I was just browsing on google images for "strange object" -ufo, and I found this site that has a large collection of pictures taken by the rover and orbiting satellite that are very interesting. I thought that I would share it with the rest of you and get some feedback on whether you think these are artificial structures, or misidentified natural geography.

http://mars.galactic.to/

Each picture has the URL reference where you can look at it on NASA's site if you think that this site doctored the pics at all.

Right. There is no evidence that the geometrically shaped objects are pictures of Mars. There is no evidence of vegetation - have you not seen photos of the martian surface? Its atmosphere as boiled away. There is NO way vegetation could exist.

And as for the 'city' - its digital compression. Thats what happens when you zoom into a highly compressed digital image - you get blocks, squares and right angles. That too many people think are cities and buildings. Like the one with the dome and the dam etc. Utter utter rubbish.

There has never been anything living on mars. Its atmosphere boiled away because there is such a week magnetic field. Nothing could survive on there due to the Solar radiation.

Oh man to have such an imagination...

Even with the descriptions I had to look closely to even 'see' what they said it was.

The pictures are interesting but I doubt the descriptions come from NASA.

What in the hell is THIS?
http://mars.galactic.to/M16.jpg

List of more that I find interesting. Anything left out does not look "unnatural" to me.

http://mars.galactic.to/M31.jpg
http://mars.galactic.to/M35.jpg
http://mars.galactic.to/M30.jpg




WAIT A MINUTE! What liars! Read at the bottom of this picture. It's not even mars! http://mars.galactic.to/M24.jpg

Too true they don't. They come from someone that it totally clueless. For example the pictures labelled "mystic prints on stone". There is nothing mystic about them, however they are artificial. They are actually made by the rovers themselves, by an instrument called the Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) to be precise.

Read my last post. I edited it. That last link proves the site a liar.

I have to agree with MVxK, moreover the images provided are not clear enough to jump to conclusions.

they have a photo of Hardwood forest (Aerial view), and they are claiming it to be Martian!

They are so foolish that they aren't even looking at what is written in the image!

This is one of the best sites around, on Mars exploration. Enjoy. http://www.marsgeo.com/

Click on the image, is it a Human Skull on the lefft corner of the image?



looks so real, but I sucpect it is just a stone which looks like a Human Skull!

Sense no human has ever set foot on Mars Id agree with you 100% on this. Its a rock.

RIGHT. I have just researched the NASA website into some of there images to prove to you guys that this sort of thing you cannot take at face value. You MUST read the Nasa source. This is important to me, as too much stuff on this website is just a link to a random page "proving" the existance of whatever.

So. This first one:

http://mars.galactic.to/M16.jpg

is actually part of a bigger picture. Now you see the Mars rover in the foreground, its not difficult to believe that it was an impression left by the machinery. Here is the Nasa link

Next, a "light emitting source":

http://mars.galactic.to/M31.jpg

According to Nasa "the rover's heatshield can be seen on the left as a tiny bright dot in the distance".

See here (you need to scroll down).

Next!

http://mars.galactic.to/M35.jpg

This doesn't look like a part of the image - it is too rough while everything around it is too compressed. As it says here the images are raw data, and contain gaps in the information. Thats what this looks like - missing data, especially as the original images are black and white - once Nasa added colouration, they would have left the corrupted parts colourless.

And last of all

http://mars.galactic.to/M30.jpg

Given the size and compression of the original picture, these specks on the camera lens are pretty inconsequential. Mars is a pretty windy, dusty place.

So. Can we all please stop jumping to ridiculous conclusions, so I can stop playing Colombo and get back to work?

Actually, I prefer Quincy, but there you go.

C'mon guys. Am I wrong? AM I?

Eh? EH??

I think that we all know you enjoy this more than work... If you don't, then let me know what you do for a living and I will look into that field.

Yes, the "square buildings" and "underground cave entrance" would definitely take a pretty good imagination to create.

I was more interested in the geological features, such as what look like dry lake beds. Has the rover been through any of them yet?

Zero: That pic of yours that reveals how they "lie" is intended as an illustration to compare the scenery of mars with that of earth. All the pics on the mentioned site is actually ripped from www.MarsAnomalyResearch.com which is an excellent site with tons of very interesting photos. And there it is clearly stated that the mentioned pic is from the Earth for earthly forrest.

MvX: Thats some bad example pics to "explain" - I'd rather see you explain these:

Huge nozzle shooting liquid spray:


Closeup:


Notice the tubes the liquid is shootin out from , coming out from a big strang sphere/dome below.. what the heck is this thing?

And what about this old skull?


Closeup:


And the classical shrubs/trees:


Or the forrest?:


And is this lakes with vegetation growing around them?


And the more or less known tubes twisting their way through the martian desert:


More "tubes":


And this strange stuff, kinda watery/jelly alike with something floating around:


Heres some more photos i grabbed from the raw images section of the rovers on NASAs server.

This are some closeups of something that look organic, like mushrooms:


They seem to be growing up from cracks in the surface:
http://i15.tinypic.com/437vpya.jpg

Another one:


And here is a satellite photo with two strange structures I have marked next to eachother.. The right one kinda looks like a dam to me, with a lake above it, and water flowing down below it heh. And the left "building" is placed by the shores of the "lake":


And here is a pic taken by one of the rovers again on the surface, some strange artifact laying in the sand. kinda looks like a statue:


Another satellite photo. Think this is the same stuff as the infamous "tubes":


And the structure in this satellite photo is very interesting:


This satellite photo looks like more lakes:

By all means of respect, but these pictures have been addressed over and over. There nothing artificial hidden there..

Best,
Badeskov

I didnt say i think they show anything artificial. Mostly natural things. But it seems very much like both vegetation and water in these pictures, and a possible skull. And id like to hear what it is if not that. I didnt see any good explanations so far

I thought that I would post a couple of comparisons. The first pic is a doctored image of lake powll, Arizona. The second pic is the original. I only spent about three minutes making a few quick changes to the pics, but I'm sure that if it were my full time job I would do much better at masking the features. The pics that NASA has are just too close to pics that I have seen doctored before. The pics that look like forests look like they have been embossed in an imaging program. If I can get images this clear with Google Earth, why aren't we getting crystal clear images from NASA satellite's?

Just my opinion from playing with pics, but I think NASA has payed for a good computer artist to mask the Mars pics.

The problem is, you're looking for something - you're invariably going to find it.

OK. That isn't a skull. Quite frankly, that is one of the most pathetic "observations" I have ever heard.

Just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it is. The problem with you, is that you see something that looks like something else, and you then ask for proof that it isn't what you've seen. You can't look at a picture of a rock that looks vaguely like, say, a hippo, and then ask someone to prove to you that it isn't a hippo.

That simply isn't logical thinking. Actually I'd go further than that - its pure stupidity.

As for the "liquid spray"... I'm sorry I can't see it. There is no spray, no shadow, no dome. I could find COUNTLESS examples on google earth that look like something else. All you've got is natural land formation, wind formations (your "tubes") and possible water formations. This is nothing new, nothing revalatory.

And how very appropriate that you can't actually access the original galleries these pictures are supposed to be from. They could be taken from ANYWHERE.

OK Darkbreed - prove to me that they're taken on Mars, prove to me that its vegetation and a skull (not just that it "looks like it" - thats no proof), and then we'll talk.

Thats something we just dont know. Life could have existed on mars a long time ago. You should see where some small life live on earth and you would be amazed!!

Its not a pathetic observation, thats what it looks like and i saw that photo a while ago. Im not saying it is a skull, but it does look like one. There is nothing pathetic at all saying that. The face on mars looked like a face, we all could see it looked like a face, but in the end it was not. Does that mean we were all pathetic thinking it was?



No, but there is nothing wrong in saying what it looks like. To me it does not look like a bit of rock, its looks like a skull, but i will most prob put that down to shadows, angle and light, but if someone took that photo on earth in the dessert, then there would be no big deal and i dont think many would say, hey, that looks like a rock.

Right. And this life could have built pyramids, huge faces and left skulls lying around. Please. Life requires heat, and heat requires tectonic activity, something Mars doesn't appear to have. Like it doesn't appear to have a proper atmosphere. Or megnetic shielding. Or a lot of the other things life needs. And if it did have them, it was 4000 MILLION years ago.

Its not as simple as 'planet + sun = life' y'know.

OK, not pathetic, pointless. Whats the point in saying something looks like something else when the probability of it NOT being that is almost overwhelming? Its just a waste of time.

Mars has not always been like this, and most people will tell you this. Scientist believe that life could have existed on mars. Some missions have even looked at mars samples to see if there is life on mars. And yes, life could still exist on mars. Like i said before, on earth, in caves away from the sun and food, light source, there is life.



Its not pointless. If we all had the same way of thinking, then we would not be were we are now. The first thing i thought when i saw that photo was a skul, thats because it looks like i skull. I could have lied to myself and said, oh, hang on, that sounds to stupid i cant think that, but i tend to say what i feel, and we all should too.

Like I said - the sort of life that could be on Mars is mircoscopic, and probably dead - there isn't much chance of there being anything now. But this is all academic - I thought we were talking about trees and skulls and domes and jets of gas? Stop changing the subject.

There is a good chance actually:) and we should know very soon. As for the skull, it does look like a skull, most prob not, but i dont think its a pathetic observation thats all:)

Most of the mars photos can be explained as shadow, light, angle, but some of the photos are very interesting, i will leave it as that;)

I would imagine that if there was intelligent life observing earth from far away, and they took some images of our surface and saw some of the crop circle formations like this one:



the majority of the people from their planet would be derided as making faces out of nothing. The point is, if you just accept everything at face value, (no pun intended,) then you will pass up a lot of possible discoveries as you dismiss every strange phenomenon as pointless to investigate because it MUST have a perfectly logical and KNOWN explanation for acting, looking, being the way that it is. I am sure that a lot of people laughed when Newton told them about gravity because he watched an apple fall. "Duh, of course it falls! Who cares why? That is a waste of time!" It was his interest to learn WHY it fell that pushed science to where it is today. Instead of dismissing people's claims that something looks like forest, lakes, or water tubes, how about suggesting a new image of the same coordinance with greater clarity so that the mystery can be explained? And yes, if something looked like a hippopotamus, then I would spend a little extra time to prove its' true nature.