MARS COLOSSAL PLANTS REVISITED
January 16, 2008
Joseph P. Skipper
J. P. Skipper can be contacted at: email@example.com
The colossal plant or tree evidence in the older MGS MOC M08-04688 image (per my 2001 Report #019) is some of the most powerful biological life evidence to be imaged on the planet Mars. The individual evidence objects are just so incredibly colossal in size, at over half-a-mile across in the case of the largest plants, that it overcomes the otherwise very poor resolution of the image that effectively obscures anything else on a lesser and more normal size scale. In fact, as you might imagine, despite the official stonewalling and pretending it doesn't exist, it is just too powerful for the secrecy agenda to be able to ultimately stand against should knowledge of it and others like it ever find its way into the wider mainstream media and their audiences.
Now if you're a secrecy agenda type decision maker, that logically means that something must be done about it. Since the MGS MOC image with this in it is fixed in time and place, dealing with it and redirecting attention away from it obviously must be in subsequent imaging of the same site. The only problem is that this particular evidence with its many branchings is very detailed and complex. Further, thanks to independent reporting, some are now aware of it and on guard as to its existence, so great care must be exercised in how it is dealt with. However, the level of technical obfuscation capability is just not up to what is required in the older MGS MOC imaging or the subsequent Odyssey THEMIS thermal imaging and not quite up to it either in the later ESA imaging. So the idea is to avoid it and wait for the arrival of the current MRO HiRISE imaging with its super fine high resolution camera work that stands a good chance of being regarded as definitive.
The MRO's super fine imaging well beyond that publicly admitted to will enable the very fine application detail needed, or at least so they prefer to believe. Now with the MRO PSP_003443_0980 image, the troublesome site has been imaged again and that is what this report is all about as we'll be looking at the old versus the newest imaging to see what is happening with this critical evidence. The old MGS MOC imaging strongly suggests biological plant life while the new MRO imaging of course suggests geology. I'll bet those that follow Richard Hoagland's work on the "Face" on Mars will find that theme familiar in the follow-up subsequent official imaging of that evidence moving from the old Viking imaging suggesting a face monument to the later MGS MOC imaging indicating just geology.
However, before we get to the MRO material, let's revisit the older MGS MOC imaging as below to facilitate easy comparison. This evidence is important enough to be worth it. Look closely at the image below.
The above first image is one sourced from the older MGS MOC M08-04688 strip using the third listed straight .GIF narrow-angle strip that offers a officially flipped view of the evidence, at least flipped relative to the first and second listed strips at the same location. This long scene is from one side edge of the strip to the other and the official statistics tell us that this is 2.83 km or 1.76 miles across. The scene originally looked a little better but the file size was really incredible huge here because of the great number of crowded objects and shapes the software is counting down there. This forced me to have to severely compress the image to facilitate loading and even then the file size is still huge. The net result is that the image is a bit washed out looking.
Even so, it will have to do as a context view of the evidence site. Note that, as the eye moves from the top of this image to the bottom, the evidence starts out huge and healthy where some individual objects can be determined to a densely crowded forest and then down further to an unhealthy dying state and finally to a dead and rotting dissolving state near the bottom. This transcending health state suggests that these are more likely colossal plants than trees (as we know them) following and utilizing limited moisture and nutrients and dying within the over crowded super dense forest competition as the resources are exhausted in the older high density areas.
Note that these plants and their very long main branchings appear to grow laterally from a common central point of origin. The main branches appear to be strong with a pronounced trunk thick and solid enough to be quite reflective in the sunlight as are the many smaller secondary branchings off of those main trunks. Note the darker light absorbing foliage associated with these branches. Except for the huge scale involved here, this is typical behavior of plants that grow aggressively in crowded forest high density conditions as the growth design tends to pry out sunlight space from their fellows establishing a perimeter that will be tough for others to intrude into, at least for a while.
That is the forest context view but how about the largest individual plants that tend to be more isolated just beyond the forest boundary? We'll take a better look at a sample of them in the next image below.
The above second image is a new one posted here at the website and provides a bit closer view of some of the individual plants. It is sourced from the official second listed .GIF angled science data image at MSSS which demonstrates an officially flipped view of the evidence relative to the straight .GIF strip used in my first image here and provides a different evidence perspective. The main work on this image is that it also provides a little more oblique view of the evidence and a slight 3D effect demonstrating elevation a little better. It came to me years ago from Thomas Jacobson in Denmark who taught graphics software at a university there. I've finally presented it here with a little enhancement work in it by me to bring out even a little more detail.
One of the main things that this image demonstrates is that the evidence does not appear to stand elevated well above the ground like trees we are familiar with but grows mostly laterally low across the ground. Now some of this lower profile look may not be entirely trustworthy. While the plant look from above may be relatively accurate, the terrain around it is a different matter. This strip's resolution is really very poor and that tends to merge and destroy terrain detail that is smaller than the colossal size objects considered as evidence here making terrain detail run together into a merged indistinct mess. Also, there is a very good chance that this "terrain" areas may have been subjected to smudge image tampering exacerbating the same problem.
Although I don't really think so, there is still the very real chance that these problems could be presenting a false illusion making the evidence appear closer to the ground than it actually is. In fact, and I suspect this is a good possibility, it could be that this evidence is actually sitting in shallow water partially supported by it and the tampering presence is there to hide the water reflectivity evidence that the software's design allowed it to recognize but it did not hide the plant evidence because its programming at this earlier developmental stage of the MGS MOC imaging was not yet up to recognizing these irregular rough shapes as something needing its special treatments.
In any case, look closely at the above second image and try and record the plants details in you head, particularly the presence of foliage. This will become important when you're later examining and comparing it with the MRO imaging that will look quiet different.
The above longer third image is merely the main part of the first image here in black and white without color. It's inverted here to facilitate comparison with the next and current MRO image below. Please note how the inversion process now makes the plant evidence look different. What was curved downward is now curved or humped upward and what was a light sun reflective color is now turned a dark color. Note that this results in the formally sunlight reflective light color branch trunks large and small to now appear as dark downward appearing channels. Although the effect is distantly and poorly seen here, this is just a demonstration of what simple inverting does and how it sometimes visually impacts evidence appearance.
Now the above fourth image is a portion of the current time period MRO HiRISE PSP_003443-0980 black and white browse science data image. Note that, despite being a high resolution MRO image, the scene is fuzzy with an apparent haze over everything. I decided not to clear this up but just to let you see how it looks as original science data .JPEG browse image. The official description of the evidence as it appears associated with the above image is described as follows.
"This caption is part of a December 2007 AGU presentation 'Spring at the South Pole of Mars.' Translucent carbon dioxide ice covers the polar regions of Mars seasonally. It is warmed and sublimates (evaporates) from below, and escaping gas carves a numerous channel morphologies. In this example the channels form a "starburst" pattern, radiating out into feathery extensions. The center of the pattern is being buried with dust and new darker dust fans ring the outer edges. This may be an example of an expanding morphology, where new channels are formed as the older ones fill and are no longer efficiently channeling the subliming gas out."
There it is, your official answer quietly explaining what the plant biological life evidence really is and now there's no more need for you to think about it. Did you catch the brief casual "carbon dioxide" (CO2) reference reminding and reinforcing the concept that the Mars atmosphere is supposed to be primarily 95.35% carbon dioxide and lethal to most life as we know it? Likewise, the mention of CO2 ice reminds us of the extreme freezing temperatures on Mars that are also lethal to most life as we know it. Did you also catch the even briefer and more casual reference to "dust" reminding and reinforcing the concept that Mars is suppose to be dry as dust dead world? In other words, the official mantra psychology is all there. You say you didn't catch it? Well then pay attention! If you don't pay attention, how is psychology 101 supposed to work on you?
Of course the above fourth image evidence sourced from the official black and white browse image doesn't really match the above official description but that may change with the much closer view MRO JP2 images. However, they require a large file size special graphics viewer that I doubt many of you will avail yourself of and so we'll stick here with the lesser quality browse images so that most of you who wish to can easily follow behind me. Now check out the next image below.
As you can see, the above fifth image is simply the fourth MRO image inverted. I've enhanced it only just a bit to eliminate the fuzzy haze and bring detail in the fourth image original out into greater clarity. As you can see, the appearance of the evidence here looks more like the official narrative description as quoted above than even in the official image. This is just a demonstration of how simply inverting the evidence can significantly alter its look. You should know that official flipping and inverting of images is plentiful in the science data and it often distorts and obscures evidence. As to why this is present in the science data, you'll need to figure that out for yourself.
Now the above sixth image is a portion of the same MRO PSP_003443_0980 official false colorized image. This false color added image is the primary displayed image of the plant evidence at the MRO site. The official explanation is that the many white lines are "Starburst Channels" as per the official quoted explanation of being formed by underlying CO2 ice subliming/evaporating and escaping forming the "channels" in the terrain. Now compare this geology/psychology oriented image with the previous first and second images carrying the bio-life plant message. Quite a dramatic difference in the way the evidence looks isn't it? Yet it is the same evidence.
This a choice that you are going to have to make inside yourself. Which is the real evidence and which isn't? Clearly they both cannot be real nor can one or the other be dismissed as merely an aberration as they are both in the science data. Look closely at the second image's evidence strongly suggesting the biological life message with all the plant stems/trunks and foliage radiating out from a central core in uniform round branching pattern so typical of plant life. It's poorly seen but the evidence is there. Now look closely at the above sixth image's evidence. While there, note the uniformity of the dark rusty red color among the branchings and how it is slightly darker and more featureless than the evidence in the surrounding terrain.
This "modification" of the existing evidence in an image mixing in subsequent new material over original material to modify its look or hide has been the norm to date in planetary satellite and rover imaging obfuscation technology. From the secrecy point of view, the problem is that it occasionally messes up and on rare occasions allows something real and inconvenient to get through the obfuscation and that's a big no no. However, I expect this to change in the near future data. Enabled by super fine imaging technology and now many years old evolving software mapping technology and evolving super computer artificial intelligence (AI) technology and colossal data bases of terrain texture and patterns specific to certain worlds, future data will be entirely artificial in origin eliminating all possibility of truth getting through. We are now right on the cusp of this.
You should also know that evidence with this above sixth image MRO appearance is also alternatively identified by some as being "spiders." In turn some of those adhering to this terminology theorize that the spiders are supposedly formed in the terrain my massive electrical arc discharges. This at first strange appearing identification is actually backed by such known formations occurring here on Earth, albeit on a much smaller scale. The "spiders" association with huge electrical discharges struggles for acceptance but is more acceptable in some academic and science circles and all secrecy circles because the identification leans in favor of geological associations more fitting of the general official view of Mars and well away from any unacceptable biological life associations.
I can't say that some of these formations are not caused by electrical discharges? However, what I can say is that these identifications usually assume that all of the science data and especially the newest MRO HiRISE data is definitive and that intentional obfuscation plays no role in it or its interpretation. In my not so humble opinion, that is a serious mistake contaminating the presumptions upon which such conclusions are based. But, before we get more into that, let's take a look at some more visual evidence.
The above seventh image from the MGS MOC E13-01971 narrow-angle science data strip and is the official view of another sample of a lone one of these formation. The colorized version of this appears as my first image in 2007 Report #114. Note the look with the "channels" effect radiating out from a central point. Note how much it looks like the individual objects evidence in my inverted third image and my inverted fifth image and yet note that this is the official view and not inverted by me.
Now the above eighth and final image is merely the seventh image inverted. However, note how this evidence now looks so very much like the evidence in the previous sixth color MRO image, except here with no color added. Again these are examples of how just a single manipulative procedure can significantly impact and alter the look of this type of evidence. Some look like channels and some look like ridges. So how does all this relate to the colossal plant evidence? To understand that better, let's add a little more complexity to the image manipulation beyond simple inversion.
Go back up and check out the MRO HiRISE fourth and fifth images. Imagine the fourth image being inverted resulting in the look of the fifth image and note that it in turn looks like the colossal plant third image evidence, just with a closer clearer view. Now, while in this inverted closer view, just imagine me putting a smudge coating over all of the foliage while leaving the branch trunks out of it creating a network of only thin dark lines. Note that this would be enabled by and done at resolutions far greater and closer than anything demonstrated here or in the MRO publicly released JP2 imaging and accomplished on artificial intelligence computers working with many years advanced and evolved custom mapping type graphics software.
Now when I have the work in the real but inverted MRO image done to my satisfaction covering up the foliage leaving only the plant trunks out as narrow distinct lines, I then invert the inverted image back to become the final image to be released for public consumption. The result of the inversion back process will flatten and plaster the smudge tampering applications and manipulations into the terrain doing away with the plant foliage and leaving only raised white lines. In other words, it would look just like the above MRO sixth image here if color was made part of this image manipulation scenario and certainly no longer look anything like biological life plants.
Yes, it sounds very convoluted and that's because it is. Convoluted works just fine from the secrecy point of view as just another form of subtle obfuscation making what has happened hard for the mind to grasp. I could have shown this with more visual images. However, there isn't any more image room for that here. Even so, the real reason is mostly because I would have had to have done this manually by hand in the graphics software and that would have been way too time consuming doubling or tripling the time it takes to do this report. Remember that I don't have have artificial intelligence (AI) super computers to do this for me at incredible speeds thousands of times faster than a human could do, as the secrecy agenda does. A reporting like this must deal with such realities.
For another science data example of how tampering is done in the inverted image and then inverted back to effectively plaster the soft fluffy but essentially featureless smudge tampering applications into the terrain deck and disguise them as terrain, please be sure to take a look at my Report #020 and specifically images #4 and #5 there. Image #4 there represents the official publicly released view and image #5 represents the inverted view. Image #5 clearly demonstrates that the smudge applications were actually applied in this inverted view before being inverted back to the image #4 official view. Yes convoluted works just fine from the secrecy point of view.
It just so happens that Report #020 is also on the colossal plants. However the view of them is just too heavily compromised and so the best evidence in this report is more about lakes of liquid surface water and the conventional tree forests surrounding them rather than the giant plants and only secondarily about the image tampering. The tampering is so obvious in the #5 image simply because the software wasn't as sophisticated back in 1999 when the image was taken and "processed" and mistakes were made. You will not find this kind of mistake being made in the obfuscation work in the current MRO imaging because technology and software programming evolves.
The general too trusting academic and science communities are easily fooled by these manipulations because they never progressed to the point of recognizing even the most obvious tampering in the older imaging and are now addicted to blindness in this regard. So they are not about to question the known to be super high resolution MRO HiRISE data that none of their peers question and regard as definitive. Likewise the great bulk of the public have never been made aware of these manipulations in any of the science data by their trusted academics or scientists or the mainstream media and so they are of course also completely clueless. So the "Starburst Channels" official explanation reigns supreme, that is except for the "spiders" advocates who also never questioned the official data they are handed, are working from flawed material, and remain on the fringe.
So, unless you can believe your own eyes as to the evidence in the first and second MGS MOC based images, secrecy prevails and the incredible colossal biological plant life on Mars is theoretically done away with and no longer an issue. All that is required for this to work is clueless gullibility and there seems to be an over abundance of that in the world. All that are left questioning much of anything associated with this are a few independent thinkers like you and I out here relegated to the social fringe and that's just where the secrecy agenda would like to keep us confined to.
However, the fact is that the MGS MOC evidence in the first and second images here does still exist along with its inconvenient truth and the fact is that we independent thinkers out here do number in the millions world wide. This is evidenced by the now well over 2-million in traffic hits per month that spiked to 3.4 million last month in December, 2007 coming through this website evidence record. Millions of people, if they get fed up enough and organized, can have an impact and effect change. That is if they are of a mind to? The truth is out there in the form of the real unobfuscated hidden in secrecy somewhere out there science data waiting on someone with the resolve to come for it. Will that be us?
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0804688.html: This link takes you to the official MGS MOC M08-04688 narrow-angle science data strip that is the source of my first, second and third images in this report. Both the third listed .GIF strip and the second listed .GIF strip were used.
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003443_0980: This link takes you to the official MRO HiRISE PSP_003443_0980 science data strip that is the source of my fourth, fifth and sixth images in this report. Both the not map projected black and white browser compatible .JPEG strip and the false color browser compatible .JPEG strip were used.
Joseph P. Skipper, Investigator