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: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Link





This is Big!

Nasa is trying to sell it as "The "trees" are really trails of debris caused by landslides as ice melts in Mars's spring"

What do you think?


-Al



[edit on 13-1-2010 by AlBeMet]




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Great Pic! I remember seeing something similar, but I don't think it was this close or clear. Certianly looks like foliage to me, and the source seems reilable!

Good find
-E-



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Awesome picture. Whatever accumulated mineral formations they may be, they certainly paint an interesting landscape. But then... interesting and surreal landscapes are around on earth too...

Yehliu, Taiwan:



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Open the browser version and zoom in to 400% (IE)

I'm not buying Nasa's story. The 'Trees' are vertical IMO, you can see through them and the land on the other side. Also keep in mind this was captured using the orbiter.

-Al



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I have absolutly no real knowledge of the new mars anomolies, but there is one thing that I cannot wrap my . around. When water freezes, it creates crystals that dont usually form lines in such uniform patterns, let alone lines that appear angled roughly the same ways even though the ice is formed in different locations such as the oddly shaped valleys between those dunes. Does anyone have any knowledge, or preferably some visual examples of what frozen CO2 looks like and how it acts while in the freezing process?

I would really like to see some information that can prove that frozen CO2 can do that.....I am not saying it cannot, but proof would help convince me.

Fry



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
These are very interesting formations. It is apparent from the lay of the land that these are absolutely not flows from landslide activity, as the scientists are claiming. They appear to be some kind of mineral growth jutting up from crevices in the ground. There is no reason to assume they are organic, but they could be. Whatever they are, they are really cool and unearthly. (Well, obviously!)



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Very Interesting.

This reminds me of old talk about "a forest on Mars".

Here are some pictures that were discussed:













And I also found a thread on ATS about it: A Forest on Mars!?!?


Peace, and good research!



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Even if they aren't trees, and they were right on their guess of stuff left over from glacial movement, still that leaves hope for microscopic anomalies or extinct microbials...

But!

These do look a lot like trees. They have the look to them in which an Earthling would immediately correlate to a tree, like how we would see a metal box with circles on top and we relate it to an oven.

Given this thought, is it possible that it's something alltogether different? something by the likes we've never seen, like the light-fountain anomolies (which I just looked for a picture of for like 30 minutes and didn't find) found elsewhere on mars?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
This was also discussed here on Above Top Secret

2nd Line...



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Awesome pic. I don't see how Nasa can explain this away as debris. I zoomed in and I can see what looks like different crown shapes and the trees are even wind swept and leaning. The dark colour at the bases I gues is martian soil??

I noticed the clump of trees in the bottom left corner of the pic look as is they have been smudged?? Maybe they showed a little too much tree detail. Either way it's a very cool discovery.


[edit on 13-1-2010 by sparrowstail]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
i dont know but have a look at these pictures .

how would they look from a very high altitude ?









and i have a question , why isnt there any shadows?

i dont claim to be an expert but its just my opinion.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Bottom line: we need to send people there- and quit taking the words of someone sitting here looking at a pic (no matter HOW smart they may seem- and I am ONLY talking about these NASA nerds), and then telling the world 'it's nothing', when clearly, it's a lot more than 'nothing'. I remember when they were SURE the mud at the rover sites was some complex, mumbo jumbo-ed explanation of 'weird chemical processes, that simply was unique to Mars'. GUESS WHAT. Turns out the mud, was M U D. Water mixed with dirt.

After that, and a few other 'expert' opinions that weren't worth wiping my butt with, I laugh in their face every time they spin a tale like this.

It's plant life on a frozen sand dune. It's what it looks like, and that's most likely what it *is*. Their explanations are a joke.

I'd LOVE to have the original image, and not the one they have on the news page.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by wylekat]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlBeMet
Link





This is Big!

Nasa is trying to sell it as "The "trees" are really trails of debris caused by landslides as ice melts in Mars's spring"

What do you think?


-Al



[edit on 13-1-2010 by AlBeMet]


Oh come one now...

You could tell those are photoshopped weather balloons dropping flares emitting swamp gas...lol

I to did a quick crop and zoom, and low and behold, they do look like something wind-swept sticking out of the ground.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by AlBeMet
 


holy [snip] [snip] [snip] that's [snip] [snip] amazing. [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] is about all i can say on the matter!

But seriously if the photo turns out to be 100% genuine then [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip].

The Telegraph is a respected paper so otherwise they've been [snip] [snip] or this is real. In which case it's [snip] huuuuuuaaaaaage! OMFG [snip] [snip] [snip]!

S&F

EDIT: Well that was fun while it lasted, mineral deposits and debris hmmm [snip] [snip] [snip]

[edit on 13-1-2010 by spookfish]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr UAE
 



I have to second Dr.UAE's comment. I don't see the shadows either and my first thought was photoshop. Cyrstal formations grow in many amazing shapes and in the lesser gravity of Mars they might tend to grow quite a bit larger than they do here on Earth. Asbestos forms crystals that remind me of what is see in the original pic. Interesting though.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Well its a good thing we send all our robots and probes to the driest and most remote parts of that planet...otherwise we may discover something interesting...




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
Great Pic! I remember seeing something similar, but I don't think it was this close or clear. Certianly looks like foliage to me, and the source seems reilable! Good find
-E-


The source may be reliable -- and that same source also explains that they are not trees, but rather trails of debris caused by landslides as ice melts during Spring on Mars.


[edit on 1/13/2010 by Box of Rain]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solofront
Well its a good thing we send all our robots and probes to the driest and most remote parts of that planet...otherwise we may discover something interesting...

The rovers were put near the equator so they could get maximum sunlight. If the rovers were in the location in that photo, they probably would not have lived 6 years.

The Phoenix Lander was sent to a spot near the poles, and died during its first dark winter. By the way, the Phoenix lander DID find some exciting things near the North Pole -- such as water and salts.

Having said that, I do agree with you that we should send a rover to an area like this -- even if we know that rover would be short-lived...or perhaps we should consider other power sources, such as the radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) that will be used by The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) launching next year.

But even with a power source not limited by sunlight, NASA feels the MSL will still need to be put in a "safe" yet "scientifically interesting" spot on Mars. It seems they think it would be a real waste of money if the Rover gets there, then immediately gets stuck (and it probably would be a watse if that happened).

However, perhaps the area in the OP's photo looks "cool", but it may not be the best place to look for life.

Here is a blurb from NASA regarding the type of location that would make a good candidate for MSL's landing site:

To mitigate the risk of disappointment and ensure the greatest chance for science success, we want the greatest number of possible science objectives at a chosen landing site. We need multiple science targets, and these targets should be as strongly differentiated as possible. Thus, a landing site with both morphologic and mineralogic evidence for past water is better than a site with just one of these criteria. Furthermore, a site with spectra indicating multiple hydrated minerals is better than a site indicating just one. A site with multiple styles of stratigraphic expression and inferred depositional mechanisms is better than a site with a single mode of stratigraphic expression. For example, a site with stratigraphically differentiated spectroscopic evidence for both clay minerals and sulfate salts would constitute a rich site.
Source -- ".doc" file

Also, there are engineering constraints to consider when landing and operating the rover, such as whether the soil could support the stresses of landing, whether the terrain material could easily be read by the landing radar, and at a low enough altitude to allow the air to be thick enough for the parachute to work and have enough time to perform landing procedures once that parachute DOES properly slow down the descent:
PDF File - "MSL Landing Site Selection User’s Guide to Engineering Constraints"

But, alas, it seems NASA is again going with the "safe" route (IMO) and sending the MSL closer to the equator or temperate zones:
Site List Narrows For NASA's Next Mars Landing

I suppose nobody at NASA has the guts to send a $2 Billion Rover (total project cost) to a risky location -- and I can't say that I blame them. Perhaps they should send a relatively cheap/expendable rover to one of those more polar locations.
But, as the saying goes, "No Guts, No Glory"


[edit on 1/13/2010 by Box of Rain]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

In the Martian winter, carbon dioxide freezes out of the air (and you thought it was cold where you are). In the summer, that CO2 sublimates; that is, turns directly from a solid to a gas. When that happens the sand gets disturbed, and falls down the slopes in little channels, which spreads out when it hits the bottom. But this disturbs the red dust, too, which flows with the sand. When it’s all done, you get those feathery tendrils. Note that at the tendril tips, you see blotches of red; that’s probably from the lighter dust billowing a bit before settling down.


More:


Now, you might think I’m making this all up. How do we know this stuff is flowing downhill like that? Ah, because in this picture we’ve caught it in the act! In this image, a closeup of a region just to the left of center of the big image, you can actually see the cloud of dust from an avalanche as it occurs.


Source


Every planet in the universe is awesome in it's own respect.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
Bottom line: we need to send people there- and quit taking the words of someone sitting here looking at a pic (no matter HOW smart they may seem- and I am ONLY talking about these NASA nerds), and then telling the world 'it's nothing', when clearly, it's a lot more than 'nothing'. I remember when they were SURE the mud at the rover sites was some complex, mumbo jumbo-ed explanation of 'weird chemical processes, that simply was unique to Mars'. GUESS WHAT. Turns out the mud, was M U D. Water mixed with dirt.

After that, and a few other 'expert' opinions that weren't worth wiping my butt with, I laugh in their face every time they spin a tale like this.

It's plant life on a frozen sand dune. It's what it looks like, and that's most likely what it *is*. Their explanations are a joke.

I'd LOVE to have the original image, and not the one they have on the news page.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by wylekat]


Put up your own billion dollar space budget and fly off to mars then. Since you can form such an expert opinion off of one photograph which you believe is more valid than NASA's. I mean... this isn't even the "original" yet your willing to state what it likely is. You must be a fricking genius on the subject of plant life on frozen sand dunes.

If NASA truley wanted to hide something why would they post something that will make every conspiracy idiot go "Oh that looks like trees... it must be trees"




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join