"Mars Flower" is CORAL; Photos Censored

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
a reply to: JamesChessman

Interesting and thank you for sharing.

Like others though I am struggling to find any conceivable reason NASA would cover up the fact it’s coral? Intact, haven’t they theorised Mars may have had oceans on it? Wouldn’t the discovery of coral help them prove that theory?

I've thought about it for years, the pervasive cover-up, in the face of all evidence of alien life existing & visiting us.

I do believe that it will never, ever be explicitly acknowledged by any of the world governments.

Why? Because masses of people would flip out, probably in violence & chaos etc. Anger against the governments for decades of lies.

Anger that we are struggling on Earth each day, while alien tech could be used to create a paradise on Earth, without the need of daily working, struggling, suffering.

Anger that we are plagued with diseases and health problems that alien science & tech SHOULD probably be able to cure instantly.

So much anger, imagine the chaos and protests and self-destruction of human civilization. Yes, exactly that. People would just destroy everything and refuse to work or do anything productive at all (since alien tech could have been used to make a paradise without the need of work).

Civilization would crumble, masses would starve & die, everyone would kill everyone, and we'd actually regress and devolve... in the ultimate irony, crumbling and regressing, from anger that we were not gifted more advancement. We'd go backwards in reaction that we weren't already further ahead.

Sigh... lol.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Yes, it's possible that the close-up shot, is made from the same original, as the landscape shot.

However, they still end up as 2 distinct, different images.

It is not completely clear to me what the original image was, since the seem to do composites of those images too:
mars.nasa.gov...

The close-up shot DOES HAVE BLURRING ADDED, which is not there in the wider shot.

I see I might have been wrong; there are quite a few images of that scenery:
Nasa

and you can find enough ones without "blur"
ibb.co...

The blur much more seems like a side effect from the camera itself

Thanks again for the link to NASA's raw images.

I'm just starting to look around at the Mars flower images.




As I'm new to looking at NASA's raw images, I have a couple of questions that are probably redundant but you could probably help clarify:


1. Why exactly are these called "raw images."

Are they literally the same exact images snapped by the rover? Same exact resolution etc.?


I just downloaded a shot that's 1584 x 1184.

So that's the same exact image, and same exact res, as the rover's camera?


If so then it's not taking pics in extremely high-def. but maybe that's because it's the MAHLI, the "Mars Hand Lens Imager."




Another downloaded pic, a really big landscape shot is 1632 x 1200.


Also there are smaller, low res images too, like zooming closer onto the Mars flower (in the 400's pixels range).



...So is this really just how the MAHLI camera works? Max res of 1632 x 1200... and then lower res for everything else when it zooms closer.

Is this accurate?




In other words, these are really the best, and original images?






2. I'm also just trying to clarify the range of days that feature the Mars flower.

So far it looks like it appears on only 2 different Mars days. Sol 3396 through 3397.



So do you think that's accurate? I haven't spent much time looking at the larger range of images yet, but a cursory glance looks like the Mars flower is only appearing on those 2 Sol's?

Just for info, the Hazard Avoidance camera captures when the photos were taken:

as does the Right Navigation Camera:

This Nav Cam photos shows where the 'coral' is:

and here's that same area in the Nav Cam image identifying the piece:

There are similar (but more degraded) mineral formations here:

a reply to: JamesChessman

I think it says more about liquid water surviving longest in the craters of Mars. Its water adjacent at least.

My personal view is the best place to find life near us has to be Enceladus. Cryovolcanism means liquid ocean and heat created by tidal heating. First place I'd look anyway.

I don't doubt for a second the universe is seeded with life, thats just not coral... at all.

I will say given the ubiquity of left-handed amino acids found even in interstellar dust it stands to reason that life follows similar paths where it takes hold. Probably many roads lead to water filled cells filled with DNA.

We as a species dont know crap about crap yet honestly.

And once you know where it is you can find it quite easily on other days' observations.

Here it is spotted in the Right navcam on sol 3393.

and by the mastcam on the same sol:

The mastcam also saw it on sol 3396 - I've zoomed in and fiddled with the image here:

More info (not sure if this has been posted already)

www.salon.com...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

...I just double-checked to make sure, and yep, you were crapping up my last thread with false, dishonest statements about just thousands and thousands of images released from China.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


They were not released from China. There was no such thing. You and your buds argued for like 6 months at this point, that there were thousands of images published, which were not.

Your very last post in that thread is pretending that there were images published, which were not. You were blaming me for not being able to see the non-existent images lol.

You really established yourself as a dishonest troll in that thread, now, didn't you?

Waiting for half a year, aren't you and your friends ever going to admit that you were all lying about the images from China.

The answer is no, because trolls don't acknowledge when they're proven to be lying. The thread is a classic case of blatantly dishonest trolling.

...Well in other words, surprised to see you popping up immediately in my new thread, when you proved for 6 months that you're a liar and a troll. But um, hi there.

How ironic that you are actually finding and embedding the current pics from NASA, right?

Why do you think you're able to post NASA's pics but you can't post thousands of pics from China that YOU spend 6 months at a time claiming that they exist?

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JamesChessman

I think it says more about liquid water surviving longest in the craters of Mars. Its water adjacent at least.

My personal view is the best place to find life near us has to be Enceladus. Cryovolcanism means liquid ocean and heat created by tidal heating. First place I'd look anyway.

I don't doubt for a second the universe is seeded with life, thats just not coral... at all.

I will say given the ubiquity of left-handed amino acids found even in interstellar dust it stands to reason that life follows similar paths where it takes hold. Probably many roads lead to water filled cells filled with DNA.

We as a species dont know crap about crap yet honestly.

I like your whole post but why do you think it's not coral then? It shares the same shape and texture as coral, it seems...

And I agree about Enceladus, similarly Europa seems very promising too. Just imagine all that ocean life!!

a reply to: JamesChessman

If it was Coral it would have had to have survived at least a couple of billion years of wind and sand erosion sat on the surface of Mars , I find that beyond unlikely.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JamesChessman

If it was Coral it would have had to have survived at least a couple of billion years of wind and sand erosion sat on the surface of Mars , I find that beyond unlikely.

I usually consider it just a few thousand years ago that disaster struck and destroyed Mars etc.

Off the top of my dome, the Younger Dryas Event was 10,500 years ago (or thereabout) so that's usually the cataclysm that I blame for destroying everything including Mars as a living planet.

So in that case, the coral would be a fossil from a few thousand yrs ago, which is not such a big deal for fossils to last that long. We have dinosaur fossils from MILLIONS of yrs ago, after all...

Plus the dry desert sand of a "dead" planet should be good for covering up some fossils and thus preserving them for a few thousand yrs, eh?

a reply to: JamesChessman

If you have an issue with what I posted in the other thread, take it to the other thread.

You blamed everyone but yourself for not being to understand the image format China (along with many other space agencies) post their data. China has posted thousands of images, I explained how to view them. Other people also tried to help but you ignored them. You call me a liar and a troll just because you didn't like/didn't understand what you were seeing. I'm neither of those things, put your dummy back in. China investigated the rock, posted pictures, decided it was nothing, moved on. You should do the same.

I have not 'popped up immediately' in this thread. I rolled my eyes when I saw who the OP was, but I've waited a couple of days before deciding to see what images were available. I posted those images and didn't bother adding my opinion, just added some info that might help people explore the images more. You're welcome.

You can have my opinion now:

They aren't censoring the images. There are loads of them. If they didn't want you to see them, they wouldn't be there. The quality is what it is. Just like your China thread, you're deciding what standards should be applied and throwing a tantrum when they aren't. Beaming data back from Mars is not like streaming a film from Netflix. Image quality and bandwidth has a cost attached that has to be balanced with other mission objective. There are other perfectly natural explanations for it that don't involve it being excreted by sea creatures.

You've made your decision that they are being censored and what they show. You didn't want to listen to what you were told in the other thread, seems like you don't want to listen here. Grow up.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Results from Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission (MAVEN) show Mars lost much of its atmosphere 2 or 3 billion years ago due to its weakening magnetic field and intensity of Solar radiation from the sun , as the atmosphere got thinner sublimation of the water on Mars increased to a point where it either went underground or evaporated into space with its atmosphere.

The science shows Mars has been an arid planet for at least a couple of billion years , I believe there was primitive life on Mars early on and there may still be ecosystems bellow the surface today.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JamesChessman

Results from Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission (MAVEN) show Mars lost much of its atmosphere 2 or 3 billion years ago due to its weakening magnetic field and intensity of Solar radiation from the sun , as the atmosphere got thinner sublimation of the water on Mars increased to a point where it either went underground or evaporated into space with its atmosphere.

The science shows Mars has been an arid planet for at least a couple of billion years , I believe there was primitive life on Mars early on and there may still be ecosystems bellow the surface today.

Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into that at some point. Is it possible that the findings are just wildly off-base? I don't really know anything about MAVEN but the topic being something so profound and unimaginable as the death of a planet, I think it's possible that the timeline might not be accurate...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

If you have an issue with what I posted in the other thread, take it to the other thread.

No, it's the same topic in both threads: Images published by space agencies.

It's the same topic and you're the same troll who just spent half a year trolling about pretending there were images published which were not.

You lied for 6 months about it.

Then you came to another thread about the same exact topic -- images published by space agencies -- so it's the same exact topic and you come in actually finding and showing images.

The same topic you just spent months trolling and lying about lol.

Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

A little toooooo ironic. And yeah I really do think.

It's like raaaain on your wedding day...

I mean, are you ever going to prove that those Chinese images exist? Or are you going to ever acknowledge your months of blatant lying and trolling?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You blamed everyone but yourself for not being to understand the image format China (along with many other space agencies) post their data.

^This fool STILL trolling about non-existent images. They don't exist. They never were published. You and your friends / sock accounts spent half a year LYING about it.

Now lying about it again in a new thread lol.

How is this sucker not banned already.

Why can't you find the images from China if they exist lol.

Why are you able to find NASA's images but you can't find the Chinese images that you argue for months about existing?

Why are NASA's images actually available in JPEG format but nobody can see China's images that you argue for months about?

You just posted many NASA pics and for Chinese pics you spent months swearing that images exist but you can't post them and you can't see them lol.

Come on, just post one of the Chinese pics because you still look like a stupid liar...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

China has posted thousands of images, I explained how to view them.

They were not posted. And you did not explain how to view them.

Especially that they don't exist.

And for context: GOOGLE can't find these images either / Google can't SEE these images either.

And if you CAN see them, why won't you just SHOW us that they exist, and stop looking like you've all been lying about it for 6 months?

Why not show us the images that you know about, but GOOGLE doesn't know about?

See classic trolling is that the most meaningful things are just not responded to. This guy will spend the next 10 years lying about Chinese images existing that don't exist lol and he'll never say why he won't show us one of his secret pics LOL!!

a reply to: JamesChessman

There was no luring added the object is just very small and the camera has difficulty focusing. What people aren't getting is it's about half the size of a penny. Nothing at all like coral.