The Mars Anomaly Research Site run by Joseph P. Skipper. has done it again. All the Photos below are from Offical NASA site.
Enlarged:
Are we ready out there ready to look though “Galileo’s” eyepiece?
Rotated:
Go to the Skippers For a more detailed look:
This is the original strip from NASA:
Now what the skipper has done, (I wonder if hates me for using that nick name) is enlarge and rotate the picture.
These are probably not trees but they are defiantly not the ground showing through. For me they resemble some kind of life.
What Do You Think?
UFO Media Matters
UFO Media Matters
These are some interesting photographs and I can see how they can be interpreted as trees or some other life form. What I was looking for in the photos were shadows. Any object standing above ground level should cast a shadow of some sort. If it can be determined what the sun angle was at the time the photos were taken and if shadows can be found then it should be a simple matter to measure the height of the object(s).
ReplyDeleteJeff
I can imagine that in a martian environment the eruption of brines saturated with salts, dissolved gases, and other minerals, would create some spectacular forms such as we see around Mono Lake and other brine rich lakes here on earth, and with the lower gravity and temperatures...I hope we all live long enough to be astounded.
ReplyDeleteWhile I doubt that these are actually "trees" or life forms of any sort, they certainly are interesting looking. Until we can get a probe down to inspect them, or perhaps higher resolution pictures, we are left to conjecture. Then again, even Arthur C. Clarke has gone on record to say he suspects they might be trees! I think what is more likely is that some unusual yet heretofore unknown geological process is at work here.
ReplyDeletePhotoshop is a wonderful thing. I am nearsighted, a trait I enjoy tremendously for when I weary of this world I can remove my glasses and everything past arms length slips out of focus. Out of sight, out of mind.
ReplyDeleteI offer this bit of insight so that we might understand that what we see or don't see isn't always whats there.
When working with relatively low resolution images, without color correction and other ancillary data to put it into context it is far too easy to manipulate an image into whatever we want it to be including jesus on toasted bread.
This doesn't mean there arent't trees on mars, but if there were, couldn't we find out quick enough by launching a probe with rain gutters on it? A small camera could watch the gutters and in a year or two they would be clogged with leaves if there are any trees there. I know thats what happens on Terra Firma, why should the Red Warrior be any different?
Life on Mars will in all likelihood be much like life on earth, easily manipulated and never fully understood.
Dear Jeff,
ReplyDeleteGood idea. I think there are what look like shadows. I will check again and see what the Skipper wrote about the angle of the sun.
Thank You
Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteInteresting Idea, I will e-mail the Skipper at his site he invites likes all types of input.
Thank You
JC
UFOMM
By the way to anyone who might have made a comment and didn’t notice it was posted I am sorry was away at UFO conference. I did view some astounding video of UFO objects visiting the space station. This is new stuff and good. I will post a future article on it.
JC
Dear Brian,
ReplyDeleteI am not so sure anymore. Life on earth is finding ways, ways around obstacles. We uncover complex life forms flourishing in harsh environmentson earth that were not even consider as possibilities ten years ago.
Thank You
Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
Dear Dr Funkerberry,
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding. I think they look more like Evergreens, so you may have to wait a while for some leaves.
I have followed Skipper and his web site and have never seen any evidence of manipulation except when he is proving a point. He always explains in detail what is being done to the NASA photo and why.
http://marsanomalyresearch.com/
Thank You
Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
Best to not be too hasty with interpretations of photos like this. There's just not enough resolution to be definitive about what is being shown.
ReplyDeleteThe rivulets seen at the edges of white and dark matter are definitely erosion patterns caused by the melting carbon dioxide frost. Furthermore, these rivulets are several hundred feet long, if not thousands of feet long, given the dimensions of the width of the photo itself and extrapolating down to this area. That means that the dark matter is actually descending mountainous area below the frost line (frozen carbon dioxide would first melt at lower elevations) and not edges or limbs of any kind of 'tree'. Any 'trees' that one thinks they see would be microscopically small in the original NASA photo - and can't even possibly be seen in the above blow-up. So the so-called 'trees' and 'forest' in the claim below are grossly wild misinterpretations of the data.
That trees appear to be in the photo is a visual anomaly, not an actual fact. And if they were trees, they would be thousands of feet high and hundreds of feet in diameter. Given that the gravity of Mars is not too much less than the gravity on Earth, trees of this size would be an extraordinary scientific find. In fact, one section of the photo that appears to have 'bushes' sprinkled among the frost would actually be depressions in the terrain where the frost first melts.
Now let's say I'm wrong about the frost melting first at the lower elevations. You would then have to reverse everything I said above and the assumption would then be that the mountainous areas protrude above the frost. The small area in the photo section above still identifies the rivulets as erosion, and whether they go down into dark matter or go down into white matter doesn't change the fact that they are thousands of feet long.
Now let's say I am wrong about the rivulets being thousands of feet long and let's say they are only several feet long (I see small erosion patterns like this all around here in Arizona, and I'm sure you do there in Utah). If that were the case, the amount of detail in the photo would be startlingly crisp and clear based on how crisp and clear the rivulets themselves appear to be, and there would be no way to miss the importance of familiar or even unfamiliar detail in any 'tree', which is certainly missing in the claim.
Dear Carter,
ReplyDeleteI have sent J. Skipper your comments please check back for his reponse. Thank you for posting.
Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
Dear Carter,
ReplyDeleteThis is the Skippers responce:
The view perspective is only 2.95 km or 1.83 miles width across according to the official stats John. Therefore the view is quite close enough for biological life scale recognition. So there's no chance of this being confused with mountainous elevated terrain and erosion patterns as you suggest.
As for the question of this evidence being trees that seems to bother you, I did not identify the branching evidence itself that you've pointed out in your imaging as conventional trees or trees of any kind and you need to go back and review my report in that regard. I did identify it as biological life of some kind and that's a difference.
Further, this is a different world than Earth John with differing conditions and you're going to need to be careful about extrapolating potential biological life evidence on this world in terms of only what is conventional here on Earth and that includes scale. There is a need here to at the very least think just a bit outside the box.
Meanwhile, even though you've characterized me in terms of "wishful thinking of an idle mind," I remain unswayed by your points. They were well presented though and thanks for your interest.
J. P. Skipper
UFO Media Matter Adds:
I had mentioned in my post "they are probably not trees" but none of us has been to Mars who knows, trees are a great way for life to capture sunlight.
JC
UFOMM
Those So Called Trees Are Water Fissures Instanly Frozen
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteOf course this is your guess, unless of course you went there.
I will email your interesting answer to the skipper and post his own reaction.
Check back for the answer it should be soon.
Thanks
Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog
C/O UFOMM
ReplyDeleteFrom J. P. Skipper
If one assumes that the official science temperature data is absolutely correct and that surface temperatures can fall to as low as –225ยบ F., then for practical purposes just about anything liquid or organic (known to us) including some gases could freeze very quickly and perhaps even instantly depending on the materials constituency.
However, the accumulation of evidence here at my end tells me that the officially promoted temperature extremes are not correct and not by a wide margin either. If so, that opens the door to other possibilities with respect to bio-life. My upcoming book and its much stronger surface water and bio-life evidence will attend to this.
However, such considerations aren't really necessary here. Just look more carefully at the larger darker evidence in the top portion of the 2nd and 3rd full size images in the report as well as the evidence in the 5th whole image. Note the bushy many dark branching tendrils of consistent size and pattern with each branching tapering to its end.
There is nothing here consistent with any known liquid freezing patterns at all as well as no build up of frozen liquid at the base area of the clumps. Yet the patterns are visually consistent with bio-life growth clumps. Most can see this if perception is based mostly on the visual evidence rather individual psychology and preconceived ideas.
Now visual evidence doesn't make it conclusively bio-life but the preponderance of the visual evidence we do have to work with here certainly points in the direction of bio-life of some kind (in the absence of better information) as compared to erupting liquids or gases. That kind of evidence leaning is something to warrant intense further objective investigation not dismissal from consideration.
J. P. Skipper
www.marsanomalyresearch.com
I have no doubt that they are trees up to one kilometer in diameter for several reasons.
ReplyDelete1. The atmosphere on Mars is a lot thicker than NASA will let on. A couple decades ago the entire surface of Mars became in invisible when a gigantic dust storm (hurricane) erupted in the northern hemisphere and spread across the entire planet. It too two years before you could see datails on the surface.
2. The CO2 ratio(plant food ratio) to oxygen, methane and other gasses is much higher--possibly ten times higher than on Earth.
3. The gravity of Mars is 1/3 of Earth's gravity allowing trees to grow much bigger. Such large (oak?)trees would have etensive root systems ten times more extensive than Earth in order to pick up water from the arid surace of mars.
4. According to NASA the highest temperature on a summer day on Mars is about 40 degrees. If the trees were growing over a hot area containing radioactive thorium or some other radioactive element or if there were underground thermal hot water springs then the trees could grow much bigger than anything on Earth.
We need to go there and check it out instead of killing each other over carbon resources here on Earth. www.GuardDogBooks.com
Think of the tourism value to walk among trees 2000 feet high and 3000 feet in diameter.
What a sight that would be. What is happened to NASA and the great adventure. When is science decided by the way it should be... not the way it is. Some of what has been recorded on Mars demands open minded investigation. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see this.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog
I discovered more data on gigantic trees 1000 feet high that used to grow on Earth. Why not Mars??? It has less gravity and more CO2 plant food per given cubic foot than Earth. Also when we get closer to the stars our sun is in orbit around the temperature rises on all the planets.
ReplyDeleteTo understand which stars we are in orbit around check out my book, Cosmological Ice Ages. www.GuardDogBooks.com
Tree Trunk 40 Feet Thick is Only One of the Big Bend Wonders:
Scientists Differ Over Find
Kerrville Mountain Sun
May 31, 1928
“Four government departments at Washington have become all stirred up over a new issue, though it bears no relation to disclosures such as the Teapot Dome expose. The United States National Parks Bureau and Smithsonian Institute are having a thrilling time all their own over a discovery of a petrified tree in the Big Bend district of Texas whose stump measures 40 feet in diameter, that extends 100 feet underground and when it flourished millions of years ago, must have extended 1,000 feet in height.”
So began an article in the Kerrville Mountain Sun in 1928. Apparently there is a real reason that they say things are bigger in Texas. The writer states that this tree grew millions of years ago but when exactly in the ---
Dear Hank,
ReplyDeleteThanks what an interesting article. I think your right the gravity on Mars could allow life to grow larger.
Thanks Again
Joe
UFOMM