Green Patches on Mars

reply to post by Imagir


Alright. I give.

Let's pretend the image is TC and official.


Where's the green? It looks like a dust storm, on Mars. Chad wasn't being disrespectful, so there's no reason to assume he was. His avatar has nothing to do with this topic. I'll drop my argument and ask with him, where is the green you're seeing in the photo? Please answer the question. My avatar isn't relevant here.


Strype

Another double post. I'm very sorry. I'm done posting for the night. My sincere apologies to the OP, and others.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Strype]

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by Imagir

 

What a beautiful photo. But I did notice that the stars are missing.
Again, NASA air brushing!

It's not NASA's photo, notice the credit and copyright is credited to Jean-Luc Dauvergne and Francois Colas?

Plus you can see plain as day that the picture has been cropped and pasted onto a black background, no doubt by Jean-Luc Dauvergne and/or Francois Colas.

[SNIP]

Credit & Copyright: Jean-Luc Dauvergne, Francois Colas, IMCCE/S2P, Obs. Midi-Pyrénées

Do you mean that NASA give credit to hoaxers?
Or that ONLY NASA's ASTRONOMERS are realiable and not other?
ezomp.omp.obs-mip.fr...



Removed off topic content


[edit on 6/2/10 by masqua]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Violater1

 

What? People can't open the picture up in paint and make a circle?
I notice you still haven't managed to do it either.

Using red, green and blue may give the appearance of true colour but then using a UV and IR filter is not going to represent true colourl.

But I digress, all I want to see is this green spot as Imagir put it.

Oh and why he believes it is of interest?

Don't stress, the OP has a history of getting defensive, to the point of extremism. Evident here Mars Structures. Generally regarded as a troll, be weary when engaging this creature in a debate, as he will claim to "respect all the opinions, also of who he is not in agreement with me." (Page 2 of Above thread) Though this can easily be shown to be untrue given two minutes of reading and a rational mindset.

Not trying to cause trouble, just warning those who might dare to enter the fray. I'm not arguing an ad hominem case, just showing the 'credibility' of this OP is questionable, so one might want to reconsider bothering to even reply to the thread. If you do reply be on your guard if you disagree with the opinion of the poster.

As for the post at hand, blurry pictures showing dark material on mars is hardly conclusive. Here's a picture with some clarity,


nope no forests here. How about the other side?


umm...nope.

However just because I love playing devil's advocate, here is a pic of earth.



The vegetation does look a lot like the dark spots on mars. Then again, could be igneous rock or some other natural material.

Considering the resolution of the mars photos I presented, forests would look a lot more like




Peace


[edit on 6-2-2010 by JunoJive]

reply to post by Strype


Unfortunately your initial prevented declaration about the "image" has set up you on a wrong plan.

See what you want to see.
De minimis non curat praetor.

ImagIr,

Excellent image, This is the best image I have seen of mars to my memory, I see the green areas also, There is quite a bit of it,
I don't know why some people can't see the green, it is right there plain as day.


Thank you for posting!

reply to post by Imagir


All I am pointing out is that I believe the image has been pasted onto a black background with a border, to better frame the image. It's what photographers do isn't it?

I am not the one insinuating that NASA airbrushed the image nor am I insinuating the original photographers are hoaxers.

oh and dont forget





OP has some serious respect issues. See Above

Peace

To the OP Imagir...

I just wanted to point out to you that you are spelling the word "with" wrong. You keep typing whit. Just thought I would help you out with that one.

Yeah I can see the OP has a serious problem with anyone not holding the same opinion. That megalithic mars structures post was pathetic.

Imagir, you are very prone to flights of fancy and only see what you desperately want to see. I apologize in advance if you have strained mental capabilities or anything underlining like that.

If you want to be a serious researcher of this subject, why don't you start by taking it seriously?

There is nothing compelling to indicate green vegetation on mars

reply to post by Nomad451


Agreed, just show respect and you will receive it, here's one that might actually indicate vegetation, call it "one for the road".



1st of 12, do some research, it'll be fun.

Originally posted by Imagir

Here the source From NASA!
apod.nasa.gov...

This is what your source has to say about the pic.

Explanation: It's spring for the northern hemisphere of Mars and spring on Mars usually means dust storms. So the dramatic brown swath of dust (top) marking the otherwise white north polar cap in this picture of the Red Planet is not really surprising. Taking advantage of the good views of Mars currently possible near opposition and its closest approach to planet Earth in 2010, this sharp image shows the evolving dust storm extending from the large dark region known as Mare Acidalium below the polar cap. It was recorded on February 2nd with the 1 meter telescope at Pic Du Midi, a mountain top observatory in the French Pyrenees.

Does not say anything about green stuff.
Just dust storms.

Can you point out the green stuff on mars please.




[edit on 6-2-2010 by Derised Emanresu]

reply to post by Imagir


Imagir, you have presented us with a beautiful, evocative image of Mars, and I thank you for that. This kind of representation should inspire and electrify anyone who views it.

Your suggesting it shows “green” portions of land, however, may well be jumping the gun a little – I’m sure that you’ll agree that without definitive proof, any assertion as to the existence of Martian flora is speculative - and I can only reiterate other posters when they ask you to indicate visually where these are.

I should clarify; not the darker sections of the image, but the green – as in vegetation – as you suggest.

I see on your link that Jean-Luc Dauvergne’s original image was taken in IR, and appears as black and white, and that this image you are suggesting represents Martian vegetation.

Would it not be interesting to engage the photographer himself in your discussion? After all, if, as you have suggested, he has captured actual proof of exobiological life, then surely he would be more than eager to add his own perspective?

Here is a link to his email address.

Please let us know what he says.

After looking at the original version of this photo, which was only a black and white photo... the posted pic has obviously been falsely colourised.

reply to post by JunoJive

I see a lot of blue;
Obviously Mars has alot of water; or frozen water....
You could almost make out the continents and coastlines; if the ice were oceans...
And if I was trying to find evidence of civilizations I would look along the coastlines...


[edit on 6-2-2010 by DjSharperimage]


Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link


[edit on Sat Feb 6 2010 by Jbird]

As you clearly see, the two photos are two different photos, (NOT the same one) and shooted in different time and conditions.

On the second one, There wasn't colorization, but used IR, R, G, B, and UV filters.

The quality of the "Pic du Midi" Telescope on French Pyrennes Mountains
ezomp.omp.obs-mip.fr...

Babelfish from French

The observations carried out in T1m profit from the excellent quality of image of the site and best stereotyped the CCD obtained are comparable with those presented by Hubble Space Telescope. The programs are divided between systematic observations of the meteorology of giant planets (Jupiter and Saturn), monitoring of the surface of Mars in particular in the context of space missions, and study more opportunist campaigns of the comets which come to visit us or other small bodies of our solar system (asteroids).

reply to post by Imagir


I see you’ve changed the link in your opening post to now show J-Luc Dauverne’s filtered version.

For anyone interested, this is the original page you linked to, in black and white.

A question for you Imagir; do you not, considering what you insist has been captured by the photographs, find it odd that not one of the comments by all the other photographers on the site you have linked to even mentions the colours being strange?

What does that tell you?

As you clearly see, the two photos are two different photos, (NOT the same one) and shooted in different time and conditions.

And as we can clearly see, those two photographs are almost sequential. Note the cloud formations; they are exactly the same.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a sneaking suspicion that there may well have been sentient life on Mars at some time in the past, and that there may well be some kind of recognizable flora there right now. I cannot prove either theory, even with the large amount of circumstantial evidence available. And the clue there is the word “circumstantial”; none of it is definitive.

Unfortunately, your absolute insistence that the photographs in question show definitive proof of life on Mars when, in fairness, it might not, and your refusal to engage criticism or even discuss pertinent observations when those replies are relevant does not really help the cause. In my opinion.

Still, we can always look forward to your email conversation with Mssr Dauvergne to clarify the issue, can’t we?

reply to post by Beamish


Please, Who said that this image is the definitive proof of life on Mars?

I only pointed the lack of comment from NASA on this image that evidences strange changes on "green color" on the Mars surface and that this event, maybe, need more and carefully attention and analysys.

Oh, the photos are different. Read the date.

reply to post by Imagir

Please, Who said that this image is the definitive proof of life on Mars?

I only pointed the lack of comment from NASA on this image that evidences strange changes on "green color" on the Mars surface and that this event, maybe, need more and carefully attention and analysys.

Hmm. What exactly are you suggesting when you say (my emphasis):

NASA can support what it wants (or, as it has made today, in the caption dedicated to this frame, it can not say absolutely nothing), but the “GREEN SPOT” that see with extreme clarity on the Mars Surface in this most recent image obtained from the French Astronomical Observatory “Midi-Pyrénées” ARE NOT, the product of simple - or curious - chromatic aberration.

NASA supports what? Its stance on there being no life on Mars? This depends on what sort of life you’re looking for. For me, even microbes will do.

Your emphasis on the words “green spot” does imply heavily something other than a strange geological phenomenon. Otherwise why capitalize?

And as for your insistence that this photo is showing anything but a photographic anomaly, well, what else can we assume you are saying other than that it is showing a seasonal bloom of some kind? Believe me I want you to be correct, but how are you so sure? Is it not possible that the various filters used create false colour? If you are certain they don’t in this case, can you please explain how as I would like to know?

Also in other ( but accurate and certainly sure professional) color-processing the “green” does appear, on Mars, more and more often: even in superficial frames , or in the orbital frames .

If this is a continuing phenomenon, why do we see none of the fabled “airbrushing” NASA is so infamous for? After proclaiming for so long that Mars is a dead planet, why would they begin to allow evidence into the mainstream that it is not, and in such a blatant manner? That hardly makes sense.

“There’s absolutely, positively no life on Mars…err, actually, there’s loads.”

Science is never exact and always improving, but after all the time, money and research NASA has put into Mars - allegedly suppressing their “findings” along the way – would it seem sensible for them to now just admit that they were wrong?

How much professional and scientific credibility do they want to lose without it looking like a suicide attempt?

Perhaps it would be the case to make, to the more opportune levels of competence, some serious analisys on the real "Nature" and, eventually, the capacity of this phenomenon…

Can you see why I mentioned the existence of Martian life when you parenthesize –and therefore indicate that that word is highly relevant - the word Nature?

Just what are you saying causes the “green”?

Oh, the photos are different. Read the date.

Apologies, absolutely my mistake. Always glad to be proven wrong or to learn something new.

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by Beamish

 

Please, Who said that this image is the definitive proof of life on Mars?

I only pointed the lack of comment from NASA on this image that evidences strange changes on "green color" on the Mars surface and that this event, maybe, need more and carefully attention and analysys.

Oh, the photos are different. Read the date.

According to NASA mars is full of cobalt blue rocks so what can you expect really.