The Martian Tubes ( Are They natural or constructs. )

These are, without a doubt, the most fascinating objects yet photographed on the surface of Mars...


The image was discovered in June, 2000 among the many images posted at the Malin Space Science Systems website, which has tens of thousands of Mars pictures available for online viewing ..

These structures are actually in excellent condition," says Skipper in an article titled Dissecting The Mars 'Tubes' Anomaly, "where other antiquity anomalies on Mars are heavily eroded, allowing endless debate as to what they truly are, natural or constructs.

NASA image enhanced by Jeffrey McCann










Are They natural or constructs.

Personaly I truthfully believe that they are natural IMHO, I have looked at them a few times before and they just scream natural to me...

The only issue that I have with them is they ( truly to me anyways), look and remind me of river beds or some other form of water erosion, which just brings many more questions.

reply to post by XJMatt


i was thinking the same thing.. they deff look like water erosion

I've seen these images and read about this subject before. I thought you were covering more on the subject. Certainly natural but seriously, are you just asking if its natural or contructs? People always say this ' look at this, what do you think guys?' lol.. anyways good effort.

the ONLY way to know idf ANYTHING is natural or artificial, is to GO THERE, no pic taken from a satellite will be proof positive

Originally posted by primitivebutaware
I've seen these images and read about this subject before. I thought you were covering more on the subject. Certainly not natural but seriously, are you just asking if its natural or contructs? People always say this ' look at this, what do you think guys?' lol.. anyways good effort.

What in your opinion would make them appear (certainly) unnatural? What I am seeing in the pictures truly looks like water erosion in the form of a possible ancient riverbed or such.

We are looking at the same thing correct? the trench looking details in the photographs?

Originally posted by XJMatt

Originally posted by primitivebutaware
I've seen these images and read about this subject before. I thought you were covering more on the subject. Certainly not natural but seriously, are you just asking if its natural or contructs? People always say this ' look at this, what do you think guys?' lol.. anyways good effort.

What in your opinion would make them appear (certainly) unnatural? What I am seeing in the pictures truly looks like water erosion in the form of a possible ancient riverbed or such.

We are looking at the same thing correct? the trench looking details in the photographs?

you already answered what im about to ask you. But since im wrong now, can u give a answer, as in one answer. I see three possible answers in your comment. I want to understand it.

I suppose the erosion could be natural but it would simply prove that the environment we keep being told exists on mars and has for 10's or 100'ds of millions of years just couldn't be. I CANNOT see this erosion happening on a dead planet with wind and sand as the only forces effecting things this is too artificial looking for that?? ... and of course, what exactly is this being eroded? That would be one outstanding place to drop the next rover or probe. I don't know the scale, since there is nothing shown or to compare to, but this must be huge if it's on Mars and this level of distortion free viewing....it's not terribly tight on zoom I'd think.

Erosion or not.....Too many questions not to make this a priority spot at the very least to understand what this shows......

I'd almost say it looked like exposed pipeline... Ancient, subterranean pipeline.

I think Mars is out future. It must be. However, I sometimes wonder if it won't also prove to have been our long forgotten past, as well. We'll know when we get serious exploration done up there.

reply to post by XJMatt


We must be looking at different photographs, you can see where these objects are sitting above the surface, no way this is water erosion. They all emerge from below the surface, worm anyone

Patterns on the moon of Jupiter, Europa, appear similar from afar(image). Just throwing that possibility out there...

A new study in the May 15th issue of Nature from NAI’s Carnegie Institution of Washington Team reveals that Europa’s poles may not have always been located in the same place. Using images from three NASA spacecraft, Voyager, Galileo, and New Horizons, the study mapped surface features on Europa and matched them with a pattern predicted if Europa had experienced an episode of ~80 degree true polar wander. This movement of the pole and subsequent change in rotation axis is only possible if Europa’s outer shell is decoupled...astrobiology.nasa.gov...

reply to post by XJMatt

Where u gone? I thought u were gana prove me wrong? well anyway, it looks artificial ever since it my eyes layed on it. Thats why I said its not natural. I still wait for you yo give an answer since I'm wrong to you.

Going to go with natural on this one.

Hopefully anyone that is building on mars understands symmetry and would not have the 'beams' (which are erosion lines) spaced so sporadically. Doesn't look 'intelligent' to me.

Cool looking though.

Pred...

first time I saw these tubes I was sure they were biological beings
later someone was claiming dunes, dunes, dunes, dunes, dunes, dunes, dunes
i suggested: what about super-tunnels, underground roads?
but: dunes, dunes, dunes, dunes, dunes, dunes
and what if these things are burrows? a gigantic burrow net? And by now I'll be rooting for that until a manned mission gets there

Originally posted by primitivebutaware

Originally posted by XJMatt

Originally posted by primitivebutaware
I've seen these images and read about this subject before. I thought you were covering more on the subject. Certainly not natural but seriously, are you just asking if its natural or contructs? People always say this ' look at this, what do you think guys?' lol.. anyways good effort.

What in your opinion would make them appear (certainly) unnatural? What I am seeing in the pictures truly looks like water erosion in the form of a possible ancient riverbed or such.

We are looking at the same thing correct? the trench looking details in the photographs?

you already answered what im about to ask you. But since im wrong now, can u give a answer, as in one answer. I see three possible answers in your comment. I want to understand it.

edit on 2-7-2011 by primitivebutaware because: (no reason given)

HUH? Do you even know what you are trying to ask me in this technobabble you wrote?... First of I never said you were wrong i simply ASKED your OPINION on why they looked unnatural, nothing more nothing less. If you have noticed this is a forum to discuss what we think and the evidence presented, so please lose the " i'm right , you're wrong " b.s. because it's not wanted and not needed.

If you have no OPINION on why it looks "unnatural" that's fine but believe me when i say you need to probably reread my post above a few times to "Comprehend" what i was asking you before picking and argument with me.

Originally posted by saycheese
reply to post by XJMatt

 

We must be looking at different photographs, you can see where these objects are sitting above the surface, no way this is water erosion. They all emerge from below the surface, worm anyone

I honestly do not see what you are saying, are you talking about the horizontal lines running across the bottom of the ( what I believe to be) riverbed? the entire image is clearly sank into the ground like a canyon or valley, I see no part of it above the ground other then the horizontal lines running across the bottom every so many (presumably) feet. the showing even suggests the same conclussion

That is why I believe it to be some sort of water erosion and those would or could be sediment deposits or such. have you ever looked in the sand underwater? you will see the same basic thing, small mounds of fairly evenly spaced sediment and sand.

That is why I personally ( same as in my first post) believe that imho it is some form of water erosion such as a river or stream that would have been there in ancient times. Since from my understanding there is ice on mars, actually an EXTREME amount of ice, It is an extremely relevant and possible theory.

I personally try to debunk thing through research instead of just dismissing all other ideas, Which was also why I was asking the other guy , WHY his opinion was that it was unnatural, but alas he decided we were trying to fight so ... heh.....

Source for ice on mars fact: science.nasa.gov...

They look like caterpillars. Could be from water erosion, but I am thinking perhaps lava tubes. Or the giant alien caterpillars.

Go a google image search for the Undara lava tubes. Kind of similar in style.

Thery definately have a geological basis.Lava tubes is the closest guess id go with this is the most likely scenario.
Id vote for an expedition to the giant hole though......

To me they look like long depressions on the ground, with dunes perpendicular to the axis of the long depression.
(I hope the above sentence makes sense in English, I know what I want to say in Portuguese. )

I once found photo that looked like that, but from Earth. I will try to find it.

Edit: I found the photo, it's from Egypt.

reply to post by ArMaP


Nice find =)

That picture does seem to look quite like the mars photos and is an excellent possibility of being an example of what we are seeing in those photos.

As ArMaP said in his post, they are sand dunes in sand-filled valleys and ravines. The dunes are perpendicular to the length of the ravine.

Here is a close-up high resolution image of one of those sand-filled ravines (with dunes)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b25efe00666.jpg[/atsimg]

Caterpillars? Dunes? Spice Worms!