"Quadrata Martis": The mind blowing squared area in Hellas Planitia on Mars...

ArMaP
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I remember that one, it's from an old thread, this one.

The photo is PSP_008427_1380.

What's a joke on here is how anyone can seriously look at these Rock Formations and think they are structures.

A little tip when any of the Moon/Mars building posters post an image on here always LOOK for a better version of it!!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Try to rotate the image...


...and all, in your eyes and in your mind became more clear...


But this for another thread. Stay tuned.

reply to post by Arken


Considering the image was shot vertically, top-down, no matter how you rotate it doesn't affect the fact that you're looking at small geological features created by wind erosion and covered with seasonal CO2 frost. www.uahirise.org...

RGB image, approximating the true colours: hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...

wildespace
reply to post by Arken

 

Considering the image was shot vertically, top-down, no matter how you rotate it doesn't affect the fact that you're looking at small geological features created by wind erosion and covered with seasonal CO2 frost. www.uahirise.org...

RGB image, approximating the true colours: hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...

Roughly 15 Km x 5 Km (70 Km squared) is a "small" geological features?

Arken

Roughly 15 Km x 5 Km (70 Km squared) is a "small" geological features?

Area covered by the whole photo: 15 km x 5 km = 75 km²
Area covered by the colour part of the photo: 15 km x 1 km = 15 km²

Edit: each one of those geometric looking features (the bigger ones) is something like 30 m x 50 m.

ArMaP

Arken

Roughly 15 Km x 5 Km (70 Km squared) is a "small" geological features?

Area covered by the whole photo: 15 km x 5 km = 75 km²
Area covered by the colour part of the photo: 15 km x 1 km = 15 km²

Edit: each one of those geometric looking features (the bigger ones) is something like 30 m x 50 m.

edit on 16/4/2014 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

Exactly Armap. And tha is only a tiny part of the whole area not covered by MRO.

Arken
Roughly 15 Km x 5 Km (70 Km squared) is a "small" geological features?

I was talking about those numerous dune-like features. At the scale of 51.8 cm/pixel, they can't be that large.

Nasal would never land a rover in a place like that as they might find past life there. Instead they only land in asteroid craters where everything has been obliterated.

Xeven
Nasal would never land a rover in a place like that as they might find past life there. Instead they only land in asteroid craters where everything has been obliterated.

Why would NASA not want to discover signs of past life on Mars? Their funding, public support, and prestige would skyrocket, as well as providing a major scientific milestone.

Besides, Curiosity landed on the floor of an ancient lake, and discovered signs of flowing water and habitable environment. There may well be some fossilised microbes in the rock there. The next martian rover will specifically look for signs of past life, if there were any. www.bbc.co.uk...

Arken
Exactly Armap. And tha is only a tiny part of the whole area not covered by MRO.

That's the problem with high resolution photos, the higher the resolution the more photos are needed to cover the same area.

ArMaP

Arken
Exactly Armap. And tha is only a tiny part of the whole area not covered by MRO.

That's the problem with high resolution photos, the higher the resolution the more photos are needed to cover the same area.

Seems, however, that particular Area, "Falls in Hellas Basin", is quite clear to show oddities and anomalies.

QUADRATA MARTIS

Hi ATS members, the discovery of this amazing area of the sequentially created plots of farmed fauna on the surface of Hellas Planitia on Mars has presented the supposed hierarchy of science that has no distinct knowledge of extra-terrestrial life beyond supposition "with a great force of change".

I believe we have had a post from the University of Arizona who have tried
poorly to discredit this finding in the usual unprofessional manner of
Simply explaining this away as "Geological" and a product of frost and drying mud
over time etc.

In response let us first argument the historic accuracy of the best of
space exploration associated paid scientists whilst remembering a famous quote
by Einstein as he once said...

"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."

The first time the best paid scientists of NASA went to Mars in the hope
of determining the possibility of life on Mars was the Viking one Lander
mission and a very simple experiment was used in the hope of proving
the existence of bugs in the Martian soil once they had established that
no obvious signs of life were visible by the use of relatively poor cameras
by today's standards viewing mostly the top surface of a very rocky field
of view.

The experiment involved the use of a simple well established method
of providing the nutrients, water and heat to a sample to then measure
the resulting data to detect fermentation processes that would in this
case yield certain changes in gases that would establish an analogue
of a living process.

Now those that can remember the turn of events or know of the
experiment will confirm that this experiment was hugely flawed
simply because the very same experiment can produce gases
by means of simple chemical processes with the heating and mixing
of h2o that will create a reading of released gases but why on Earth
or on Mars did they not theorise this before they commissioned the
experiment, furthermore this simple mistake then forced following
missions to Mars to stick to the adoption of Mars as a sterile desert
with little chance of finding microbial life thus mission objectives of
all Mars landing since have been tailored to omit the possibility
of being "wrong".

Well anyone reading this article thus far will conclude that not only did
Mars life exploration get off to a bad start, but it has been getting progressively bad and side stepped ever since.

Gary Proffitt. finder of "Quadrata Martis"

P.S. I will enlighten us all to the great importance of this finding
once I have done all the research needed and be prepared
for "a great force of change".

a reply to: garyoptica

First of all, welcome to ATS, garyoptica.

Now, could you present some evidence of that what we are looking at are "sequentially created plots of farmed fauna"?

Thanks in advance.

a reply to: ArMaP

I will have to create a video that presents the correct case for the evidence but this will take time and for now I have a matter of addressing IP camera shipments worth hundreds of thousands of USD to potential customers, needless to say "the camera never lies".

I will produce the aforementioned article in due course...

a reply to: garyoptica

Does it have to be a video? I hate videos.

a reply to: ArMaP

"Evidence of Sequentially created cubic plots" was your query thus go to the link below and consider to look
at the 5th snapshot that I have coloured in and observe what you seek to find and that this strip is completely
produced over existing older markings and that there is two debris piles that are dumped at the end of this work and the bizarre segmented semi-circular item that is situated at the other end .

Also take notice of many extended linear depressions that are in one case parallel and two pairs exist in the same snapshot number "two".

Evidently processes greater than natural have been at work on Mars and we will come to find that Planets are merely stepping stones for many advanced lifeforms that have been and will come to be as shall we one day though we have not cast a single breath upon Mars as yet...

www.gigapan.com...

a reply to: garyoptica

Thanks for the explanation, but I don't see any thing that could not be done by natural processes, and that would be more noticeable if you look at the whole image instead of just that part, as we can see that those features look like variants of the other features we can see on the rest of the photo.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Reminds me of Tremors

a reply to: ArMaP
"If you stare at the whole world from a distance it is merely a blue dot and cannot be proven to have any form of life and magnify this by all the stars and planets in the Universe and you will see why many would avoid the work in favour of ignorant bliss."

a reply to: garyoptica

Are you the author of the video I've posted in this thread, Gary?