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.

 

Structures, Lakes, Alien Fossils and Forests in new Mars photos?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Many ATSers here will find this video interesting:

*cue dramatic music*


The video purportedly shows forests and shorelines, alien fossils, and structures and roads, in the recently released NASA images from Mars.

The video page links to the original images, but I thought it would be good to link to the NASA catalogue pages where these images appear, because there is additional information or explanation offered.

Image 1: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
Image 2: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
Image 3: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
Image 4: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

It's up to you to form your personal opinion, but I think the last image can be debunked straight away. The "facility" and the "road" seen there by the video author are actually Curiosity rover and its tracks, leading back to the landing zone.

With regards to the image number 1, it is of course better to check with the more detailed images from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which you can quickly access in Google Earth:

MRO Context camera:



These look like sand dunes on dry land to me, not a forest by the shore... Let's look at the hi-res MRO image:

A crop from hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu... flipped around the right way up:


Yep, definitely dunes.

With regards to image number 2: the video author asks why NASA marked the small area on the bottom right. The NASA page with the image actually explains that the purpose of the image is to show the principle of nested scale, i.e. chosing a smaller area within a large image and examining it more closely. The video author sees some kind of "famous winged reptile" in the selected area, but I see no such thing. The formation does look interesting, so here's the raw Curiosity image of it: mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



Looks almost like someone's boot print.

So, what do you think? Does the video provide clear evidence that there's more going on than "they" let us know about, or is this a simple case of pareidolia / ignorance / desire to believe?
edit on 2-8-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


I'm sorry but I really don't see anything..



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Oh good God. Enough threads about sand and rocks!!!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Hey, Wildspace ... just like the poster above, I have to admit: I'm not convinced!

And in all honesty: I also think that here on ATS, members found much more intriguing formations over the past months. Of course, morphological interpretation is a rather subjective thing, but sometimes there's something in the images that really doesn't seem to fit in - however, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

As you know, I also use CTX and other HiRISE imagery from time to time and I have yet to see any conclusive evidence for forests, lakes or anything similar existing on the surface of Mars 'today'. Accordingly, I cannot confirm anything that has been presented in that video ...
edit on 2-8-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


I think this is a good example of how nobody reads the entire op. It's obvious to anyone that takes the time that you were debunking and not endorsing the video, but so far all the posters came on to tell you that they didn't see anything and flame you for "yet another thread on rocks on Mars" or some such... sad.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Looks like rocks, wind blown dust and the famous tracks left by electrified dust devils. Those dust devils have been imaged numerous times. They are electrified and leave scorch marks as the move along the surface. No roads that I can see.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


If you want to believe in a boot print on Mars, you can also believe in a giant footprint of god here on Earth:


Point being; weird crap shows up all over the place.
Don't mean it is what you might think, or what you might want it to look like.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I do believe that wildspace was debunking the video and was saying that if anything the spot looked
more like a boot print, not that he/she thought it was one at all.
Ya know jokingly.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by azureskys
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I do believe that wildspace was debunking the video and was saying that if anything the spot looked
more like a boot print, not that he/she thought it was one at all.
Ya know jokingly.


That's true, but I also made this thread to address the anomaly-seeking community which is prevalent here on ATS, and provide examples of investigation that can provide the solution. If I were an anomaly-seeker, I'd want to make sure that what I found isn't just a case of pareidolia due to images being old and low-res, or due to me not understanding what I'm looking at.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

That's true, but I also made this thread to address the anomaly-seeking community which is prevalent here on ATS, and provide examples of investigation that can provide the solution. If I were an anomaly-seeker, I'd want to make sure that what I found isn't just a case of pareidolia due to images being old and low-res, or due to me not understanding what I'm looking at.

In this one paragraph there are lots of tricky issues.
1) this is a conspiracy site. What do you expect?
2) old should not be a problem.
3) lo-res is really not our fault if nothing better is available. However, if it IS, then I agree we should use the best available and show different views of the same anomaly taken at different times.
4) understanding?? Ahh, thats where you have been clever because you can always answer that science does not accept our viewpoint.

The anomaly hunter does not have access to the rovers or to the satellites which NASA has. Therefore, the 'proof' you require is not going to be available. Ever. You know that which is why you raised the subject.

Take a search for life for example. What could be done by anomaly hunters to prove life ? Nothing, since science has already declared that Mars is lifeless and has a built-in bias towards NOT finding life. Please do not say that the budget would increase if NASA found life. That old one. It will never be announced due to the Brookings Report which basically told NASA that the population and particularly the science community could not handle the announcement. (page 103)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
The anomaly hunter does not have access to the rovers or to the satellites which NASA has.

But they do have access to all the publically available images and data. A lot of those come not from NASA but from various universities and institutes who have partnered with NASA or ESA. The HiRISE camera, for example, is operated by the University of Arizona. hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...


Take a search for life for example. What could be done by anomaly hunters to prove life ? Nothing, since science has already declared that Mars is lifeless and has a built-in bias towards NOT finding life.

You're mistaken, science hasn't declared, and cannot declare, that Mars is lifeless. We simply haven't found any evidence of life on Mars (past or present), but we may do so in the future. The next Mars rover's goal will be precisely to look for signs of past life. Would NASA be designing such a mission if they were hell-bent that there could never be any life on Mars?


Please do not say that the budget would increase if NASA found life. That old one. It will never be announced due to the Brookings Report which basically told NASA that the population and particularly the science community could not handle the announcement. (page 103)

So you make the assumption that all governments and the whole of scientific community base their position on one speculative report? Besides, NASA aren't the only ones doing space exploration. There might as well be an ESA or JAXA Mars rover in the coming decades.

P.S. The concerns in the report are about intelligent extraterrestrial life. If Mars has or ever had life, it would most likely be microbes or other primitive life forms.


"If plant life or some subhuman intelligence were found on Mars or Venus, for example, there is on the face of it no good reason to suppose these discoveries, after the original novelty had been exploited to the fullest and worn off, would result in substantial changes in perspectives or philosophy in large parts of the American public, at least any more than, let us say, did the discovery of the coelacanth or the panda." – page 103, n.34


I'd even go as far as say that news of past (or even present) microbial life will go ignored by a lot of people, as the human society seems more concerned with the political and economical going-ons on Earth. There will not be any change in how many armed conflicts, uprisings, scandals, and the usual bull# that happens in our society. For many people, getting enough food and water will still be a primary concern.

Seriosly, if you look closely at how the human society functions (or often fails to function) you will realise that these sci-fi scenarios and speculations are just a fancy of a few people. I don't think people in Syria, Brazil, Ethiopia, or many other parts of the world, will care even a tiny bit for life on Mars.
edit on 5-8-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

But they do have access to all the publically available images and data. A lot of those come not from NASA but from various universities and institutes who have partnered with NASA or ESA. The HiRISE camera, for example, is operated by the University of Arizona.
This is nieve. Think about this for a moment. If your future depended on towing the official line, would you step out and become known as a rebel? No, you would not. In fact, at that stage of your career when you do not have work experience behind you, you are more likely to want to present yourself as a good company man who can be a team player. Not as a maverick scientist who gets no funding.


You're mistaken, science hasn't declared, and cannot declare, that Mars is lifeless. We simply haven't found any evidence of life on Mars (past or present), but we may do so in the future.
Technically, you are correct and science would not make such a statement. However, I have seen many people on here (who may or may not be actual scientists) say that the data does not support this position. Now, whether you like it or not, these people are going to believe that the available data is correct and life does not exist on Mars. Therefore, as normal human beings, it is going to bias their view when considering other evidence because at the back of their mind they already believe that it does not exist and the official data they have seen supports their belief.


...Would NASA be designing such a mission if they were hell-bent that there could never be any life on Mars?
NASA are not investigating signs of life and publishing the findings. It is that simple. Where they find something which looks as if it may be a fossil, they grind it away. When they find something which looks as if it may be something unusual, they say it is a clip fallen from the rover. It may be a clip from the rover, but they need to show others on the rover which match it so that folks can see it matches. No. There is absolutely no attempt to find life. No 'future mission' will find life either. Don't kid yourself.

Like many people on here who say they would love to find life on Mars etc, but then continue to shout ROCK and continue to preach the standard life will be like it is here on Earth. The thing is - we dont know how diverse life is in the Universe, it could be totally radically different from carbon-based life. However, a belief is a belief whether you are a scientists or an anomaly hunter.


So you make the assumption that all governments and the whole of scientific community base their position on one speculative report?
Yes, because thats what government do. They ask experts to write reports and these reports cite other data and experiments and reports written by other eminent scientists. It is highly likely that other governments have had similar reports done for them and it is highly likely that the results are the same with the same conclusion. Even down to quoting the Brookings Report in their references at the end.


If Mars has or ever had life, it would most likely be microbes or other primitive life forms.
See, there you go again. Assuming what the space agencies would have you believe. Telling us all what is trotted out by NASA.


I don't think people in Syria, Brazil, Ethiopia, or many other parts of the world, will care even a tiny bit for life on Mars.
Of course not, and I agree with you, as their day to day lives are so miserable that they have far more important things to care about. This is obvious that poor people from 3rd world countries do not think the same way as richer people from the West. I live in a developing country and I can see this going on all around me. There are people who care for the environment for example, and there are people who just want to make ends meet and make a living. These last set of people are the ones who are not concerned with preserving the rain forests, they just need more land to raise their cattle and to become richer and feed their families. Hence the destruction of the rain forests and the reduction of animal and plant species in the world.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 



Originally posted by qmantoo
1) this is a conspiracy site. What do you expect?
2) old should not be a problem.
3) lo-res is really not our fault if nothing better is available. However, if it IS, then I agree we should use the best available and show different views of the same anomaly taken at different times.
4) understanding?? Ahh, thats where you have been clever because you can always answer that science does not accept our viewpoint.


Yes it may be a conspiracy site but there are always other views if you want a site like this for example.

"Your right qmantoo NASA did change the shadows on that picture here is a star flag and pat on the back"

There are plenty of sites that will do that or is it better to find out that a mistake was made because the direction of the light was not noticed.

Be honest what's better


Old is a problem look at the Mars face for example, I can remember seeing that on the news when it was first shown and wondering could it be real , a fine example of old and lo-res combined.

Sometimes lo-res is indeed your fault to many members on here dont know or look for the better images or zoom way to much that you see NO more detail or because they do not look into the background of how the image was taken they have no idea of scale, or indeed look at a picture to quickly and jump to conclusions that NASA have been naughty


edit on 6-8-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
This is nieve. Think about this for a moment. If your future depended on towing the official line, would you step out and become known as a rebel? No, you would not. In fact, at that stage of your career when you do not have work experience behind you, you are more likely to want to present yourself as a good company man who can be a team player. Not as a maverick scientist who gets no funding.

But how do you know that the "official line" runs through all space agencies and institutes throughout the world. If Japan or India, or even China discovered extraterrestrial life, I bet they'd be more than happy to anounce it to the world, as a testament to their progress and scientific and technological achievements.


Technically, you are correct and science would not make such a statement. However, I have seen many people on here (who may or may not be actual scientists) say that the data does not support this position. Now, whether you like it or not, these people are going to believe that the available data is correct and life does not exist on Mars. Therefore, as normal human beings, it is going to bias their view when considering other evidence because at the back of their mind they already believe that it does not exist and the official data they have seen supports their belief.

I don't think there are any real scientists on this board, and even if some paid a visit, they wouldn't be showing the same small-headeness as many resident ATSer that you refer to. There is no (and cannot be) data that undeniably shows that Mars could have never been inhabited. Once again you make an overreaching conclusion and tar everybody with the same brush.


NASA are not investigating signs of life and publishing the findings. It is that simple. Where they find something which looks as if it may be a fossil, they grind it away. When they find something which looks as if it may be something unusual, they say it is a clip fallen from the rover. It may be a clip from the rover, but they need to show others on the rover which match it so that folks can see it matches. No. There is absolutely no attempt to find life. No 'future mission' will find life either. Don't kid yourself.

NASA are doing what their mission is supposed to do. Curiosity is studying the environment to see if it was habitable in the past, and the next mission is specifically designed to look for signs of past life. If you refuse to accept those simple facts, then it's you who is kidding yourself.


Yes, because thats what government do. They ask experts to write reports and these reports cite other data and experiments and reports written by other eminent scientists. It is highly likely that other governments have had similar reports done for them and it is highly likely that the results are the same with the same conclusion. Even down to quoting the Brookings Report in their references at the end.

But the government or its agencies are not bound to follow the report, and sometimes outright ignore it. The report on cannabis for the British government is a good example; it was based on facts and provided a scientific view, but was ignored by the government in favour of making cannabis class B drug.


See, there you go again. Assuming what the space agencies would have you believe. Telling us all what is trotted out by NASA.

It's based on everything I have read about Mars. It simply didn't have enough time as an earth-like planet to allow for higher life forms to evolve. But it is an assuption. I might be wrong, and we may come across fossilised bones. Then our knowledge will progress and we will learn more and adjust our theories. This is what science does - it discovers and learns (unlike some ATSers, it seems).



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join