NASA found an ancient walled settlement on Mars ?

[FrakkeVanAkke]

NASA found an ancient walled settlement on Mars ?

 

[Bob Watson]

As many here know I work as a TA at a university. I took the vid to a geology prof guy has 30+ years experience. He said what we are looking at is a long series of cliffs..natural in origin possible edge of an ancient ocean or lake. The find is fascinating but not artifical.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[marduk]

Here's what Uruk looks like from space:

Given Mars' extremely low erosion rates (you can still see old craters unlike earth) you'd probably still clearly see a city there.

If it was there.

 

[Bob Watson]

Here's what Uruk looks like from space:

Given Mars' extremely low erosion rates (you can still see old craters unlike earth) you'd probably still clearly see a city there.

If it was there.

All the more reason to believe this is a natural cliff..like my friend said maybe the edge of a ancient ocean or lake..

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[marduk]

All the more reason to believe this is a natural cliff..like my friend said maybe the edge of a ancient ocean or lake..

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

I really want there to have been an old civilization on Mars.

It's just not likely true.

Just like if there were highly advanced spacefaring civilizations from earth -- human or otherwise -- we likely would have found their junk on the moon by now.

Earth turns over it's surface pretty fast. The moon, not so much. Mars is more like the moon than it is the earth that way.

 

[Bob Watson]

I really want there to have been an old civilization on Mars.

It's just not likely true.

Just like if there were highly advanced spacefaring civilizations from earth -- human or otherwise -- we likely would have found their junk on the moon by now.

Earth turns over it's surface pretty fast. The moon, not so much. Mars is more like the moon than it is the earth that way.

We have here a "walled city" with no buldings no stuctures..heck not even a alien outhouse. No..natural cliff formations. .

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[FrakkeVanAkke]

We have here a "walled city" with no buldings no stuctures..heck not even a alien outhouse. No..natural cliff formations. .

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

I wasn't really expecting to find any intact buildings up there lol... But if there has been any civilization in the past, and I say "if" then most evidence will be gone, but there is Always the possibility thet the strongest structures (walls, foundations) will remain... we see it a lot in ancient ruins here on Earth. But ofcourse, it could also be just a natural formation like your friend says...

 

[Bob Watson]

But dont get put off who knows one day you may find something!

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

Here's what Uruk looks like from space:

Given Mars' extremely low erosion rates (you can still see old craters unlike earth) you'd probably still clearly see a city there.

If it was there.

Marduk wrote: "Given Mars' extremely low erosion rates (you can still see old craters unlike earth) you'd probably still clearly see a city there.

If it was there."


You wouldn't see it in most of the orange-filtered and contrast-flattened [overexposed or underexposed] raw rover images released by JPL. Here is a video [vastly speeded up] illustrating how what's latent in those images can be uncovered in the rovers' photographic imagery with patience and skilled use of current image analysis technology.

[note: you can slow down the video speed in YT tools if you want to see the process in more detail.]

 

[marduk]

Marduk wrote: "Given Mars' extremely low erosion rates (you can still see old craters unlike earth) you'd probably still clearly see a city there.

If it was there."


You wouldn't see it in most of the orange-filtered and contrast-flattened [overexposed or underexposed] raw rover images released by JPL. Here is a video [vastly speeded up] illustrating how what's latent in those images can be uncovered in the rovers' photographic imagery with patience and skilled use of current image analysis technology.

[note: you can slow down the video speed in YT tools if you want to see the process in more detail.]

The contrast wouldn't be an issue.

Mars has essentially no erosion, no overgrowth, and no tectonic activity. There's nothing there to knock walls or buildings down. With the desiccation, things would just... stay. Likely for millions of years.

An old city would still look like a city, and still fundamentally be standing today if it were made of stone or concrete. Given the lack of vegetation, there's nothing else to build out of.

 

[Constance]

The contrast wouldn't be an issue.

Mars has essentially no erosion, no overgrowth, and no tectonic activity. There's nothing there to knock walls or buildings down. With the desiccation, things would just... stay. Likely for millions of years.

An old city would still look like a city, and still fundamentally be standing today if it were made of stone or concrete. Given the lack of vegetation, there's nothing else to build out of.

So you know the whole, long history of Mars, everything that's taken place there over millions, billions, of years? Why is it that the NASA/JPL scientists don't know all that you know? Maybe you can solve this latest issue too:

Scientists can’t seem to figure out how ancient Mars got so warm

 

[marduk]

So you know the whole, long history of Mars, everything that's taken place there over millions, billions, of years? Why is it that the NASA/JPL scientists don't know all that you know? Maybe you can solve this latest issue too:

Scientists can’t seem to figure out how ancient Mars got so warm

Actually I do, and so do they.

See, when you look at it, old craters are still there. 635,000 of them. There are 200 left on Earth, which likely had very similar numbers of impact events. Maybe more, because we're bigger.
Martian Surface Peppered With 635,000 Big Impact Craters

Why? Because Earth has a lot of erosion and tectonic activity. Mars has little of either.

When they talk about Mars being warm and wet, they are talking about the region of time around 3.5 BYA. When Mars was about a billion years old.

Which is pretty young to have complex life. Especially given we were still in the heavy bombardment phase.

 

[Bob Watson]

Let us for the sake of argument say this shows life..advanced life was found. NASA would be quck to announce that we are not alone. If for no other reason money. Now lets aay its real. NASA wants to hide it. Mainstream media would have a feild day! Expert after expert would come on NASA would be called on to the carpet. No the discovery of life on mars would not could not be surprised. This pic shows nothing. But if a pic showing something genuine shows up..we would know.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[marduk]

Let us for the sake of argument say this shows life..advanced life was found. NASA would be quck to announce that we are not alone. If for no other reason money. Now lets aay its real. NASA wants to hide it. Mainstream media would have a feild day! Expert after expert would come on NASA would be called on to the carpet. No the discovery of life on mars would not could not be surprised. This pic shows nothing. But if a pic showing something genuine shows up..we would know.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Agreed. We'd be pumping Billions into NASA and have boots on the ground by Christmas.

 

[Bob Watson]

not one but 3 NASA announcements NASA HAS NO REASONTO HIDE ANY THING!!!!!!!!!

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Cloak of discoveries and agree have nothing to hide unless it makes money or else.

 

[Constance]

Why NASA still believes we might find life on Mars

From the comments:

"Evidence of Martian life was very quickly covered up in 1976 and no efforts will be made to repeat that mistake until humans are ready to visit the planet. You can rest assured of that."

So what has NASA/JPL [subsidiary of the DOD and the MIC] been searching for/focusing on since 1976? Minerals and other useful resources potentially exploitable and economically profitable for global corporations on earth. The discovery of evidence for biological evolution on Mars -- in the deep past or, worse, still extant underground on Mars -- would compromise those interests and bottom lines. As another commentator on the Washington Post article recognizes:

"By now it should be obvious (even to Dr. Levin) why NASA have failed to discover life on Mars, or to even make an effort to look for it with robotic vehicles; if life is found on Mars the game is over. On the one hand will be calls to quarantine the planet completely, nothing could be allowed to contaminate Martian life. On the other, the overarching purpose of Martian exploration will no longer exist for most people once life has been discovered. The basic question will have been answered and all of the cosmological implications put to rest."

This has long been recognized by Gilbert Levin and other scientists critical of the NASA/JPL Mars explorations undertaken since 1976, who, like us, are most interested in the significance -- both scientific and philosophical -- of the discovery of potential or actual evolved life on Mars and who persistently pressed for life-detecting instruments on future rovers.

That the rover cameras on the Mars surface (and even the orbital cameras) have, in the meantime, revealed visible archaeological and artistic signs of intentional works [material productions of beings similar to those produced by our human forebears] is most inconvenient. Thus the obvious attempts by JPL to mask that evidence to the extent possible {now less possible given the image enhancement technologies available to private investigators on earth}. Don't believe it? Wait and see. Or in the meantime, study the images, with your eyes and your thinking caps, if you're actually interested in the question of life on Mars.

 

[marduk]

I totally think we may find life on Mars.

I just don't think we'll ever find evidence of civilizations developing on Mars.

 

[Constance]

I totally think we may find life on Mars.

I just don't think we'll ever find evidence of civilizations developing on Mars.

I think the reasons why you doubt it are inadequate, insufficient, to rule it out. If it can't be ruled out, if it turns out that there is evidence of one or more sequential cultures developed in Mars's past, it will be the most significant discovery possible for our species in our time. But you are the one who must determine what you think, what you can think, what you are willing to consider and investigate.

 

[marduk]

I think the reasons why you doubt it are inadequate, insufficient, to rule it out. If it can't be ruled out, if it turns out that there is evidence of one or more sequential cultures developed in Mars's past, it will be the most significant discovery possible for our species in our time. But you are the one who must determine what you think, what you can think, what you are willing to consider and investigate.

A few things.

Number one, there is no evidence to the contrary. The Viking data may have shown life, but there is zero evidence of ruins. Zero. The rocks are just rocks.

Number two, Mars was warm and wet 3BYA. If life on Earth is average - and it probably is - that's not enough time to go from dead to life to intelligence to civilization. Even if life arose on Mars quickly, and somehow developed complex life and intelligence in the time span it took simple bacteria to evolve on Earth, how would a civilization arise during the heavy bombardment phase of the solar system? Very improbable.

Number three, there is no evidence to contradict numbers one and two.

Wishing something is so doesn't make it so.