perchlorate on Mars?

Astromoners discovered life on Mars decades ago. There are pictures of forests and other plant life, water ect. NASA now coming out with some big announcement is about as anti-climatic as it gets.

I'm well aware of this. The "timing" of announcing this, December 2012, the dawn of a new order....the year where Horus is born after Osiris' death, the starchild....

The AQUARIUS time to springle Martian lost paradise....,(so they think... naivité) yet it will doom as well because the changes are happening not just on earth but the whole Milky Way... including Mars/Ares/Melkart.

Can you link to a single definitive picture that confirms any type of plant, animal, tree, fossil that upon looking at the unaltered picture, a viewer clearly can say, YES THERE IS LIFE THERE.

Show me, I'm skeptical.

Sure!
[link to fotolog.terra.cl]

[link to www.marsanomalyresearch.com]

It was very convenient the denial of finding methane some time ago...., however:
[link to www.enterprisemission.com]

Unlike the official "ancient lakes" announcements, these images make evident THERE ARE LAKES ON MARS
[link to www.thelivingmoon.com]

BTW, I started another 4-pages-thread about geology on Mars in case you are somehow interested. Suit yourself:
Thread: any geologist here? which among 500 minerals would GLOW blue with just a little light

I'm still not convinced. Every picture you linked to so far shows minerals and soils, poor lighting, speculation.

I'm not arguing methane, like you linked to in one of your links. I'm asking to see definitive pictures from a NASA or JPL or ESA agency that has not been edited.

Convince me that you can see anything besides minerals and soils, ice and sand. I've see the water flows in craters, yu can skip that, it is not life.

I want to see definitive life on mars in a photo. I'm not being a dickhead, I'm just being a skeptic that needs to see what people claim.

Thanks.

Yes sir, I helped you try to get answers. And I'll help you prove your case if you can show me life currently on mars. Mars may have had some form of life in its past but we have yet to see any defining evidence.

A tree?, a bush?, grass?, .......Gaza Rooster?

All photos come from NASA. You asked photos and I provided them. No one comes to "convince" anyone. There are always skeptical people and there's nothing wrong with that.
I guess if an alien shoots a camera from their perspective and stares earthly bushes and lakes, another alien would deny what seems obvious.
You are not one of these people who see translucid tunnels and then repeat NASA's statement they are "dunes", aren't you? Or one of these dudes watching a clear dark ring in Cydonia as seen from every possible angle during decades and then says it was Viking's camera depicting "a drop of water on the lens", aren't you?

[link to www.amazon.com]

Ron Wichelman [of JPL’s Image Processing laboratory (IPL)] was responsible for the color quality control of the Viking Lander photographs, and Dr. Thomas Mutch, the Viking Imaging Team leader, told that he got a call from the NASA Administrator asking to destroy the Mars blue sky negative created from the original digital data..."
[link to www.ultor.org]

Just as we were finishing this analysis of Odyssey’s expected THEMIS color, JPL finally released precisely
[link to www.jpl.nasa.gov]

…right on cue, in total conformance with their self-imposed "December 2002 deadline" (The official "excuse," of course, is that the release was timed for this week’s annual AGU Meeting (American Geophysical Union), being held in San Francisco. Ironically, the major planetary sessions’ theme is titled: "Fundamental Discoveries in Planetary Science: The Color of Worlds I..."

No, that's not me. Im open to a lot of speculation. I just don't follow some of the conspiracy sites that claim trees on mars, and they have never taken a picture of mineral layers, sedimentation, and erosion from the camera type that NASA uses.

NASA cameras use filters designed to capture different wavelengths of light. A NASA camera could not ever take your picture correctly, it can simulate the image as to how your human eye might see it but, it is still a simulation of combined filters of differing wavelengths.

It took me years to understand this.

To further explain my post above and to help you understand filtering a little better: From your third link from JPL:

"The infrared and visible images have revealed a wonderful diversity of surface types and features. Nighttime temperature images show complex patterns of rock layers, rocky debris, sand and dust produced by impact cratering, wind erosion and deposition," said Dr. Philip Christensen, principal investigator for Odyssey's thermal-infrared imaging system at Arizona State University, Tempe. "Color infrared images of Mars show variations in rock layers similar to those seen in the layered rocks of the Grand Canyon. The visible color images show Mars to be a dusty place, with most of the surface covered by a thin layer of bright orange-red dust."

So basically, Infra-red images as most people know, are a specific wavelength near black and white in results. NASA then applies different camera images taken using different filters on the same camera, and places them into a photoshop like layering system to see where different minerals, atoms, gases are detected and produce a color-ed image.

NASA doesn't know how to take a camera image, its just the truth.