Mars and Where We Land...

With all of the current interest in Mars from the public, I find it amazing that images like these are all but ignored by nearly everyone. Why is that? If NASA is going to spend billions and billions in funding, sending rovers to the most remote deserts of Mars to prove once more that deserts exist on every heavenly body we've visited, why don't people get more interested in images such as these? These are obvious lakes of some sort and to the naked eye Mars sparkles red and blue in the night sky, which means an atmosphere.

Anyhow, I just want to see some real conversation on the subject matter contained within this webpage:
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...







If these images are so easily explained away, then why not land a rover nearby and get a closer look? It seems like 'checking' on it would be more beneficial to us all rather than picking the most boring spots on a planet and landing their repeatedly. I equate this to visiting Earth for the first half dozen times and only visiting the Sahara and Gobi deserts. They probably wouldn't know Yosemite or the Amazon exists...

a reply to: Xterrain

I certainly get impression the deserty landscape with rocks pics are shown to bring home the message the planets dead.

I think that NASA chooses their locations based on more than topographical imagery that may or may not be what it appears to be. I love those images, do not get me wrong, some of them the official explanations is enough for me to agree with mainstream and others; not as much.

They would choose their landing locations in the middle of the desert because it is probably easier to land/miss rough terrain and because they are looking for liquids and organic materials in one place they think (for example with Curiosity) was most likely to have it in Mars ancient past.

Thanks for posting the images though, its always nice to see them and remind myself how exotic the other planets are in comparison to what we know here on earth.

ETA:

The Rovers have had different landing sites, on different sides of the planet... It just seems like they are dumping everyone in the same desert because (well face it) Mars is almost completely desert. *lol*

a reply to: Xterrain

About a year ago I spent a lot of time on that site, there's some very intersting pics there!
Those that look like giant tree tops (if I remember correct?) are inverted. They do seem to make more sense when inverted so you have to wonder whether nasa inverted them to hide what they realy are!


ETA: These two pics are interesting.
This is as presented by nasa.

The same pic inverted.


www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Wow what a Gem of a find this website is. Thanks for the upload man. I also believe the narrative of what and why we explore other planets need some shifting.

I think life right now, as we know it, on Mars, is inconclusive. Certain spots and more testing may be needed to be more conclusive. As I have said before I do believe it possible that there may have been some ancient alien life on Mars. AS far as NASA, I can't say I trust them with what they choose to release about Mars findings. I forget which ufo related program I watched where one opinion was regarding Nasa, "there is a public Nasa, and a private Nasa."

originally posted by: Xterrain
With all of the current interest in Mars from the public, I find it amazing that images like these are all but ignored by nearly everyone.

They are not ignored, they just aren't what that site presents them to be.

I have wondered similar, if I spent millions of pounds on Curiosity where would I send it?
The two factors would be- somewhere where it can land relatively safely . At the time, uk mars satellite never made it, russian martian satellites mainly never made it- so this has to be a prime factor. The second factor would be somewhere of interest, edge of a desert if the edge has some interesting features. I think there is (look North East of current position on Google mars and only a few km away are mountains and what looks like a pair of lakes - it just seems to have taken ages to get there. (Didn't quite get the landing right?). But I agree that for all of Mars may not be enough interest here.
The other thing is why does Curiosity only take black and white photos? For all the technology of 2014, why are we seeing black and white photos?

originally posted by: templar knight
The other thing is why does Curiosity only take black and white photos? For all the technology of 2014, why are we seeing black and white photos?

You see black and white photos because you are not looking at the right places.

Look here for a panorama I made some time ago with colour photos from one of Curiosity's mast camera (or here for a white balanced version).

You can go to Curiosity's [url=http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/]raw image page]/url] to see all the image they publish.

And yes, Curiosity landed on what was once a lake.

I came for the thread title, left because of the O.P.
Came back because its still a good thread title.

All that said, I would suggest we land somewhere near caves...use them to assist our in our defense in a place where that was not built for us like this Earth
Any good pics of cave enterances?
X

originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
Any good pics of cave enterances?

The only ones I remember seeing are just holes on the ground, like this one.

Thank you

However, that black hole, looks really odd, like a pic artifact or something

But yeah that's the idea, find a place to go underground and use natural shelter to begin our habitation of that planet.

Exciting times....I guess though to find them easy to access caves, we will need ground level side shots from the rovers, not satellite shots from straight up...

X

originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
However, that black hole, looks really odd, like a pic artifact or something

If I'm not mistaken, there are at least 3 of those holes, found in different places.

Exciting times....I guess though to find them easy to access caves, we will need ground level side shots from the rovers, not satellite shots from straight up...

I agree, but for that we need rovers in areas that are more rocky than the ones where the rovers are now.

a reply to: Xterrain

The best we apparently can come up with is these little toy cars that stop working as soon as they hit something bigger than the smallest gravel. They just have to land them at the smoothest desert areas they can find, otherwise they might hit a 1mm stone fragment and break down.

a reply to: Chazam

Opportunity has been working for 10 years, Spirit worked for 7, Curiosity is nearing 2 years' work.

originally posted by: Chazam
a reply to: Xterrain

The best we apparently can come up with is these little toy cars that stop working as soon as they hit something bigger than the smallest gravel. They just have to land them at the smoothest desert areas they can find, otherwise they might hit a 1mm stone fragment and break down.

You should build a better one and send it to Mars to show NASA how its done.

We all know NASA has two sides: the public-facing "space exploration for humanity" one [PR] and the covert one that is fully aware of ET beings [as an agent of the government]. Of course they're going to filter images released to the exterior and it's clear the agenda is to show no life outside of earth (or even alien intelligence here); all in an effort to keep getting money to fuel internal projects.

Regarding Mars, I suspect there was life on the planet, there is life on the planet, and there will continue to be life on the planet. The real question is, when will we all find out the details "officially"?

originally posted by: Kjvyn
We all know NASA has two sides: the public-facing "space exploration for humanity" one [PR] and the covert one that is fully aware of ET beings [as an agent of the government].

Really? You have any proof of that?

originally posted by: Kjvyn
We all know NASA has two sides: the public-facing "space exploration for humanity" one [PR] and the covert one that is fully aware of ET beings [as an agent of the government]. Of course they're going to filter images released to the exterior and it's clear the agenda is to show no life outside of earth (or even alien intelligence here); all in an effort to keep getting money to fuel internal projects.

How would discovery of extraterrestrial life suddenly cause NASA to LOSE funding for internal projects? Seems to me disclosure would put NASA in a position to ask for more funding, not less.

There are entire books dedicated to the "NASA conspiracies". Happy to provide reading recommendations privately.

As we all know, disclosure [currently] isn't an option for NASA; so by perpetually "looking" they can continue to ask for fuel.