Standing water on Mars in PIA16550

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by qmantoo
 


Liquid water cannot exist on Mars, the atmospheric pressure and temperature is simply too low.



If you're going to quote directly from my 4th grade science book, you should really use quotation marks and cite properly.

You only "know" this because you've been told this BY the "authority" which might conceivably be intentionally misleading the public on all things space.


Well.... we know that Mars is 50% further away from the Sun than the Earth. We can deduce that temperatures on the surface of Mars are much colder than the surface of the Earth, even at the equator.

...even a fourth grader could figure that out.


Actually even today the temperature can be high enough and can get up to 20c near surface. The only reason liquid water cannot exist is because of the extremely low atmospheric pressure. But if you go back a few billion years then there is evidence that it was both warmer and had much thicker atmosphere which allowed for liquid water to exist on surface.

The distance from sun is only part of what affects climate. Albedo and atmosphere can also make a huge difference. Venus is also relatively close to earth, but thanks to the very thick atmosphere it is the hottest planet in our solar system. If it had a atmosphere similar to earth then it might have been cold enough to be habitable even though it is closer to the sun.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
You can clearly see the same soil/dust/whatever with the same coloration and appearance sitting at different angles at different spots. This is obviously not liquid water.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 


Good lord! That's not shadow thats reflection!

I'm off to Specsavers urgent eyetest needed because as we've all been told that's not possible



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Sure looks like water to me but who knows? If there were standing water on mars it would make that squirrel on mars picture more believable. I have read somewhere that the solar system is getting warmer due to solar activity. As a result mars' polar ice caps are melting. I don't remember where I read that though so I don't take it too seriously.
edit on 18-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by apecar
I find A LOT more interesting the plaque and holed rock here, in the upper left of the image




Howd yo get that pic to embed? I tried but it was beyond me today.

I agree- that is one intriguing rock! The holes look to be in a line too..



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
Starcrossd - I think that strange rock is very interesting as it has at least one hole in it and you can see straight through. Looks like a 'rock' which is only a couple of inches thick too, in fact not very rock-like at all.

I dont really think that Phage's shadows are the same because you can see some detail in the 'sand' areas which lead me to think that the ones in his links are sand perhaps. There will always be shadows, but what we need is a different view of this particular rock area which shows that it is indeed fine sand. (or water)


This one is taken from the tif image linked in my first post.

Can you honestly tell me that this does not LOOK like water or some fluid ? Of course it does.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
edit on 18 Dec 2012 by qmantoo because: add DXXX link


I agree- this picture does make it look like a pool of muddy water. However, when viewed at different times of day/angles it just appears to be superfine dust. At least, that's what I see.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Starcrossd
 

Similar to the rock in the lower right here;
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by qmantoo
 


Liquid water cannot exist on Mars, the atmospheric pressure and temperature is simply too low.



If you're going to quote directly from my 4th grade science book, you should really use quotation marks and cite properly.

You only "know" this because you've been told this BY the "authority" which might conceivably be intentionally misleading the public on all things space.


Well.... we know that Mars is 50% further away from the Sun than the Earth. We can deduce that temperatures on the surface of Mars are much colder than the surface of the Earth, even at the equator.

...even a fourth grader could figure that out.



Here is a primer on the Solar system 4th Grade.

Mars is 141 million miles from the Sun
Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun
Venus is 67 million miles from the Sun
Jupiter is 482 million miles from the Sun

The distance difference between the Sun and Earth and Venus is only 26 million miles. Buy hey these two planets are so different. Basically Earth is not toast like venus is.

The distance difference between the Sun and Earth and Mars is only 48 million miles.

Look at Jupiter. It is about 389 million miles further away from the sun than the earth is. And yet some of its moons may have water under a sheet of ice.

So using this common sense logic, is Mars so far out that it is impossible to think there would be water on its surface? I do not think so.

I have serious doubts about the information being provided by NASA on Mars. Its weather, its surface temperature, etc. It could still have a hotter region inside the crust that melts the iced water once in a while and leads to the formation of rivers or pools or increase in surface temperature at certain places.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
SO I approached this with an open mind. Grabbed original, threw it in photoshop. Increased the contrast by ALOT, played with lightening/darkening/inverting, etc.

What I have concluded is this: While it does indeed appear to look like water, it DOES NOT have a planar flat surface. Areas congruent to the "water" have no water although they appear to share the same elevation. The commanality of the areas appears to be wind-break eddies.

Furthermore when contrasted, I could not make out a single grain "through" the illusion. Therefore the area is 100% opaque.

If you look at the structure of the outcrop, you can see two primary units running horizontally through most of the frame, with the deep windcut shadow between them. The lower unit has a section that has cracked off, and it's long rectangular shape has created the trap that holds the fine sediments in place from the wind. Note that to the left of that feature there is not a shred of sediment buildup. Similarly in the lower left, the unit has a plate of rock askew, creating a windbreak as well.

Finally, just right of center is a small pileup of sediment which everyone can agree isn't water. BUT this pile has the exact same coloration, gradation and feel as all the "water" areas.

If I was poking around this outcrop, my eyes would be drawn to this rock, cause the break pattern on the surface seems odd for a shale like this. Shales break like you might expect a plate to break. And no, I don't think this is footprint (tempting though, isn't it?) I"d just like to know the mineral composition, it probably has to do with a predominance of crystals, aligned in a way that caused the odd breakage.





posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by 0pass
 


Basically Earth is not toast like venus is.
Put enough CO2 in its atmosphere and it would be close to it. It is not the proximity to the Sun which makes Venus so hot. It is the fact that the atmosphere traps heat. If it weren't for all that CO2 Venus would be a much nicer place.


I have serious doubts about the information being provided by NASA on Mars.

But you believe that Venus is "toast". Why?


It could still have a hotter region inside the crust that melts the iced water once in a while and leads to the formation of rivers or pools or increase in surface temperature at certain places.
Temperature has little to do with it. Temperatures would allow liquid water in the "summer". The problem is atmospheric pressure. There isn't enough of it.
edit on 12/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PvtHudson
 

1) That image has had its colors adjusted.
2) Here is a closer view of the same place at the same time and angle:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
3) Here is a closer view of the same place at a different time and angle:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
Why would the "reflection" move with the direction of the sunlight? No need to ask why shadows would, is there?
edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Both the pictures if color adjusted do show water like reflection. I have argued about the "true color" of mars in another post. How the Mastcam camera shows a red planet and the MAHLI camera (which is more like your camera on your iphone) shows a much lighter color similar to the color adjustment.

Again considering that Mars is not so far away from the sun, it is not wrong to assume that at certain point of the day it is bright and reddish and at other times blue. The reddish hue is due to the layer of red sand (also happens on earth at certain places) on the surface. In fact most of the rocks are jaded green color but covered by red sand.

Mars in Spring time


Link to image

Martian Rock when the sand is blown off.



Link to image

If image adjustment is applied (as in the water reflected images) , this is how the rock looks.



Link to image



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 0pass
 




Again considering that Mars is not so far away from the sun, it is not wrong to assume that at certain point of the day it is bright and reddish and at other times blue.

Not so much a certain point of the day but under certain atmospheric conditions. If the great amount of dust which is carried throughout the atmosphere and to great heights were much less, yes, the sky would be blue. A very, very dark blue, nearly black. Just as it is on Earth at an altitude of 100,000 feet. That is the Earth equivalent altitude for the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars.

This has nothing to do with the distance from the Sun, the temperature, or the composition of the atmospheric gases. It has to do with the light scattering properties of the atmosphere and the dust.

www.webexhibits.org...
edit on 12/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I came across this image from Sol129 by Navcam. Wow. Is this the sun? Seems like it is bright enough to get water to be in liquid form.



link to original image

"The temperatures at the landing site can vary from -127 to 40 °C (-197 to 104 °F) " - quote Wikipedia on Curiosity Rover
edit on 19-12-2012 by 0pass because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


how can you see what your describing on that pic?
its to blurry all over to state that!
there is no water in any of these pics
maybe there is elsewhere on mars but not in this thread!





ETA- just seen your reply to Phage
so ignore this post!
edit on 19-12-2012 by GezinhoKiko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   


This image is now on active discussion on Facebook



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I would like to offer this similar image from a rock pool on Earth taken from this website page It shows what I see when I look at the original posted image PIA16550 and the other neighboroughing images

A similar reflection and shadow in a rock pool on Earth


Although my logic says this cannot be or is at least unlikely to be liquid, there are a large number of other pieces of circumstancial evidence to support this hypothesis. On the other hand, there is also a large body of scientific evidence which many people have pointed out, which shows that it cannot be liquid.

However, for me, the overriding issue is that there are so many unexplained images which look like structures here on Earth and so many unexplained (and unexplainable) things within the Mars images returned by NASA. The other feeling I have is that if they were truly interested in finding life on Mars, they would have investigated thoroughly every avenue - including the old "plant fossil" which has not been properly explained yet. It does not have to be time spent in one area, but it does mean that NASA release good best-quality images of features which are 'unexplainable' and in that way may become less interesting to proponents of the Life on Mars belief.

I have seen enough images which suggest to me that Mars is not a barren lifeless place and there are straight and curvy 'things' as well as definitely mechanical 'things' which defy a reasonable explanation within the barren lifeless planet context.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I'm more concerned about the Arizona State Line sign on the right side




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 


I think one of the many things that makes me raise my eyebrows at people, is their insistence that NASA and the universities and the scientist world wide that work with them, have their instruments and science packages on board Curiosity, are hiding and/or ignoring things.

Consider the following if you will: Using the OP picture as an example, many on here jumped up and said that they were seeing standing water. Just as many (including me) came back and said "No, that's not standing water.".

Those of us that said "No." did so for many reasons: The martian atmosphere is too low in pressure to support standing water, or water in liquid form on the surface. The angle at which those areas in the photo are suppose to be standing water is impossible for water to just sit there as it's on a slope.

Those that insist that it is standing water, say it is so for mainly two reasons that I can see: because they say it looks like water to them and......NASA must be lying or hiding something.

So, the one side says No, based on scientific evidence, and critically looking at the picture (the wrong angle, lack of reflections or sun light highlights, etc).

The other side says Yes, based on: opinion that those spots look like water, and pure conjecture and speculation about NASA and the scientific community (hiding, lying, conspiring, etc).

That makes me ask this question, which I asked before in this thread, and absolutely no one responded to it:

"Why would NASA and the entire scientific community either lie or ignore finding something like standing water, some other liquid, plant fossils, etc on Mars?"

They would have EVERYTHING to gain by finding something like this on Mars. The interest it would generate on a GLOBAL scale would help more funding to send even more probes and eventually people there.

I can understand the mind set of: Well their are alien bases there! The world isn't ready for that so NASA lies!
That is something I would expect from a conspiracy theorist.

But lying or ignoring a fossilized sea shell? Lying or ignoring standing water/some liquid? Lying about a fossilize leaf?
And then posting pictures that people swear show these things?

That would be stupid beyond even the stupidest ideas any government has ever had, as it would do nothing but create even more mistrust with the public.

On the other hand, there may be a very good reason that your puddles of standing water, your "sea shell" fossil and other "strange artifacts" located in pictures are not being investigated more by NASA and the scientific team that works with Curiosity:

Because they are not the things you think they are.

If people on here truly have an open mind, then they should consider that possibility, instead of assuming that they are being lied to all the time. That they know better than those who are trained to look at these images and the data that comes with it.

That's not having an open mind. That's assuming something based on foregone conclusion that you're always being lied to.
It's the same thing as having an Xray taken of your chest and instead of believing what the doctor says about it, deciding that you know better than the doctor or radiologist that have the education and training to understand that xray.

That is how many of these threads read: ignoring the fact that NASA, the ESA and other space agencies, the entire international science community would be screaming at the top of their lungs if they spotted an actual fossil, plant life or yes........even an actual guinea pig on Mars. It would give them all the funding they ever dreamed of to do even more. Ignore that fact.
And instead, play Arm Chair expert of photography and declare that literally tens of thousands of scientific minds are lying to us.....because they are hiding..........

what exactly again?





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join