Haaa leluia,,, Haaleeeluia
Haaa leluia,,, Haaleeeluia
Using GLPScience, those pictures are definitive proof that standing blue pools of water exist on mars, as well as lush jungles of vegetation.
Curse those evil mainstream astronomers! Can't they see what is so clearly incontrovertible evidence of life? :roll:
I used a magnifying glass on my screen...duuude I think i saw a FISH.!!
I knew something was fishy.Originally Posted by Hazzard
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules
Is it just me, or could that have been worded a bit better?Mars case for liquid surface water
ie...The case for liquid water on the surface of Mars. :wink:
I'm no expert, but isn't the atmospheric pressure on Mars too low to sustain liquid water? Wouldn't it boil away?
And I doubt there are pine trees on Mars... unless they're bent at a 45 degree angle (These pictures are birds-eye view right?)
Hmmm...I think with a little enhancing, I can see Marvin the Martian out fishing for bluegills...
Okay? Had your fun?
Now tell me what the **** these are! Especially the 'pine trees'.
I looked at that pic on the (?) woo-woo site, and said to myself, "This guy is having a laugh - those ARE pine trees." Then I looked at the site he linked to where the whole image is found: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_...7/E0701717.gif
It's an enormously long strip, with all sorts of weird formations.
What is all this??? Where is it?
If you don't know (and I don't) don't mock those who think they do.
The problem isn't conjecture about what that is, but with those who declare they are obviously plants and suggest that those who have studied the pictures and have alternate explanations (and that includes scientists and astronomers) are too stupid to see the evidence right in front of their faces.If you don't know (and I don't) don't mock those who think they do.
Indeed, most of here on this forum would simply love for there to be plants on Mars. It's the coming to rash conclusions based on satellite images and then calling us stupid for not seeing it that irritates us.
...assuming that these are satellite pics. I didn't find a reference. Assuming it are Mars pics (to start with), it could be microscopic Rover images.Originally Posted by twinstead
That said I do think these are all Mars satellite pics. If it are satellite pics, the pines might very well be features of kilometres diameter.
Without any reference frame, I think it is very wrong to jump to any conclusion, outlandish or not.
the issue is, scientists have NOT weighed in on what these features are.
This does not rule out biological.
And they do look like pine trees, whatever they are.
I too am annoyed by amateur pronouncements about what something MUST be, based only on unstated and subjective criteria (and the appeal to the author's having 'looked at thousands of images' -- as if that enhances credibility!)
However, there are clearly some extremely intruiging and puzzling features in these photos, to this amateur's eye, anyway.
The photos ARE from the MOC, and are centered at 152.24 lat, -74.41 lon (the E07 shot) and 47.31 lat, -78.5 (E10). Both are about 3 km wide.
I'm not willing to say "pine trees', but something interesting is happening there.
I agree. I think we all would love to know exactly what they are.However, there are clearly some extremely intruiging and puzzling features in these photos, to this amateur's eye, anyway.
Me as well, these "photoanalysts" were interesting the first couple of times I encountered them here and at Apollohoax but their methods, as well as their arrogant/angry responses when you challenge their claims, got tired really fast. They seem completely shocked when everyone doesn't immediately agree with what they see in the photos, and they are usually unwilling to accept any other interpretation.Originally Posted by Tom Ames
I see that rense has "discovered" the Louros Valles. lol
It would be great if anyone reading this board (who has the capacity) would encourage ESA to image this valley at 3 meters, or at least release more images if they have already done so.
MEX snapped that image over 1 year ago.
Clarke is abig name sure, but as long as there is no proof that these features are vegetation, his concluion is worth as much as yours or mine.
My opinion about both articles is that they are quite "spacy" and based on little facts.
These words say close to nothing in my opinion, and are based on close to nothing. Many science fiction has become reality, many was proven to be impossible/useless.Cernan said that he has concluded there's little difference between science fiction and science fact. He said that the only difference is time, a dimension we know so little about.
Actually there is very solid proof that these features are NOT vegetation. A definition of what life is might be hard to formulate, but a major part of such a definition would be metabolism. Metabolism extracts energy from local resources by somehow transforming them. This must lead to waste products, such as oxygen in the case of (green) plants or methane in the case of microbes. If you have complete valleys covered with enormous pine-trees I think this would result in substantial and dynamic changes in the Martian atmosphere. Nothing of the kind has ever been detected. I guess this shows us that mr. Clarke is a SF writer, and nothing else.Originally Posted by Nicolas
BTW, have you seen the rest of Mr. Rense's website? By Jove, these Martian Pine-trees certainly rank among his most innocent of theories.
Have you even looked for images? Why do they have to be ESA images? Why not NASA? If MOC images will suffice, then look here: http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/MOLA/gr...egions/48/093/Originally Posted by moxy1
You could even try suggesting it as a MOC target: http://www.msss.com/plan/intro
If you absolutely must have HRSC/SRC images, see if you can find some here: http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PSA
And if the reason you want MEX images is because you want color, then you aren't going to find that. The Super Resolution Camera (the one with 2 meter resolution) is monochrome.
[/quote]If you have complete valleys covered with enormous pine-trees I think this would result in substantial and dynamic changes in the Martian atmosphere. Nothing of the kind has ever been detected. I guess this shows us that mr. Clarke is a SF writer, and nothing else.[/quote]
Now thats spoken like a true scientist.
I'm a fan of Arthur C Clarke but I confess that as time goes on, he does seem to luxuriate in the ability to espouse some more outlandish or fringe theories.
A couple of my more cynical friends think he does this to remain in te public eye but I'm not so sure.
I certainly hope that his good reputation as a visionary does not become tainted over time.
On a sidenote, I had the following thought:
Why does every picture has to have a conclusion just because it exists? Why can't we just accept "we can't tell from this picture and further research is needed to conclude anything" (this does not specifically reflect to these pics).
More in general: Why does everything need an explanation, even when there is too little info or time to come up with one? Why does everyone need to have an opinion on everything when he has not enough time or info to get to one? Why does everything need to have a purpose or meaning?
Maybe it's just my mindset, but I prefer leaving some things blank until I can firmly fill them in, instead of scrabbling some ungrounded nonsense in it.
Before people jump to the conclusion that I am a "dry" person with a total lack of imagination, and stays away from any speculation/dreaming:
I'm as big a dreamer as many woo˛. Maybe bigger. I just don't start educational webistes about them. I prefer to keep my dreams where they belong: inside my mind as mental excursions, used to entertain myself (sometimes others -nothing against scifi) or to give insight. But not to educate the world.
um3k....of course I have searched for other images.
I have looked at every MOC image of the Louros Valley that I'm aware of, and NASA has not published (to my knowledge) any 2 meter res images of the valley floor, only areas that are kilometers away from the most interesting features.
I had a similar discussion over at MC's board last fall. I admit I became frustrated after I determined that NASA was snapping 2 meter res images of everything but the actual floor. The one image that does intersect the canyon is from the central portion and not the eastern or western areas. It also was very difficult to see any detail in that lone pic.
Thanks for the links, though I am having some trouble accessing the archive data for MEX.
Color is not as important as resolution.
If there realy was liquid water and green areas on Mars,you can bet your hiny that NASA/ESA would be the first to tell us.
Their budged problems would be a memory,and we would have a manned mission to Mars sooner than you can say -Life on other planets..!
“Lake” image (MOC R1201056) is located 27.81 S and 40.37 W, just north of Nirgal Vallis. The crater is simply a bigger version of Endurance, complete with mass flow streaked walls and interference wind ripples on the floor.
“Pine tree” image is (MOC E1001841) is located at 78.50 S and 47.31 W, just east of Cavi Angusti. A simple raising of the gamma in photo editor shows that the “trees are flat features with the same texture as the surrounding bright areas except they are dark. Given that the whole region is affected by winter snow and frost the most likely explanation is that these are sublimation features.
The ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of the facts about Mars of the Rense website is I find deeply disturbing.
Cugel, I hate to disagree with you (again), but A C Clarke is a lot more than “just” a SF writer. He has been a pioneer in astronautics (his “Interplanetary flight” is still a repository of essential information even though it is 50 years old), science populariser, commentator, and humanitarian. In recent years he has supposedly pushed some woo-woo ideas about life on Mars, but then he is nearly 90.
Sorry, you're right Jon. If you read that statement about Clarke as it is, it doesn't show the respect the man deserves. I'm actually a great admirer of his early work and I'm well aware of his invention of the geostationary satellite and other work. You know, I actually suspect him of doing this 'Life on Mars' thing on purpose. He knows very well what the conditions on Mars are and the odds against any life on the surface. So what I was trying to say is, that it is his 'role' as a SF writer to generate as much interest as possible for Mars among the general public. He makes these statements as a SF writer, not as the engineer or scientist he also could be.Originally Posted by JonClarke
Have a nice weekend!
Well, this about sums it up:
What good is shoddy photoplay without a disclaimer at the bottom of the page?Among the thousands of articles posted here for your consideration, there will doubtless be some that you find useless, and possibly offensive, but we believe you will be perceptive enough to realize that even the stories you disagree with have some value in terms of promoting your own further self-definition and insight. Our site is a smorgasbord of material...take what you wish and click or scroll right past that which doesn't interest you.....
....Neither Jeff Rense nor sightings.com necessarily adhere to, or endorse, any or all of the links, stories, articles, editorials, or products offered by sponsors found on this site, or broadcast on the Jeff Rense radio program.
"Use images for comparison only. Actual planet may vary."
Besides, I've always been a bit creeped out by his portrait....
Now I know what was making me crazy - do the math!
Ok, the gov. sends a spacecraft to Mars, it takes pictures of things that the gov. doesn't want people to know about. So the gov. posts the pictures on the web, makes sense to me.