Mars Anomalies

[Ron Collins]

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/mediummaps/M11/M1104182.jpg

Anyone seeing what I am talking about??

I honestly do not see anything anomolous in this image. As I've stated before, I'm not an image specialist, but without someone pointing t out to me I just do not see anything out of place.

Without it being pointed out, it begins to resemble an intersteller Rorschach to me. which explainsd the elephant in the lower left corner.

 

[TClaeys]

I honestly do not see anything anomolous in this image.

Ron,

This is what I'm saying. We see several streaks across this image. And we see what appears to be vertical lines that are the product of, .... printing, recieving? I don't know but they are all across the image up and down.

In Rohns image(the flashing one), some of these streaks(diagonal ones) are cut off by the cropped image. I don't see anything anomolous either, just making something out of nothing.

The image I put up is the WHOLE image while Rohns is a cropped one.

And yes, I think I see Dumbo.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

So, you guys don't see a triangle? I see a triangle (on the image with no flashing triangle too). Not solid enough to be convincing, but definitely enough to be interesting.

 

[Astroboy]

I see this:

[attachment=113]

And this:

[attachment=114]

And of course, this:

[attachment=115]

 

[fitzbew88]

And of course, this:

Dude!!!! We may have to live on that planet!!!!!

 

[BrandonD]

Interesting anomalous Martian photos that you may or may not be familiar with:

http://www.viewzone.com/mars.oannes.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/04-13-2004_Methane_on_Mars/Arthur%27s%20Bushes.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/arthur.jpg

 

[fitzbew88]

Interesting anomalous Martian photos that you may or may not be familiar with:

http://www.viewzone.com/mars.oannes.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/04-13-2004_Methane_on_Mars/Arthur%27s%20Bushes.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/arthur.jpg

But what do you mean by "anomalous"? For purposes of this thread, I have equated "anomalous" with "not natural".

All three of these photos (to my own eye) look like the results of natural processes.

If by "anomalous", we mean "striking" or "intriguing", then that illuminates the thread in a different way.

At least these three images are "real", no matrixing involved.

I expect to see striking imagery on any planet with a geological history and a [non]atmosphere like Mars. Winds blowing at hundreds of miles an hour, planet-wide sandstorms that continue for long periods, huge temperature extremes --- we are going to see things that really catch our eye.

I think we are also facing a cultural bias. We have possibly been conditioned to expect Mars to produce Great Mysteries.

In my opinion, the problem we face is determining when to raise the Paranormal Flag. So far, I don't see any reason to.

 

[rohnds]

Another triangular shaped formation on Mars.

Source:http://www.dlr.de/mars/en/Portaldata/8/Resources/Portal_News/2006/nd1_cydonia.jpg


Rohn

 

[fitzbew88]

Another triangular shaped formation on Mars.

Only if you use your imagination; the enlargement shows it's just a couple of random formations.

 

[BrandonD]

But what do you mean by "anomalous"? For purposes of this thread, I have equated "anomalous" with "not natural".

All three of these photos (to my own eye) look like the results of natural processes.

I mean anomalous more in the dictionary sense, ie "strange and out of place".

You can't tell me that the one photo does not look like foliage, it looks just like foliage to me. And foliage on mars is pretty darn anomalous.

The other two are anomalous in the sense that there are no analogous natural formations on earth that resemble these formations (as far as I know). So, if they are natural, they are something new. I think the nasa explanation for both photos are "martian dune trains", which, if you've seen photos of dune trains, doesn't match these photos at all. Especially the photo where the formation is clearly raised off the ground.

I'm not saying they're tunnels or anything, but they're certainly worth closer inspection.

 

[fitzbew88]

You can't tell me that the one photo does not look like foliage, it looks just like foliage to me. And foliage on mars is pretty darn anomalous.

To me, the "foliage" looks like rock formations, thoroughly sculpted over millions of years by intense wind and finely grained dust. I imagine from the surface it would like similar to the Chiracuaha National Monument formations, or similar. I don't see foliage at all.

Some of this may have been sculpted by water from ancient oceans. Who knows what fanciful sculptures we might find if we could see our own ocean bottoms?

The other two are anomalous in the sense that there are no analogous natural formations on earth that resemble these formations (as far as I know). So, if they are natural, they are something new. I think the nasa explanation for both photos are "martian dune trains", which, if you've seen photos of dune trains, doesn't match these photos at all. Especially the photo where the formation is clearly raised off the ground.

If we use Earth as a benchmark, then Mars is just one big anomaly.

Also, the first and third images seem to me to be recessed, not raised. I mean, I *think* we are looking into a canyon or ravine -- possibly a cliff wall.

It seems to me that the phrase "...if they are natural, they are something new..." is a contradiction. Do you mean that if they are natural, they are the product of an unknown natural process? I could buy that.

I'm not saying they're tunnels or anything, but they're certainly worth closer inspection.

Most certainly. What is triggering my anxiety is whether any of this justifies raising the "Paranormal Flag." (i.e., ancient civilizations, intelligent life) So far, I've seen nothing to justify this. And Brandon, I'm not saying you're raising the paranormal flag, even vegetation would not be paranormal. You don't seem(?) to believe any of this is necessarily artificial.

 

[TClaeys]

Some things to look at.

In the top pic we can see that at least something similar is found on Mars as well. Even though it doesn't appear as weird as the "tubes" and is not in the same type of terrain. At first glance they seem greatly mysterious(the tubes), but maybe they are not, I'm not conclusive on it yet.

Phil Plait runs a site called Bad Astronomy. I admit that the guy seems to be somewhat of a worm himself, but I suppose however polarized we should assess all info.

Now he claims to show that these "worms" are recessed and not actually outwardly curved. I really can't see it in the pictures myself, but understand what he is saying.

And for what it is worth here is the Bad Astronomy page. Like I said I can't really SEE what the hell he wants me to see, but just throwing on some more fuel to the fire.

God these pics are big, sorry for that, still learning
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/glassworm.html

 

[Ron Collins]

Interesting anomalous Martian photos that you may or may not be familiar with:

http://www.viewzone.com/mars.oannes.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/04-13-2004_Methane_on_Mars/Arthur%27s%20Bushes.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/arthur.jpg

But what do you mean by "anomalous"? For purposes of this thread, I have equated "anomalous" with "not natural".

All three of these photos (to my own eye) look like the results of natural processes.

If by "anomalous", we mean "striking" or "intriguing", then that illuminates the thread in a different way.

At least these three images are "real", no matrixing involved.

I expect to see striking imagery on any planet with a geological history and a [non]atmosphere like Mars. Winds blowing at hundreds of miles an hour, planet-wide sandstorms that continue for long periods, huge temperature extremes --- we are going to see things that really catch our eye.

I think we are also facing a cultural bias. We have possibly been conditioned to expect Mars to produce Great Mysteries.

In my opinion, the problem we face is determining when to raise the Paranormal Flag. So far, I don't see any reason to.

I view this material as intriguing. However, I wouldnt call any of it paranormal. I wouldnt even call it evidence persay. It is a nice exercise in spotting things that may be out of place. However, nothing difinative is going to come out of it until we put feet on the martian surface.
Unless of course we get super high resolution images of something that is 100% not natural. But, I just do not see that happening. We just do not have the requied image resolution on site.

 

[Ron Collins]

You can't tell me that the one photo does not look like foliage, it looks just like foliage to me. And foliage on mars is pretty darn anomalous.

Foliage? Where do you see foliage? Why would their be foliage in one small area and not anywhere else on the planet?

Dude, there is no foliage on Mars. To think otherwise is just wrong. Its not even a source of contention. Its just flat wrong.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

Dude, there is no foliage on Mars. To think otherwise is just wrong. Its not even a source of contention. Its just flat wrong.

Well, there's always room for contention when you're dealing with issues that only have evidence as provided by The Man. For all we know we've never seen image number one from "the real Mars". I'm in no way saying this is the case, I'm just sayin it would be prudent to take a slightly more flexible view...

Anyway, as for BA's proposition that the "tubes" are recessed, I think he is dead wrong. I grabbed the pic (the full res one from the link) and blew it up... if you look at it at VARIOUS magnifications (as opposed to simply making it as big as you can) you can clearly see that it "protrudes", or is rounded outwardly to some degree. It also looks sort of "membrane" like. Interesting, for sure.

 

[BrandonD]

Dude, there is no foliage on Mars. To think otherwise is just wrong. Its not even a source of contention. Its just flat wrong.

It's not flat wrong. You're just fond of making assumptions, which is certainly your right.

I'm not arguing either side of the case, they're just interesting photos as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, if you show that mars photo to someone and ask them if it looks like bushes (without telling them it's location), they will answer yes. I've done it. Because the objects in the pics do in fact resemble foliage. They may certainly be something else, but they resemble foliage.

As I mentioned before all these photos may just depict unprecedented, albeit natural, formations that don't exist here on earth. Who knows what environmental processes take place on another planet?

 

[fitzbew88]

...Anyway, as for BA's proposition that the "tubes" are recessed, I think he is dead wrong. I grabbed the pic (the full res one from the link) and blew it up... if you look at it at VARIOUS magnifications (as opposed to simply making it as big as you can) you can clearly see that it "protrudes", or is rounded outwardly to some degree. It also looks sort of "membrane" like. Interesting, for sure.

Do you mind being more specific about which image (url) you worked with? I've sort've gotten everything mixed up.

Is "BA" the right handle? I made such a comment earlier, and I do have a Bad Attitude.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

Is "BA" the right handle? I made such a comment earlier, and I do have a Bad Attitude.

BA = Bad Astronomy (the website, run by Phil B)

 

[fitzbew88]

Anyway, as for BA's proposition that the "tubes" are recessed, I think he is dead wrong. I grabbed the pic (the full res one from the link) and blew it up... if you look at it at VARIOUS magnifications (as opposed to simply making it as big as you can) you can clearly see that it "protrudes", or is rounded outwardly to some degree. It also looks sort of "membrane" like. Interesting, for sure.

Oh, I think I see what you're talking about:
The Glass Worm

Did you notice the stereoscopic analysis that indicates that the feature is recessed?
Stereoscopic Analysis

My own eyes also indicate that the feature is recessed. Does the stereoscopic analysis change your mind?

 

[Ron Collins]

It's not flat wrong. You're just fond of making assumptions, which is certainly your right.

Listen, I am not trying to get into a flame war here. I realize I came off a bit strong and I apologize for that. It is just that when I see things like this it boils me a bit. Yes it is my, researched and educated opinion, that there is no foliage on Mars. I would even go as far as to say it is a demonstrated scientific fact. To me that is not making an assumption. It is applying science, observation, and reason to the question.

I'm not arguing either side of the case, they're just interesting photos as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry I guess I misunderstood. Because when you said:

You can't tell me that the one photo does not look like foliage, it looks just like foliage to me. And foliage on mars is pretty darn anomalous.

I assumed it was clear that you thought that there was foliage on the Martian surface. Sorry if I misunderstood.

And yes, if you show that mars photo to someone and ask them if it looks like bushes (without telling them it's location), they will answer yes. I've done it. Because the objects in the pics do in fact resemble foliage. They may certainly be something else, but they resemble foliage.

I’ll concede that. But knowing the location allows us to draw on other sources of information to better make a determination as to what we are seeing. Selecting the exact “evidence” to prove your point but denying the broad spectrum of data available is just a bad idea. Or at least it is if you want your point to withstand a cursory examination. The site you got this image from played into my response tone. I apologize for that again. Hoagland just irritates the shit out of me. I tried to find the article this went with, but his site is a navigation nightmare, so I gave up.

As I mentioned before all these photos may just depict unprecedented, albeit natural, formations that don't exist here on earth. Who knows what environmental processes take place on another planet?

As I understand it, geology is geology. We actually do have a fairly good understanding of geological forces. If that planet is made of rocks, then it is subject to those same forces. This is to say that if we were suddenly able to visit another star system, we could be certain that the planets there would obey the same physics we have here. Likewise they would be subject to the same sorts of forces that have shaped our world. I would say that you need a geologist to look at the images and give their opinion. I believe that SETH has a geology degree. Perhaps we could have him chime in.