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.

 

Does anyone here think planet Mars is kinda spooky?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I have always thought mars was kinda spooky and interesting at the same time. I guess the part that makes me think it's spooky is from playing allot of Doom 3. Anyway hears a few pics of mars hope you enjoy.









posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I would imagine the spooky part being on the surface on another planet... with absolutely nothing around you. And just exploring around. Coming across a cave, a trench and just having your senses hyped up about the unknown. Mind tricks.

Say your crossing some rocky trench area, and sit down for a breather. Suddenly hear something crackle/roll from the wind. It would be alarming I'd imagine at first.

It's not spooky, but it's spooky at the same time.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Well, you never know what you find from caves. Mars had similar climate as Earth millions of years ago, vast oceans too. But when Mars "died", volcanoes stopped spewing carbon dioxide to atmosphere and planet cooled too much. There is no longer any kind of geological activity, no marsquakes.

Same is happening to Earth too, but cause Earth is bigger and nearer to the Sun, its not "dying" yet. And our moon also helps keeping volcanic forces.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by paranormal78
 

To me, it looks like what a planet would look like after it died. I think it stands as a warning to us to take better care of our own planet. I agree with those who think Mars used to be inhabited.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Your photos look like they were taken in the Kalahari or Karoo (South Africa). The scenery is also dry and rocky like that in some parts. Other parts have a bit of scrubby vegetation. Wonder if Mars has any scrubby vegetation if you look in the right place??



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by paranormal78
 

To me, it looks like what a planet would look like after it died. I think it stands as a warning to us to take better care of our own planet. I agree with those who think Mars used to be inhabited.


I think it still is.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by paranormal78







I feel that the opening post
is making fun of ATS and it's membership.


David Grouchy



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Any terrestrial alien planet devoid of life that you can place yourself on, even vicariously, is going to be spooky because of the sudden realization that you are all alone, with nothing but yourself, (and/or your spacecraft). So don't make it an extended stay, it will be your last.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by paranormal78
I guess the part that makes me think it's spooky is from playing allot of Doom 3.
I never played much Doom 3 but I did see the movie "Mission to Mars", where the face on Mars was not just an illusion and a big tornado-like thing came out of it, that was pretty spooky until the end. And one of the most realistic parts of the movie was where the astronaut that had been living up there all by himself after his crewmates were killed, went a little bit crazy. I could see something like that really happening.

And if you're a "dune" fan, would you be wondering if a giant worm is going to pop out of the ground? At least people are speculating there could be liquid water under the surface, and it seems plausible to me, but if there are any worms I'd expect them to be tiny, though the tiny worms could be creepy in their own way.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Mars represent what Earth would look like if the latter were stripped off of its water content + 1 000 000 years into the future. It gives a spooky feeling indeed!
The scientific establishment is very wrong about Mars' past and, perhaps, present. For instance, what is this blue thing which coats about 1/4 of the planet's surface? They don't even mention this fact! But reasoning along tells us it is what was left of the oceans after their evaporation. I thing this thing is some kind of iron hydroxide or whatever. The substance exist at the bottom of almost every crater. This suggests the craters were there before the catastrophe, or at least some of them.

Take a look at this image.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 
I realise that the object in the mars bigfoot photo is nothing more than a rock playing tricks on the eye making it look like an alien life form. That had already been anounced by N.A.S.A. And as for the photo showing the van like obgect, my guess is it might be a piece of the mars rover that fell off at some point. They are tricks of mars that make it seem all the more spooky. And i ment no ofence to ats and its membership in my oppening post. Its just what i wanted to talk about with ats.


edit on 24-6-2011 by paranormal78 because: wanted to add more



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by strNick
The scientific establishment is very wrong about Mars' past and, perhaps, present. For instance, what is this blue thing which coats about 1/4 of the planet's surface? They don't even mention this fact!
How do you know that they are very wrong?


As for the blue material, they have many photos of it at close range, taken by the rovers.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Don't think it looks "spooky". It definietly looks like it has been dead for a long time. It looks pretty much like a lonely place, Spooky? nah, just looks empty and quiet!



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by strNick
The scientific establishment is very wrong about Mars' past and, perhaps, present. For instance, what is this blue thing which coats about 1/4 of the planet's surface? They don't even mention this fact!

Take a look at this image.
Maybe they don't mention that "fact" because what you think is a fact, isn't a fact. Did you look at the legend for the colors in the image you posted?

See the "m" in the color legend? Doesn't that mean "meters"? Isn't that image just showing that the lower the elevation, the bluer the color? That's what the legend suggests. It has nothing to do with the actual color of the surface, the colors are there to help you visualize surface elevations in a topographical sense.

Here's a larger map with a similar scale showing surface topography...and the blue color does NOT mean the surface is blue, it means low elevation.

mola.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
That Mars terraforming movie that stared Val Kilmer would have been merely just laughable if any of it was remotely believable. It should be categorized in the B movie section, beside Amazon Women on the Moon.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
That Mars terraforming movie that stared Val Kilmer would have been merely just laughable if any of it was remotely believable. It should be categorized in the B movie section, beside Amazon Women on the Moon.
Some parts were more believable than others.

Before I saw that movie i didn't realize how bad the sandstorms on Mars could get...after the movie I looked it up and they can get pretty bad. And the idea that a worse sandstorm hit the base camp than expected doesn't seem much more far-fetched than a bigger tsunami hitting the coast of Fukushima than expected.

But yeah, like any movie, they took some liberties with reality to make the movie dramatic and a lot of the movie was pretty far-fetched. Even if there were bugs crawling around on Mars at night, I doubt they'd be able to get inside a pressure suit as easily as portrayed, but it did make Mars seem kinda spooky to find all those bugs on it.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by paranormal78
 

To me, it looks like what a planet would look like after it died. I think it stands as a warning to us to take better care of our own planet. I agree with those who think Mars used to be inhabited.


If a planet died , wouldn't it just disintegrate and turn into nothingness...not resume being a planet ?

It can't be dead.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Life on Mars would have migrated to Earth if it was intelligent. The rest would be underground, except for that which had extra thick outer shells.

As for terraforming Mars, it would not be that hard. For water, there is a vast frozen supply under the surface. Also, redirecting iceroids into impact zones would create liquid water and increase atmospheric pressure. Moving (very carefully), a large body about 1/4 the size of Mars into Mars orbit would cause the core to heat and liquify under stress. The core would "percolate" and start the dynamo effect creating a strong electromagnetic force protecting the planet from solar radiation. Then seeding would begin, followed by bacteria, insects, etc, to create rich soil. Trees would be next, and that would be followed by animal life, and man.

The planet would thrive for millions of years before the need to make any adjustments if at all.





edit on 24-6-2011 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Years ago, I used to have dreams that I was in some sort of space ship shuttle type of craft, and I was crash landing on the Martian surface.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by l_e_cox
 

To me, it looks like what a planet would look like after it died. I think it stands as a warning to us to take better care of our own planet. I agree with those who think Mars used to be inhabited.
If a planet died , wouldn't it just disintegrate and turn into nothingness...not resume being a planet ? It can't be dead.
Some words have meaning in context. I take that use of "after it died" to mean "lifeless". While we don't know with any certainty whether or not Mars is truly lifeless or not (it may harbor life we haven't seen yet in the soil, for example), I wouldn't disagree with the general sentiment of l_e_cox's comment. Mars once had more abundant water, and probably a much more substantial atmosphere, and was probably more capable of supporting complex lifeforms, than it is today.

The reason it died or appeared to have died is probably the loss of its magnetic field which allowed the solar wind to carry away most of the atmosphere, and a lot of water.

All the Earth's oceans, lakes, and rivers will completely evaporate, and then the Earth is going to turn into a ball of molten lava or rock. No life we know of, not even extremophiles, can survive on a ball of molten lava. So can we call the Earth dead at that point? I think so. The next thing that might happen is the sun might swallow up the Earth at which point there will be no trace of the Earth. At that point, I wouldn't really say it's "dead" because it doesn't even exist at that point. This is why we need to colonize Mars and the outer planets, so we don't all die when the Earth does.


Originally posted by Fromabove
As for terraforming Mars, it would not be that hard. For water, there is a vast frozen supply under the surface. Also, redirecting iceroids into impact zones would create liquid water and increase atmospheric pressure. Moving (very carefully), a large body about 1/4 the size of Mars into Mars orbit would cause the core to heat and liquify under stress. The core would "percolate" and start the dynamo effect creating a strong electromagnetic force protecting the planet from solar radiation.
That sounds like a pretty clever plan mate, I like the idea for restoring the magnetic field though moving a moon a quarter the size of Mars into orbit will be a big challenge. If our survival depends on it, we might figure out a way to do it.

But there is also terraforming rule #1: Don't terraform a planet with indigenous life forms. We need to be sure there's no life on Mars first, and if there is, as some people have suggested Mars belongs to the Martians. Heck, if Panspermia theory is true, there could even descendants of our great, great....grandparents living there, so we wouldn't want to kill our own relatives, would we?


That's a tough decision though. I think Buzz Aldrin suggested colonizing one of the moons first. That might be a good place to start while we figure out if Mars is really lifeless or not.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification







 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join