by Joseph P. Skipper
June 28, 2010

from MarsAnomalyResearch Website




First I'm going to do the best I can to make sure we're all on the same page with this type of forest top canopy evidence because this evidence is a matter of visually joined patterns of massed individual objects.


So I'm starting off with a couple of Earth based conventional tree forest canopy visual examples demonstrating closer aerial views as opposed to the more distant satellite views to make sure we're all familiar with what forest canopies look like.


Then further down we'll move into the Mars more distant evidence for this report.


The above first image demonstrates a forest scene here on Earth with a river running through it.


Rare on Earth due to the manipulations of man regarding trees as a useable resource, this is an old growth forest in the Amazon basin. As an old growth forest, note how the forest canopy stretches unbroken for so many miles off into the distance.

If left alone for long decades or even centuries with the right conditions, this is what tree forests do.


They engulf and dominate everything they can get a foothold on or in. Note that, except for the river, no geological terrain features are visible in this scene for mile after mile as all of the geological terrain has been covered over by the plant life (tree) growth. Even the shore of the river is not visible as the trees competing for space in the sunlight extend out hanging over the river's banks.

Now this is a closer oblique angle aerial view and not a distant satellite straight down view.


That means that we can see the individual tree objects better and do a little differentiating as to one tree object from another. If we were to progressively draw the scene back to a more distant satellite straight down view, the evidence would of course get progressively smaller and smaller with less and less individual object detail until finally it would look more like a flattened carpet rather than a forest. That is the visual impact of size scale on evidence of this type.

In such distant straight down satellite views, only the predominantly green color evidence would really tip us off that we were looking at forest and life. Trees and plants produce their own food.


Simplistically they absorb nutrients and water from the ground and CO2 from the air and convert it via sunlight and photosynthesis into chlorophyll producing the green color in their limbs and leaves and exhale oxygen into the atmosphere that animal life here on Earth, including us, are so dependent upon.

Of course the Mars black and white satellite imaging released to us conveniently does not contain this color information. If it did, recognition of forests would be instant and no doubt why it isn't included. Likewise the distances involved with satellite images and their straight down view tends to merge forest detail into a blurry joined mass.


Just in case that isn't convenient enough for secrecy agenda goals because the great size of some objects resist this effect, messing with the image resolution to further degrade detail into a blurry mess is an additional bonus.


The above 2nd image is another example of an aerial Earth Amazonia forest unbroken canopy view.


Note again that no ground geology is visible here at all. The trees engulf and cover everything. Again, this is typical of old growth tree forests that over long periods of time pack every bit of the available finite space in great density as they compete with each other for sunlight essential to their photosynthesis process.


Also, over long periods of time, certain types of trees tend to dominate more successfully and the forest becomes more and more homogenous with less and less variety.

You'll note that I have placed two small insets into the upper right corner of the images.

  • The top inset is the whole image desaturated of color and with a reduction in size to just 20% of the original color image to sort of mimic or simulate how the distancing technique impacts detail.

  • The second inset down below the top one is again the whole image desaturated of color, shown on 20% of it original size, and now with just one layer of blur also added.

Note how the blur further reduces the detail while yet maintaining the more gross features.


This is just one of a number of ways that obfuscation is done in the satellite science data.



Verify at:


Unfortunately, we of course have no closer oblique aerial color views of the Mars landscape that might reveal more detail.


So we have to be get by with the distant mostly straight down satellite views provided. The above 3rd image is a M07-03768 satellite view from the MGS MOC data that has been colorized by me and with a little sharpening work to bring out the smaller detail.

It demonstrates a super dense tree forest top canopy engulfing some gently rolling hills and undulations in the terrain. We are fortunate here that, despite the distant view merging detail, this is a little more mixed variety forest with some of the trees being taller and larger than their neighbors. This creates some unevenness and irregularities in canopy top surface similar to the Earth based images and that helps with identification.

Yes this evidence with its look of conventional trees packed in super high density is on Mars.


It should be fairly obvious here that we are not looking at geological terrain but at old growth forest and likely conventional trees by its look engulfing and covering the geological terrain. Further, this site is in the South Polar region where instrument testing in the past has told us that it gets super freezing cold at -180F to -225F.


Temperatures like that can crack steel and it is why one does not see trees here on Earth in the polar regions. The ice crystals form in organic cell's moisture enlarging and destroying the cells with death following.

So either the above trees are incredibly severe cold adapted or someone is pulling our collective leg about the Mars temperatures. That question might remain unanswered except for the presence of multiple forest surrounded lakes of liquid water as presented in my book just released and that tells the real tale.


It tells us that the Mars atmospheric temperature, including in the polar regions, is much milder and more friendly to life as we know it than we have been led to believe over these last decades and generations have grown up with a falsehood as an essential part of their educational process.

Should anyone try to avoid responsibility for this miserable extremely cold temperature fallacy by trying to argue that there have been recent warming trends that have changed things since the earliest test results, look again at that above forest. This is not growth just a few decades old. It is very old growth and it likely took centuries to gain this kind of complete domination of this terrain so successfully.


This tells us that the Mars environment is not only favorable to this growth, the environment has been stable and consistently favorable for a very long time. This situation is typical of most of the forest growth on Mars. It is aggressive. A species tends to dominate a given area covering vast expanses.


Consequently, when our satellite camera passing overhead takes a picture of the Mars surface in the form of a strip much longer than it is wide, such strips tend to involve only sections of the evidence and rarely beginning or ending boundaries. It's like taking a picture of a mid area section of carpet showing no boundary edges.

This impacts what we would consider normal size evidence (by our Earth standards) negatively visually merging it together and this is made worse by obfuscation treatments furthering this impact.


On the other hand, Mars with its lower gravity is a place where living things often get very big and even gigantic. The larger the size of some of the individual objects, the more they resist being obscured by standard obfuscation treatments and so once in a rare while evidence is not sufficiently dealt with by the obfuscation treatments.


That is partially the situation with the following Mars forest growth evidence.



Verify at:


Recognizing forest evidence in distant too often poor quality satellite imaging is a matter of recognizing visual patterns and textures.


It is so with the above black and white .jpeg image from the MRO HiRISE PSP_001446_1790 science data. From experience, the above patterns and textures and repeat uniformity tell me that this is forest life. However, if this was from the MGS MOC data, I would know that no better imaging was available and that I could not extract enough detail from the image to convince enough people as to what it really is.


So I would normally just move on and not report on it.

However, this is from the MRO HiRISE data and I know that there will be larger and better JP2 images available that, even with obfuscation in them, sometimes may provide enough detail for recognition.


So I download the largest 218.2 MB JP2 image file and below are the sample results.





Verify at:


As you can see in the above 6th and 7th MRO HiRISE JP2 images, it's one soft rounded pillow shape after another packed side-by-side in great super density in the many thousands.


The whole JP2 strip is like this from one side edge to the other.

Now I will say that pattern evidence like this that is so uniform across its surface mass is sometimes and with some people bad about visually inverting back and forth from a raised to a depressed perspective.


It seems that the brain does this trying to interpret what the eyes are seeing in this massed sameness of evidence. If you see peaked or ridge material and it doesn't make any sense to you why I am pointing these scenes out, then this is likely happening to you. It is normal, so don't get concerned about it.


Just keep going away and coming back to the material and it will almost certainly visually change for you and it can do this with you multiple times.

If you see the soft rounded pillow raised shapes all packed tightly together, this is the truth. Note that their coverage of the terrain is complete with no geology visible at all. I might also mention as another point that raw geology is very sunlight reflective off of the many solid objects that compose it with a lot of strong brightness to it.


However, note the dull non light reflective surfaces so universal in the 6th and 7th images. This is typical of plant life because its multiple height levels creating small shadows and it absorbs sunlight in order to conduct its photosynthesis processes rather than reflect sunlight as does solid particulate geology. It is another clue as to what we are looking at.

Also, here are other considerations. If the above examples of Mars forest canopies are conventional trees and as vast in area as they appear to be, that has all kinds of implications for the Mars atmosphere having a great deal more oxygen content rather than CO2 content. Remember, here on Earth, trees consume CO2 and exhale primarily oxygen.


If it is the same on Mars, then obviously the atmosphere on Mars will be much more favorable to life as we know it and the opposite of what we've been led to believe.

On the other hand, before you start thinking that Mars may represent good place for out of control Earth human populations to migrate to in relief, think again.


Our outstripping our resources is our problem to deal with and not someone else's. If the true Mars surface water and biological life is the exact opposite of what we have been led to believe, then it is very likely that civilized advanced life there is also the exact opposite of the zero amount we have been led to believe is there.


After all, a planet that would be attractive to life like ours here on Earth, will also be attractive to other advanced life that already has the technical capacity we are just now developing to reach the planet.

Finally, here's another factor.


These vast conventional looking forests on Mars that are more familiar looking to us are not the only vast forests on this planet. As the evidence in my just released book points out, there is a great variety of huge forests on Mars that are not familiar to the human eye. With those, nothing of their impact can be safely assumed and remains to be determined.

There is one bottom line thing that we're going to have to get into our heads on this kind of information.


The one thing evidence like this and that in my newly released book tells us is that what we thought we knew, what we have here to fore believed about this planet and life on it, is just plain wrong and, worse, has been wrong for the last several generations here.


That deeply entrenched level of ignorance for so long in the mainstream is going to be hard to turn around like the belief that the world was flat in spite of the clear evidence to the contrary.