NASA Schedules Briefing to Announce Significant Find on Mars

Has the skull on Mars been proven by NASA or any other credible source that it's, in fact, a skull? Why is everyone trying to compare this new finding to a skull that seems like nothing more than a couple of rocks? Someone please explain.

How did they take these photos from such an angle??

Originally posted by freakyty


How did they take these photos from such an angle??

They didnt take them at an angle, they were taken from above. Have you never used Google Earth? you can zoom in and then tilt the picture to the side and it raises high areas like mountains to give it a more 3D effect. They did the same thing with these pictures, it actually states that on the NASA website.

Occam's razor. An 'avalanche' of dust is a much more likely explanation. There's no direct evidence of H2O, just a surface feature that resembles what would result from a fliquid flow. Following the same path paved (sailed) by Lowell. It would be understandable to publish a paper speculating a hydrodynamic cause. Then let the press sensationalize it. But such theatrics ... reeks of bad science - need to pique public support for budget. Not arguing that this wouldn't be a great site to survey with a future probe. If it turns out to be a fluid flow, then the chief scientist can get a footnote in a history book. But this canal discovery sounds awfully, awfully speculative.

I can't believe that this thread is getting so little attention. Maybe is coz of the repaires with the server and not to many users can get into the board.
Anyway IMO maybe NASA has decided to "spill the beans"... Jumping from a dead planet cliche to water flowes that's not to little. I'm trying to understad all that sharp turn that NASA has taken this last month and I certainly I'm happy to see that they are confirming what has been said for so long in the Conspiracy Theory circles. Which means that there was some truth in the claimes such as; Mars has been once inhabitet... or Mars is different from what appears in the fotos provided by NASA... or there are some artificial structures... or ... etc, etc. Of course I'm speculating a bit and expanding the claime which is strictly for the presence of water in Mars. But where is water is a big possibility that there could be life. And where is water means that there could be also atmosphere. When there is water means that there could be gravity and so on...

Great news and this kind of news deserve way more attention and partecipation from the members of this board.

I think we've confirmed that there's an atmosphere on Mars. If there's any question about gravity on Mars, we have some fundametal laws of physics that are in question.

Mars was never a dead planet we were originally told Mars could be a dead planet. Nasa knew the results of tests performed by Viking 1 and 2. Contrary to popular belief the Viking missions discovered microbial life from the slurry mix that the project released to be eaten by microbes. Water is most diffinitely on Mars mostly in the subsurface under pressure keeping it from freezing. Life exists on Mars in abundance and I have spent thousands of hours scanning the surface of Mars and have detected life forms. Here are the some of the catagories of life found by me on Mars. Marmies, Sandmaries, Marockies and many more. This is not a joke and Mars is loaded with statues and monuments. Mars is set up on a grid. I will explain later. Rik Riley

Originally posted by Telos
I'm happy to see that they are confirming what has been said for so long in the Conspiracy Theory circles.

That is incorrect. They found evidence of a change in topography between photos taken at two different dates. The new feature appears in the newer photo; logic follows that some event took place to cause that change. The idea that it is indeed water is purely speculative, there are many other things it could be. To blatantly state it is water is taking a few too many leaps of logic.

Originally posted by Telos
Great news and this kind of news deserve way more attention and partecipation from the members of this board.

Maybe it would be if it was conclusive evidence of water ... but until they can confirm that it is indeed water and not dust or something else, it really isn't that big of a deal. Not trying to harp on you, just stating the facts.

Originally posted by kode
It’s a smoke screen how many times have you heard this all before.

[sarcasm]Oh yeah its such a successful smoke screen that this was dominating the front page of every newspaper for weeks after it's discovery[/sarcasm]

In the real world, I didn't even hear of this until just this second. I make it a point to keep up with stuff like this. I'd say, as a smoke screen, it has to be one of the most horrible distractions ever in the history of smokescreendom.

Originally posted by W_Heisenberg
Occam's razor. An 'avalanche' of dust is a much more likely explanation. There's no direct evidence of H2O, just a surface feature that resembles what would result from a fliquid flow. Following the same path paved (sailed) by Lowell. It would be understandable to publish a paper speculating a hydrodynamic cause. Then let the press sensationalize it. But such theatrics ... reeks of bad science - need to pique public support for budget. Not arguing that this wouldn't be a great site to survey with a future probe. If it turns out to be a fluid flow, then the chief scientist can get a footnote in a history book. But this canal discovery sounds awfully, awfully speculative.

Speculative? Have you seen the photo's or are you just basing it on the press releases?(or spinning it to support your own agenda whatever that may be).

An "avalanche" of dust seems much more far fetched, especially if it's in a region where underground ice has already been detected in large quantities.

Where has the paper been published, because I believe there has to be much more evidence to back up their conclusions that this was caused by flowing water.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
So now for the questions.

If this is flowing water, how did it survive the extremely low surface pressures on Mars?

And

Since there is no precipitation on mars (right?) it must have come from an underground resevoir. Is that resevoir frozen, or is it liquid?

Good questions rasobasi420 I haven't heard how they are sure it is water and not sure that is is another liquid like methane or mercury.
how do they know for sure it is water and not magma or muddy liquid or something else?
do they have chemical readings to indicate what we see is being H2O?
How hot/cold is it on the mars surface and can water flow in those conditions what about underground what is the temp?
Can we believe that what they are showing us to be real and if it is real how can they know it is water?
I am not sure but compairing the photos and saying "hey its water" is not going to convince me it is water for sure.

Originally posted by megaslayer
Good questions rasobasi420 I haven't heard how they are sure it is water and not sure that is is another liquid like methane or mercury.
how do they know for sure it is water and not magma or muddy liquid or something else?
do they have chemical readings to indicate what we see is being H2O?
How hot/cold is it on the mars surface and can water flow in those conditions what about underground what is the temp?
Can we believe that what they are showing us to be real and if it is real how can they know it is water?
I am not sure but compairing the photos and saying "hey its water" is not going to convince me it is water for sure.

It IS physically possible to have water on Mars, as I mentioned ealier in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However NASA had big ones to come out and state that it was direct evidence of water when there's quite a few faulty leaps of logic there. All they found was a new feature in current photos that wasn't there in the old photos. Could be water, could be dust, could be space alien goo. There's no way to know without a sample.

IMO there is a double standart in this kind of logic that's being used in here. So far NASA has been a trusted institution coz her claimes were backed up by the mainstream and orthodox science. Now that something unusual came up all of a sudden NASA became a non serious source of information?
Are we dealing with a fear from changing our belief system or is so hard to open our eyes and to take in consideration the idea that we could have been wrong all this time?

Originally posted by Telos
IMO there is a double standart in this kind of logic that's being used in here. So far NASA has been a trusted institution coz her claimes were backed up by the mainstream and orthodox science. Now that something unusual came up all of a sudden NASA became a non serious source of information?
Are we dealing with a fear from changing our belief system or is so hard to open our eyes and to take in consideration the idea that we could have been wrong all this time?

They even stated themselves that there is no direct proof of water with this find, only evidence in the form of a change in photos and the surface of Mars. I think NASA sensationalized the headline to make a bigger bang than "changes found in photos on Mars." Orthodox science requires proof beyond a change in a photo ... orthodox science would be getting a sample, analyzing it, dating it, etc.

I am not saying there is not water on Mars, and I am not questioning NASA's status as a source of information. I'm basically just stating the facts of THIS find, which are, there is simply a change in Martian topography and that MAY be evidence of water.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Speculative? Have you seen the photo's or are you just basing it on the press releases?(or spinning it to support your own agenda whatever that may be).

An "avalanche" of dust seems much more far fetched, especially if it's in a region where underground ice has already been detected in large quantities.

Where has the paper been published, because I believe there has to be much more evidence to back up their conclusions that this was caused by flowing water.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by sardion2000]

I merely point out that there is no scientific discovery here. This is no different from Joe Crackpot stating that there's an alien burial ground in the same picture. Pictures are not proof. Don't attack me by asserting that I have an "agenda." Quite the contrary. You make my point about the paper. NASA could not publish in a scholarly journal because there is not enough scientific discovery to substantiate the claim yet. I believe this argument is wasted here. Many on this board have an agenda to prove there is some form of life on Mars. Will everyone be so devastated if it is not so interesting as the other (indeterminate number) of planets in this galaxy and beyond. Actually, this story doesn't yet merit the amount of time it got in the press nor the number of threads herein.

Nice. This is obviously a prime candidate location for the next rover or sample return mission.

If Mars does have water we could possibly heat up mars by moving some large asteroids into its orbit. The tug of enough asteroids could pull on mars enough to get some volcanic actions going again. Once that happens Mars would have liquid water and a possible atmosphere. The atmosphere would need to be very thick and cloudy all the time in order to protect any prospective above ground life from the sun. Of course you could live under the water and gain some protection as well as oxygen as well.

Not only would learning to move asteroids help us save earth from a potential collision in the future they might even help us terraform Mars to be habitable.

dare i ask:

can humans drink this water, or are there other things in this water that may harm us???

a speculative answer will do...

Can humans drink the water?

I would assume, just like water on earth you'd have to be clear on what minerals may be dissolved in it..
And of course, checking for some sort of alien microbe.

Filtered and distilled..It would be ok..but you drink first!

[edit on 10-12-2006 by spacedoubt]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Filtered and distilled..It would be ok..but you drink first!

[edit on 10-12-2006 by spacedoubt]

i was just wondering...

[post removed]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1h.) Spamming: You will not post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by 12m8keall2c]