Ancient Mural Complex on Mars

Shando, thanks for your comment. Interestingly, some people have made similar comments as yours, others say the opposite and immediately see the mural's design.

I wonder sometimes if the viewer see'e the "characters" in the cliffside and employs a natural rejection based of "no it can't be" while others are more inclined to use their right brain hemisphere and see the artistic translation. I know it took me quite some time to accept the change in both my rational and emotional paradigm. Perhaps a second look or even better, is to download the image yourself and "zoom in", the image quality is very clear.

Malcolm Scott

Jim, as much as I have tried, I have not found any information on the atmospheric density at the base of Hebes Chasma. The chasma is approximately 320km from east to west and 130km north south and roughly 7km deep at the deepest part. A truly amazing and unique hole in the ground...an excellent place to live!

It would be very interesting indeed to find out what the density is at the base....any suggestions on how this information could come to the surface so to speak?



Malcolm Scott

In the message window, there is a button that asks if one wants to attach an image....this does not seem to work. Any advice on this would be helpful.
Thanks,

Malcolm Scott

<b>[Marsevidence01] "You say "be careful for what you wish for". I hope you have a moment to explain further."</b>

You wished for an open minded audience, and we can generally be described as such. Some of our newer members may be less used to the wide array of things that get posted here, but most of us have seen a lot of strange stuff.

And, we have often seen it more than once. "There is nothing new under the sun." (Hi Walt, recognize that? - it is from one of your Christian holy books.) Of course "all generalizations are false, including this one" - or these two. But "it is the exceptions that prove the rule". Hmm, another generalization.

Anyway, 90 percent of the stuff we see here is wrong, and the rest is unproven and/or unprovable. So like I said we are a bit jaded. There almost certainly is something new somewhere, so we keep looking. But we generally don't blindly follow a link unless the poster has included some information about the link that is interesting.

So, if you don't get any nibbles you might provide a few more details and try again.

Regards,
LB

BTW, my attitude about evidence for life on Mars can be understood by reviewing the discussion topic <i>Tires on the Ground ...</i> from several years ago in this forum (Planetary Science/Artificial Structures on Mars).

I'm not sure how many of the others share this attitude.

The 'rent-a-rover' concept I speculated about in that discussion is still on my mind, and I'm actually making a little progress. Not enough to crow about yet, but enough to keep me smiling.

Thank you for taking the time to explain, much appreciated.

You mention that most of the stuff seen here is either wrong or improvable. After reviewing much of the evidence out there (and I use the this term loosely) I tend to agree, fall into this category. I hope to enlighten on this very subject.

But in the meantime, Id like to ask you a very candid question and, if you have the time, your reasons for your position.

After reviewing all of the strange stuff you have seen, are you of the mind that Mars has or has had intelligent life. Or in other words, have you seen any evidence especially imagery, that brings you to the conclusion that intelligent life unequivocally is present?

For me, this is most important to know.
Much appreciated.


Malcolm Scott

<b>[Marsevidence01] "... have you seen any evidence especially imagery, that brings you to the conclusion that intelligent life unequivocally is present?"</b>

No. (You have set the bar so high on this one that the only evidence I can imagine satisfying it is actual communication.)

***

Objects such as the Face are evidence for the possibility of intelligent life at some time in the past. But it is very weak evidence, and various experts have posited other reasonable interpretations of this object. (The experts disagree - imagine that?)

Until several of us can go there and look at it up close, walk around it, climb on it etc., the experts will have lots of room to disagree. And that is my basic position as argued in the <i>Tires on the Ground ...</i> discussion.

***

Could there be intelligent life on Mars right now? Yes, but there is no evidence available to support this opinion. I'm just not comfortable with absolutely ruling something in or out.

There is a rather large pile of evidence that Mars has been within a few million kilometers of two planets that exploded. The most recent of these happened about 3.2 MYA. The date of the first one is much less certain (50 MYA to 500 MYA, but we could be wrong). If we are right (about the explosions, not the timing), Mars is <u>very unlikely</u> to have any intelligent life right now.

There are articles elsewhere on this site and discussion at other places within this board that lay it all out. If you are interested, do some studying and then come back with any questions or comments (pro or con). (But please ask specific questions that show you have done some homework.)

One thing to pique your interest. Why are we so sure about the date of the last explosion? If you track the orbits of the 'first time comets' long enough to be able to back-track them they all converge at the same spot and the same time.

The US and Soviet military each blew up some of their own satellites and tracked the pieces. Some fell to Earth, some escaped to interplanetary space, and the rest went into orbit. At first these orbits went in all directions not leading to Earth or escape, but tidal forces and other other interactions soon weeded out the unstable orbits and left two stable groups - a group with near circular/equitorial orbits - and the other smaller group with near radial orbits, but not enough speed to escape so they eventually came back. Obviously the latter group did not last long (so its stability was short lived).

The military found that at each point in the evolution of the orbits of the fragments they could 'back-track' the pieces in radial orbits and see that their orbits converged at the same place and same time. Since they knew when the satellite had been destroyed they were able to verify the back-tracking calculations. They called this property of such orbits an 'explosion signature', for obvious reasons.

Back-tracking the 'first time comets' produces such a mutual convergence near the orbit of Mars, 3.2 MYA.



LB