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.

 

New mars photo wth is this?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


well I was considering that but it just seems so odd that they would erode in such a way that only thin strips of rock are left sticking out. It seems odd. why wouldn't those thin remains be even more subject to eroding away? they remind me of cave formations. Stalagtites etc only they seem to be outward rather than up or down but maybe it is an optical illusion. idk. It just struck me as odd




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I never mentioned trees anywhere in the op. I don't know where anyone got that idea from.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


Oh, they WILL erode, eventually. But, they should remain around for some time, yet. Erosion on Mars will work far slower than here on Earth.

Just as we see unusual formations here:



...that are fleeting, lasting maybe a Human generation or two or three...but, all things change, some day, and new forms will emerge.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Same same but different.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 

Yes, if the sun is low enough and the rocks are on the edge of a dune, like in this case.

Below you can see an exaggeratedly brightened version, to better show the areas in the shadow. This image is at 100% full scale, at 26cm per pixel.



If you start in one of the sides of the dune you can follow the ridge and find the corresponding shadow.

Also, according to the data from that photo, the Sun was only 24º above the horizon, equivalent to something like early morning or late afternoon.

All the data for that photo and the full size version can be found here.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I agree, too, it's a shadow, but's its a very stunning photograph, and would actually be beautiful framed.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


you are the @#(* armap! thanks for tweakin it. now its very clear what we are looking at and why it appears differently in the shadow!

tyvm my friend



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Hi all new here, its a well known fact that nasa doctor photos before they are released to the general public. However you might find this very interesting.

No disrespect to op but i think these pics are much much more convincing enjoy


Here's the link:

marsanomalyresearch.com...

[edit on 1-4-2010 by judge360]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Could be some crystals ?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by judge360
Hi all new here, its a well known fact that nasa doctor photos before they are released to the general public. However you might find this very interesting.
It's not a well known fact, it's a well known theory.


I have yet to see one example of a photo from a science-related NASA site that has signs of being "doctored", although I have seen it on "public relations" NASA sites.


No disrespect to op but i think these pics are much much more convincing enjoy


Here's the link:

marsanomalyresearch.com...
They are only convincing if you don't study them, if you do you will notice that those things look nothing like trees (for example, they do not project a shadow), and if you rotate the image 180º you can see that the "trees" look much more like landslides.

You can see a discussion about that photo on this thread.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I dont agree with you at all so your saying that these pics arnt doctured?

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

And these

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

And these

marsanomalyresearch.com...

marsanomalyresearch.com...

These are just a few there's loads more but i can no longer find them on NASA'S site seems strange? As they were there! Ive had to get them of MarsAnomalyResearch site.

And yes i have studied the Mars pics and i have to Disagree with you on that. If you look down the page youl see what appear to be shadows on some of the pics.
And if you look closer youl also notice that the sand dunes go in one direction and the apparent trees or whatever they are go in another. If they werte landslides as you say the soil/sand would have been blown in the same direction and there would be some indication that a landslide had happened ie: the sand dunes would be disformed But they arnt!

What about thes pics

marsanomalyresearch.com...

Are these also landslides?

marsanomalyresearch.com...

If these were satelite pics of earth youd say they were tree's/ forests correct me if im wrong

And what about these pics of mars which have been doctored

marsanomalyresearch.com...

And these anomalys

marsanomalyresearch.com...

Plants/Trees?

marsanomalyresearch.com...

I could go on but wont no disrespect but i think your totaly wrong


Theres something there to see have a good look round that site and youl see for yourself theres loads of stuff! All of which HAS been Researched!
S
If you think for 1 min that Nasa DOESNT! Doctor pics or Hide Stuff from us then i think your very narrow mineded!

[edit on 1-4-2010 by judge360]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by judge360
 


I can say this, and "ArMaP", may not be able to...

We are ALL ATS members, of course. "ArMaP" is a 'Moderator', and thus under some constraints.....in terms of response, and inflection in those responses.

On the otherhand, I am FREE to say this:

The "marsanomaly" site, that you linked so many images from, should be viewed with a large bunch of salt, and a HUGE tongue in your cheek.

I, unlike member "ArMaP", do not command the resources to anyalyze every photo, from that site, and pick it apart (oh, well....those are MY WORDS, because IF I had such resources, that is what I would do. "ArMaP" will find a much more polite, and erudite way, to do the same thing....given enough time, I imagine).


NOW --- MY take:

The aforementioned site, "marsanomoly", loks to ME to be just another in a series of various sites that use selected (and usually heavily cropped) images in order to foster, and propose, and perpetuate a certain viewpoint. ONE THAT, in further examination, has no real basis in fact!!!

I would suggest a 'suspension of disbelief', for a while, in order to allwo yourself some time to properly evaluate ALL of the evidence.

Always, always..."Consider The Source!"



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by judge360
I dont agree with you at all so your saying that these pics arnt doctured?

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

And these

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...
No, those are not doctored, those images were created on-the-fly, made from several smaller images, and to me, a programmer, they look like the result of a bad algorithm.

The original Clementine photos have been available to everyone here, without any of those marks.


And these

marsanomalyresearch.com...

marsanomalyresearch.com...
Those are not real photos, they are panoramas created with several photos, so, by definition, they must be doctored to create a large image. But if you are talking about the original photos, the ones used to make the panoramas, then my answer is No, I don't see any signs of doctoring in those either.


These are just a few there's loads more but i can no longer find them on NASA'S site seems strange? As they were there! Ive had to get them of MarsAnomalyResearch site.
You probably didn't look as good as you should.



And yes i have studied the Mars pics and i have to Disagree with you on that. If you look down the page youl see what appear to be shadows on some of the pics.
No, there is nothing that looks like shadows of something like trees, and I am not talking about the images on that site, I am talking about the original images posted on the HiRISE site.


And if you look closer youl also notice that the sand dunes go in one direction and the apparent trees or whatever they are go in another. If they werte landslides as you say the soil/sand would have been blown in the same direction and there would be some indication that a landslide had happened ie: the sand dunes would be disformed But they arnt!
Look for some pictures of landslides on Earth dunes and you will see what I mean.


What about thes pics

marsanomalyresearch.com...

Are these also landslides?

marsanomalyresearch.com...
That's a stupid question and you know it.

But no, they are not trees, they are also flat features. Nobody really knows what they are, but if they are flat then they are not trees, right?


If these were satelite pics of earth youd say they were tree's/ forests correct me if im wrong
No, I wouldn't say that because they don't look like trees to me, and I have passed that test more than once, you're not the first person with that idea.


And what about these pics of mars which have been doctored

marsanomalyresearch.com...
Are you talking about the difference between two photos from different cameras? The fact that one photo from one camera doesn't show exactly the same things as a different photo from a different camera doesn't mean that one (or both) of the photos were doctored.

And these anomalys

marsanomalyresearch.com...Anomalies? They looks like rocks to me, the same type of rocks that exist in large numbers on that area, small pieces of the larger blocks that make up the ground there.


Plants/Trees?

marsanomalyresearch.com...
No, once more, flat features, whatever they may be.


I could go on but wont no disrespect but i think your totaly wrong
No problem, I also think you totally wrong.



Theres something there to see have a good look round that site and youl see for yourself theres loads of stuff! All of which HAS been Researched!
I know that site, and it's one of the worst that I know, J. P. Skipper is only interested in getting the site known, not in the research. Someone who says that the research was done with low resolution JPEG images because most people wouldn't go to the trouble of downloading a Java program to see the high-resolution, lossless compressed, JPEG2000 images, needs to do much more to earn my respect.


If you think for 1 min that Nasa DOESNT! Doctor pics or Hide Stuff from us then i think your very narrow mineded!
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, please.


PS: sorry everybody (specially NephraTari), for being off-topic.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by judge360
 


You are just another person who has NO idea how photography or digital images work.

Most ,in fact probably all of your images will have been ripped apart on here by people who know what clues to look for.

Do YOU think your mars site is 100% upfront on how they present the pictures to you



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by judge360
 


Hey judge360

Armap & Weedwhacker are right.

Every one of those pictures you posted from that site has been thoroughly debunked, many times over.

If you get stuck into the threads on ATS, you will learn a great deal about all of that.

Kind regards

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


That looks to me like one of the polar caps. My guess is that those jagged spikes are large buildups of ice crystals, and the angle of the shadow makes them look stretched out.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47
That looks to me like one of the polar caps.

But it's not.


You can see on the link I posted above (this one) that the coordinates are:
Latitude: -27.0° N
Longitude: 344.4° E

Those coordinates on Earth would be in the south Atlantic ocean, between Santa Catarina, in the southern-most end of Brazil, and south Namibia.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I'll help out the "debunkers" a little here in case they don't get around to this thread.It's a weather balloon,play of light and shadow,camera defect and a weather anomaly.Don't any of you realize that ALL planets are dead and lifeless?



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maka213
It's a weather balloon
No, that model is not used on Mars.



play of light and shadow
Yes, it's called vision, you may have seen it before.



camera defect
No, camera artefact, it's never a defect. At most, it's an "undocumented feature"



weather anomaly
No, you should never use the word "anomaly", at most it's the result of some unusual weather phenomena, captured at the right moment.

Seriously, did you read the whole thread? Is that the only thing you have to contribute (if that word can be used in this case) to the thread? Telling what you think would have been much better than an attempt at sarcasm (I supposed) that has seen too much use on ATS.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
There was another thread on here with images that have these similar black 'trees' or what some of us would call oil slick, seeping out of the ground.

Thanks to Phage, who was the first to notice this...from afar, they look like trees. But when you zoom in enough, you can clearly see it is a kind of black substance seeping from the ground.

'Trees' on Mars thread...

Nasa Mars Images

If it is oil, I could see why NASA is so eager to make another mission up there....


The image that shows this clearly-


[edit on 23/01/2010 by jinx880101]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join