"Mars Flower" is CORAL; Photos Censored

Well the "Mars flower" did already get a small mention in the Space Exploration forum, but it's a very small thread, mainly people remarking that it looks like coral... and I think the topic deserves to be in the Aliens forum too, because if coral, then it's literally alien life.

(Here's the earlier small thread in Space Exploration: www.abovetopsecret.com...)


.......


I found a piece of coral recently... which looks exactly like the Mars flower. (And which prompted me to make a vid about it.)

I had never seen coral up-close before... and what's amazing is that there's almost NO structure, in a piece of coral. It's absolutely NOT like a houseplant, with a structure of a central stem / tube, etc.

Coral is nothing but a chunk of BONE with millions of holes in it. No central tube structure.






...So this is an extremely low bar, for the Mars flower, to actually be a piece of coral. There's practically no structure. The Mars flower already shares the shape / form-factor of coral, and the only other trait of coral, is the millions of holes, which it looks like it probably has, as well.

So I do think it's a chunk of coral, but NASA's imagery doesn't quite show us the millions of holes. Rather, the clearest images show the Mars flower with a sand-like texture (which of course, can just be the millions of holes underneath a coating of sand, after thousands of years of sand blowing over it).

However, I think this is as close a match as possible. It's images of alien life, on Mars... but it's just a fossil of coral, and we can't quite see the holes, and it's presented as a weird rock formation.

This is... disclosure, and so far, this is about as good as it gets, lol.




...


My vid also takes a glance at the news headlines, including from NASA, and including downloading the images available.



In total, there seems to basically be THREE different images of the Mars flower... but then there are multiple versions, with slightly diff. color, or slightly diff. crop, etc.



But basically there's a black-and-white image, and 2 color images of the Mars flower.




Of the 2 color images, one is a wider landscape shot, and then finally, there's a zoom on the Mars flower, but disappointingly, the zoom shot IS BLATANTLY EDITED / CENSORED in certain obvious spots.

Apparently NASA blurred out the most crystal-clear parts of the Mars flower, which would be too much clarity.

However, the color landscape shot still gives a good clear shot of the Mars flower, in total, while the zoom-in has the blurred spots but it DOES show the best clarity of the sand-texture of the Mars flower.




I wanted to embed images but that part of the website seems broken for me at the moment. I will embed pics later if it works for me later.

In case anyone's interested, here are links to the articles I looked at in my vid.

I just put the info in my vid description, so I'll just paste it here as well.

Someone might appreciate the easy access to these articles... ESPECIALLY that I'm calling out NASA for editing / censuring the close-up image.





Links:
www.cnet.com...
mars.nasa.gov...
www.universetoday.com...

twitter.com... &ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fscience%2Fspace%2Fnasa-rover-spots-unreal-mars-flower-formation%2F

twitter.com... ef_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fscience%2Fspace%2Fnasa-rover-spots-unreal-mars-flower-formation%2F

a reply to: JamesChessman
So what photo is being censored? It does have a shape that coral can vaguely resemble. My first thought upon seeing the image was it looks like mineral buildup. Thanks for the neat photo.

a reply to: JamesChessman

No. You just think only living corals can generate that finger-like structures, while in fact those structures are ubiquous in the mineral world, corals being just one of the few biosystems leaving behind those mineral structures when they die.

Quartz, aragonite, and calcium coral-like abiogenic structures are quite common, without the need to recur to a biological origin. In a planet devoid of life you can easily find coral-like structures, provided there was once water running.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: JamesChessman
So what photo is being censored? It does have a shape that coral can vaguely resemble. My first thought upon seeing the image was it looks like mineral buildup. Thanks for the neat photo.

^Thanks for appreciating.

I want to embed the photos in the thread, but that part of the site is broken for me right now. The "upload" section of the site, won't open for me.

Anyway, it's the close-up image of the Mars flower, which is censored by NASA, apparently. The censorship is the obvious blur effect, which was added to certain spots of the Mars flower, seemingly just to obscure the most clear spots. For example: There's one spot that looks like it was probably a large clear hole at the end of a branch, and probably blurred for looking so much like Earthly coral.





...This is just the same close-up shot which is the thumbnail of my vid, and the close-up shot shows up in the websites I linked, including NASA's own website and news release.

a reply to: JamesChessman

They have the photo. They released it. You saw it. You only saw it because they put it out there. Not sure I am seeing the censorship. They definitely would not censor it for looking like coral because it's a huge stretch, and my immediate reaction to seeing the photo was mineral.

It's a great photo, so thanks, but I am not on board with huge logic leaps when the answer can be found taking baby steps.

a reply to: JamesChessman


interesting.


you could be holding my piece of coral i picked up on a sand bar in the phillipines about 6-7 yrs ago. just about the same size and shape!

i have another piece that looks like it has fine heat fins, but squarer.

i grabbed them for my darth vader clock, on my speaker.

i'll try to post a pic or 2.

anyway, i don't know what the mars flower is.

probably won't for a long time.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: JamesChessman

They have the photo. They released it. You saw it. You only saw it because they put it out there. Not sure I am seeing the censorship. They definitely would not censor it for looking like coral because it's a huge stretch, and my immediate reaction to seeing the photo was mineral.

It's a great photo, so thanks, but I am not on board with huge logic leaps when the answer can be found taking baby steps.

There are basically 2 color images of the Mars flower.

The close-up shot has OBVIOUS BLURRING added to certain spots.




The wider landscape shot DOES NOT have that blurring on it, while the overall clarity is reduced, the Mars flower is quite clearly lacking the blurring seen in the close-up shot!

a reply to: JamesChessman

Interesting and thank you for sharing.

Like others though I am struggling to find any conceivable reason NASA would cover up the fact it’s coral? Intact, haven’t they theorised Mars may have had oceans on it? Wouldn’t the discovery of coral help them prove that theory?

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
a reply to: JamesChessman

Interesting and thank you for sharing.

Like others though I am struggling to find any conceivable reason NASA would cover up the fact it’s coral? Intact, haven’t they theorised Mars may have had oceans on it? Wouldn’t the discovery of coral help them prove that theory?

They still follow the Brookings report recommendations. Never tell the public that life exists anywhere except on Earth.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

There are basically 2 color images of the Mars flower.

The close-up shot has OBVIOUS BLURRING added to certain spots.



The wider landscape shot DOES NOT have that blurring on it, while the overall clarity is reduced, the Mars flower is quite clearly lacking the blurring seen in the close-up shot!

I don't think the close-up shot is another shot as the wider shot. The close-up seems pretty much like an enlarged cutout; some of the blurring is also visible in wider shot.

ibb.co...

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Will have to look that up if I’m honest with you, thanks.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: JamesChessman

There are basically 2 color images of the Mars flower.

The close-up shot has OBVIOUS BLURRING added to certain spots.



The wider landscape shot DOES NOT have that blurring on it, while the overall clarity is reduced, the Mars flower is quite clearly lacking the blurring seen in the close-up shot!

I don't think the close-up shot is another shot as the wider shot. The close-up seems pretty much like an enlarged cutout; some of the blurring is also visible in wider shot.

Yes, it's possible that the close-up shot, is made from the same original, as the landscape shot.

However, they still end up as 2 distinct, different images.



The close-up shot DOES HAVE BLURRING ADDED, which is not there in the wider shot.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: JamesChessman

There are basically 2 color images of the Mars flower.

The close-up shot has OBVIOUS BLURRING added to certain spots.



The wider landscape shot DOES NOT have that blurring on it, while the overall clarity is reduced, the Mars flower is quite clearly lacking the blurring seen in the close-up shot!

I don't think the close-up shot is another shot as the wider shot. The close-up seems pretty much like an enlarged cutout; some of the blurring is also visible in wider shot.

Actually, to answer this better:

I was just double-checking the images we're discussing. You're correct that the landscape shot, does have the slightest bit of blurring on the Mars flower.

It's so extremely light that it seems like it could just be the natural blur effect of the camera focusing on the further distance, so that closer stuff becomes blurred... however, it could also be an artificial blurring effect, maybe.

However, what is DEFINITELY CLEAR is that the CLOSE-UP shot, DOES HAVE OBVIOUS, EXTRA BLURRING.

It's absolutely NOT the same blur effect in both images!! The close-up shot obviously has some thick blurring added, apparently by hand, and very clumsily.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Yes, it's possible that the close-up shot, is made from the same original, as the landscape shot.

However, they still end up as 2 distinct, different images.

It is not completely clear to me what the original image was, since the seem to do composites of those images too:
mars.nasa.gov...

The close-up shot DOES HAVE BLURRING ADDED, which is not there in the wider shot.

I see I might have been wrong; there are quite a few images of that scenery:
Nasa

and you can find enough ones without "blur"
ibb.co...

The blur much more seems like a side effect from the camera itself

I watched the video, and you make some good points.
But what I wonder is "why" why would they wont to censor it if it was fossilized coral ?

Would finding fossilized life on Mars not call for more money flow towards the project of exploration of space.
I can only see negative outcomes for them if they censor something like that.

People would rather spend tax money on exploring a planet that had past life, or a lifeless desert.

To extend a bit more on the 'blur' in some of the images from the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI): This indeed seems to come from the use of the auto focus of the camera.

The full device is described here an example of how the focus causes some blur can be found in this example

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Yes, it's possible that the close-up shot, is made from the same original, as the landscape shot.

However, they still end up as 2 distinct, different images.

It is not completely clear to me what the original image was, since the seem to do composites of those images too:
mars.nasa.gov...

The close-up shot DOES HAVE BLURRING ADDED, which is not there in the wider shot.

I see I might have been wrong; there are quite a few images of that scenery:
Nasa

and you can find enough ones without "blur"
ibb.co...

The blur much more seems like a side effect from the camera itself

Awesome post!!

Previously I had not seen everything you linked! For my video, I just did a cursory glance at news headlines, so I was basically seeing the news & pics that MOST people would have seen it, that way.

However you just opened the floodgates with your link to NASA's raw images, wow. I hadn't expected something like that to be available, and I'll definitely look through it later. There's nearly 3 dozen images of the Mars flower.

How did you know about the raw images available at NASA's site -- do you just normally stay on top of NASA's raw images online?

Also how were you finding stuff at that other site, imgbb? I don't see how that site works... (unless you were finding stuff there from random web searching, or maybe you just posted there with your own account, or something...)

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Awesome post!!

Thanks

I did know they were putting up all the Mars Rover images online as raw images. Looked at them in the past too. You can select the camera, time etc. It is very nice.

The imgbb is just a free image website upload. It seems like the image upload here at ATS is broken for now, and I couldn't get a direct link to the raw NASA image so I uploaded it there to link as example.

tiresome