New Mars Forums

Mainly fern type martian plants today.

Left, CP shows a lot of green, so a plant of some kind, and right, these ones are more yellow/brown/green but the top, right hand corner showing one with a cloud and blue sky behind it, is a good one.

Left hand image shows this same curved leaf, (best guess) again, (l know this because the sun is directly behind it in both images).

And the right hand image, (left) shows the unmistakable curved stem of a fern like plant.

We can argue that the wet soil is brailine related, but going by Earths ferns, they need plenty of consistent rainfall and moderate temp's in order to survive, which most if not all, of the water l am finding is rain related or pure, (ferms cannot grow in -200 overnight temp's, with a near vacuum atmosphere and no rain).

Also another ironic point is Viking taking blue sky images when it landed in 77, NASA said they were a mistake and reddened them up, (a ton of examples above) but Curiosity also took a raw image of a self portrait with a blue sky, with NASA saying nothing about any technical errors, so does that mean Vikings original blue sky, frost and green rocks are the correct ones???

Ok, more sunset evidence or slam dunk evidence that Mars has sunsets like we do, (or our desert areas do).

Left image hints at a blue sky and orange sun/clouds, still no blue sun/landscape. Right shows a white sun, (middle of rock) and beautiful pink orange and white clouds, not this blue everything crap.

Right my color corrected one or theirs, either way orange sun only.

Left some more of these weird things on wire.

And this, bright thing in the middle is the sun, but yet again no blue sun to be found.

And bottom another one of these weird sculptures, that isn't the rover, and seems to be dotting this waterway on the banks.

Unlikely that these are ancient as they couldn't have stayed up for half a million years or longer, so are more recent.

So the locals appeasing the gods of rain, seems like the most likely explanation.

and PS the layered thing l saw before was the rover, unfortunately, (saw it in the ones above).

Found this weird thing today, and also found it in several ref, rocks, so it can't be passed off as a rock detail, etc.

Appears to be a sculpture on steel rods, and l also found green on this, so moss or plant life on these things is also present.

This gives a better view, and CP shows green, so at least this one resembles the Chinese stunted plant sculptures, or it may be locals are forcing this plant to grow in a particular way.

Last one, more sculptures on rods or strong wire, which may move with strong winds, or remain stable, but either way not natural.

I know they could just be weird plants, but these show a very shiny, silver tower in the middle of all of this.

Left, top another sculpture that looks like sign with a possible man depiction holding it

Left a possible face made from the plants, and the silver tower in the middle, and the rest this silver tower, or a series of silver disks stacked along a central spine.

Very likely that this is Not the rover, and NASA drives right past concrete proof that Mars has intelligent life on its surface. And drive right past concrete proof that mars has plants.

First, top, the rover on a pretty steep gradient.

And bottom a pretty good image of the real landscape, with the rover probably on the right, sun settings, and no blue to be seen apart from the distant hills. And the dark stuff in the foreground that looks like shrubs, that is exactly what they are, the CP shows lime green but mainly yellow to brown, so half dead shrubs or bushes.

More sunsets and shrub images on the left just to show that this isn't some rock detail related thing, and the right, l distortion corrected this one, which shows the sunset, right and bushes and blue hills, etc but it is the clouds that are the best aspect.

If Mars only has high altitude cirris clouds then why does it look as if a Martian downpour could occur at any time?

I wouldn't trust NASA any further as l could throw them.

In other words, NASA isn't lying and the drops of rainwater on the rover formed through frost, (eventhough none is found on the landscape, and the rovers chassis is warmer than the ground temp) and it would boil away at the rovers present level, (l put in a link previously that clearly states or NASA clearly says that it would boil away at the rovers level). Or it is caused by excessive amounts of salt on the rover, eventhough none is present on some areas with the raindrops on it, and it could not be frost since the rover is heated by saline running around its nuclear reactor or if it is not shown on the ground it is guaranteed to not be on the rover).

And the wet soil at the time of the waterdrops is a coincidence, or briney soil?

And all of the images l keep finding of rainclouds is beats me, but l guess NASA will come up with something?

And we can ignore all the green, and excessive oxygen coming off the planet, (google that one) the ESA image showing the blue sky, that strongly indicates large amounts of water in the atmosphere, (water vapor, clouds, rain might be a connection there).

I would normally suggest reading the odd 700 posts again, but l doubt that would make any difference, but if you think that NASA is wonderful then it is!

And Mars Earth like sunsets are,.....l guess we will have to wait for NASA to come up with, ahem give us an answer.

More signs of recent water flows most likely from passing rainclouds.

Wind doesn't or cannot produce this affect only water running from the surrounding areas into this central channel can.

This one could be ignored that it is just displacement of soil, but the location make it more likely to be water flows.

Mars does have seasons of cold and warmer, and most likely more rain during the colder period.

There are a few things here that are legit, the toilet seat most likely is, and the building with the tower or chimney is most likely legitimate.

Chimney, forests.

yeah, not an artificial event, but the rock is more interesting, or could be some silver material torn off of something bigger in the past.

Yep, and when Mars is at closest approach, any kid with a $100 dollar telescope can prove for himself that the blue atmosphere is Always present and that Viking images showing absolutely no blue whatsoever are false representations of reality.

So people refuse to accept that Mars can support life, or that NASA isn't being 100% honest, because that could lead to intelligent life and grays in particular thanks to NASA's so called leaked evil beliverant grays being interviewed properganda on YT.

No evidence no matter how good is enough, since they merely find sillier reasons that they are right, (a bit like convincing that two people who think that they are Mussolini in a mental institution that one of them clearly isn't) impossible since deep rooted fear is present.

I havn't come across an evil, race on mars ready to invade Earth far from it.

But yet again impossible to convince someone who is coming from fear.

Evidence is truth not fear.

The only rock l could find was the one with the rovers, reflection that looks like it is drilled, near one of its wheels. So thanks for posting, but l don't believe anything is out of the ordinary for this one.

Because for two reasons, one when Mars has a large dustorm its atmosphere turns green.

https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegM … modest.jpg

Right hand image, (download it and zoom for the green).

And second all Opportunity/Spirit images at all elevations show no blue sky ever, 20 years of images, while Curiosity shows one, after three years.

NASA said that dust on the lower areas was responsible for the red sky, but when either got to the top of a hill and did a panarmah, (color) no blue sky.

And the only way you can get a green sky is when blue, (Mars true sky color) and red, (the dust particles) are mixed together. Mixing red and red will produce red!

The dimwit l had to discuss this with elsewhere, said that it was the sun or processing that explains the atmosphere disappearing and reappearing.

Both insane remarks. All examples above are color cameras pointing directly at Mars with the sun directly behind it, (same with Hubble) except that Hubble and ESA are the only ones that see the blue.

And l won't discuss the suns angle, since that is insane.

Bottom line is they were all color cameras pointing directly at Mars when the sun was directly behind them, and there is no reason whatsoever for a color image not seeing the blue. Viking in 77, took pretty good color image on the surface before NASA screwed them up, with a blue sky, eventhough from orbit atmosphere gone.

Others might buy this atmosphere here and gone nonsense, but for me Mars atmosphere has been there for billions of years as our has and is. And if anyone wants to prove this flat earth type science to me and others then finding an image of the Earth with no atmosphere at all would help!

Found three different rotations of mars, the first is probably the closest to the ESA one.

http://solarviews.com/eng/mars.htm

And these or l went through all space probes that took orbital images of Mars.

Top is Hubble 17, second ESA 97, Third Viking, (77) next another Viking Surveyor image, (1998) but no orange or atmosphere again, last Viking again, (98) or different color and no atmosphere.

Nasa gives an explanation for the huge difference between Hubble and the rest...

Water vapour, so according to NASA there is water vapor in the atmosphere eventhough it boils away at ground level, and if there is water up higher then we should see a dominantly blue sky, and should also get rain clouds.

But of course that boils away before hitting the ground, eventhough as we know it doesn't.

NASA is lying so much they are tripping over their lies, but the herd will buy it, so that is all that matters.

Viking takes several image of Mars, all no atmosphere over several years, Hubble takes images also from 1995 to 2017, all with blue atmosphere, ESA likewise, but anytime Hubble takes an image, it is always blue, over 20 years but any other closer image, it is always a dead rock, (with the ESA exception, that has vanished from their ESA site).

So Hubble takes an image from 1998 with a blue atmosphere and Mars Global Surveyor from the same year, shows no atmosphere. Sounds like they cannot get their blue spectrum colors right from orbit either, when they take a full color image, lol, (the majority of Hubble images from 1998 show a blue atmosphere, but take an image from orbit from the same frickin year, and it magically goes away).