Trees on Mars? What do you think guys...

well..here it is...check the pics out

The image above and below are parts of image M0804688. They look like trees, though if they are they would be HUGE trees. The green color has been added to highlight the detail of the "branches". There is no other known geological factor that looks like this.

Mars Global Surveyor
MOC Image m0804688

100% real pics from Nasa

you can zoom these pics to see in high resolution



ida.wr.usgs.gov...

www.msss.com...


Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, FRAS , was a British science fiction author, inventor, and futurist, famous for his short stories and novels, among them 2001: A Space Odyssey, and as a host and commentator in the British television series Mysterious World. wrote:

---- I'm 95% convinced that there's no other conclusion..... I fully agree that this is close to incontrovertible evidence of large present or past 'tree-like' organisms on Mars. I do not believe that these will be explained as 'geological features' or illusions. Only closer-in imaging will decide the matter

Looks like bacteria to me.

But I admit i'm knowledgable about this stuff.

I genuinely believe that mars has grasses, mosses, and trees on a mega-scale; due to the CO2...

That having been said

It has been stated before that they could be crytalline structures, revealed by the melting of seasonal ice...

There's absoLUTELY no way to find out for sure...

Correction, there is a way. We go there and see for our selves!

reply to post by torontoguy123


I would say if it looks like a tree it is a tree, but than again NASA will probably persuade the public it's just light and shadows and supply us with another altered picture proving it.

reply to post by loneranger26


That, or we could just send several dozen small robots to scrape rocks and look at sand. Which so far reveals just that, sand and rocks.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by torontoguy123

 

I would say if it looks like a tree it is a tree, but than again NASA will probably persuade the public it's just light and shadows and supply us with another altered picture proving it.

Do you think that if NASA knew they were trees that they would publicize it all over the place to get more funding to actually go there?

I think that would be my position if I worked for NASA.

reply to post by torontoguy123


There are quite a few threads on ATS regarding "trees", here is one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


It has been explained away as 'fissures', but that explanation is a little shady IMO...either way, hopefully we get the truth some day...good stuff & keep on keepin'.

well the lack of shadows suggest they are not trees but hills.. Although they do seem to be eroded by flowing liquid.

For some reason NASA shies away from looking at the most interesting features of our celestial neighbors. It's as if they think the public can't handle anything beyond a 1950s interpretation of what's out there. No matter the grand mysteries that stick out like gigantic sore thumbs all the hell over every g******* rock, moon, and planet in the Solar System, they somehow always find a way to send tiny nearsighted vehicles to peck at pebbles in the most godforsaken boring places they can find. An intelligent 9-year-old could make better, more informed choices. And what passes for a TRULY SENSATIONAL NASA ANNOUNCEMENT? "Possible Evidence of Ancient Ice on Mars!" One would almost think they're trying to hide something....

However, having said that, these particular features (in the OP) look to me like *depressions* and not *protrusions*. I have seen other photos that look very much like humongous plant life; they even cast shadows that make them look hundreds of feet high. But these ain't them. These are kind of interesting in their own right--but there are better "plant-like" examples out there....

How can you be so sure they arent meteor craters? That's what they look like to me, ofcourse i'm no expert either.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
For some reason NASA shies away from looking at the most interesting features of our celestial neighbors. It's as if they think the public can't handle anything beyond a 1950s interpretation of what's out there.

Ironically, during the 1950s, the planetary astronomy circles were filled with substantial numbers of people who believed that there was vegetation on Mars. The Idea of life on Mars was a very mainstream belief until spectroscopy, better telescopes and other such instruments and observations started showing evidence to the contrary. Mariner 9 (launched in 1971), the first spacecraft to orbit Mars, was the final nail in the coffin.

So in my eyes it is you, sir, who is desperately holding on to the beliefs of the 1950s, not NASA.

Originally posted by MacAnkka
So in my eyes it is you, sir, who is desperately holding on to the beliefs of the 1950s, not NASA.

The 1950s was before my time but from what I've read about it, your interpretation of 1950s beliefs is more accurate and the post you replied to has it backwards. The less we knew, the more likely life seemed. We didn't know that much in the 1950s.

The more we learned, the less likely life seemed on Mars, at least complex life. We still seem to think life is possible on Mars but is more likely to be simple lifeforms like bacteria, or fungi. Not only that, but it's probably not as likely to live on the surface due to the UV exposure.

ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION ON THE SURFACE OF MARS.

on Mars the shorter wavelengths contribute a much greater proportion of this UV flux. These wavelength ranges, such as UVC (200-280 nm) and UVB (280-315nm) are particularly biologically damaging.

If you really looked into the radiation hitting the surface of Mars, you wouldn't think trees are very likely (to the OP and others who think these structures might be trees).

If there's life on Mars, if it's anything like life as we know it, then it's probably underground, or in cracks and crevices hidden from the harmful UV.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by DuceizBack

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by MacAnkka
So in my eyes it is you, sir, who is desperately holding on to the beliefs of the 1950s, not NASA.

The 1950s was before my time but from what I've read about it, your interpretation of 1950s beliefs is more accurate and the post you replied to has it backwards. The less we knew, the more likely life seemed. We didn't know that much in the 1950s.

The more we learned, the less likely life seemed on Mars, at least complex life. We still seem to think life is possible on Mars but is more likely to be simple lifeforms like bacteria, or fungi. Not only that, but it's probably not as likely to live on the surface due to the UV exposure.

ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION ON THE SURFACE OF MARS.

on Mars the shorter wavelengths contribute a much greater proportion of this UV flux. These wavelength ranges, such as UVC (200-280 nm) and UVB (280-315nm) are particularly biologically damaging.

If you really looked into the radiation hitting the surface of Mars, you wouldn't think trees are very likely (to the OP and others who think these structures might be trees).

If there's life on Mars, if it's anything like life as we know it, then it's probably underground, or in cracks and crevices hidden from the harmful UV.

This thread is stupid.. the radiation mars received wouldn't allow that to happen.
People are so dumbed out on conspiracy theorist now a days.

Then it should be easy for you to backup your claims on plant life and the effects of radiation.

Mars is so awesome, I am so proud it sits right next to us here on Earth.

2

Here is what a progressive zoom of the "trees" shows.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/b39be846bf2e1182.jpg[/atsimg]
Terrain, not trees.

reply to post by RoswellCityLimits


I disagree.There is a photo on NASA's site take from the orbital surveyor of the rover falling to the surface with it's parachute and you can actually see the risers...amazing detail.

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by torontoguy123

 

I would say if it looks like a tree it is a tree, but than again NASA will probably persuade the public it's just light and shadows and supply us with another altered picture proving it.

Do you think that if NASA knew they were trees that they would publicize it all over the place to get more funding to actually go there?

I think that would be my position if I worked for NASA.

Indeed. When it comes to our history in space, there is no conspiracy.

Moon Landing = REAL.

Mars is debatable though, we've never explored the planet in large scale unlike the moon so it is very possible there is some form of life on Mars and we don't even know it.

There known in plasma cosmology as 'spiders'. they are points of electric discharge. Please feel free to explore the Universe as being electric.

btw.. there all over earth too. just not so branchy and defined and a bit eroded.

Multiple 'spiders' can be found around these locations. Some people say they are just animal grazing paths, yet I find them all over earth, usually no where near civilized areas. There alot easier to find when you understand that most river systems were not created by erosion but by electric discharge.

First check this on out from Africa.
-25.25,18.35

A few more subjects...
Lat/Lon
42.39,-102.62
42.85,-101.16
44.37,-108.69
-20.47,17.24 (you find them on mesas often.


More info on "spiders"