Trees on Mars?

On Astronomy Picture Of the Day today, a beautiful and interesting view of Mars is visible and perfectly demonstrate how our eyes and brain can be easily fooled:



What looks like some trees scattered in a desert sand is in fact not:

They might look like trees on Mars, but they're not. Groups of dark brown streaks have been photographed by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on melting pinkish sand dunes covered with light frost.

The above image was taken in 2008 April near the North Pole of Mars. At that time, dark sand on the interior of Martian sand dunes became more and more visible as the spring Sun melted the lighter carbon dioxide ice. When occurring near the top of a dune, dark sand may cascade down the dune leaving dark surface streaks -- streaks that might appear at first to be trees standing in front of the lighter regions, but cast no shadows.

Objects about 25 centimeters across are resolved on this image spanning about one kilometer. Close ups of some parts of this image show billowing plumes indicating that the sand slides were occurring even when the image was being taken.

The big problem is to know what are those liquid, fluid dark streaks...

Originally posted by elevenaugust

What looks like some trees scattered in a desert sand is in fact not:

Not buying it.

I don't have an alternative explanation. I do note two things:

1) Looking over Skipper's analysis of Mars pictures reveals far too many anomalies for that planet to be a dead rock. The ruins of the Mt. Rushmore-style "Princess" carving and the "bald man" carving hint at some great civilization. That civilization most likely included large life in the form of trees.

For size comparison with your Mars photo ...... On earth, the Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest structure composed of living entities, stretching 2,000 km. Concerning large dry plant life, a grove of Aspen tree(s) in Utah is connected by a single root system, and each stem above the ground is genetically identical. It covers about 106 acres.


2) NASA is a national security organization that specializes in propaganda. Which pretty much fits the rest of our government. Do you *really* believe a damn thing they say?

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by elevenaugust

What looks like some trees scattered in a desert sand is in fact not:

2) NASA is a national security organization that specializes in propaganda. Which pretty much fits the rest of our government. Do you *really* believe a damn thing they say?

Aren't they the ones up there now? Aren't they the ones whose images you are looking at? Aren't they the people who should know?

What reason would there be to lie. Trees on mars. Wow, earth shattering news.

No reason to lie. No reason for it to be a lie.

god this is tediously silly sometimes...

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by jcarpenter

2) NASA is a national security organization that specializes in propaganda. Which pretty much fits the rest of our government. Do you *really* believe a damn thing they say?

Aren't they the ones up there now? Aren't they the ones whose images you are looking at? Aren't they the people who should know?

What reason would there be to lie. Trees on mars. Wow, earth shattering news.

No reason to lie. No reason for it to be a lie.

god this is tediously silly sometimes...

Yes; it is tedious.

Fact is: This "government" is built on lies. They will lie even when the truth will work just as well. Who knows their agenda -- other than it's just another faucet of the dog-n-pony show we are subjected to daily.

reply to post by jcarpenter


"On Astronomy Picture Of the Day today, a beautiful and interesting view of Mars is visible and perfectly demonstrate how our eyes and brain can be easily fooled: "

I agree with J Carpenter. This may not be trees we're looking at but it's not what TPTB at NASA give as an explanation either. "Dark Streaks" "Sublimation" "Etc" Bla, bla, bla. If these were streaks of some sort, or "seepage" from underneath the ground wouldn't they flow in the same direction because of gravity? The streaks in the picture flow different directions in the same way as things that are growing "UP" do. I'm just a closet scientist/ engineer so maybe I'm wrong in my determination.

Then again, maybe these are some type of Martian grass or Martian Weed. NASA doesn't want humans to get hold of this Martian Cannibus! LOL!

Looks suspiciously like some kind of grass to me.

No, I don't believe NASA. The government has been lying to us for decades. Why would they stop now?

It does look like tall grass in the snow with a weird optical filter.

Sorry I couldn't find a aerial stock photo, but, I found this one.

reply to post by jcarpenter


"NASA said it so it must not be true" is not a rational argument. In fact you're just engaging in a form of poisoning the well. These are scientists, they would love to find evidence of trees, it would be a huge bargaining chip to get more funding and be able to keep their jobs. Instead, the outlook for mars exploration post-MAVEN looks grim. Indeed, other scientists, myself included, think NASA is too eager to jump to conclusions that fall on the pro-et life side of things when the evidence is still tenuous, even weak. NASA is by far the most open and transparent space agency out there. The amount of raw data they provide to the public is staggering. Unfortunately since the public these days are idiots who are less educated about spaceflight and astronomy and care more about the latest celebrity scandal, they usually don't realize that nor would they know what to do with the data.

Just because nasa is a government agency does not mean the scientists who are in charge of these missions are lying. You must prove that they are lying.

reply to post by lostbook


If they're growing up, where are their shadows?

Originally posted by PrplHrt
Looks suspiciously like some kind of grass to me.

No, I don't believe NASA. The government has been lying to us for decades. Why would they stop now?

Fine, want to be like that? What makes you think the photo is even real to begin with? If NASA is lying, then what makes you think any of their mars missions are even real?

reply to post by ngchunter


You took the words right out of my mouth

Originally posted by lostbook
reply to post by jcarpenter

 

"On Astronomy Picture Of the Day today, a beautiful and interesting view of Mars is visible and perfectly demonstrate how our eyes and brain can be easily fooled: "

I agree with J Carpenter. This may not be trees we're looking at but it's not what TPTB at NASA give as an explanation either. "Dark Streaks" "Sublimation" "Etc" Bla, bla, bla. If these were streaks of some sort, or "seepage" from underneath the ground wouldn't they flow in the same direction because of gravity? The streaks in the picture flow different directions in the same way as things that are growing "UP" do. I'm just a closet scientist/ engineer so maybe I'm wrong in my determination.

Then again, maybe these are some type of Martian grass or Martian Weed. NASA doesn't want humans to get hold of this Martian Cannibus! LOL!

Maybe it's better to read what is says on the OP's link

At that time, dark sand on the interior of Martian sand dunes became more and more visible as the spring Sun melted the lighter carbon dioxide ice. When occurring near the top of a dune, dark sand may cascade down the dune leaving dark surface streaks -- streaks that might appear at first to be trees standing in front of the lighter regions, but cast no shadows.

Originally posted by ngchunter
NASA is by far the most open and transparent space agency out there. The amount of raw data they provide to the public is staggering.

Transparency? Huh?

You can tell me all about transparency when I look at photos with obvious massive smudges. Or when the processing pipeline refuses to release photos until politicians get involved. Or when the stereo-ahead or stereo-behind feeds are manipulated. Or perhaps you care to explain the movie sets of "lunar" scenes? Maybe you can explain the phrase ""Houston, this is Discovery, we still have the Alien spacecraft under observance"? Or perhaps you can explain why Clark McClelland, a retired NASA Space Flight Controller has stated he watched an 8+ foot tall entity in the Space Shuttle bay?

Those are just a few of literally thousands of major disconnects. So ..... any time you care to wade in ......

reply to post by jcarpenter

Not buying it.

What aren't you buying?

The fact their not trees, well then look closely at the following...



Sorry, those aren't trees..

In fact the flow from above the dark streaks coincides with said dark streaks, so why can't those be exactly what NASA has said they are?

reply to post by jcarpenter


There are so many lies in your post I scarcely know where to begin. I don't have time to deal with all of them right now, but McClellan was not a flight controller for a start. You should seriously reconsider who it is whohas been lying to you because it wasn't NASA...

And by the way, as someone who has personally processed the raw stereo data, I know you're dead wrong about that too...

reply to post by jcarpenter

Add the photo tech who said that NASA routinely airbrushes out stuff they don't want the public to see.

The shuttle footage of something being fired on and it making a 90° turn and shooting off into space. NASA said it was dust or ice particles. Dust and ice don't make 90° turns.

What about the Tether Incident? The thing was swarmed by intelligently controlled vehicles.

reply to post by PrplHrt


More lies. Ice does make sharp turns when the shuttle's thruster plume impinges on it. Moreover, the shuttle's own motion relative to the ice is an important factor. The tether incident clearly showed small particles very close to the camera, which is why they were massive bokeh images, reflections of the shape of the optic, while the camera was focused on the distant tether.

reply to post by PrplHrt

What about the Tether Incident? The thing was swarmed by intelligently controlled vehicles.

Are you sure about that?

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by jcarpenter

 

There are so many lies in your post I scarcely know where to begin. I don't have time to deal with all of them right now, but McClellan was not a flight controller for a start. You should seriously reconsider who it is whohas been lying to you because it wasn't NASA...

You begin one event at a time. For any mistake you may uncover in my rant, there are quite literally thousands more events. You sure you want to go head-to-head in a phallus-wagging contest about NASA's openness, honesty and integrity?

On second thought, this appears to be turning into a personality conflict or perhaps something else. Guess I need to go cut some wood.

Best to you.