Lumber on Mars? Can anyone explain this JPL photo?

WTF?

WTF indeed.

Is there some way to fake a JPL photo?

but it's pretty darned symmetrical isn't it?

Why is there nothing similar in the entire photo if it some natural occurrence? Why is it so anomalous?

edit- I must be some sort of weathered sedimentary stone, but it sure looks like a weathered wooden plank. And it is all alone in its strangeness.

It's pretty clearly an in situ piece of sandstone.

No more definitive than these are trees.

Plus, Pepperbelly says the albido is all wrong for it to be sandstone. Can you refute his claim?

It must have been left there by Viking space explorers from the 10th Century. :eyes:

Isn't that the Bush motto?

Maybe, maybe not. Who can say? It LOOKS like wood. That's the point.

What about the TREES!

It's clearly Martian toast!

I was sure it was shredded wheat. Now I know the Martians are even more advanced than we thought!

machinery tracks to me.

Jay

yes, what is the simplest explanation (aside from artifice) to explain that object?

I zoomed in on that shiny object just above the railroad tie in that Martian photo, then cleaned up the image and found this!

(see below, o ye doubters!!)
























mere coinkydink? I think not!

There is life on Mars!

No, I can't. I can tell you that sandstone is any stone made of sand, sand being grains of either minerals or rock fragments between 0.0625 and 2.0 mm. Sand can be made of any mineral and be any color. All that matters is that it is between 0.0625 and 2.0 mm. If it's smaller, it's silt, if it's larger it's pebbles.

There are CLEAR laminae that parallel the laminae in the surrounding rock, and they appear to be dipping in the same direction. The "Albedo problem" Pepperbelly aluded to is almost certainly a result of two factors, angle of the rock face in question, and staining from dust that was blown out of the cracks.

It's almost certainly a chunk of in situ sandstone experiencing exfoliation (like its neighbors), that has the cracks surrounding it less full of dust, making it appear to be on top of the soil, rather than within it.

it resembles petrified wood as much or more than sandstone. If this was a picture from Arizona, I suspect you would have pointed this out.

I make no assumptions, nor apply limits.

You claim you make no assumptions, yet you:

1) assume to know what petrified wood looks like

2) assume that it cannot POSSIBLY be rock...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so kill the messenger.... In any case, you're right, it is petrified ROCK. Petrified wood on the other hand.... it doesn't look like one bit.

You're not being honest in this discussion indigo.... You are not an expert on geology, paleontology, botony, or Mars, yet you claim to know that the object cannot possibly be rock, and it must be wood.

You've been given explanations that are scientific from not only myself, but many other posters here, yet you refuse to listen to them.

You make wild claims about trees and such, but when asked for a simple courtesy like a scale bar you act as though I'm asking you to get naked, roll around in honey, and jump on and ant hill.

It's not wood. Period.

Look, here's some explanitory diagrams I prepared for another thread that you obviously haven't seen.

------------------------

If we look at the "lumber" close up, and lighten the photo a little bit we see something amazing. It's a rock. And not just any rock, but a perfectly ordinary piece of sandstone, just like all the surrounding pieces of rock.



There are lines on the "lumber" that match the spacing and direction of the laminae in adjacent pieces of sandstone perfectly. From weathering patterns on nearby rocks, we can see that the regional dip of the laminae is around 30-40 degrees, and dipping away from the camera. Let me illustrate what is going on in this photo, by first putting lines of section through the "lumber":



Let's look at A-A'. Note, that in all images, orange spaces are where dust has filled cracks. Also, the diagonal lines are representative of the strata dipping away from the rover at about 30-40 degrees.



Now, let's look at B-B', which crosses the "lumber." What's obvious in close ups is the far end of the lumber is firmly attached to (and part of) the substrate, and is dipping at the same angle and direction as the laminae. It is raised a little bit from the surrounding rock, but since the sun is in front of is, a huge, dark shadow forms making it not only look darker than the surrounding sandstone blocks, but above them:



Now the last cross section, from C-C', is pretty similar to what's seen in A-A'.



This type of feature is not at all uncommon, and because of odd circumstances and placement of the rover and the sun at the time of the photo, this small rock knob ended up looking kind of like a board.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was all staged, although I can't think of any motive off the top of my head.

And just how many JPL/Nasa scientists would either have to be totally scammed by this fake a/o brought in on the cover up to pull off this hoax?

congrats...and all this time people have thought it was on mount Ararat...

theProdigal

ROFL

damn

1) As anyone can see, the first post next to W's new flagstone patio fell over. He is trying to build a fence on the way over to Uncle Dick's latest undisclosed location.

OR

2) This is the view of a near-miss from a MOAB bunker-buster on Osama's summer villa

DBDB

It looks a lot like a piece of wood, but I think it's probably an illusion created by the angle of the photo. I'm no geologist or astronomer or anything like that, so I'm not even going to try to speculate how it got there, but I do know that lava hardens as long ridges...think about how Devil's Tower looks like a big tree stump, and imagine it on a much smaller scale.

Of course, like I said, I'm not a geologist or anything, so I could be dead wrong. Life on Mars has always been a distinct possibility...didn't they find some meteor from Mars a few years ago that had archaic bacterial remains in it?

<<Life on Mars has always been a distinct possibility...didn't they find some meteor from Mars a few years ago that had archaic bacterial remains in it?>>

There was such a claim by a NASA investigator. The conclusion was disputed; the structures -could- have been from inorganic processes. Could've been bacteria, too. We need more and better rover on Mars.

Bacteria are a long way from a tree, however.

This is some kind of geologic structure. Take enough pictures, -one- of them will have something that looks like Abe Lincoln.

Post a ridiculous claim here--however insane-- and the thread will attract 100s of admiring posts.

nt

man hole and cover right behind the wood piece? hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!

evading the clutches of Inspector Javert.

If you haven't read the book, it's terrific!


Les Miserables a New Unabridged Translation (Signet Classics)
by Victor Hugo, Norman MacAfee (Translator) "In 1815 Monsieur Charles-Francois-Bienvenu Myriel was Bishop of Digne..." (more)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451525264/qid=1104192241/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-1400028-2841524?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

to read it! i did see the musical 5 times though, lol.

The book is an incandescent literary masterpiece. Brilliant!:beer:

Very dry in places, though. You have to really want to read it to read Les Miserables in full...

holdings in wood that Kerry talked about, and * made funny about.

Maybe the "log" is actually 100 feet around or something

Why is there nothing similar in form or texture anywhere else in the photo?

just behind the wood piece....and what about the neatly laid patio stone...this is not a pic of mars!!! Unless there is life on mars with cut and rotting timber peices and patios and sewers.

It's very french.

:wow:Did they have any ideas on the NASA or JPL sites?

This photo was found and exposed by outsiders.

Maybe the Soviets shot some stuff at Mars back in the 70's

Or could it be part of one of the dozen or so spacecraft that have broken apart on approach to Mars landing/orbit attempts :shrug:

or something, OK I'm grasping a straws, its still cool though.

But nothing is an island. Why isn't there more of it, whatever IT is?

though, like I said, I'm grasping at straws, its only speculation for me at this point. or a meteor destroyed the rest of the forest, and that one is left.

Not as earthshaking as lumber, but it is big news if implicating past life on Mars.

First we are making the assumption that life on Mars evolved like life on Earth did. There is no reason to even speculate on this outside of Science Fiction, because we have no samples of Martian DNA to compare to our own. So even calling this thing a piece of wood may be highly inaccurate. Hell it could be a fossilized bone from a creature of some sort, for all we know.

Second, we are assuming its from a living thing at all is rather stretching it, to put it mildly. Untill you can take a sample and look at it under a microscope to see if it was made up of small cells with specialized parts, it is pure speculation. I would say that it is most likely a peculiar formation of rock, probably ejected by the crater next to it, and then formed by the wind, or possibly water, though I don't know about that, to look like it does today.

is making no assumption.

A scientist should be able to discuss appearances without making assumptions or drawing conclusions.

Galileo described what he saw and was vilified by the 'scientists' of his time. More's the pity.

Considering the rover is capable of driving the 10 feet and taking closeup and microscopic pics of the object.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040524a/site_B115_navcam_180_cyl_L-B118R1_br2.(add jpg for photo)

A submarine? A ship?
This looks like a beach scene.

from '2001: A Space Odyssey'...reflecting the sun.

or maybe its a part of noah's ark...lol

is deceptive. It is, at least, several feet tall.

That was discarded on entry...

:eyes:

by the fringe press. MSM blows it again.

very funny....there is an ocean on mars too...come on fess up...what is it..and where is it.

And for the other poster who asked for a link--you can right-click on a photo and choose "properties," which will give you the URL the poster is using.

This is a NASA photo, karlschneider.

to get to the URL--that's useful, thanks.

You can see a few smaller examples of pieces somewhat similar in appearnce--if you pan right until you are lined up on the sundial (little knob on disc on the edge of the solar panels) and then go in a straight line toward the crater I see about three small hunks of "something."

It looks like it is possibly a piece of the field rock shoved up on its edge--or not. Speaking as a geologist, if I was in charge of the rover I'd drive over there and take a peek. Unless they've seen a bunch of similar stuff and just haven't released it--I was totally pumped about the rovers but then my interest just sorta wandered.....I can maybe ask a few peoplew a few questions.

(note: most of this post is just directed to the thread in general--I din't feel like posting twice) :)

on edit corrected spelling

There are none. Just a few general pans for sol 115 and no microscopic images from sol 109 to sol 120. Hmmmm..? Don't you think NASA might want to check that out? I'm guessing they did check it out, and kept it to themselves because it was made of wood. My love hate relationship with NASA continues.

Not any more. They are a quasi-military agency these days. Cryptic.

from NY Central RR system. Those scrap ties are everywhere I tell you.

180

But then someone pulled it (to cover it up). Or maybe the Top astronomers were on vacation when these came out. :shrug:

I know I lost interest in this Mars site by February

If that's not wreckage of something I'll eat my shoe. There are parts all over the place! I need to start paying attention to these rovers again.

and saw Sigourney Weaver!

What a photo!!!!!!

It appears to be some sort of wrecked fuselage? What in nature could account for that? It appears to have an interior framework covered by a shell or a skin. Nothing I know of is naturally similar to that. If it is geology, it is very strange geology.

Is it taking pix of where it came down, and that's a piece that broke open to release it?

as it first dismounted. They looked nothing like the picture in question.

When the lander separated from the orbiter and prepared for entry into the atmosphere, the aeroshell protected it. It has an ablative coating, which burns away. This ablative coating is a dense, fibrous material made of silica fibers and ceramic.

Once the lander is through the atmosphere, parachutes deploy, the aeroshell splits away, and the landing balloons inflate. The lander bounces a few dozen times and eventually comes to a rest.

Here's Pathfinder before launch at Kennedy Space Center:


A painting of the probe entering the atmosphere & the aeroshell sep:


Bouncy Bouncy:


Coming to rest:


link:
http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/pathfinder/images.html

That's not the same wreckage. Something weird is going on up there.

But Mars is pretty darn windy. I suspect the strewn wreckage picture is after a windstorm...

Each of the probes had THREE things that hit the surface: The heat shield/bottom part of the aeroshell (which was jettisoned high up), the top part of the aeroshell which had the parachutes attached (which was jettisoned closer to the surface), and the probe itself (which was protected by air bags).

I'm not expert to say which is which for certain, but one photo shows the wreckage of the heat shield (I'd guess the more-damaged one), and the other (which you show above) is probably the top/parachute-deployer part of the aeroshell.

And that "wood" is a rock of some kind, I think. Very cool pictures, though.

No way is that on Mars. Either this is a hoax picture or a rover test on Earth.

Right?

Tucker

http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_p329.html

I'm trying to figure out if it's this (the heat shield, or so they say):



from a different angle. (from http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_p328.html)

Found a wider-angle pic, showing both those objects:

Thanks

The link is posted above.

http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_p329.html
http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/329/1P157387164EFF40A3P2360L7M1.HTML

Here's the one with the railroad tie:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040524a.html

and separated before landing?

NASA's just dumping it's refuse conveniently...

Sculpture?

What was the name of the British Craft that was lost last year? :think:

Or disappear entirely. For some reason?

said fuck it I ain't coming back there. I'm gonna vacay on Mars fo a while. The "railroad tie" is part of his triumphant return show. It's a replica of the original cross he was crucified on. This stuff above is debris from his bitchin' 64 Impala he now cruises around in with Elvis. With it in that many pieces it may take another couple millennia to put it back together, unless we can get Chip Foose and his gang up there to "Overhaul" it. Maybe some flames and new wheels with a holy trinity design?

eom

Yes, I'm going to hell.

with me.

I would bet on something like that, first.

Whatever it is, it seems to have been there for a while. Notice the erosion around it.

Plus there is something similar in texture, on a line to the right, that is more of an emerging object. The planklike objuect is much more above ground, but the two are in a straight-line orientation.

It's sandstone that's been weathered slightly differently, but probably in situ. The "wood grain" you see are laminae, they match perfectly with the laminae in all the weathered sandstone nearby. It may be a chunk that's been subject to a lot of ventifaction, or has simply had the surrounding dust blown away.

There are hints of similar textures in the background. It isn't entirely "alone".

There's no way to know for sure..... but come on. The linear features match those of the country rock perfectly indicating that it is an in situ piece of sandstone, it's weathering in a pattern consistant with desserts and with surrounding rock. The cracks surrounding it do seem a little deeper due to shadowing effects, but there are perfectly sane reasons for that.

It's not wood.

But the form and texture and isolated context give it an odd appearance.

What would rule out petrified wood, instead of sandstone?

It's on Mars, so it isn't wood.

DinoBoy, do you have special knowledge about Mars? Do you have knowledge of Mars' geological past? NASA doesn't even claim that.

Nobody knows what happened on Mars millions of years ago. There is clear evidence it once had an atmosphere, and liquid water. Who's to say it didn't have trees? Didn't have wood? Couldn't now have petrified wood?

Arthur C. Clarke said he thought there was evidence of trees, or treelike things currently on Mars. He said the anomalous objects seen in some photos were not being analyzed well.

With all due respect, I think I'll go with the possibilities of Arthur C. Clarke, rather than the impossibilities of DinoBoy.

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/v_clarke_01,1.jpg

Arthur C. Clarke Stands By His Belief in Life on Mars
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 12:25 pm ET
07 June 2001


WASHINGTON -- Noted space visionary and writer, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, believes that new images of Mars clearly show the red planet dotted with patches of vegetation, including trees. Such a find may help spark a far grander space program more aligned with the adventure and exploration portrayed in the epic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey - the collaborative work of both Clarke and director Stanley Kubrick.

Clarke spoke last night, June 6, via phone from his home in Sri Lanka as key speaker in the Wernher von Braun Memorial Lecture series held here at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.

Poring over images on his home computer taken by the now-orbiting Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), Clarke said that there are signs of vegetation evident in the photos.

"I'm quite serious when I say have a really good look at these new Mars images," Clarke said. "Something is actually moving and changing with the seasons that suggests, at least, vegetation," he said.

Clarke repeated several times that he was serious about his observations, pointing out that he sees something akin to Banyan trees in some MGS photos.

http://tinypic.com/140hn8

http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/clarke_mars_010601.html

http://www.martianspiders.com/Popular%20Science%20%20The%20Banyan%20trees%20of%20Mars.htm

Mars Global Surveyor photos in which
Sir Arthur C. Clarke has expressed interest

http://www.geocities.com/jcsherwood/ACCmars.htm
---

Meeting of the Minds: Buzz Aldrin Visits Arthur C. Clarke
http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/aldrin_clarke_010227.html

Clarke's Believe It or Not
http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/clarke_believe_010227.html

Lemme tell you the big news: Nothing has happened in the last 1.8 Ga.

As for your trees...

1) They don't actually look like trees
2) The photo is too dark
3) The photo has no scale
4) They look mostly like cinder cones or basalt flows to me, which is most parsimonious considering that this is Mars, and not a botanical garden.

as reflected in their discussion of the rocks the rovers analyzed.

These photos were taken from an orbiter and the scale of the "treelike" forms(as coined by Arthur Clarke...argue with him about cinder cones or basalt flows...-now that's ridiculous-) are in the hundred feet tall, or better, range. You can check this with JPL.

You might see Arthur C. Clarke as a doddering old fool with a worthless opinion. Personally, I respect the man, and his opinion.

To wit:

Arthur C. Clarke The image is so striking that there is no need to say anything about it -- it's obviously vegetation to any unbiased eye.

PS What about animal life?

AC If there is vegetation, it seems probable there are other life-forms as well.

PS Few experts agree with you.

AC Remember how a certain Astronomer Royal said that space flight was 'utter bilge'?

But they are right to be cautious -- we still don't have 100 percent proof. I think it's in the high nineties!

PS Why are you so passionate about this?

AC Because nothing could be more important than the discovery of other life-forms. It's getting lonely down here.

http://www.martianspiders.com/Popular%20Science%20%20The%20Banyan%20trees%20of%20Mars.htm

Perhaps it is a botanical garden?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

out of any kind of fear, that is absurd, unwise, and silly.

Consult with JPL for scale. You don't believe what I tell you, anyway.

I'm not embarrassed by anything. I don't pretend to knowledge I don't possess, but I take NASA at their word about their limited understanding of Mars geology. It is a matter of fact and record. Perhaps you could enlighten them?

How dare you tell me what I should be embarrassed of regarding my knowledge? I suspect there are many subjects and disciplines that I am far more knowledged in than you, but that is no reason for you to be embarrassed. You are pretentious, and, I suspect, very young.

Look, your lack of knowlege is bringing this whole forum down. You're right, I don't know a lot about many subjects, but do you see me pretending to be an expert about Dostoyevsky here? Do you see me talking about Burkina Fasoan marriage ceremonies?

No. I don't know anything about Dostoyevsky or Burkina Fasoan marriage ceremonies, so I keep my mouth shut.

Why then, do you feel it is ok for you to pretend to be a geologist, astrophysicist, paleontologist, stratigrapher, botanist, and Marsological guru in this thread?

I'm still looking for a scale. You're the one who claimed that it was hundreds of feet tall, I'd like to see a citation for that. I'm not going to spend the next week digging around the net for it because you clearly know where to look first....

to be in the hundreds of feet re: the "treelike" images. You can contact JPL or go to Space.com and answer your silly questions, I don't care to lead you by the hand.

You are pretentious and noisy and, if you are a scientist, you have the wrong attitude toward anomalies.

If the entire "trees" discussion rests on the scale of the image, why can't you find anything indicating it other than vague references to "hundreds of feet?" I don't care if you don't want to lead me by the hand, but jeez man.... you're the one making an extraordinary claim here, but you have NOTHING to back it up but vague references you refuse to cite.

Cut out the ad hominem and find a scale for us.

discussing the matter. If that isn't good enough for you, you pursue it--or not, whatever. Nothing and nobody is on trial here. Nothing has been presented as definitive proof of anything. You can choose to believe or disbelieve, close or open your mind and/or your eyes to, anything you wish. Who cares? Certainly not me.

Where did you hear it? Who did you hear it from? All I'm asking for is a citation for the scale in the goddamned photo!

Can't you read for comprehension? They will answer your inquiry.

Ask the guy at the gate? YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW WHERE YOU FOUND THIS ON THE 'NET. WHY ARE YOU BEING SO INTRANSIGENT ABOUT LINKING TO IT?

Arthur Clark is a bit goofy, IMO. I know too much about his personal life to take what he says about astronomy and Martian geology (ariology?) with aything but a big grain of salt.

Tucker

You can look down your nose at him, if you chose, but he has long been considered the dean of forward looking scientists and whose vision opened up space to exploration. He is well respected in academia, and anything but goofy.

"Author and visionary" may be a better term. Nothing I read in brief bios on the web indicate any actual scientific research he has done. Appears to have been a radar engineer early in his career.

I also recently read that he has become a cold fusion proponent, which would probably place him more in the "goofy" category lately than in the "well respected" category.

But in old age, we can forgive him a few oddities. Still, I wouldn't take his word on this Mars matter as very reliable.

--Peter

ABOUT ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Born at Minehead, Somerset in 1917: educated at Huish's Grammar School, Taunton. Entered H.M. Exchequer & Audit Department in 1936, then served in the RAF. While running the prototype GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) radar, he developed the basic theory of Communications Satellites, and published it in 1945.
After demobilization, he took First Class Honours in Physics and Mathematics at King's College, London, which later elected him Fellow. From 1948 to 1950 he was Assistant Editor of Physics Abstracts at the Institution of Electrical Engineers. he was Chairman of the British Interplanetary Society 1946/7, 1950/3.

Since 1954 his interest in underwater exploration has taken him to the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and the Indian Ocean, and he is now a director of the Colombo-based Underwater Safaris.

He has published more than seventy books and made many appearances on Radio and TV, most notably with Walter Cronkite on CBS during the Apollo missions. His 13-part "Mysterious World" and "Strange Powers" TV programmes have been seen worldwide.

He is a Council Member of the Society of Authors, A Vice-President of the H.G. Wells Society and a member of many other Scientific and Literary Organizations. His honours include several Doctorates in science and literature, a Franklin Institute Award, the UNESCO-Kalinga prize, and an Oscar Nomination for the Screenplay of 200l: A Space Odyssey. In 1987 he was invited to New Delhi to deliver the Nehru Memorial lecture, under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He has also been Vikram Sarabhai Professor at the Physical Research Laboratories, Ahmedabad. In 1989 the astronauts' and cosmonauts' exclusive organization, the Association of Space Explorers, awarded him their Special Achievement medal at a ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

His recreations include observing the Equatorial skies with a 14" telescope, table-tennis (despite Post-Polio Syndrome) and playing with his Rhodesian Ridgeback and his six computers.

He has lived in Sri Lanka for the past 30 years, and in 1979 President Jayewardene appointed him Chancellor of the University of Moratuwa, near Colombo, which is the location of the government-established Arthur Clarke Centre for Modern Technologies, specializing in communications and computers. he is also Chancellor of the International Space University, and Master of Richard Huish College, Taunton.

In 1989 H.M. the Queen awarded him a CBE for "services to British cultural interests in Sri Lanka." On returning to UK in 1992 for his 75th birthday celebrations, he was made the first Freeman of his home town, Minehead. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/3001/clarke/

I did actually read 2 or 3 brief bios before I wrote my last post. And the one you posted reads similar to the others I saw. I still don't see any reference to Clarke performing any scientific research.

This bio states he has "several Doctorates in science and literature," but calls them "honours," so I suspect they are honorary doctorates, and thus didn't require any research on his part.

Very accomplished fellow. I could only dream of accomplished a fraction of what he has. But not a scientist.

--Peter

He is honored for his scientific achievement and learned ideas not his writing skill. You don't graduate first class in physics and mathematics from King's College without earning those lofty credentials.

His advancement in communications earned him the honor of being known as the Father of the Satellite.

You don't become Assistant Editor of Physics Abstracts at the Institution of Electrical Engineers or Chairman of the British Interplanetary Society by being a phony or goofy.

He's for real. On the other hand, you are not. I guarantee that if you had achieved what he has you would consider yourself quite the scientist. If you deny that, you are only lying to yourself.

--

...he developed the basic theory of Communications Satellites, and published it in 1945.
After demobilization, he took First Class Honours in Physics and Mathematics at King's College, London, which later elected him Fellow. From 1948 to 1950 he was Assistant Editor .Chairman of the British Interplanetary Society 1946/7, 1950/3.

Professor at the Physical Research Laboratories, Ahmedabad. In 1989 the astronauts' and cosmonauts' exclusive organization, the Association of Space Explorers, awarded him their Special Achievement medal at a ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Since 1954 his interest in underwater exploration has taken him to the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and the Indian Ocean, and he is now a director of the Colombo-based Underwater Safaris.


He is a Council Member of the Society of Authors, A Vice-President of the H.G. Wells Society and a member of many other Scientific and Literary Organizations. His honours include several Doctorates in science and literature, a Franklin Institute Award, the UNESCO-Kalinga prize


He has also been Vikram Sarabhai Professor at the Physical Research Laboratories, Ahmedabad. In 1989 the astronauts' and cosmonauts' exclusive organization, the Association of Space Explorers, awarded him their Special Achievement medal at a ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

This conversation just went into the pits. I praised Clarke's achievements and get needlessly insulted and lambasted for calling him a "phony," which I never did.

I'll leave this by saying that I hope you recognize that saying someone is "not a scientist" is not an insult. So there is no reason to be so defensive about this.

--Peter

Others have called him goofy. etc, and if I overreacted to your comments, I am sorry for that. But I never insulted you, just pointed out the unfairness of your comments about him as a research scientist.

I sincerely hope you have a nice day, and a safe and happy new year.

Check your DU email

:)

from the adjacent dried up lake. I don't know, but the scene looks like an ancient shoreline to me. It even looks oriented correctly.

going down the stairs into his underground villa, might take some explaining.

What SOL? Oh sorry, never mind, found the link above

If anyone has 3-D Glasses, check this out

<>

:nuke:

lol

Welcome to DU :hi:

The colors, the motion, the stills, all look computer generated. That would be a cheap and easy distraction, not to mention huge $$$ going to N*sa, that could be used for other shenanigans.

Just an opinion. I do not trust any of this.
:+

These pictures ARE computer generated. These are near real time pictures that are being beamed back to earth from MARS! It take something like 30 25 to 30 minutes just to send the message to the craft that you want a close up of the RR tie, then you have to wait 30 minutes for it to START downloading. :spank:

Go to this link <http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/>

Then click on the Reddish panorama shots (opportunity shot the RR Tie) and click on some of the RAW photos.

Yes, some of the finished photo are run through a NASA version of Photoshop, but that's just to add colors and and make them more interesting for magazines and websites.

You all really should try to get some Cyan/Red 3-D glasses though, it's very Koooooooooooooool:tinfoilhat:

delete

Couldn't you just post a link instead?

That's sort of obnoxious.

edit- Thanks for removing it, but you could've put up a link. Humor is cool.

to the 3-D Picture, but for some reason, it posted the picture instead. What's going on? Any clue as to why a link post like a link one time, and post like as a photo another time? :crazy:

I did everything the same as I normally do, but it was kind of cool that it came up as a picture.:evilgrin:

when I try to host a pic at Image Shack?

I'm glad you posted that pic. Now, if I could just find my 3-D glasses...

Mars Global Surveyor photos in which
Sir Arthur C. Clarke has expressed interest



http://www.geocities.com/jcsherwood/ACCmars.htm

BIG DADDY IS RIIIIIICH!!!

n/t

indeed, must be sandworms...but where are the fremen? i mean, i never knew that mars was actually the planet arrakis!

... to reveal an edge while the rest is buried beneath the soil. There are several similar formations which can be seen throughout the photo.

#84

And Arthur C. Clarke's claims?

To image #84?

http://tinypic.com/140hn8

The bigger version is better, but this is working.

No scale, no context. It doesn't look particularly like trees though. It could be dendritic mineral growth, or it could be basaltic flows. It really doesn't look like a tree though....

There's no scale, so I can't tell what I'm looking at, but these look like the result of some kind of physical process. Think crystallization. Snowflakes. Patterns on your window in winter.

Apply some common sense, please. There could possibly have once been simple life on Mars; conceivably might be some still there. But there aren't any forests.

And, if NASA didn't want you to see those pictures, why post them on the internet? And why -wouldn't- they want you to see them? Finding life on Mars seems like a good way to get the old budget increased.

Arthur C. Clarke will have to defend his own claims.

What's to explain?

Seriously.

The federal agencies- or anyone who values their funding (or America's once upon a time "free" press) have over the past several years released so many statements and pictures defying belief- that fly in the face of reason- you might as well say anything.

A bit of Noah's Ark, Paul Bunyan's last supper, A Union Pacific railroad tie tossed into space. Name it.

There's not much anyone can say that isn't "plausible." It's all intelligently designed....

And don't you forget it.

They're the best.

What is your opinion of the tree photo?

I am no planetary scientist so I can't say one way or the other. They sure look like trees.

and see if there are any chainsaws lurking about?

Planetary scientists seem to think Arthur C. Clarke is a fool and a madman, don't rely on their judgment.

but until someone presents compelling evidence from one side or the other all I can say with confidence is "they look like trees"...

FWIW, my opinion of Clarke is taken on from his writings, which in the pantheon of science fiction authors ranks just above L Ron Hubbard on the readability scale, i.e. I don't like his work.

He spoke up and pointed out the obvious when the first anomalous Mars photos came out. The more conservative establishment "scientists" sat on their hands out of fear of being wrong or ridiculed and let him fight the onslaught of controversy, virtually alone.

so I am sort of confused.. but that's cool. If you get time maybe sometime you can PM me a link and some quotes?

But, there are others. The Arthur C. Clarke post (above)has some explanation and links.

http://www.geocities.com/jcsherwood/ACCmars.htm

Saved to photobucket:




Edit: Given Mars' volcanic past, could these possibly be old, dead magma tunnels that have been exposed to the air? I'm looking for a reasonable explanation here....

is that there is an apparent sphere moving through the tube?

You've got to be kidding! All that's apparent is that there is a circular white reflection. Ass for the "worm," it's probably a canyon that may have sand dunes in it.

that the tubes weave in and out of.

The look is clearly that of a sphere inside the "tube", regardless of what it actually is, that is the appearance...as I stated.

What are the tubes? Are they the entire linear feature? Or are they the white bands that cross the dark feature?

and they are quite large, as these are orbiter photos. The banding has been said to imply a rib-like superstructure.

would appear to be a phong- a reflection of a bright light source. Speculation: it's reflecting the sun.

Where on Mars are these tubes located? Are they near any large volcanic formations?

edit: if there are bubbles, caves, or such in these tubes (if that is indeed what they are; I'm speculating here) they may be an ideal location for a human habitat... we'd likely find a sheltered area there somewhere...

:smoke:

Scariest cameltoe ever.

That is the most disgusting Elvis EVER:hurts:

nt

The wood is stunning but the UFO wreckage? That's incredible. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they cover up things like this. They ridiculed the scientist who created the LR experiments on the Viking probes for daring to report the experiments tested positive for evidence of microbial life.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/viking_life_010728-1.html

Also, google Gilbert Levin.

PS - Thanks for posting this, indigobusiness!

I don't trust NASA for a second, anymore. Not since they got all wrapped up in Black Projects and became part of the self-licking ice-cream-cone that is the Pentagon---who would be fool enough to trust them or believe their opinions of mysterious thing?

I just now saw the pic on your alternate link; that yahoo site hosting them exceeded their bandwidth. Arthur C Clarke has got this right. Remember how NASA pulled live video from shuttle missions after people saw a UFO during one mission? STS-48 was the mission number in question.

If it was nothing as NASA claims, why suddenly stop the live video program afterwards?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/sts-48.htm

Thanks for the link.

despite all of NASA's tapdancing and fancy footwork.

of the thousands of calls/emails asking what is this and accusing them of hiding things? It's easier to filter out the things that non-experts will misinterpret. Remember the face on Mars? NASA received lots of criticism over that one because it was obviously a face and they were denying it. Gee, they took another picture of the same spot years later and guess what--a trick of the light.

If there are railroad ties, there must be railroads! Where are the trains?!?

is really holding out on us. Which is a distinct possibilty.

Can't you come up with better than that?

I could but I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.

I hope I didn't hurt yours.

Those squares in the lower RH corner must be storage lagoons for toxic liquids. What else could they be? There has to be enough material there to wipe out the entire Earth's population. What are we waiting for? Call Bush now and demand that we assemble a Coalition of the Willing to invade Mars.

that we needed to liberate the Martians. We can instill democracy while Halliburton rebuilds the entire planet with their no-bid contracts.

The object is fascinating. Email Olbermann, he'll report on it.

What's your opinion of the "trees" and the "wormholes"?

At least wait a few days to see if they put up a color version.

I emailed the link to Olbermann, let's see if he runs with it. Could be fun.

Maybe that's why they're "quiet" about it?

He could have a ton of fun with those.

Send him the Arthur C Clarke quotes as support.

my bad

I mean seriously...who can trust NASA?? ...maybe once upon a time in a galaxy far far away...ooops...well certainly not anymore...

what strikes me is the "squareness" of the darn thing..if it is stone and the surface is weathered, then why the squared edges? ...why wouldn't they also be weathered and rounded?

There does appear to be some similar objects as you scroll right ...could they have broken off some of those upright rocks?? they seem the same shape as the larger one in the foreground......

I am ending up with a lot more unanswered questions...fascinating, isn't it?

:hi: cool photos Indigo

...and I am always amazed how many people already "know" what is possible and not possible on Mars. Perhaps they are from the US manned mission who has been there, right? :eyes:

Did you see the "tree" photos and the weird "wormhole pics".

What gets me about the lamer commentary here is that not even the most fundamental qualities of these photos is understood, apparently, such as scale, proportion, etc.

There are certainly no conclusions drawn, by me anyway, other than that some of the photos show interesting and anomalous objects, that have yet to be fully explained.

Just haven't posted much myself lately...but I am keeping my eye on things LOL

I saw the tree pics...hoo doggie! Anyone know the size? I mean it could be maybe moss/lichens or something large as a big earth tree...at any rate..it appears to be ORGANIC which is pretty darn amazing I suppose....and the wormhole/tubes are pretty impresive...doesn't this all shout LIFE HERE! to you?

(My personal take is that Mars once held life (maybe still does)- but jeepers...it musta been a big bad mess that blew away most (all?) of the atmosphere.)

I am still curious about so many things we hear about that planet...and as an Aries who lives among some pretty unworldly red rock formations in the SW, I have a special affinity for the ol' red planet :loveya: )

I just ignore the lame comments from all the (ahem) experts.....like anyone has been there to see for themselves one way or another...but of course its always easier to make up your mind before the facts are in....:evilgrin:

:hi::hug:
DR

Remember, these photos were taken by an orbiter, not a rover.

If this were a ridiculous topic, would a man like Arthur C Clark lend it credence? Lame is as lame does.

The atmosphere could have been blown away by a Solar blast, or pulled away by the gravity of a very large object passing passing by, or simply sublimated given the right circumstances.

http://www.totalthinker.com/Mars/

Unsolved Pathfinder Mysteries...Ontological Oddities!

a sampling ...

Footprints on Mars

Pathfinder photographs of what appear to be footprints, and additional signs of a spacecraft landing on the Mars surface reinforce NASA's suspicion that our own probe is being probed.


Messages to Other World

Pathfinder detects encoded radio signals being sent from the surface of Mars. As JPL scientists scramble to follow up on the signals they confirm the Galileo space probe findings of life on Europa. (August 9, 1997)


Did Area 51 Hush Up the JPL?

National Security Agency officials believed to be based at Area 51 in Nevada (NSAa51)reportedly took control of the Pathfinder mission and began to digitally alter the appearance of Martian photographs as soon as transmissions began. (updated July 20)


not updated since 2001 however.....

*****

Here's another site....
http://www.lost-civilizations.net/past-life-mars.html
The first link is rather interesting :)

**********
Gee, I didn't realize the *trees* were from an ORBITER! hmmmmmmmm......what a cool image.

DR

That totalthinker site has faked photos in it. They claim that this photo:



Hasn't been VERY VERY VERY badly photoshopped, and that this one:



Is the fake.....

ON EDIT: this is so much worse. Clearly faked movie on http://www.totalthinker.com/Mars/id4/id4.html# "> this page, with this set of faked photos:

Look at the ground next to it, that looks to be made up of large flat rocks. What looks like lumber looks to be an edge of one of those flat rocks that is on the side of a hill.

Eye of the beholder.

Adam and Eve were the only survivors of the environmentally raped mars. They were sent via space ship to re-start the human race on another planet. They didn't want to pass on technology to their children as technology was the tool that wrecked their beloved planet, that's why they told their children that if they bite into the apple of knowledge they would be thrown out of heaven. They called Mars heaven, and when they came to earth, they referred to earth as heaven as well.

That does appear to be an ancient petrified piece of wood from our beloved homeland of heaven, too bad that we ruined it.

Your version makes more sense than many. Poetic, to boot.

reminds me of "Mission to Mars" story line sort of, kind of, although I don't think humans ruined Mars in that movie

but, anyhowwww

probably worth consideration, as well.

:toast:

NASA plan on shipping one log per flight for the next 3000 year. They expect the 1-mile line to be completed by 6034 give or take hundred years.

Now where the hell it drifted from is beyond my wildest imagination.