NASA photographs "Trees" on Mars

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Anyone with a very expensive Meade Telescope with a display screen or serial port/USB that can hook up to their computer and point their telescope to Mars can see for themselves. The public do have the capability, maybe they are not a member of ATS or maybe they want to laugh at the conspiracy theories? Loads of people love to listen and read conspiracy theories - hell its what most films and books are inspired from.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Care to back up your claims ?

Come on, you guys. If you look at the high-res photo, they are OBVIOUSLY NOT TREES. In fact, this is a satellite photo from miles up. The res is probably one pixel to a square foot at best. These "trees" would be MILES tall.

However, being tracks from ice avalanches is bunk, too. No way. And the rest of the surface seems to have wavelike, dunelike features, the way snow sometimes will form into dunes. But Mars has hardly any atmosphere, there is no WIND to form DUNES, especially from frozen CO2. THese dunes are also thousands of feet long. What are they?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
every photo of mars we had might be have faked by NASA, They do have the power and the tools, so why should we believe anything NASA says anymore?

Thats a point. Why take ANY mars photos seriously if you think NASA has some sort of compulsive lying disorder?
I dont see why they would need to hide fossilized trees from us though, especially when there's a good chance that we may already have discovered fossilized bacteria that could be from mars. If they were trying to flat out deny the existece of plant life then why hasnt the other story been completely shut down.

reply to post by Bluebelle


I am tiled to my own opinion if you have a problem with it, thats fine with me.

But i am only saying, and also i dont believe mars is totally a red planet as in by the red skies, mars has blue skies the same earth, i believe ats members talked about this a while ago in some other thread.

if they "photoshopped" back then whats gonna stop them from "photoshopping" again or now

how is this evidence any more true/false then what they presented so far ?

if our outtake is that the basis of photographic evidence is falsely/duped presented then how can we even pre sume or assume any of the new evidence is any more true or even just true for that matter ?

is a lier always a lier , does the word bear any weigth in truth ?

i understand as to why they didnt do it but i dont understand as to why the coverup ?

kindergarden democracy in my opinion,

160 km is not the same as the moon.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Of course you're 'tiled' to your own opinion, just trying to figure out what has lead you to form that opinion. And what possible reason NASA would have for faking all the pictures of mars.

The sky isnt totally red. If I remember correctly the sky turns a deep blue colour at sunrise/sunset. The only reason it appears to be red is all the iron oxide dust floating about in the air.

Cool picture - does seem to have a fractal quality to it. Call it fractal trees if you like. An optical illusion, no doubt makes it hard to tell what is up, what is down, & scale.


I like the NASA explanation, but I'd still file this under Mars anomalies until we have more data.

I do not understand really what you are trying to say about a red sky.

www.badastronomy.com...
starryskies.com...
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
www.bautforum.com...
www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov...

A blueish/purplish sky is not hidden from us by NASA, you just do not understand the topic

But if you want to believe whatever it is your trying to say .. by all means.

edit :Forgot to add the mandatory Wiki link

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 13-1-2010 by nophun]
BONUS second wiki link
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 13-1-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by nophun


Maybe NASA is lying about the particular shade of blue?

Although most of the "trees" look to me like color changes in the soil there is a one that resembles a dead tree

reply to post by CaptChaos


Sorry but Mars has winds, sandstorms and even dust-devils they have photo's and video's of. The storms often obscure large portions of the planet they are so large.

Mars also has an atmosphere and nobody, even NASA has ever said it does not. It is not capable of supporting us however. It is about 1% of ours I think.

Link one.

A very informative article on this topic.

reply to post by Bluebelle


I wish NASA was lying about everything about Mars as much as Agent_USA_Supporter ... but they have this habit of backing up claims with science



[edit on 13-1-2010 by nophun]

Oil???

From the dunes of Mars?

Colonization is a certainty now.

The article seems to be total crap. So much disinfo out there people you
can't just scim over things and post them just because they look real.

Can someone say this for sure is not a hoax?

What do trees breath?

To suggest what might be a better hypothesis, to what we are seeing in the photo.
Mars is red + Rust is Red = Iron composition of Mars. A magnetised ball
bearing would attract tiny metal shavings and look quite similar to what
we are seeing in the photo.

I'm not saying that mars is magnetised.



[edit on 13-1-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by Blaine91555


That's right, Mars has less than ONE PERCENT of the atmosphere of the Earth. In other words, winds on Mars would have less than ONE PERCENT the strength of winds on Earth. They would have to be blowing at tens of thousands of miles per hour to form any dunes. The dust devils on Mars and even the PLANET WIDE SANDSTORM than once obscured the whole planet for MONTHS, are totally unexplainable by normal mainstream theories.

Simply more proof for the Electric Universe.

thunderbolts.info...

Nov 09, 2005
When Dust Storms Engulf Mars

Another surprise from space: Massive dust storms on Mars have meteorologists scrambling for explanations. Is it solar heating, or electricity, that powers these storms in the near vacuum of the Martian atmosphere?

The spacecraft Mariner 9 was the first probe to orbit the planet Mars. As it arrived at the Red Planet in 1971, NASA scientists were shocked by the view—the most horrific dust storm they had ever seen. The entire planet was engulfed in a deep haze, with only the peak of gigantic Olympus Mons penetrating through the clouds.

For several decades, the energetic dust storms on Mars have posed unanswered questions for meteorologists. How can an atmosphere only one percent as dense as Earth’s remove dust from the soil and accelerate it into massive clouds circling the planet up to 40 miles or more above the surface?

In late June, 2001, the Hubble Telescope revealed the first stirrings of a dust storm in a small region of the Hellas Basin on Mars. For several days the storm alternately grew, then retreated. Then it exploded and quickly boiled out of the Hellas Basin, spreading both north and east. Within a few weeks it had covered the whole planet. (See picture here)

The storm did not begin to subside until October. It was the greatest dust storm ever observed on Mars, and it left meteorologists scratching their heads. How was the dust excavated from the surface? What held the dust aloft? What accelerated the winds and dust across the near vacuum of Mars’ upper atmosphere to speeds greater than 250 miles per hour?

With its Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES), the orbiting Mars Global Surveyor measured thermal effects associated with the storm. As the storm clouds began to surround Mars, temperatures rose a stunning 40 degrees C—a case of “instantaneous global warming” that continues to haunt meteorologists.

reply to post by CaptChaos


This might sound stupid but has anyone confirmed that the dust and sand on mars is the same density as ours here on earth, after all if the dust is 1% as dense as it is here, just as the atmosphere is, and with the gravity being weaker on mars. It doesn't seem all that impossible.

reply to post by Erasurehead


I'm still on the fence on this one, the high res one looks too much like a paint job.

Whatever the case may be, it makes for a beautiful picture, worthy of being framed and hung on a wall.

Or at least a background on my computer

reply to post by 0010110011101


It just looks too awkward to be debris. Mars has 1/3 gravity, and thus plants can be 3x as big. What's the scale of this?