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.

 

Clouds on Mars- NASA's Exciting Video Evidence

page: 7
69
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69
People don't seem to understand just how thin the martian atmosphere is, it is about 0.6% of the sea level surface pressure on Earth

en.wikipedia.org...


Did you know that several major universities don't use wikipedia as a source due to the CIA involvement? My point? Wikipedia may as well be a NASA source(and we know how lol that is). So, you linking the source as wikipedia means nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to truth seekers.
edit on 10-8-2011 by Enlightenme1111 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Unreliable sources, heh... I hear that a lot here.

Project Avalon is highly regarded. Seems you don't have the necessary background knowledge or will to break through the mundane and highly regulated channels of information handed to you.

There's so much to this world, it wouldn't classify as sci-fi.

Metaphysical studies and meditation is a great way to experience a paradigm shift.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


I'm trolling the thread? I keep my responses short and divertive on purpose because this isnt the thread to discuss this. It's my personal opinion after lots of reading that our history and science is based on lies.

I can open up an entire can of worms about it but once again, THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR THAT.

Do some digging in the vast archives of ATS and maybe u'll get a clue what i'm on about.

You can keep -religiously- defending your -religion- called science (not scientology, different kind of scam) all you want, i'm not buying it.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69
Reasons why there can be no life on Mars

1. It's to cold.

2. Lack of Atmospheric pressure.

3. Cosmic rays and solar radiation constantly sterilize the surface (UV light breaks molecules apart).

4. Lack of liquid water (due to reason 2).

5. To far from the sun meaning a lack of solar energy even if plant DNA could survive the onslaught of radiation.

So if we take all of these bullet points into account we can assume that Mars is devoid of any surface life as we know it, now the hard part is people coming to terms with this.




Here's the funny thing about the current discussion.
Well, we base our facts on measurements made with instruments that landed on mars via a Parachute. Well cute. Then the atmosphere is way denser that you measurments otherwise no parachute can be opened under those certain numbers. simple. and i don't need to find out a wikipedia page that tells the pressure needed for the chute to open, it'a actually simple, ask any paratrooper or any skydiving business or anybody that does that for a living. you know, the pressure meter that comes with chutes is not there without a reason.


so I see it like this:

1. if those numbers are correct then those instruments never went to mars or they went by other means not by being parachutes on the red planet. on any mission info you will find they are all based on parachute landing. funny.

2. in the case that they did land by being parachuted on the planet then we have a problem. the atmosphere on mars has a bigger pressure than our "facts" tell us today. so in this case, well, it's simple again. all our "facts" are wrong.

so now the question: which one of the 2 points is correct? 1 or 2?

if they have a parachute that works in low atmosperic pressure i'd love to try it, i could jump from the edge of the atmosphere and watch the sunrise sunset at the same time hehehehe
(i doubt they do tho)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enlightenme1111
Did you know that several major universities don't use wikipedia as a source due to the CIA involvement?


Actually they don't allow people to cite wikipedia as a source because ANYONE can write a wikipedia article, therefore its quite rightly not considered a reliable source of material. That is not to say that wikipedia is useless but it isnt good enough as a reference for an academic paper.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69
Reasons why there can be no life on Mars

1. It's to cold.

2. Lack of Atmospheric pressure.

3. Cosmic rays and solar radiation constantly sterilize the surface (UV light breaks molecules apart).

4. Lack of liquid water (due to reason 2).

5. To far from the sun meaning a lack of solar energy even if plant DNA could survive the onslaught of radiation.

So if we take all of these bullet points into account we can assume that Mars is devoid of any surface life as we know it, now the hard part is people coming to terms with this.


and you have been there how many times?

lol!

you know how big the sun is, right?

i think you have to reassess some of your thinking.

life will always find a way to live.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


You're keeping your posts uninformative and directing them in a manner that seems only to be in order to incite an argument. Also, you're now trying to derail into a 'science is religion' (how laughable a concept and evidence at how pathetic our school systems have become) debate. That's the only real concrete point you've tried to push across other than just saying "you're wrong" with thinly veiled insults/condescention. How is that not at least borderline trolling?

You were given information and supporting evidence for things that go counter to your own opinion (because that's all you've demonstrated it as being). If you wish to remain ignorant, that is completely your choice, but don't try to push it off as fact unless you have data/information that supports it. It's not my job to provide supporting evidence for your opinion, so if you have no further actual information based on the topic of the thread then I think we're done here.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kobewan69
 


Nobody said that they land soft like a feather, plus Mar's gravity is way lower than Earth's (it's almost directly between the Earth and the Moon's gravity) which means that the chute has less gravity to counteract.

So yes, using conventional thinking with Earth's gravity and Mar's air pressure...I would say that you would be correct in that it wouldn't work, but since the pull of gravity on Mar's surface is less than 0.4g (3.7m/s compared to Earth's almost 10m/s), the parachutes do just fine.

The clouds are probably a mix of dust and ice...but without a direct sampling it's really hard to say for certain.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kobewan69

if they have a parachute that works in low atmosperic pressure i'd love to try it, i could jump from the edge of the atmosphere and watch the sunrise sunset at the same time hehehehe
(i doubt they do tho)



marsrover.nasa.gov...


Rocket assisted descent (RAD) motors Because the atmospheric density of Mars is less than 1% of Earth's, the parachute alone cannot slow down the Mars Exploration Rover enough to ensure a safe, low landing speed. The spacecraft descent is assisted by rockets that bring the spacecraft to a dead stop 10-15 meters (30-50 feet) above the Martian surface.

More on RAD motors.

Radar altimeter unit A radar altimeter unit is used to determine the distance to the Martian surface. The radar's antenna is mounted at one of the lower corners of the lander tetrahedron. When the radar measurement shows the lander is a few meters (feet) above the surface, the Zylon bridle is cut, releasing the lander from the parachute and backshell so that it is free and clear for landing. The radar data also enables the timing sequence on airbag inflation and backshell RAD rocket firing.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


i agree.. however, we are talking about low pressure low density atmosphere so the main issue is not slowing down the probes/rovers but mostly how do they deploy the chute since it has to open 1st and then grab onto something to slow down the payload...

anyways i guess we'll never really know..

regarding the rocket descent, it's all fine but again, i'm intrigued by how they deploy the chute in the circumstances of low pressure and density atmosphere. Rockets are fine to slow it down but mostly that is what intrigues me.

EDIT: to put it simpler, how does the chute open from a mere sheet of material to the flowerlike shpae that slows down descent. To add more to this question, how do they do it at the speed mentioned by them?

edit on 11-8-2011 by kobewan69 because: completions



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kobewan69
 


If you look at the link they provided it gives some more details about the chute and how it's deployed. Also the main article that is linked from shows other information about how probes are landed on Mars to include the bouncy ball method with special airbags.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by Romekje
 


You're keeping your posts uninformative and directing them in a manner that seems only to be in order to incite an argument. Also, you're now trying to derail into a 'science is religion' (how laughable a concept and evidence at how pathetic our school systems have become) debate. That's the only real concrete point you've tried to push across other than just saying "you're wrong" with thinly veiled insults/condescention. How is that not at least borderline trolling?

You were given information and supporting evidence for things that go counter to your own opinion (because that's all you've demonstrated it as being). If you wish to remain ignorant, that is completely your choice, but don't try to push it off as fact unless you have data/information that supports it. It's not my job to provide supporting evidence for your opinion, so if you have no further actual information based on the topic of the thread then I think we're done here.


Last time

THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR THIS.

Can you PLEASE stop trying to convince me of your "opinion"? your efforts are wasted.

If you are going to try and fight every post that has the same nature as mine on this website, i wish you good luck, and have fun while ur at it.

Edit: the fact that you keep trying to convince me that im wrong, says enough to me.

I dont think u'll spend alot of time here if you just want news about cold hard "scientifically provable" facts.

You might aswell go to the science weekly website then

but this is turning into what i tried to prevent, a convo within a thread that has NOTHING to do with the OP and and everything with not accepting that there are people with different OPINIONS then yours.

Even scientific "facts" are nothing more then explanations for phenomena we don't yet fully grasp but which are generally accepted as "most likely scenario"

I do that for myself too, just not from books written by the establishment, or teachers who teach FROM those books.
edit on 11/8/11 by Romekje because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by lowundertheradar
 



Look carefully at the ground and you will see things flying just above it like bugs or some kind of life. Watch the 2 o'clock area of the video and you will see one move from right to left.

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


That's one of the things discussed that we're not fully sure about...snow...dust blowing around either on the lens or something.

While the idea of some sort of insect would be interesting, I don't think finding life on Mars will be quite that simple (or of that level of complexity - at least on the surface of the planet)
edit on 11-8-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by Fromabove
 


That's one of the things discussed that we're not fully sure about...snow...dust blowing around either on the lens or something.

While the idea of some sort of insect would be interesting, I don't think finding life on Mars will be quite that simple (or of that level of complexity - at least on the surface of the planet)
edit on 11-8-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)
'

They already did

bacterial but yet, life is life.

But even finding bacterial or microbial life and actually bringing it out to the public openly, and not in some shady website hosted "press release" but out in the open with half an hour coverage on every main news station worldwide would automatically lead to questions like.... "but how about evolution? if there are bacteria there? other planets might have evolved to host intelligent species?"

Not something you can say NO against when believing Darwin and his theory to be the sole explanation to evolution of life (which you most likely do)

NOW you see the point im getting at?

science DENIES (now intelligent since they found the "instinct driven" form) life in the universe outside of our own airbubble, yet at the same time ASSURE us that Darwin was right, and again at the same time DENYING that intelligent life (ever) lived on mars, even though bactaria are present.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


I figured you'd have gotten the hint from what I said before and the fact that I did not deign to reply to your yelling post that I wasn't interested in indulging your attempts at picking a fight.

However, on the divurgent point of evolution (last time I will humor your attempts at derailment, but will keep it as close to on-topic as possible) - I assume you're actually talking about biogenesis/abiogenesis/panspermia, or to simplify - life only from other life, life from nonlife, and that life could be distributed throughout the cosmos by asteriods, etc (thereby possible originally arising from some other common source and seeding itself elsewhere). The simple answer here is that we only know what we have evidence to support on our own planet.

Species here clearly show how they have developed via mutations and adaptation to different environments - humans being the primary example as we have come to the point where we are able to adapt to just about anything or even adapt things to our own liking. We have 'evolved' to the point technologically where we've even made natural selection obsolete (and I think we're suffering the consequences of that really) However, despite all our evidence, theories are not facts...though that does not mean that they don't have mountains of evidence to support them. That's not to say they may have missing data or in need of slight modification, just that they are what fits what we've been able to find out the best.

It is highly plausible that any life that may or may not exist on Mars would be extremely similar to life on Earth in its basic functions(DNA, etc). The reason being that we've been dancing practically side-by-side for billions of years. There are meteorites on Earth that came from Mars, and one can easily assume the reverse is true. We've already found that there is life on Earth today that can survive extended periods in outer space...the question being if one of them or something similar hitched a ride on debris kicked out from an impact to make the journey from one planet to the other.

Meteorites on Earth from Mars are a bit difficult to study for signs of life as it's almost impossible to state if they have been contaminated by all the life here or not. This is a good reason as to why we constantly have rovers on Mars 'studying rocks'. Even finding life on Mars wouldn't prove or disprove any theory other than prove the existance of life. If the life is vastly different from our own in function (form is irrelevant), then it would lend support to abiogenesis unless it could be determined that life from Earth could have evolved to or from such a life form.

It's already widely held that "life will find a way", but until we can get a larger sampling size other than our own planet of life, it cannot be said for certain. I personally think Ceres and Titan are two of the best targets to try and find out and cannot wait for Dawn to finish up on Vesta to go take our first good look at Ceres.
edit on 11-8-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon

Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by Fromabove
 


That's one of the things discussed that we're not fully sure about...snow...dust blowing around either on the lens or something.

While the idea of some sort of insect would be interesting, I don't think finding life on Mars will be quite that simple (or of that level of complexity - at least on the surface of the planet)
edit on 11-8-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)
'

They already did

bacterial but yet, life is life.

But even finding bacterial or microbial life and actually bringing it out to the public openly, and not in some shady website hosted "press release" but out in the open with half an hour coverage on every main news station worldwide would automatically lead to questions like.... "but how about evolution? if there are bacteria there? other planets might have evolved to host intelligent species?"

Not something you can say NO against when believing Darwin and his theory to be the sole explanation to evolution of life (which you most likely do)

NOW you see the point im getting at?

science DENIES (now intelligent since they found the "instinct driven" form) life in the universe outside of our own airbubble, yet at the same time ASSURE us that Darwin was right, and again at the same time DENYING that intelligent life (ever) lived on mars, even though bactaria are present.


reply to post by Romekje
 


I figured you'd have gotten the hint from what I said before and the fact that I did not deign to reply to your yelling post that I wasn't interested in indulging your attempts at picking a fight.

However, on the divurgent point of evolution (last time I will humor your attempts at derailment, but will keep it as close to on-topic as possible) - I assume you're actually talking about biogenesis/abiogenesis/panspermia, or to simplify - life only from other life, life from nonlife, and that life could be distributed throughout the cosmos by asteriods, etc (thereby possible originally arising from some other common source and seeding itself elsewhere). The simple answer here is that we only know what we have evidence to support on our own planet.

Species here clearly show how they have developed via mutations and adaptation to different environments - humans being the primary example as we have come to the point where we are able to adapt to just about anything or even adapt things to our own liking. We have 'evolved' to the point technologically where we've even made natural selection obsolete (and I think we're suffering the consequences of that really) However, despite all our evidence, theories are not facts...though that does not mean that they don't have mountains of evidence to support them. That's not to say they may have missing data or in need of slight modification, just that they are what fits what we've been able to find out the best.

It is highly plausible that any life that may or may not exist on Mars would be extremely similar to life on Earth in its basic functions(DNA, etc). The reason being that we've been dancing practically side-by-side for billions of years. There are meteorites on Earth that came from Mars, and one can easily assume the reverse is true. We've already found that there is life on Earth today that can survive extended periods in outer space...the question being if one of them or something similar hitched a ride on debris kicked out from an impact to make the journey from one planet to the other.

Meteorites on Earth from Mars are a bit difficult to study for signs of life as it's almost impossible to state if they have been contaminated by all the life here or not. This is a good reason as to why we constantly have rovers on Mars 'studying rocks'. Even finding life on Mars wouldn't prove or disprove any theory other than prove the existance of life. If the life is vastly different from our own in function (form is irrelevant), then it would lend support to abiogenesis unless it could be determined that life from Earth could have evolved to or from such a life form.

It's already widely held that "life will find a way", but until we can get a larger sampling size other than our own planet of life, it cannot be said for certain. I personally think Ceres and Titan are two of the best targets to try and find out and cannot wait for Dawn to finish up on Vesta to go take our first good look at Ceres.


I tried to prevent derailment by not going into this, hence i edited my last post because it's what i wanted to say, didnt, but added afterwrds to get it over with.

have you ever been to mars?

Do you have billions worth of equipment (telescopes, spectrometers, you name it) standing in you backyard to verify the findings done by your holy scientists?

Did you read up on ANY of the alternate theories that surround our universe and history?

If not, (as i said before) your attempts at trying to "guide" me into the right direction are futile and shouted onto deaf ears.

Next to that im out of the public education system for 15 years now, you might wanna reconcider what education was like "nowadays" because when i was in highschool even questioning the status quo and answering a test with a question that's not literally regurgitated from a textbook would result in me failing the test.

Why? Not because the answer was wrong fundamentally, but because it wasnt written like that in the books.

it's like giving the right solution in math but not using the correct formula to calculate it and failing because of that.

In other words, Our way or the highway (kinda like you but i forgive you, indoctrination is a bitch)
edit on 11/8/11 by Romekje because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


It's a bit funny that you mention alternate theories, because that's exactly what abiogenesis, biogenesis, and panspermia (though it's slightly separate, it's related to both) are. We do not have conclusive evidence to point to any specific one with a good amount of certainty as being 'more accurate' than the others.

Bottomline is, you are absolutely correct that I do not have any equipment on, nor have I been to Mars to make measurements myself - the same is true for you as well (which getting someone on the planet would quickly answer many many questions that robots can't, but that's another topic). You may disagree with the information I have provided, but you have as of yet provided none to refute it or back your own claims. Also, your exact point has been significantly muddled by your own posts so I can't even say for certain exactly what your agenda/points other than these arguments against me are. Therein lies the problem here. You say there Is life, not probably, maybe, or yet to be determined, but Is life on Mars...I cannot refute this point because I_do_not_know, and honestly, anyone who does know and can prove it will have their fortune made, so it's easily safe to say that You_do_not_know either...you just Believe that there is. Your other points about Mars were little more than passing remarks with nothing substantial and so ludcris as to not even being worthy of mention now.

I could elaborate on your other remarks from your last post, but again, that is derailing which I stated I would not indulge. Suffice to say I graduated HS in '96 and my teachers were fairly reasonable whenever I deviated from the preferred method...but then again, I would have to prove to them I was right and did, which brings us right back to our current problem here.

The human imagination is a wonderful thing that allows us to believe in whatever we desire. Unfortunately, just believing something is true does not necessarily make it so.
edit on 11-8-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


im gonna stop responding, its taking over the thread, SO

Clouds on mars
sent you a U2U
edit on 11/8/11 by Romekje because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Check out Google Earth (Google Mars). They have some pitcures of Mars surface from the rover. They are in color and they are absolutely amazing. You can zoom in on the rocks. It looks like places that I have been to in Nevada. ~SheopleNation



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join