With everything thats going on in Space at the moment we may tend to forget that there are still unanswered questions pertaining to Mars.In this age of instant communication and instant answers we seem to move on to the newest thing when we dont see any satisfactory answers coming to us on given topics.
Case in point .....Mars ,it seems to have gone off the Radar screens .And by the way why is it that the ESA huygens probe only seems to have taken 2or 3 pictures since landing on Titan.I went onto the website yesterday and it was the same photo's that i saw 2 days after it landed ...it's all very hush hush on this project isn't it ? Anyway i digress...heres a link directly to Richard Hoagland letter to Bill Clinton written in 1996 ...i have been on Hoaglands site many times but never saw this letter so maybe you are the same...i think he makes a good point (complete with photo's) for opening up whats really going on ...and why arent these obvious anomalies being investigated more thoroughly instead of being dismissed out of hand....check it out

http://www.enterprisemission.com/clinton.html

The probe on Titan had one of the 2 communications link down and there was only enough juice to get a few pictures. It is not like the probes we have on Mars. It was stationary and was only supposed to stay up and running for a few minutes once it landed, but I think it stayed up for 3 hours. Longer than expected. Now the probe is just sitting on Titan doing nothing.

Okay thanks man

Mars if off the radar screens??? what are you talking about?

Huygens took only 3 picutres since landing??? no no, it took close to a thousand all together. the probe was only built to last 3 minutes, it's not like the rovers... I have links at home to all the raw images... i'll post back if i can find a link here at work

edit: adding link to raw images

http://mars.lyle.org/titan/raw/

Triplets "triplet.723.jpg" and on are from landing.... so theres about 200 or so from landing

also to add, Huygens can't move oonce landed, it wasn't designed to...

The main problem is that these anomalies aren't as anomalous as some seem to think they are. Hoagland's Golden Ration has been shown time and again to not indicate anything other than a random placement, as there are significant geometric structures not in line with the ration, and numerous non-geometric structures which are. His acclaimed fly-over of the Cydonia region was created by the CG experts he hired for his video. The face has been throughly photographed in great detail, and has even been mapped by laser, and shown to be nothing more than a relatively flat mountain. And even the infamous five-sided pyramid has been shown to conform to nothing other than a natural mountain structure, like the many we have here on Earth.

Hoagland, like many people on the fringes of science, has gathered a great deal of weak evidence, but quantity isn't quality. A thousand cups of weak coffee do not make a strong cup of coffee.

okay, had a chance to read that letter

the face has been proved to be nothing more then what aquatus1 has said

here is some suggested reading

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mgs_cydonia.html

Here's the so called face, click link below pic to get full size


click me

HMMmmmmmm ....scratches head and thinks is this guy open to anything...!

You are a very sharpened debunker Aquatus but perhaps what you dont realise yourself is that i seem to put forward a theory and say this scientist or person demonstrates how it might be so ....you then come and say it is not so because my guys say it is not so.....this is not open minded debate ..merely debunking for the sake of it...you seem to tout offialdoms stance hook line and sinker.I am less inclined to believe NASA or many other "official" explanations of topics than i am in people who put all they know and examine up for inspection.
Or is it just me you want to debunk...EH...EH...EH....

Bogeyman, could you please be specific as to what your theory is?

Well it's as simple as this Nethius...........I dont have one...ON ANYTHING.
I am merely a searcher or seeker of truth.I will read something and then put it oit there to get other peoples reaction to it.What i do believe though (most sincerely) is that do not take everything that officialdom tells you is true to be so...! I firmly do believe that we are not told everything about whats really going on in this world and if we just believe what we are told we are foolish ...always question and look at things from another point of view....The masses are doped and duped time and time again.......look at any freedom of information documents which have been released after 30 years...these just show that what we believe to be true now ...is not neccessarily so.
For example all the STS shuttle video's .I have watched them time and time again and i have watched Nasa scientists come on and say this is ice or that is ice ...should i believe them because they are Nasa scientists ?even though i see with my own eyes what appear to me to be mechanically driven objects doing incredible manouveres.Now you will also have other highly qualified scientists tell you it's not ice it's this or that....i also try to make my own mind up on this ,but i dont automatically shoot them down because they are not "official" scientists !.I believe that we have to keep questioning and we have to keep an open mind on things.

There are sites for instance that claim the NASA cydonia flyover pics have been doctored and they will go to show you how and where using highly qualified photographers for example....again i dont buy it hook line and sinker but i also dont just believe any old thing thats trotted out by the officials.

fair enough. that is the right way to do things. and yes i do believe NASA does not tell all, all the time. but you also have to consider that many of the people that work for NASA are just contracted, so they only work for them on a certain project for a certain amount of time... what would these people gain from lying to the public? They are just like you or me (maybe a tad bit smarter... then me anyways)

There were some rather strange sts videos i've seen too. the one's I question I have not seen any info from NASA explaining.

But, when it comes to believing a guy who thinks Earth, Mars, and Titan were all terriformed by aliens, and Mars was a moon to a planet that now doesnt exist. Mars became a planet when something big hit the planet it was orbiting, then knocked it into it's own orbit, and this collision caused titan's terriform to crumble.

well, you can see where i'm going here... he has way too many bogus claims to even take him seriously

So when it comes to picking and choosing who to beleive, I'll pick the people that are experts in thier fields... and often these claims are not just debunked by NASA, but often by many many other astronomers, rocket scientists, etc

So i will often look at many sources before i come to a conclusion

No way do i buy into these huge theories either......in my own head i dont see aliens creating whole planetary systems ...thats just too far out.(no pun intended)
But theres stuff that needs further looking at ...i also dont buy we're the only ones here !.
Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that the scientific community has admitted we should realistically be getting contacted by now considering we are one of the young planets in the galaxy and other planets could be even billions of years ahead of us........because the scientists say it, now people are actually talking about it without sniggering.....?
So this is my gripe against the "official line" the internet has a lot of BS but if used properly it can also be a good tool for giving all pointe of view on something.If someone says to me that this is not so because nasa says it is not so....well maybe ,maybe not

now like all good Irishmen on Friday...i'm off to the pub..hoipefully we'll continue this over the coming days .....Slainte

Sorry, I wanted to add a little more regarding the "Face"

Here's a link describing proccessing and such, sorry this is really over my head, but if you understand it, it does go into a lot of detail. (i realize it is a NASA site, so you may just dissmiss it, but please take the time to read it first)

http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/face.html

more

http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/face_discussion.html

just a little more

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_5_00_cydonia/


Edit: i typed too fast, had to fix many spelling mistakes

I am indeed. However, I also understand that open-mindedness is not an evaluatory method. Possibilities are a dime a dozen. What separates one from the other is their credibility. I am open to any possibility, but I only give credibility to those which are likely to have happened.



Oh, I beg to differ. I am not cutting and pasting from other web-sites, but rather I am offering my explanations directly from myself right on the post. Let me give you an example:

Note that there is nothing here that relies on any sort of expert authority. You don't need a mathematics professor to back this statement up. One only has to take the very well know picture that Hoagland produced for his videos, and look at it oneself. Hoagland points out how certain geometric structures align with his superimposed golden ratio, however one also sees other geometric formation that do not align with it. Likewise, one sees several non-geometric formation that do fall in line with the superimposed image. This isn't my expert versus your expert. This is just me pointing out an inconsistency in something that is being presented as evidence of something.



This is the very best kind of open-minded debate. You are presenting an idea which I consider improbable, and instead of rejecting it outright, I am giving it due consideration and checking the presented evidence for discrepancy. Is that not fair? Why should this be referred to as 'debunking for the sake of it"? I have a passion for critical thinking and scientific methodology, and when I see an error in it being made, should I not feel the need to correct it? You also say that I am "touting offialdoms stance hook line and sinker", the implication being that I am simply taking them at their word and, should they be misleading me, I am simply being gullibly led away. I will not take insult to this, because I suspect you do not yet understand the process of a skeptical mind.

Skepticism isn't simply a desire to refute anything that isn't mainstream. Skepticism is a method of judging credibility and verifiability, not existence. Whether something exists or not isn't really the purpose of skepticism. Through the use of various methods, the skeptic seeks to find out exactly how plausible an idea is. Nothing is ever taken on faith, and that includes the findings of scientists. It isn't enough for any given scientist to claim he has an answer. If his data is not presented in the overwhelmingly rigorous, excrutiatingly anal, manner required by scientific methodology, his data is suspect. The rules and guidelines that make up this process are there for the very simple reason that a violation of them will leave an open gap for error, and anything that presumes to be a scientific explanation must be very clear on what it can explain, and what it simply assumes.



Don't worry, you are simply the latest who has raised this topic in the past 20 years or so that I have been at this

I agree with everything you just said!

No my friend the problem is that you have taken the role of senior skepdic....where have i given you the impression that i am not a sceptic...read my answers and you will see that i am saying ..i do not buy what is handed to me hook line and sinker....BY ANYONE...this is a true sceptic...but i am also open minded and prepered to listen and review all sideS of an argument...
Anyway my friend i really do have to go now theres a pint of Guinness settling with my name on it...it's 4oc and i'm finished for the weekend.Have a good weekend and i'll look in on this tomorrow at home and catch up with the debate there okay


for aquatus btw

Do not worry on that account. While I do not consider you a skeptic just yet, you are nothing like the average young enthusiat that jumps in here proclaiming that he has just uncovered incredible new evidence that will uproot society as we know it. I think you are poised to become a fine addition to this forum, and a great skeptic in your own right.

A skeptic isn't simply a label, however. Granted, it isn't a club, and there are no fees to pay or secret handshake to learn (not anymore, anyways), but a skeptic has certain rules to follow, certain procedures to enforce. If one simply corrects, but does not support, one cannot be called a skeptic, simply a believer. This is the pitfall to avoid.

I am sorry if I sound condescending. It is true, and many of my peers have often needled me with the fact that I tend towards arrogance. Still, I sincerely hope you do not think too badly of me, and I hope you would be willing to investigate the practice of skepticism a bit more in depth, as I think it would suite you admirably.

Hello my friends i am back from a weekend of Alcohol,debautchery ,fornication and excess.......D'OH that was a movie i saw...
Actually a pretty quiet weekend a couple of movies etc....by the way Anchorman...is useless for anyone planning to get it !
Now where were we in this debate...i'll have to read some of those links Aquatus and get back to you later on okay !!!

Certainly
But in return you must accept that in some cases ,no "Respected Scientist" will ever lend their names to some research projects ...even if the results could be verified 110% ,because to even be associated with some research is to be considered a "quack" by the mainstream .....because of this we look to independent scientists and other professionals to do our research for us recognising that the mainstream will always find ways to debunk or discredit because who wants to shorten their academic careers for the sake of truth after all !
On the evp thread i have posted some links whereby work which i think is creditable has been carried out in a proffessional way.

I am very suspicious of the malin images ,(ones that begin with(msss).Why ? because there are still thousands and thousands of photo's of the viking lander missions that have not been released to the public yet ! why not ?
Also when the first probe missions went ther photos were beamed back directly to the Nasa science team but after this they are beamed now directly to malin who then "check them" before releasing them for general consumption......why ?

Because they work with/for NASA. Maybe they just weed out all the crap picutres, blank ones, or pics with missing spots. Checking the pictures before releasig them is what any government/company would do. I see nothing suspicious about that behavior

You know pictures can easily be altered to look different. Why do you believe some guy who has a conspiracy theory about everything, over NASA?

Maybe i do ....i just dont trust em !!!!!
and when you cant trust em on one or two things pretty soon you dont trust them on anything.......i've seen too many discrepancies with Nasa images to be influenced by them....sorry bout that
When they zoom in on the interesting stuff instead of blacking it out....then i'll be interested.
By the way the reason they havent released all the images yet is because they dont want you to see whats in them.....

They have numerious times(would you like me to link them all?), but you say it's fake becasue NASA did it. I'm not sure what anyone could do to change your mind...

I have already shown evidence, but you say it's all lies becasue it's from NASA, or people associated with NASA

1976 Viking View (Left) -- 2001 MGS view (Right)

Source

EDIT: Added below


And you trust Hoagland? Do you really want me to go over all his crazy theories, and see if you believe them all? According to you, if you don't believe one or two of his theories, then you shouldn't believe any of them right?

I personally belive that NASA does hide alot of information. They have experts at photoshop that crop out the images, they erase everything in the backgrounds including all the stars also. The Cydonia pictures (i belive) are doctered. There are so many ufo reports that have been classified, but why would they go through the trouble , if they are infact working with the public to find out the truth? There is no way in my mind that we will ever hear a positive awnser of another life, simply because religion will fall apart, and everyone knows that.

There is alot of proof of ufo's existance, its just people don't take it seriously. If you seriously belive the Pheonix lights sighting was nothing more then flares, then there has to be something wrong with you. Hundreds and thousands of people saw these lights that looked nothing like the later debunking efforts the military did , by flying jets overhead that had flares.

I find it a little bit odd that the newer mars missions are not being planned to even take new pictures of cydonia in color, and in better resolutions seeming technology just gets better as we go. Why isen't the mars rover in the Cydonia region, since it has alot more things to investigate, rather then some stupid flat land with nothing around it except for a few rocks to drill random holes into.

It really makes me wonder how anyone can think that were the only ones in this universe. I have heard we are finding 2 new planets every month, and at this rate, it seems like we will keep finding them. The universe has no limits, there is no wall at the end, so how can we really be the only life form that exists?



Ive always belived that another civilization started on another planet in our solar system, and had gotten a head start, so they had learned alot in that time. For all we know they may not even live on a planet, they may live in these vehicles for all we know, they may not even eat or need water to survive, so who can say there is no chance for life in outer space since we do not know what can and can't happen in the rest of the universe.



Just wait as the FOI act kicks in, more and more people will start seeing the truth behind this massive coverup.

I pretty much agree with most of what Blazea58 says here nethius....Why are we looking at pictures that could be from the goby desert for all we know ,when there are so many anomalous features on Mars....


www.anomalous-images.com


Instead of telling us nah theres nothing there it's your imagination why dont they show us...instead of going to a desolate part of the planet with nothing to see that we cant see on our own planet,........seems to me that when you go to work for NASA you check your imagination in at the door ...along with your ideals......sorry thats the way i feel about it.I honestly believe NASA has a lot to answer for when it comes to everything from UFO's to life in the Universe.....instead of enlightening us i believe that they are complicit in our miseducation...(if theres such a word )

First The Mars Global Surveyor has taken tons of pictures, some of which I've already posted the images, and have also post links to other images of the region. Second, why would NASA spend billions of dollars to "prove" something that that they had already proved many years previous? That would be a complete waste of money! Images are in the best possible resolution that is offered by the MGS. Just because you want your camera to take better pictures, doesnt mean it can, there are limitations (Here is a link about the cameras used) Also keep in mind the MGS was launched in 1997! We are not sending these things up on a daily basis you know.

About the rovers... They had a reason for sending the rovers, and it wasn't to see this "face"


Source

There was a PBS show that talked about all the possible landing sites. The go into detail as to why they picked the landing spots they did. Basically they were looking for areas that may have been under a huge amount of water. Opportunity actually landed inside a crator. There is not a rover over there for many reasons, one being it's too freaking ar away, and another is that it robably isn't in a area that NASA feels would have been under water.

"A few rocks to drill holes in" Well thats exactly what they sent the rovers up there to do!!! Just because you don't understand the science behind everything they do, does not mean it has no purpose.

As it seems you have no understanding as to why these rovers are there, I highly suggest some reading from their website -- http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

You trust Nasa, he trusts Hoagland, there is not much difference, One person being someone who just has a bunch of theories, and the other source just being ones who claim to have the awnsers.

The first picture is real, the second one was just edited a bit, and this is just what i belive, because i can see alot of sharp edges when i zoom in on certain areas, that makes me belive it was just doctered. And if you think its that hard to docter images, well here is what i did to the image you posted above in five minutes. Just imagine what the pros can do.

Then your so called face is also from the goby desert, as they are FROM THE SAME SOURCE, NASA!

"Instead of telling us nah theres nothing there it's your imagination why dont they show us"
They have, I have, what else do you want?

As far as - "instead of going to a desolate part of the planet with nothing to see that we cant see on our own planet"

Please see my above post talking about the Mars Mission... It's about Water, not faces found in heavily processed images

As far as those sites you posted... If you want we can go over each and every picture there, I dont mind

Just show me where to start!

EDIT - this was for Bogeyman

The difference is, Hoagland has many of these crazy theories. Tons and tons of them. Have you ever looked into any of them, most are too foolish to even comprehend. Would you like me to make a top 10 list of them?



I never ever said that it was hard. Actually if you would taken the time to read ever post in this topic, you would have seen me say that exact same thing

Think you were the first to see those images lol, That link has been up for years.



If the goverment were to just state ufo's exist, do you really think everyone would live a normal life? They are spending money on a good cause if you ask me. If the public were to instantly find out , im sure we would have alot of problems with the way we live our lives.




Yes i do know this, but the thing is that i think even though there were many locations chosen for it, Even if there was water to be found they already know the awnser that life exists outside earth, but they will just slowly keep funding this program to give us Some hope.






Yes i do know all this was discussed as a major part of the landing, but i really could care less if they find water, i want to know the real awnser not just the small ones that will give us the awnser of MAYBE life exists on other planets. Yea they already know the big picture, yet they are sitting there using little robots to explore the surfaces of planets problably nothing lives on anymore period. All that will come out is "Mars could once support life" I just dont belive Nasa will ever tell the full picture. They know more then the public and there is many reasons, simply because the public can't handle the truth.



Yes i do know about the mars rover missions, and i have been to the websites many times before. I have read alot about them, but after time you just start taking on new belifs about how things work between nasa and the public.

I personally didn't want to make a 5 hour long read, just to get to the end of my boring theories. I belive myself, and thats all that counts to me

[quote=Nethius,Feb 7 2005, 07:09 PM]
[quote=Blazea58][...]

Source

There was a PBS show that talked about all the possible landing sites. The go into detail as to why they picked the landing spots they did. Basically they were looking for areas that may have been under a huge amount of water. Opportunity actually landed inside a crator.
[right][snapback]479043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


This may have been a good plae to start then dont ye think ?



and while we're here whats goin on here then ? square holes in the middle of a rock ...what causes this then ?




Why are these photo's edited so
http://www.rense.com/general57/nasa.htm


it would have been nice if NASA went up close to these tubes to see whats really going on dont ye think ?




but what do we get ???????the inside of craters that show us nothing we cant see on earth...all the mysterious stuff is ignored ....why ??????
these are legit images by the way....c'mon nethius you're not really trying to tell us that the Rovers are at the exciting part of Mars ????

^^

first picture


The first picture, what latitude was that at? I'll see if I can confirm, but I think that is from the North or South pole, and those places are not easy to land on. Or it may have been in an area that was full of ridges and gullies and such... They wwanted to send the rovers to the best AND safest place available. If you could tell me where on Mars that is, it would help me greatly

Also keep in mind this is not a "true" color photo. Without knowing I can only guess what has been done to it. The differnet colors could represent depth or temperature or minerals... please point me to original source for me to comment more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
#2

The Rense thing... So there are data drops that NASA admits to, and states may be recovered at a later date. These data drops are not a priority to NASA, why should they put everything else on hold just to fix a few pictures? There are thousands of pictures, would you want to sort through them all to find little black outs, then try to match them to the right spot? That would be very time consuming. Not a high priority

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

#3


I know I've seen different angles of this object, and in those images it is clear that there was either not a hole, or it was obviously not square. It would help if I knew which rover, which camera, and what date... (notice a trend of not supplying good info for these pictures)

It would take me a very long time to find the info i need without knowing the info requested, please post to original source for me to comment more

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

#4


I have seen tons of images similar to that, and it was obvious they are sand dunes.

Please check these links, you will see very similar features. So as you can tell it is just rippled sand. There are tons more, these are the first few i found

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/10/08/
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/09/22/index.html
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/9_7_98_poly_rel/
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/science_paper/f2/

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

You will find very many and some of them can not be explained by the experts.

Sand Dunes ???????????




I've always loved this one ...totally natural i spose ?

Address for the original is http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/fullres/divided/orb_0084/08405e.jpg


Why was this


later changed to this ?



Worth having a look at ?


Obviously not !

And for good measure ..could be coincidence but wortha closer look ? obviously not

hold up, lets look at a couple at a time here

i am now editing my last post, so check that one out. Please read entire post, I'm adding things through out

We're going to have a new rule. If you want me to respond to a picture, I must know where I can find the original picutre. Pointing me to some conspiracy website is not going to help, they do lots of processing to these pitures, they are very different from the original

Nethius
I know where you're comng from but i think anyone thats been around the net for a while are pretty familiar with these photo's....most of em are well known....and the implication that they are conspiracy theory mock ups is not nice....

Okay then in the 2nd one down the address where the picture came from is beneath it ...start there

Okay to try your latest post.

#1 Glass worms again... I've commented on this in my previous post. If I find anymore images resembling I'll add them here.

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

#2

Please advise what exactly I am to comment on?

Looks like mountains with possible frosty tops, most likey from one of the poles

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

#3

First it's not the exact same picture, but I do agree with you one this one. I have no idea why it would be different. I don't know why they would want to change the color of the sky. Altho, that part is debatable, I'm not sure which sky color is actually closest to the truth. Keep in mind dust may play a huge part in the color of the sky, it may be red when windy, and blue when clam. No one really knows what having no atmosphere does to colors.

----------------------------------------------------
#4

original please

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

#5

original please

2nd pic down Look again to just left of centre.......what appears to be a geometric structure resembling an arrow !!!!!!!
This is a genuine pic btw....!

i added a little more to my previous post about sky color.

hmm, I still dont see this arrow... could you crop it in mspaint, then attach to board?

unless, it's that white thing with the dot on it?

either way, my response will probably be the same. It will the same as yours, but stressing the appears part

I'm not very good with the paint programs
Come down on the left 30% and in from the left 25 %
It's a "building" on top of a mountain ....you cant miss it !!!!!

I also find it very odd, how Nasa even bothers to change the colors in the photo's, it makes you wonder why. After looking closly though, you realize that most of the pictures lack detail, and when they are enhanced they show everything in true color. The theory of dust being blown into the air doesn't really add up, because when you look at the pictures that were edited, you dont see any dust or anything else floating in the air. I think the reason why they enhance these images, is to make some things more clear then others.

The marks on the terrain of mars, have been talked about alot, and i belive this is also just from boulders rolling around, and things getting tossed in wind storms that end up resulting in weird looking tracks across the surfaces.

The very bottom image Bogeyman posted is a fake, and was edited using photoshop. You can clearly make out the normal details, but as it gets further and further down near the nose etc, you see all the detail is whipped out. I don't belive that is a real face, it's just something someone tried to edit to make it look as if there is yet another face on mars. Infact i have never seen that picture before, and i do browse the net alot.

I do not belive that there is any civilization still living on mars. For people to debunk Cydonia as nothing more then a naturally formed area, should take a closer look into what is really there. Now since i belive there may have once been life on mars, i also belive that if there is anything left, then its a few million or billion years old. Errosion, and wind blowing on it, may cause it to loose its original shape. Look at the places on earth where we have pyramids that are so old they have lost most, and if not all of its original shape. Most of these are just simply mounds of dirt now, so on mars i see it being hard to say it couldn't have happend there as well.

If they ever do a manned mission to mars, expect to see alot of images that are covered up much like the ones from the moon. Some people say that in all the apollo missions, they were being watched by something, and it was nasa's effort to edit most of the pictures to take out the objects. 80% of the moon photo's are edited. You never see anything in the background such as stars, meteors, other planets etc, its all gone, just blackness. You can also notice on some of them that there was an odd light that seemed to have no origin, it seemed to be floating in mid air above them. Here are 4 pics i have grabbed from different sources, that show some of these round light up objects. You can even see the light casting onto the terrain also.
What are these and why are they here?

Blaze ...i dont believe that image is fake...i'll check out the original and get back to you.........Nethius...we could be at this for years mate...there are so many anomalous photo's from Mars that it's just unreal...therein lies my original point ...why not go and look at some of the interesting stuff there ?.
BlazeA..i agree with you that the moon pics are again to my eyes very very sucpicious.

god bless my cynical little heart !!!!

Just thought i'd throw these in as well ...they are again favourites of mine.
They are from the Mars Global Surveyor and each picture is marked with it's proper identification.Again i've never been happy with the explanations for these...."ice" and there are even better ones that look like trees if anyone can find em i'd appreciate it.

^^^

Those are sand dunes. There are no trees on Mars. If you find the originals, and look at the Full Res images, you would be able to see that clearly. (I'm willing to bet that the web site you got these from does not link to full res versions does it? Ever wonder why? They make you do the leg work, which they know most people won't do)

Lets take the below pic for example. Looks similar to what you posted, then click link below to see full res... Quite obvious it's just sand


Full Res

Look here for many, many more examples


I dont see the building on the other picture, sorry.

Bogeyman, that last picture...

Click me for a Full Res. They don't look like trees anymore do they?

I attached your picture. Notice it's cropped, and upside down...

Eventually ...here ya go.I can get you the address of the original too.
Interestingly in this the more you study it the more interesting it gets.....this looks as if it's atop a mountain and that theres stuff running down the mountain as if coming out of this building ????
The other stuff still doesn't look like sand ...but i'll grant you..it could be sand.
Anyways

whoa, could you make that pic a link, messes up the board when picture is so wide

thanks for the full res tho!

Could you link me to original? I'd like to see if there are any other pics of same area, also would like to know the scale

I can see a funny shpae, but I would in no way claim this to be some facility of sorts, just a funny looking natural formation, or the image itself makes it look funny. Images can be very deceiving. Look at some moon pictures from SMART-1 - the crators look like they are mounds, but when yopu flip the picture 180, it's clearly a crator

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMEPMO3E4E_0.html

I have seen most if not all of these pics before and what I have wondered is that if they are all natural formations then why don't we see the same thing on other planets/moons? How can all of them be natural? There are more pics than what has been talked about here.

Simply becasue we don't have Global Surveyors around any other planets (well, maybe Earth)

I'm sure you could find tons of natural formations that look man made from Earth (if you're willing to search). I recall one of what looked to be a tile floor made of rock, but it was completely natural.

Also becasue Mars once had a huge amount of water, so the landscape is going to be very different then a planet/moon that has never had water.

Edit: to add - here's one site with unusual rock formations on Earth, seen from Earh
http://www.viewzone.com/rocks.oz.html

I'm sure there are many more sites like this... I'll see if I can find any from satelites

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/mars/facility/artifact2.jpg


On there is a link to the original.
I thought you were going to disprove all these photo's......so far all you have done is deny they could be unnatural ?


Also if you could post some natural oddities from earth showing 90 deg angles and perfect squares ...this would also be helpful.
Thanks