Forest on Mars !?!?

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Nice pictures! Awesome thread!

There is no proof that "multicellular organisms" need oxygen until Humans have explored every possible planet, and that would take an eternity.

So, let's have fun, carry on, and think large!

WATS btw.

Nice post blue bird!

Thanky you LastOut for your kindness!

No harm to think out of box.!


Regardin oxygen:

While prokaryotic cyanobacteria themselves reproduce asexually through cell division, they were instrumental in priming the environment for the evolutionary development of more complex eukaryotic organisms. Cyanobacteria are thought to be largely responsible for increasing the amount of oxygen in the primeval earth's atmosphere through their continuing photosynthesis.
Cyanobacteria use water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight to create their food. The byproducts of this process are oxygen and calcium carbonate (lime). A layer of mucous often forms over mats of cyanobacterial cells. In modern microbial mats, debris from the surrounding habitat can become trapped within the mucous, which can be cemented together by the calcium carbonate to grow thin laminations of limestone. These laminations can accrete over time, resulting in the banded pattern common to stromatolites

// Wiki //

[edit on 8-4-2007 by blue bird]

I found some forest type things too.
like this one, which to me looked like a snow covered mountain, with meandering river, bordered by stands of pine trees:

An Alpine Vacation



Source image:
www.msss.com...

Thank's Undo!


And look at this findings and speculation about south pole of Mars ( one we are speaking about) : water !?

However, the strength of the echo that the radar receives from the rocky surface underneath the layered deposits suggests the composition of the layered deposits is at least 90 percent frozen water. One area with an especially bright reflection from the base of the deposits puzzles researchers. It resembles what a thin layer of liquid water might look like to the radar instrument.....
........

Polar layered deposits hold most of the known water on modern Mars, though other areas of the planet appear to have been very wet at times in the past. Understanding the history and fate of water on Mars is a key to studying whether Mars has ever supported life, because all known life depends on liquid water.

www.physorg.com...



[edit on 8-4-2007 by blue bird]

Originally posted by Xtal_Phusion
Any vegetation here is imaginary. White = snow and Gray = soil (including rocks, sand, gravel, etc.). It's just not that difficult!

Sprry, there is no snow on Mars. If there was, we'd all be living there. For snow to fall down on, it can't be too warm and it can't be too cold. It falls at somewhat a temperature of 0°C to -5°C MAX. The last time I checked, Mars' temperature was higher than that. A lot higher than that.

Originally posted by undo
I found some forest type things too.

like this one, which to me looked like a snow covered mountain, with meandering river, bordered by stands of pine trees:

Bingo!! Beth, that pic is on your Alpine Vacation thread. Darn, this forest stuff has already been done to death on ATS!!

But hey! You wanna come with me on a picnic to the Great Lake area on Mars instead? (The pic which I posted on another thread of mine, 'Want To Have a Picnic On Mars? This Is The Place!!!') Here... OK. Here it is...Remember this one which you colored? Or is it the true color of Mars???



Cheers!!

Aye, that was the name of the thread "Mars: An Alpine Vacation"
here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's one that isn't trees but is still unique:
I called it:

A Chorus Line


And this very strange one:

Might the larger plant life be genetically engineered earth life? Due to the discoveries made the last couple of decades, we have had to rewrite what we thought we knew about life, from deep sea to caves. To first find life we must have context for what life is.

It would help in determining if there are forests on Mars if the original photos were in color. If we can take satellite photos of Earth in color we should have color photos of Mars.

Originally posted by Jimmy910130


Sprry, there is no snow on Mars. If there was, we'd all be living there. For snow to fall down on, it can't be too warm and it can't be too cold. It falls at somewhat a temperature of 0°C to -5°C MAX. The last time I checked, Mars' temperature was higher than that. A lot higher than that.

"NASA's Mars Odyssey Points to Melting Snow as Cause of Gullies"

The now-famous martian gullies were created by trickling water from melting snow packs, not underground springs or pressurized flows, as had been previously suggested, argues Dr. Philip Christensen, the principal investigator for Odyssey's camera system and a professor from Arizona State University in Tempe. He proposes gullies are carved by water melting and flowing beneath snow packs, where it is sheltered from rapid evaporation in the planet's thin atmosphere

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

For WOGIT: Google Mars Some of the ESA photos over the last year or so do show "green" in Valles Marinaris. Too bad the pixel per meter count is so low.

Cheers,

Vic

I usually have a first doubt stance on a lot of postings. It is easy to see what we want to see in pictures. But I do find these pictures interesting.

Originally posted by Xtal_Phusion
If you like, I can list the biochemical reasons why this is simply not possible (since it is my job to know!) but I suspect you'd rather play in the land of make-believe than learn a little science. The best big thing insearching for life on Mars is Lab-on-a-chip technology to search for biomarkers (indicators of life that still has NOT been found there yet!). I don't think 6-figure grants and years of development would have been spent on this technology if we had PICTURES of multicellular organisms! Yeesh!

Why don't we all start here: What to lichens and plants release into the atmosphere that is NOT present in the Martian atmosphere?

One thing that I do think about is how people tend to think in earth, human terms. These objects cannot be a lifeform because we know on earth this doesn't happen. Science says this or that. That's fine and dandy but remember, we not in kansas (mars not earth) anymore. Let's investigate mars plants in terms of earth only.

These being plants are still a very long shot in my book....

Originally posted by Xtal_Phusion
What to lichens and plants release into the atmosphere that is NOT present in the Martian atmosphere?

Not only are your remarks condescending but they are also ignorant. Have you been to Mars? Have you breathed in the atmosphere to determine how much Oxygen is really in the atmosphere there. Are you aware that polar caps measuring up to 2.6 miles deep were discovered. You are aware that Oxygen as well as CO2 can be trapped in ice and then released. Are you aware that the governtment has in the past lied to the American People and does so on a daily basis. (Remember Pearl Harbor?) You are a perfect example of what the powers that be wish for the entire population. You refuse to entertain any ideas that you do not agree with and form desicions based on half truths and popular ideas. Thank God Aristotle, Da Vinci, Copernicus, were able to think outside of the box. So please feel free to ridicule and laugh and in several years when NASA confirms these findings, we will be so kind as to not. Peace

Nice forest of giant sagebrush. I cannot wait for the tourist shuttles so we can all go on a picnic.

* Mars 'tree'



Branches?

"I'm 95% convinced that there's no other conclusion..... I fully agree that this is close to incontrovertible evidence of large present or past 'tree-like' organisms on Mars. I do not believe that these will be explained as 'geological features' or illusions. Only closer-in imaging will decide the matter."

* "Compare Mars "trees" with Earth trees "

members.shaw.ca...



*

Banyan tree (Ficus benghalensis).
"Large-canopied tree. One planted 200 years ago in the Calcutta Botanic Garden (India) has a crown of average diameter over 430 feet."or 127 meters, more than 1 hectare. One in Sri Lanka covers over 2 acres or 1 hectare

members.shaw.ca...

Wow those are some amazing pics. The pics of the large tree type objects look more like a fungus or something along those lines

I don't mean to be condensending, or ignorant - but guys, what exactly is the point of this endeavor?

If there was life on mars - It would be such a discovery that I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt the government would be able to cover it up. I personally am intrigued by life beyond our planet - hell I'm an amateur astronomer to boot - but I just can't grasp the concept of looking through sat imagery of mars looking for .... what exactly?

As far as you guys bashing on the self proclaimed expert on biorganisms - I think we need to keep in mind WHY we *should* use the methodology of comparing our (IE Earths) enviromental and biological properties to other planets. Last time I checked Earth was the only planet that contained life as we know it. How can you except to discover real, valid life on another planet if you don't know what your looking for? Do you expect to look at a forest on mars then *POOF* all of a sudden a martian appears before you and says "Guess what bro! You found me!" Come on!

The only basis we actually have for discovering life in the universe is comparing our model of life on Earth to other planets. It's all there is. You can sit there all day and hypothesize - but where will that get you? A free ticket to fantasy land and no closer to the truth than if you had just gone to sleep and dreamed it all. I'm not being closed minded at all - I'm being realistic.

So please, although Mr. Expert was indeed rude and condensending - he has a VALID point. I ask all of you who consistantly post threads about "OMG LIFE ON MARS" to re-think your position and ask yourself honestly - what am I going to achieve by making yet another thread on supposed life on mars.

- zeeon

Originally posted by thedangler
if it is a forest those trees would be huge.
take a comparison picture using google earth from the same distance see if thye look similar. i doubt it.

Enough absolutely huge trees in the fossil record, as for living? no idea, how big do redwoods look on google?
Mars gravity is slightly less, allowing for bigger trees... theoretically.
Also I haven't seen anything on the "trees" that conclusively indicates height..
How about somekind of giant moss... or giant spore/mushrooms.. what was that biggest lifeform on earth.. a few miles across. of mushroom? (will look it up later)

As for the pictures, beautifull pictures..
Mars though also has huge plumes that rise on occassion, maybe those?
As there's no colour information I don't think you can conclude much. If they had all the raw color information, I would be interested what analysis/color corrections by Keath Laney would yield on this..

Originally posted by WOGIT
Some great pic's !!
Does NASA not have a sat in orbet of mars that could take some very up close pic's of just about any spot on Mars that could tell everyone once and for all what the heck is realy there ?
I for one am hopeing google with all its money can one day soon bring us google mars , or at the very least a google moon.

I would expect them to have, so either they don't have one or they really are not telling us everything...
I just would not know why? if mars is greenier, and has plant life, such a news item with color pics etc.. would be absolutely sweet news... so why hide it.. erm..... straying sorry, on topic again.

Really wish they were colored, including a well colored part of the craft taking the picture, in frame (color reference, in case adjustments are needed like on the mars surface (see Keith Laney, he does some wonderfull work on mars images, in a scientific way without any manual coloring, i won't expain here. But revealed snow/white stuff, where without correction it looks like part of the ground. just to give an example...)

Beautiful picks but trees? or even life? in all honesty could be a lot of things higher on the probability list that we would need to look at first. If we want to keep any research scientific around here.
And decent source material, greyscale photo's can only tell you so much.

Originally posted by zeeon
I don't mean to be condensending, or ignorant - but guys, what exactly is the point of this endeavor?

I'm enjoying wonderful beautiful pictures tbh, and allow myself to indulge a little. Also There has been a lot of evidence in more qualitfied circles that in the least form, the colors are very off on mars surface pictures.
You can verify this by looking on e.g. pathfinder pics at the logo's on the vehicles. some colors are invisible.. flushed out... so to see the correct colors you need to color correct.. this revealed amongst other things, blue (blueish at times) skies on Mars, a lot more color distinction on ground objects (not all the rocks look red anymore), white snowish deposits (flushed in the background, by oversaturated red) and a lot more..

Nothing super revolutionary like positive life of any kind but it means the pictures are not correct (i'm not saying, tampered with, i'm simply saying the colors are not quite correct)

Basicly what i'm saying is, me personally, i'm looking to explore and discover, not all is known about mars. and some assumptions seem to have been wrong.

you know what, ill give you 2 pics (in a sec....)
not such a dramatic picture, but good enough anyhow:

this:


actually looks more like:


Mars is a lot more beautiful then most of the red photo's show you.

For more on color correcting mars visit keithlaney.net...
Really sweet pics. And be sure to read how he got to the corrections he's applying. It's not hogwash.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by zeeon
The only basis we actually have for discovering life in the universe is comparing our model of life on Earth to other planets. It's all there is.

The periodic table of elements is a good reference, too.

LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE by Gary Nelson

Of the active elements, we can eliminate hydrogen immediately from consideration because it is too light and would not be retained in a minor planet's atmosphere. There are now left on the list of active, gaseous elements oxygen, fluorine, sulphur - only at extremely high temperatures - and chlorine. Sulphur can be largely disregarded because of its high vaporization point, 444° C, and only planets very close to their sun with very large masses could maintain this or higher temperatures and retain a sulphur atmosphere. Fluorine can be eliminated on the grounds that it is too active; it will combine with everything except inert gasses. It will never exist uncombined when there is something for it to combine with. As it forms gaseous compounds when it combines, any planet with a large amount of fluorine on it would have an atmosphere consisting mainly of flourides. And since flourine is rather rare, it is unlikely that many such planets exist.

Oxygen and chlorine are the two remaining elements. Which is the more common in the universe? The question can not be answered definitely. However, chlorine has an atomic weight twice that of oxygen, and the rule seems to be that the lighter elements are more common than the heavier ones. Chlorine is much less common than oxygen on earth. Therefore chlorine atmospheres should be nowhere near as common as oxygen ones on this basis of relative abundance. Still, they should be more common than fluorine atmospheres.

All the open-mindedness in the world won't change some of the requisites for complex life to exist.

Originally posted by zeeon
I don't mean to be condensending, or ignorant - but guys, what exactly is the point of this endeavor?

Point is: Questioning . Simple as that.

Years before - there was a mantra that there is little chance for water to be on planets in our Solar system - and now we are witnessing that almost all of them (including some moons) are suggested to have water.
Regarding Mars - there is even a speculation ( official one) of a 'snow' on its south pole.

I am highly sceptical person - but these images are very interesting IMHO.



Mars//Earth