Mars Alien And Government Bases PICS!!!!

Originally posted by StellarX
Right around now would be a good time to start. List (with qualification by other scientist) why you disagree with the conclusions of the specialist contracted by NASA....

Well, let's start...with the very same words you used:

More specifically, says Miller, the fluctuations in gas emissions seem to be entrained to a 2 degrees C fluctuation inside the lander, which in turn reflected not-quite-total shielding from the 50 degrees C fluctuation in temperature that occurs daily on the surface of Mars. Temperature-entrained circadian rhythms, even to a mere 2-degree C fluctuation, have been observed repeatedly on earth.
www.eurekalert.org...

I know what the word means and and that's why i suggested the site in question.

Have you actually looked at it or are you just playing for time?

I have. And like I said:

The links found on that thread say pretty much the same thing...that we don't know for sure if there is or isn't life on Mars.

Please define 'for sure' and what other things you consider 'for sure' as this might just be a question of you demanding that it bites you before admitting it's there.

fore sure means 100% (or maybe 99.9999%) 50% -50% it's not fore sure, niether 90% - 10%

Yes; the Russians launched it for them and the lander 'failed' [...]

The point here is that they did send a lander wich had an experiment dedicated to the search for life unlike what Gilbert Levin said. He was missinformed.

There is overwhelming evidence for liquid water on Mars had you cared to do some research. Why do you refuse to do any?

Your external source proves nothing like that. Proves that the data reveal water vapor.

Recent analyses of ESA's Mars Express data reveal that concentrations of water vapor and methane in the atmosphere of Mars significantly overlap. This result, from data obtained by the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer (PFS), gives a boost to understanding of geological and atmospheric processes on Mars, and provides important new hints to evaluate the hypothesis of present life on the Red Planet.

from a source you provided in the other thread:

One possible explanation for the absence of liquid water on the surface of the planet is that Mars, which unlike Earth does not have a protective magnetic field, is being shorn of its surface by the solar wind. An estimated 100,000 kilograms per day of Mars surface material is blown off the planet, according to Stas Barabash, lead scientists for the Mars Express ASPERA-3 experiment, which measures the phenomenon.
www.space.com...

from the same source

Gibson said definitive proof likely will require a future Mars mission carrying sophisticated drills to penetrate beneath the Mars surface to take samples directly or — a preferred option — to return them to Earth for laboratory evaluation. “Mars is revealing her secrets, but slowly,” Gibson said. “We need those samples or in-situ measurements.”

that is we don't know "for sure"

and another one

“We need more work for a final conclusion,” Formisano said, adding: “Life is probably the only source that could produce so much methane. The question is not any more, Was there life on Mars? The question is: Is there life on Mars today?”

corrected athor (other)

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Apass]

Originally posted by StellarX
Didn't you see the mud at the pathfinder landing site?
he he...

I saw the pictures from the landing site. And by the way, it wasn't pathfinder.
marsrovers.nasa.gov...
It was from Spirit.

But where's the mud?
If there's mud...than this means that this also si mud:

www.castlegate.net...

Well...I guess not and here's why.

dust evolves from an uncountable number of woofs from meteors. Each corn of dust is a part of debris of those woofs. Thank to their pronged surface they get stuck in dry sand if you put pressure, i.e. a footprint, on them. That is why the traces, especially footprints, are well preserved on the surface

You might say that this is valid only for the moon...oh well...do that. For me it's enough.

It's "rhythm" last i checked so maybe you want to correct your spelling after all these years of careful investigation into these 'rythms'. I am the last one to correct someone elses spelling but i believe it might very well be saying more than you are.

Thanks to point that out. But as I can see from your location you're from South Africa...and I believe that you speak english as your first language. But that's not the case in Romania, so give me a break!

Like I said on the other thread: If I say that I don't know if there's life on Mars it means just that. It doesn't mean that I say there isn't any life on Mars.

Oh man lmao. I don't mean to stomp all over your opinion dude but, come on lol. This is somewhat...stupid. Mercury has craters, Jupiter's moons have craters, Pluto has craters. Do we have secret bases on those too? Point being is just because a land formation looks weird to us, that doesn't necessarily mean we can jump to conclusions and suggest a joint United States government/ Alien operation. Not every land formation on every planet is going to look or resemble our land formations exactly. Other planets have different atmospheres, different history's, different forms of weather, different temperature, closer or further away from asteroid contact, formed differently, different levels of oxygen, gravity, and carbon dioxide. It all plays a role in shaping and forming the land masses. Erosion plays roles. They aren't going to be exactly the same.

As for the blacked out area. That could have been done with photoshop. Ah hell forget photoshop. My 9 year old sister could do that with paint. That doesn't mean their hiding something. Photos get doctered to raise suspicion. Yes they get messed with to cover up things too but look at the area blacked out..I think NASA and the United States government would have been able to make a more straight edged box than that.

Lastly, as for intellegent life..I'm half and half. Half of me believes there is intellegent life in our universe, not our solar system. The thought of us being the only ones in this huge huge huge universe is pretty dumb to think. But just because there's intellegent life elsewhere, does that all of a sudden mean their capable of getting here? No, it doesn't. They could be just like us and can barely get to the planet next to them. I believe all this "UFO" talk is really advanced future United States Air Force aircraft. Is it just coincidence alot of the aircraft are seen near Air Force bases? I don't think so.

Our government is more advanced than we think. I'm almost positive they have futuristic aircraft which is what people report every day. That goes both ways though I understand, they could be so advanced they have bases on Mars. I understand that. But, really, which is more possible? Future aircraft..? Or some secret Alien / United States operation? Let's not jump to conclusions just yet and realize what's more possible and reasonable.

I think its pretty clear what the structures are in the middle of the martian craters,


"snakoid cocoons"

Originally posted by super70
I think its pretty clear what the structures are in the middle of the martian craters,


"snakoid cocoons"

If you fly over a mountain the peak is usually in the middle from the over head view. Shadows are cast by it depending on the sun light angle. Is that a secret base too? It's stupid to assume because shadows and land forms are working in a weird way on ANOTHER PLANET, that they're all of a sudden some classified government base built by aliens and united states government people.

Originally posted by NukeIran87
that they're all of a sudden some classified government base built by aliens and united states government people.

why not the chinees goverment, too?

Originally posted by Apass
Well, let's start...with the very same words you used:

And the most likely explanation of that is LIFE just as i said. What are you objecting to.

I know what the word means and and that's why i suggested the site in question.

Have you actually looked at it or are you just playing for time?

I have. And like I said:
fore sure means 100% (or maybe 99.9999%) 50% -50% it's not fore sure, niether 90% - 10%

Ah but you see this is only in relation to that one fact? What percentage do you arrive at when you take all the various tracts of evidence into account? Your looking at each independently ( a very unscientific thing to do) as if each of them has to independently confirm life.

The point here is that they did send a lander wich had an experiment dedicated to the search for life unlike what Gilbert Levin said. He was missinformed.

I found out Levin got it right after all as it was a British lander. I so readily admit mistakes i never even made that you get away with this kind of nosense. You are the only one here that is not only uninformed but misinformed about what little you pretend to know.

Your external source proves nothing like that. Proves that the data reveal water vapor.

Some of the sources do and other suggest liquid and standing water.

it has already been established from Viking photographs that a thin frost does form overnight on certain areas of the martian surface. Unlike many scientists, the Levins believe that this frosty layer does not instantly revert back into water vapor when the Sun rises. They suggest that, in the early hours of the martian morning, the atmosphere more than one meter above the martian surface remains too cold to hold water vapor. So the moisture stays on the ground.

Data from the Mars Pathfinder support this theory, as the Pathfinder temperature readings noted that temperatures one meter above the surface were often dozens of degrees colder than the temperatures closer to the ground.

This layer of cold air, say the Levins, provides a form of insulation, trapping the water moisture below. Since the atmosphere is too cold to hold the water as vapor and the ground is warm enough to melt the ice, the water melts into a liquid. This liquid water, the Levins believe, remains on the surface until the temperature of the atmosphere rises enough to allow the water to evaporate. In this way, they argue, the martian soil becomes briefly saturated with liquid water every day.

"The meteorological data fully confirm the presence of liquid water in the topsoil each morning," says Gilbert Levin. "The black-and-white as well as the color images show slick areas that may well be moist patches."

sse.jpl.nasa.gov...

WASHINGTON -- Researchers using NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft announced Thursday that they found puzzling signs of water seeping into what appear to be young, freshly-cut gullies and gaps in the Martian surface.
The startling discovery of recently-formed, weeping layers of rock and sediment has planetary experts scratching their heads.

The wet spots show up in more than 120 locations on Mars and in the coldest places on the planet, said Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego, California, which built the spacecraft's camera.

And that presents a "perplexing problem," he said, because logic says that Mars sub-zero temperatures and thin atmosphere should have kept those wet spots from ever forming.

The wet spots, which turn up in 200 to 250 different images from the Global Surveyor spacecraft, "could be a few million years old but we cannot rule out that some of them are so recent as to have formed yesterday," Malin said.

www.space.com...

Why argue with what you clearly see? Is this science at all?

Link

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

Are they even looking and what sort of denial drives this sort of sad mental process?

On Mars the globally-averaged surface pressure of the planet's atmosphere is only slightly less than 6.1 millibars.

"That's the average," says Haberle, "so some places will have pressures that are higher than 6.1 millibars and others will be lower. If we look at sites on Mars where the pressure is a bit higher, that's where water can theoretically exist as a liquid."

science.msfc.nasa.gov...

New research claims the crust of Mars may harbor up to three times more water than previously thought, providing the latest blow to the tarnished notion that the planet today is a dry, lifeless place.

The study suggests that Mars may have lost far less water to space over time than scientists have believed. That leaves the tantalizing possibility the planet still holds sizable reservoirs of water that future space missions could tap in the search for life.

The paper describing the work, by Arizona State University geochemist Laurie Leshin, comes on the tail of a report last week that vast stores of liquid water may lie just below the surface of Mars.

Leshins work compared the amount of deuterium, a heavy form of hydrogen, found in water in the Martian atmosphere, to that in a meteorite blasted from the planets surface 3 million years ago and discovered in Antarctica in 1994.

Leshin found that ancient water-bearing crystals in the meteorite QUE 94201 were richer in deuterium than expected and thus similar to the water in the planets present-day atmosphere. The unexpected similarity in deuterium ratios suggests the planet has held on to two to three times as much water as previously estimated.

[urlwww.space.com...]Mars Hides Much More Water,Study Suggests[/url]

The findings announced Thursday -- evidence of water seeping to Mars' surface in recently cut gullies -- bridge a gap in the beliefs of astrobiologists, taking them from strong suspicion to near certainty about the existence of liquid water on Mars.

"There's a subtlety between having every reason to believe [water] is there and having this higher level of certainty," said Bruce Jakosky, a professor of geological science at the University of Colorado, and the director of the university's center for astrobiology.

"We now know pretty convincingly that there is liquid water on Mars, and that it's relatively accessible near the surface," he said.

The field of space studies is known to throw curveballs. For instance, scientists last week said the latest evidence of water was found in cooler and darker areas facing away from the equator, while many had previously assumed that liquid water near the surface could only exist in hotter, sun-facing areas.

The discovery of evidence of liquid water on Mars boosts astrobiology.

Getting closer slowly i guess?

Rumors about what has been actually identified are about as fluid as liquid itself, from water-ice deposits, concentrations of iron, to Martian springs, and even Old Faithful-like geysers.

www.space.com...

SPACE.com has learned that NASA hasdiscovered evidence of water on the Red Planets surface. The finding, made bythe Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, fuels hopes that there may be life onMars.

Sources close to theagencys Mars program said the discovery involves evidence of seasonal deposits that could be associated with springs on the planets surface

NASA announces discovery of evidence of water on Mars

Just dry place with nothing remotely liquid. If you believe it it must be true!

from a source you provided in the other thread:

One possible explanation for the absence of liquid water on the surface of the planet is that Mars, which unlike Earth does not have a protective magnetic field, is being shorn of its surface by the solar wind. An estimated 100,000 kilograms per day

What absence?

A study of the physics of evaporating water by Ron Levin and Weatherwax show that ice on the surface of Mars may melt into liquid water under Martian solar illumination.

Other factors must be taken into account too. These include the density of air on Mars, the planet's gravity, weaker transfer of energy by convection, and wind factors. While they admit their work is theoretical and can be counterintuitive, the ultimate conclusion of their study: "There are no physical reasons prohibiting the availability of liquid water on the surface of Mars."

Biologically significant amounts of liquid water can currently exist on the surface of Mars, Levin and Weatherwax stated. "The previously presumed unavailability of liquid water is not a reason to rule out the existence of microbial life on current day Mars," the team reported.

www.space.com...

How much evidence for water do you need before you admit your complete ignorance of what is happening here?

Continued



[edit on 27-8-2006 by StellarX]

[edit on 4/9/06 by JAK]

You're repeating yourself and I believe I pretty much responded to all that material in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

from the same source

Gibson said definitive proof likely will require a future Mars mission carrying sophisticated drills to penetrate beneath the Mars surface to take samples directly or — a preferred option — to return them to Earth for laboratory evaluation. “Mars is revealing her secrets, but slowly,” Gibson said. “We need those samples or in-situ measurements.”

that is we don't know "for sure"

He knows but he wont tell as he has no interest in risking his carreer or job. He will wait for someone else with more guts to make the real announcements he knows to be true.

Here is more picture evidence for you if all that reading and double speak is too complex for you.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

There is no excuse for you not to got to a site which clearly states which frame from the official NASA library they are using and provinding a direct link to it. If you must go such length to deny reality your not interested in discovery and your making a mockery of yourself by pretending to be.

and another one

Gibson said definitive proof likely will require a future Mars mission carrying sophisticated drills to penetrate beneath the Mars surface to take samples directly or — a preferred option — to return them to Earth for laboratory evaluation. “Mars is revealing her secrets, but slowly,” Gibson said. “We need those samples or in-situ measurements.”

that is we don't know "for sure"

They have all the evidence in the world but if they refuse to evaluate it fairly we at least get to understand what their real purpose is.

and another one

“We need more work for a final conclusion,” Formisano said, adding: “Life is probably the only source that could produce so much methane. The question is not any more, Was there life on Mars? The question is: Is there life on Mars today?”

Based solely on the methane evidence more investigation might be required but that is not all we are working from. His just saying what he must to keep his job as his first announcement made it pretty clear that he KNEW this was life.

Then we have this

CNN) -- A reexamination of data from a 1997 mission to Mars suggests that the surface contains chlorophyll, a discovery that could bolster prospects of finding life on the planet.

Chlorophyll, the molecule that plants and algae use to convert sunlight into food, gives all photosynthetic organisms on our planet their distinguishing green color.

A NASA team plans to share their preliminary findings early next week during an international conference of astrobiologists, or scientists who study the possibility of life beyond Earth.

The researchers, Carole Stoker and Pascal Ashwanden, both work at NASA's Ames Research Center in California, which is hosting the Second Astrobiology Science Conference from April 7 to April 11.

archives.cnn.com...

CAMSR Executive Director, Barry E. DiGregorio has written an exclusive article about his discovery in the September issue of Spectroscopy magazine. Why is the discovery of organic pigments on Mars so important for the science of exobiology?

Because it might still be there today and perhaps that is what Dr. Gilbert V.Levin and Dr. Patricia Ann Straat found in their experiment 24 years ago with NASA's Viking Mars spacecraft. On Mars, during the Hesperian period of postulated oceans, lakes and rivers, there would have been sufficient energy input from solar radiation to support life with the characteristics of the cyanobacteria that dominate many terrestrial and aquatic habitats on Earth, e.g. the cold deserts in Antarctica. The key to the survival of cyanobacteria are in part due to the pigments they have such as:

* Chlorophyll for converting solar radiation into food (photosynthesis).
* Cyanobacteria can tolerate the extreme damaging effect of solar UV-B by synthesising a variety of protecting pigments which either screen or prevent the effect of the radiation, such as phycocyanin, scytonemin, mycosporine- like amino acids, carotenoids and isoprenoids.

www.spacedaily.com...

Harvard astronomer whose spectroscopic studies of Mars in 1956 and 1958 appeared to support the hypothesis of Martian plant life.1, 2, 3, 4 From infrared measurements made using a photoconductive cell, cooled by liquid nitrogen to make it more sensitive, he reported strong absorption bands in the spectrum of the dark areas of Mars which he interpreted as being due to organic compounds, and in particular the presence of plants. Although his results led to much excitement, they were also controversial and open to interpretation. In 1963 an alternative explanation was put forward in terms of compounds in the Earth's atmosphere,3 and by 1965 Sinton himself agreed that two of his observed bands were caused by terrestrial atmospheric 'deuterated' water (HDO).4 Another strong proponent of plant life on the surface of Mars was the Soviet astronomer Gavriil Tikov.

www.daviddarling.info...

Now two separate studies, published in yesterday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, make a strong case for the fossilized life theory and may just put the controversy to rest.

Imre Friedmann and his team of researchers from the NASA Ames Research Center point out that the magnetite crystals inside ALH84001 form chains with gaps between t hem, resembling a string of pearls. These crystal chains are difficult to explain without the presence of life: "Such a chain of magnets outside an organism would immediately collapse into a clump due to magnetic forces," Friedmann explains. The other researchers, led by Kathie Thomas-Keprta of the NASA Johnson Space Center, offer supporting evidence: they note that the magnetite crystals inside the meteorite are both physically and chemically identical to those found in terrestrial magnetotactic bacteria—organisms that use a string of magnetic crystals inside their bodies to navigate, much like an internal compass. If these crystals are in fact remains of magnetotactic bacteria, they are not only definite proof of past life on Mars but evidence of the oldest life ever found. --Harald Franzen

www.sciam.com...

The only defense for a dead world is a defense from ignorance.

Stellar

Edit :As to your last remarks i feel the same way about your pathetic attempts at hiding the truth but at least i am willing to restate my position in detail each time even if you deny the evidence without any good reasoning or evidence involved.

Stellar

Originally posted by Apass
I saw the pictures from the landing site. And by the way, it wasn't pathfinder.
marsrovers.nasa.gov...
It was from Spirit.

It's spirit yes and here is what Squyres said:

Squyres described as "bizarre, really weird" the way in which the crater floor seems to have responded to the dragging of the rover's airbags, which deflated after the lander bounced down onto the surface after being released from its parachute. "I don't understand it," he said. Surface pebbles seem to have been squished into the soil around the lander, which appears like layers of cohesive material. "It looks like mud, but can't be mud. It looks like when it is scrunched, it folds up," said Squyres, who added, "This is something I have never seen before."

www.news.cornell.edu...

Note how he says that it can't be mud and the reasoning he provides. Talk about denial...

But where's the mud?
If there's mud...than this means that this also si mud:
Well...I guess not and

Not related since we know the Martian surface contains at least some water and that the substance that provided the 'cohesion' could not be readily identified.

Scientists were also surprised by how little the soil was disturbed when Spirit's robotic arm pressed the Moessbauer spectrometer's contact plate directly onto the patch being examined. Microscopic images from before and after that pressing showed almost no change. "I thought it would scrunch down the soil particles," Squyres said. "Nothing collapsed. What is holding these grains together?"

www.sciencedaily.com...

You might say that this is valid only for the moon...oh well...do that. For me it's enough.

As long as it is in defense of your ignorance everything seems to be.

Thanks to point that out. But as I can see from your location you're from South Africa...and I believe that you speak english as your first language. But that's not the case in Romania, so give me a break!

I actually speak Afrikaans as first language but i am not going to object to your spelling or grammer as long as i am as uncomfortable with my own use of it. I just pointed it out in this case because you said ( pretended imo) you knew a great deal about the word and it's use...

Like I said on the other thread: If I say that I don't know if there's life on Mars it means just that. It doesn't mean that I say there isn't any life on Mars.

You had no good reason not to know but now that you have the chance to learn from what i know you really have non left and i suggest you start considering the implications instead of trying to resist what you had not known before.

Stellar

StellarX, I'm still here... doing a research...I hope that tomorrow (worst case) you'll have a post (actualy several long posts) from me.

Originally posted by TeH PwNeR
Hello everyone I would like to show you some pictures that i have collected via google.com/mars. here they are, they are of suspicious land formations.

img445.imageshack.us...

All it looks like to me is some dirt and un procced bits.

Originally posted by Apass
StellarX, I'm still here... doing a research...I hope that tomorrow (worst case) you'll have a post (actualy several long posts) from me.

I really do not care if you respond or not as i have long ago said what i intended to. Since your a Romanian ( Romanians used to come play on our Starcraft server) i do not however expect much less than tenacious resistance long after a logical conclusion ( they sucked at Starcraft) was apparent. I always assumed it must be something they put in the drinking water and it really must be either that or your proximity to Bulgarians.

Take whatever time you need to study what you should have kwown as it really is likely to get us to a conclusion some months/weeks faster.

Edit: I forgot to apologise for getting the lander name wrong; my bad.

Stellar

[edit on 30-8-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
i do not however expect much less than tenacious resistance long after a logical conclusion [...] was apparent

Now you are geting personal

I always assumed it must be something they put in the drinking water

Yep...probably 45 years of communism...

Originally posted by Apass
Now you are geting personal

Not yet and you will quickly notice when i do! Calling someone tenacious is no insult in as much as Russia and Britain should have folded and called it a day 60 years ago had their governments cared to be reasonable. I intend to make logic and reason prevail over tenacious stubbornness in this case.

Stellar

Well, I'm back (with a a few days delay ; I think that these posts (sorry about their number, I hope the mods would not delete them) could be compiled in an article...)
Reading your posts I've identified several problems and here's a summary of them:

1)MarsAnomalyResearch

2)This so much discussed picture

3)Evidence of liquid water on Mars
3a)Mud at Spirit landing site
3b)Martian gullies
3c)Mars atmosphere and liquid water
3d)Gilbert Levin's model for liquid water

4)Indirect evidence for life on Mars
4a)Past life
4b)Methane
4c)The green from ESA's pictures
4d)Clorophyl

5)Direct evidence of living organisms on Mars
5a)This article
5b)The LR experiment and circadian rhythm

Lets get started.

1)MarsAnomalyResearch (and other sites of this kind)
Lets start with this link from the site
www.marsanomalyresearch.com... 4/spirit-at-bonneville.htm
presenting an anomalous object from Spirit's landing site. I think this is selfexplenatory about this guy behind marsanomalyresearch but lets carry on with the investigation.
He states this:

As for me, I was aware of NASA's position, do not regard their explanation as correct, do continue to regard the bright object evidence as highly anomalous, and here is why....

Well, I gues if he's writght then this is a fake:

(this comes from the official MERs site)
because clearly the object on the crater wall cannot be the heatsield!!!!....aaaahhh...not!
If the object on the crater wall is not the heatshield then why it appeared after Spirit landed and in a place from where it couldn't see the landing site? To monitor the mission? Oh..those aliens are quite remarkable on reading human minds. They knew that the guys at NASA will send the rover to that crater!!!

Obviously, that is not evidence of lighting conditions suitable for very strong light reflectivity and especially not producing such a really strong intense pin point light source. If the sunlight on this object was that strong, it would be reflecting fairly strongly from the bulk of the rest of the object that we know from the official color image is quite light reflective. The fact that this isn't happening in the first image demonstrating the bright light source from a different official image is very telling evidence.

Then how come you can spot a mirror from kilometers away? And why is the light from the mirror so strong? Of course...the mirror itself is an artificial light source!....aaahhh....not!
If you look at a mirror that does not reflect sunlight toward you then you'll see something just like in the other photos of the heatshiled he presents there. As you can clearly see from the photos he uses, the object's surface is quite irregular so there are multiples directions in wich it can reflect sunlight and I see no problem why not to reflect it toward the rover. Just a simple explanation for the phenomenon and I guess that everybody could have thought of it. Isn't this more plausable?

(Next post)

edited to add: sorry if my pictures don't work every time. This is because of the server I use. If you don't see them, try a litle bit later

[edit on 4-9-2006 by Apass]

Next
Take a look at these links from the very same site:
www.marsanomalyresearch.com... aircraft-buildings.htm
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...
www.marsanomalyresearch.com... l-structures.htm
www.marsanomalyresearch.com... per-metropolis.htm
www.marsanomalyresearch.com... al-smoking-gun.htm

OK. Now take a look at what I've found in a great picture (extraordinary findings, trust me!!!)

1) A very big city!!! Take a look!

If you compare this image above with this one you can see very clear how similar are them


The first image is a 470% zoom (from the picture I was talking about).

this strip did allow a decent amount of zoom (their mistake)
(from one of those links)

The second one is a 300% zoom of a city from this Google Earth picture


And now, some evidence of image tampering

I've included this inverted view because it better demonstrates the image tampering with its lumpy puffy like clouds look and texture and the fact that it is essentially a featureless application with no geological detail in it clearly having no parallel in natural geology.
(again from one of the links above)

(I changed also the colors from the original one to sepia to look more mars like)
Lets take a look now at the original image

(here's the full size one)

So...it turns out that the city is in fact a pile of rocks and those featureless textures are some patches of grass in Retezat Mountains...

I have a few more words on this subject
From this link

In certain circumstances, the fact that we are presented with incomplete information, as is always the case with two dimensional pictures, leads to inappropriate conclusions.

The rest of our understanding draws upon our knowledge of the real world, lit from above, with objects in front obscuring those behind, those closer appearing larger, etc.

The two lists of images and titles are the basis for a simple experiment that can demonstrate that how we name images affects how we remember them and also how we might draw what we remember. Note that each list has identical images. What differs is simply the label that is attached to each image.

Maybe you know this picture (taken from the link above), but even so. If you look at it, without knowing anything about it all you can see are some blak spots.

Now, if I tell you that there is a dalmation dog smelling something on the ground you will manage to identify it, but the point is that you need some prior knowledge about the image. If you do not have this knowledge (the case of martian pictures) you can draw any conclusions.
Another link about the subject
www.esa.int...

So, before posting more links to marsanomalyresearch or other sites like that, please do read something about image perception and recongnition!

(next post)

Is there any liquid water invovled? Not at all! Is flour a compresible dust like that found on mars? Yes. Is there any liquid water at sipirt's landing site? No!

Next
3b)Martian gullies
I know that there are recent gullies on Mars. I even saw pictures of the same dune taken about an year apart and there was a gullie in the later one (sorry, I don't have any links for that but it was on an official site). But to say that they are made by water and disregarding the other explanations is dumb!
OK. Here's the first alternative explanation:

Now UA researchers propose an alternative explanation involving carbon dioxide erosion. They point to several reasons why CO2 is a better candidate than water in gully formation.

One reason is that most gullies are found in the southern highlands, the oldest and coldest part of the planet, a place where liquid water is least likely to be stable.

Another reason is that the southern hemisphere has more extreme temperature variations throughout the year than does the northern hemisphere [...] The gullies are generally on pole-facing slopes where they receive very little or no sunlight for most of the year.

However, Musselwhite said, the most compelling fact is that gullies always start about 100 meters below the top of the cliff. At that depth, the pressure of the rock overhead is just enough for liquid CO2 to be stable, if the temperature is low enough.
unisci.com...

I guess I have nothing to comment on this one because it's crystal clear.
And researching for this explanation I stumbled upon another explanation even harder to refute.

Treiman suggested the martian gullies might be dry landslides, perhaps formed by wind and not formed by water at all.

"Totally by accident, I saw gullies that looked strikingly like the gullies on Mars," she said.

"If the dry landslide hypothesis for the formation of martian gullies is correct, we might expect to see similar features on the moon, where there is no water," she said. "We do."

"My point is that you can't just look at the Mars gullies and assume they were formed by water. It may be, or may be not. We need another test to know."
www.astrobio.net...

And you agreed that it can't be liquid water on the moon...


Next
3c)Mars atmosphere and liquid water
We all saw links (from you and others) that say that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is around 6.1mbars, around that of the triple point of water. But few understand that the 6.1mbars nedeed for liquid water is the vapor pressure, not at all the atmospheric pressure!!!
OK, lets make some math here.
Back here on Earth, at 0 degrees C (32F) the saturation pressure of water vapor is 610.5Pa (or N/m2) wich is 6.105mbars!!!! So the triple point of water happens to be at the normal atmospheric pressure (around 105kPa or 1bar) and 100% humidity!!!, at 0 degrees centigrade (32F). That is around 166 times the vapor pressure. So, if the martian atmosphere has an average pressure of 6.1mbars, that means that the water vapor saturating pressure is around 0.037mbar (37ubars)!!! That's far, far below the triple point of water!!!
link for the saturation water vapor pressure

And about this subject (water vapor pressure) please don't misquote me! As I said, only during one of the past nights I realised that I skiped to point that it is the vapor pressure that counts, not the whole system pressure. But than again. Does this bother you?

Also, about this subject, it is apperent to me that you don't seem to make the difference between different types of water (vapor, solid and liquid). I never said that there is no water on Mars, I just pointed out that there isn't any LIQUID water. And yet, almost all of the links you provide show that there is water vapor (and clouds [made of ice crystals!!!]) or ice. OK, that's correct. I never stated otherwise. I just said that current condition on Mars do not allow liquid water (at least not on the surface)! This can be because of the way we percieve the word water since our brain is used to associate the word water with liquid water. For solid water exits another word (that is ice) and water vapor is not somtehing we are used dealing with, therefor, in most cases, water means liquid water.

Next
3d)Gilbert Levin's model for liquid water
Here's the link for this model.

The last objection to a biological interpretation of the LR Mars data is thus met.

So after all, Gilbert Levin did say this is the missing link....
Lets proceed with his model.

The 6.1 mb pressure and 0.01° C temperature phase diagram coordinates identifying the triple point were determined for water as a closed, single component system, and in a pure state (that is, no substances other than water are present). On Mars, water exists in an open, multi-component system with atmospheric gases and extensive soil solutes. However, the laws of physics dictate that, when the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor, no net evaporation takes place. Under these conditions, when the temperature is between 0o C and the boiling point, and the total atmospheric pressure is at or above 6.1 mb, any water in the soil will be present in liquid form (Figure 4).

As seen in Figure 5, a melting ice cube standing in an unsaturated Martian atmosphere would generate a flux of water vapor radiating outward in all directions...

he refers to this figure: mars.spherix.com...

(next post)

The flux would deplete the CO2 around the cube despite the slow diffusion of CO2 toward the cube. An equilibrium would soon be reached in which the air near the cube would consist of water vapor greatly depleted in CO2

Because of low atmospheric densities, the convective heat flux is unable to cool the surface as efficiently as on Earth, where fluxes typically remove 80 to 90% of the net surface radiative flux under convective conditions

... at night the atmosphere at the surface cools, its water vapor capacity diminishes by two orders of magnitude, reaching 100% humidity. The vapor condenses, then freezes, and, along with any falling ice crystals and upwelling sublimate, deposits on the surface.

The frozen water is warmed by partial absorption of the sun’s direct rays and by re-emission in the IR of the sun’s rays which passed through the ice and were absorbed by the underlying surface material.

As vaporization increases, the warming atmosphere immediately above the surface becomes saturated. As the temperature rises above 0°C and until it exceeds the Mars liquid water envelope seen in Figure 3, the water vapor pressure exceeds the triple point. The water vapor is restricted from rising by the cold air above the vapor-saturated surface layer, which may be only millimeters or centimeters thick. As the sun continues to rise (Figure 8), the ice heats faster than the vapor can rise into the cold air just above the saturated layer. The saturated layer prevents further evaporation,

The result is water moisture released and trapped in the warming surface soil.

and he uses these images:



This is briefly what he says, you can find more by reading his article.

Now, lets analyse his article. The main point is that he considers an isolated system and we will see what's wrong in that (and why is an isolated system!).
But still, even for an isolated system there are several problems. If there is anyone here who have knowledge of termodynamics and believes that I'm wrong about this, please feel free to show me where and why I'm wrong.

Problem no. 1 (actualy, not a problem but you'll see what I'm after here).
Lets redraw his figure 5 but considering a pressure of just 7mbars (around the pressure measured at viking landers sites).

You can see that the atmospheric composition changes above the surface so that there remains only about 13% CO2 and traces of oxygen. Further more, if we consider the pressure measured at mars pathfinder's site (around 6.7mbars) you'll remain with about 8% of CO2. If you consider a place where the presure is about 6.1mbars...you will end up with no air at all, just water vapor. So what remains for the life forms to breathe or tho use for photosynthesis? If you say that martian life forms are diffrent from that found on Earth and do not nead CO2 for photosynthesis than I may say that in this case we can't be sure that the nutrients used in the LR experiments are in fact nutrients.

Problem no. 2

Gilbert Levin says that a saturated atmoshpere can not recieve any more vapor. That's not quite correct since the water vapor can desublimate on any kind of condesation nuclei. And please show me an atmosphere in the whole solar system that is 100% free of dust/condesation nuclei. The fact the he says that the cold layer can not recieve any more vapor and therefor keeps the remaining vapor above the ground in the warm layer is wrong!

Problem no. 3

He assumes this

Absorption of sunlight was reduced by latitudinal effects. However, rock surfaces oriented and inclined at the angle of their latitude will thus compensate for this effect in local, but significant, areas with respect to microbial habitats.

.
That's correct. But what about the shady area behind those roks? Since the solar rays don't reach these areas, the air here remains cold and water vapor saturated. But this does not mean at all that it can't accept any more vapor. If you add water vapor to this cold pocket, the vapor simply desublimates on the ground.

Now lets get to the bigger problems, wich occur beacuse the system is an open one.
Problem no. 4
In an open system, you will have to consider what happens also in the night area and the day area, not only in the day-break area. The convention I used is: by day-break in this case I mean the zone where there's still frost on the ground, by night area I mean the area where the surface temperature is not enough for ice to melt and by day area I mean those areas where water cannot exist anymore as ice or liquid.

In the night side the atmosphere is water vapor saturated and cold. Any water vapor that enters the area desublimates on the soil. In the day-break area, as you move from the night side to the day side, the warm layer (heated be the warming ground) gets thicker while the cold layer gets thinner. The warm air is not water vapor saturated and it allows a vapor pressure higher than the cold one. The warmer layer in the day side also is not saturated and it allows a vapor pressure even higher than the warm layer. Because the warm layer allows more vapor to be added, ice on the day-break site soil sublimates increasing the vapor pressure above the saturating one in the cold layer, allowing for a pressure gradient to exist. As water vapor enters the cold layer in the day-break area, it pushes part of the vapor from this layer to the night side where it desublimates (if the atmosphere is dusty, part of the vapor desublimates on dust particles in the cold layer of the day-break site). Further more, if the vapor pressure reaches the saturation point in the warm layer, because the day site layer allows a higher pressure, vapor can also migrate in this layer and dissipate.

Problem no. 5 (the last one identified by me)

Even with a low speed wind, about 1m/s, the wind evacuates the water vapor. This slow wind can still cover more than 3km (~2 miles) in an hour and more than 10km (~6 miles) in less than 3 hours.

(next post)

Now, regarding problem 1, there is one more observation to make. He assumes that the ice cube melts in one minute

Assuming the entire 10 um of precipitable water in the form of ice covers one cm2 of surface and that it evaporates in one minute

In this case, yes, it is possible for the water vapor to push the CO2 and increase the pressure above the triple point of water. But what if the evaporation rate is smaller than that? This would not be true anymore.
Here on Earth you can find liquid water around dark stones placed on ice because the pressure is high enough to allow that. Here on Earth you won't need such a complicated mechanism to explain it and therefor you can't compare the situations.

About wind, here's something interesting. Just a picture from that link:

The ideea is that you can't find a moment in a sol where there is no wind at all.
More about winds, here.

Winds measured at the VL-1 site at this same season 11 Mars years earlier (1976) were generally weak (