Originally posted by demonseed
You can call it an optical illusion to some degree, but you cant optically elude a tree sticking out of the freakin ground. Cmon now....

I'm sorry, but.. YES, I CAN. Maybe that's because I work in the sciences. I don't take things for granted. I don't expect to see earthly stuff on an alien planet. I understand what dendrites look like, and what they are, and why dendritic shapes often appear in geological landscapes. I understand the other odd effects (like inverted craters) that appear in images taken from above. I have looked at the scientific explanations for this image. And I don't see any evidence whatsoever of 3D shadows, let alone trees casting them.. It's a 2d image, and the illumination is clearly not causing what you think are shadows. That's why those 'shadows' are only (to you) 'remnants', and don't actually match the 'treeline'..


And perhaps all of that can be reduced to a simple statement..

I understand pareidolia... and how to avoid it.

I have opinions that are worth just as much as yours (nuthin), except mine happen to be backed not just by NASA, but by the scientific community in general. If you dispute that, point me to a site from a recognised scientific organisation who agrees with your tree identification... I mean if it's dat obvious to *you*...?

All being paid by NASA to keep quiet? Or are you wrong. Difficult choice...

Face it..

YOU face it, that issue has been done to death elsewhere, and your intense belief (desire?) in the tree theory counts for pretty much nothing, unless you are a qualified geologist and imaging expert.

They aren't trees. And I'll lay a sizable bet that later images will verify that, when the location is reimaged with different sun illumination angles.


I'll wait...

NASA wont tell you the truth

Then why are you citing their images? By your definition they aren't 'truth', so you are spreading lies by your own admission...?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by demonseed
You can call it an optical illusion to some degree, but you cant optically elude a tree sticking out of the freakin ground. Cmon now....

I'm sorry, but.. YES, I CAN. Maybe that's because I work in the sciences. I don't take things for granted. I don't expect to see earthly stuff on an alien planet. I understand what dendrites look like, and what they are, and why dendritic shapes often appear in geological landscapes. I understand the other odd effects (like inverted craters) that appear in images taken from above. I have looked at the scientific explanations for this image. And I don't see any evidence whatsoever of 3D shadows, let alone trees casting them.. It's a 2d image, and the illumination is clearly not causing what you think are shadows. That's why those 'shadows' are only (to you) 'remnants', and don't actually match the 'treeline'..


And perhaps all of that can be reduced to a simple statement..

I understand pareidolia... and how to avoid it.

I have opinions that are worth just as much as yours (nuthin), except mine happen to be backed not just by NASA, but by the scientific community in general. If you dispute that, point me to a site from a recognised scientific organisation who agrees with your tree identification... I mean if it's dat obvious to *you*...?

All being paid by NASA to keep quiet? Or are you wrong. Difficult choice...

Face it..

YOU face it, that issue has been done to death elsewhere, and your intense belief (desire?) in the tree theory counts for pretty much nothing, unless you are a qualified geologist and imaging expert.

They aren't trees. And I'll lay a sizable bet that later images will verify that, when the location is reimaged with different sun illumination angles.


I'll wait...

NASA wont tell you the truth

Then why are you citing their images? By your definition they aren't 'truth', so you are spreading lies by your own admission...?

you fail at debunking on so many levels, just quit.

You didnt address a single issue. Let me sum up what you said:

"blah blah blah i am a scientist blah blah blah."

"The image is 2d so those are not trees"
What? No dude im wearing 3d glasses so i can see it in 3d those are trees! /end sarcasm

"By your definition,NASA is lies, so you showing us NASA lying means you are lying"

What kind of sciences are you in? Because with that kind of logic anybody could get a job in that field.....

You selectively ignored 90% of the pictures, picked the straw man(which there where none, so you made one up yourself), and then used fail logic and baseless "i am a scientist hear me roar".

You are a failed debunker. Dont quit your dayjob...

ps: A scientist at Arizona University is saying there is liquid water on the north poles of mars. He said you can see it evaporating on the rover images.

And yes, many scientists
1) Dont use the internet to the degree we do.
2) Assume NASA is whole and good so when the mere notion of something like this comes up they completely ignore it.
3) Are fearful of their colleagues making fun of them(this is slowly changing).

[edit on 31-5-2010 by demonseed]


[edit on 31-5-2010 by demonseed]

Originally posted by demonseed
ps: A scientist at Arizona University is saying there is liquid water on the north poles of mars. He said you can see it evaporating on the rover images.

So there folks, is the corroborating evidence of trees. Enough for demonseed, anyway.

Is anyone here denying there is water on Mars, by the way?

And yes, many scientists
1) Dont use the internet to the degree we do.
2) Assume NASA is whole and good so when the mere notion of something like this comes up they completely ignore it.
3) Are fearful of their colleagues making fun of them(this is slowly changing).

Ah, so that's why no-one with scientific cred agrees with you! Of course, it so obvious now! Yes, that's much more likely than you being wrong.

I clearly see background noise not a duplicate. If they were trying to hide something they wouldn't let the original background noise show through.

To say they simply used the screen composite control the lower left of the box wouldn't be darker in the red square than the yellow square, it would have additional lighter background noise, which isn't really amplified in any area.



Clone stamp tool not apparent especially in the top left star.

There were some posts earlier who said they weren't visible because of exposure

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
There were some posts earlier who said they weren't visible because of exposure

Well exposure works both ways not enough they don't show just right they do to much and they are over exposed.

Now do you understand.