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.

 

NASA photographs "Trees" on Mars

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


Mars has the same atmosphere composition as Earth if you removed Earth's nitrogen.

It's not proof of anything. 1/3 gravity makes it very easy for stuff to fly up.




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
How do you figure there is 1/3 of the gravity?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


Due to Mars having less mass than Earth, if you weighed 100 pounds here, you would weigh 38 pounds on Mars. That equals to Mars having roughly 1/3 the gravity of Earth.

Sorry to butt in, but it was on the tip of my tongue when I saw this post



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
This is a top down picture. Trees do not crawl. There are no shadows cast by the perfect lines of trees with no depth to them whatsoever. There are also "trees" growing upside down that even though a poster pointed out, seem to be missing from the pic being pushed around so much by ATS members. Please consider that you are looking straight down at the ground. What trees would possibly grow up and down, snaking along the surface?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
This was, too me, the best topic about Mars. I absolutely do not believe that there is any NASA vehicle there. Please don't try to convince me, I don't really care. It is a good read too, as both sides tried hard to prove the point:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I agree! Seems to me that Mars has proven time & time again, that we should be taking a serious look at this Planet! Unless the fine folks at NASA already KNOWS the truth about Mars, but, telling us yet another lie about their findings. Now why doesn't surprise me...???

BTW: We pay them with taxpayer money, right? You would think that would entitle us to SOME truth about what they know?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 





Google is Your friend.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by herbivore
 


There's 10s of dozens of gigabytes of pictures from Mars as of now. These are all fakes? Why go so far with it?

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   


NASA'S FRAUDS ANIMATION

youtube.com...

Ha, Ha, Ha

What a biggest buffoonery.

NASA's frauds can only make animations and simulations.

The new liar, the new biggest fraud is Barry Goldstein.

Will it be true his name? Ein - stein. Gold - stein. Ha, Ha, Ha, NASA's frauds have not big creativity.

This Goldstein doesn't look at the cine-camera, WHY?

Simple for my big brain: he is ashamed of himself to play the part of the biggest scientist.

NASA's frauds can swindle gullible people but not me and my readers.

There is an old fat actor in this video:

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

He plays the part of the OBS (old big scientist) but he exaggerates and looks like a caricature.
Many others actors look like caricatures.

My dear readers, it is not possible, it is not reasonable, it is not normal, it is not judicious, it is not logical, it is not admissible, it is not plausible that NASA's frauds have not tested Phoenix on the earth to see if it had capabilities to slow down velocity and to land going backwards without becoming a spinning ball.

I, Big-Brain - the man that forced NASA to rotate Tempel 1 image since I said it had the face of a bad animal - challenge NASA's frauds to show a video of Phoenix tested on the earth.

I will stay tuned.

NASA's frauds, throw off your mask or show us a video of Phoenix that slows down its velocity and lands going backwards like a leaf on the hard ground of our planet.

This is my challenge: BBC (Big Brain Challenge).




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Does anyone know at what height these photos were taken?

To me they look more like giant mangroves or something....

Also that high res pic is beautiful, are the greyish areas ice or rock?

PS. How come the pictures are getting more and more colourful I know technologies improving but a few years ago every picture was just red and dead now theres hues of orange blue, white there actually showing pictures of the ice now, when before there was nothing.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Occy Anonymous]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by herbivore
 


Dude, I was at that topic. You still make no sense, and the grammar of your wording has not improved.

You fail to realize something. NASA is hated in the public eye, and nothing they can do except land a man on Mars will save them.

Phoenix is there alright. The proof? Math my child, math.

Image was taken of ice clouds. That's water/CO2.




On Earth Ice clouds float at 3-7 Km above Earth. COmposating for CO2 instead of H20, and the clouds drop due to weight. However we're on Mars. 1/3 gravity.

Mass of H20 on Earth. 8 = blah blah blah unit of weight.

CO2 on mars: = mass = blah blah blah unit of wight/3 = 7.3

Close enough to form on the same height basis range.

Typology of local area of clouds to the gps location of pheonx on Mars versus Earth.

Siberia cloud typology:

www.freedigitalphotos.net...

Same type of cloud as per typology of land On Mars at Phoenix location.

As an animator, I can tell you that making realistic clouds like above is almost impossible. They're really annoying. On average we make them in Photoshop and just leave them randomly in a scene. Above the clouds on Mars are moving and shape shifting. This is impossible without advanced technology only seen in really good movies and companies, not NASA... not with their lack of care.

CONCLUSION: Phoenix is on mars. Math is absolute, with no interpretation possible. It is not art, and it is not philosophy. It is absolute. The end.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I wish we could have landscapes of pink snow, that is soo beautiful.

Thank you for sharing.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheila947
I wish we could have landscapes of pink snow, that is soo beautiful.

Thank you for sharing.



Remember, don't eat the dreaded pink snow where the Martians go



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
After looking at them very close and zoomed in they actually look more like cactus type plants.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Does anyone else remember nasa telling everyone that mars has no atmosphere? Wierd Huh?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
So they are showing us highly detailed colour pictures of the surface of Mars, but still only black and white ones of the moon



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I just find that the pictures look like animation or a painting... Just my .02

Peace

Magnum



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
The article seems to be total crap. So much disinfo out there people you
can't just scim over things and post them just because they look real.

Can someone say this for sure is not a hoax?

I'm not saying that mars is magnetised.



[edit on 13-1-2010 by randyvs]


then what are you saying? You seemed to contradict yourself...


We find life in the strangest places on our planet, places where human beings simply could not exist...yet, there is life there.

Who's to say that Mars is any different?

Don't rule it out because the TV says to.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emiai
So they are showing us highly detailed colour pictures of the surface of Mars, but still only black and white ones of the moon


eh?


These pictures of the moon ARE in color...

It just looks different because the moon isn't red & mars is.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrno1
Does anyone else remember nasa telling everyone that mars has no atmosphere? Wierd Huh?


Umm, no I dont remember that. Neither does google by the looks of it.

But even if they did, why does NASA have to be correct all the time? We're in an early stage of space exploration so it doesnt really strike me as being odd if they dont get it right all the time.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join