It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mechanical object spotted on Mars Sol 790

page: 7
49
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Yeah. I have to agree.
I see loads of these photos on the NASA site and in videos every day and there's loads of strange
oddities that are so baffling.
Why NASA don't move in closer on some of them and take some closer pictures....I don't know.

Then again, they could have but decided not to put them out there for the public to scrutinise.




posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Blister

I do find this object interesting as you explain your point of view .However I'm not an expert on geological objects and I've only got my eyes that tell me by the closeup that has been taken by NASA that its nothing more then a stone object.

We can discuss the form or color in view . But the object to me is clearly not mechanical at this point of view and many would agree with me.. So whatever it is from this point is up to you, to give it life if you want it too I wont stop you.

But I have the feeling its gonna be an endless debate over something that if has been altered what some will say. But I think they did find it interesting or necessary to point out that its nothing unusual at the first place.. but who knows what the experts will say..

Don't get me wrong I do think there are remnants on the Martian surface that betray the fact that ancient civilizations once lived there but i have the feeling this isn't the one lol



edit on 0b29America/ChicagoFri, 31 Oct 2014 17:59:29 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoFri, 31 Oct 2014 17:59:29 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Blister

I do find this object interesting as you explain your point of view .However I'm not an expert on geological objects and I've only got my eyes that tell me by the closeup that has been taken by NASA that its nothing more then a stone object.

We can discuss the form or color in view . But the object to me is clearly not mechanical at this point of view and many would agree with me.. So whatever it is from this point is up to you, to give it life if you want it too I wont stop you.

But I have the feeling its gonna be an endless debate over something that if has been altered what some will say. But I think they did find it interesting or necessary to point out that its nothing unusual at the first place.. but who knows what the experts will say..

Don't get me wrong I do think there are remnants on the Martian surface that betray the fact that ancient civilizations once lived there but i have the feeling this isn't the one lol




LOL, what has happened that changed your mind? In my opinion, the second colour picture lends more credibility to the object being synthetic (i.e. not a real rock). Others on this thread agree. Yet you diss your own thesis claiming that the object now looks like a rock - when others think the opposite? Wow. Did I miss something?

It seems to me, from your following statement:


But I think they did find it interesting or necessary to point out that its nothing unusual at the first place..


That you simply seek personal validation, and deem even negative comment vis-à-vis your OP to be a good thing. Attention seeker much. Me? Heck, I'm just flabbergasted that you seem to have gone all NSA on us and now deny what you originally claimed.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blister

Well this is funny most of the time I'm completely of the charts about my statements and now suddenly I find Pandora's box cloaked as a rock that you guys say is so much more then it actually looks what it is..I'm baffled?

But ok this is from another angle ...



Any thoughts now?



edit on 0b18America/ChicagoFri, 31 Oct 2014 19:00:18 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoFri, 31 Oct 2014 19:00:18 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1
Yeah. I can't tell due to the shadow. You can? Well done.

edit on 31-10-2014 by Blister because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

Are you sure thats the same object? hmmm

Im not too sure, il have to have a look at original source.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969
Yes, it is the same location - therefore it should be the same object/s.

The picture quality is bad and the angle is bad, being on the shadowed side of the object. Whilst the image and view is low quality, I would not write-off the object being synthetic yet.

Some tests and decent high-res pics are needed...
edit on 31-10-2014 by Blister because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Blister

How can you say its the same object, you can hardly see what it is. And if it is then there is very little to be done with that. il try and see if i can extract anything but it is poor quality.

hopefully can get to bottom of it.

However i just want to say, looking through the rest of the raw images in the section i feel the site being shown may have alot more to offer. There are some very unusual patterns coming up on the ground and upon closer inspection i feel maybe something could be found.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969

Note, I did not say it is the same object. What I said was:



Yes, it is the same location - therefore it should be the same object/s.


I leave open the possibility that it has been switched.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blister
a reply to: liteonit6969

Note, I did not say it is the same object. What I said was:



Yes, it is the same location - therefore it should be the same object/s.


I leave open the possibility that it has been switched.


Yeah, the second image looks nothing like the first. The first one has 90 degree angle cross structure that create a common engineering pattern to manufacture industrial tools like electric motors. Forming cooling openings while also offering no loss in structural strength, exactly like what the first image shows. Rocks don't and have never, and cant do that in nature.
NASA comes through it all with another big fail that tries to re-render the first object into a blob of nothing as usual. In one view it looks like a motor with wires sticking from one end, in their "response" view its an advertisement for NURBS organic modelling for 3DSMAX Design suite.


PS: But their generous bribes of nice mars images is usually enough to buy everyone's belief in their last word on this and every other issue. They are run by the air-force, the biggest and most prolific best known liars about these types of things. Maybe I could be bought too, but not when they still throw all the vets under the bus after they are used up, like they do more today, than ever before, beginning with the very first Apollo missions where people died even after NASA higher ups being warned about serious dangers. For just this alone should be enough not to take their word for everything, but then the facts always speak for themselves. Nothing has changed at NASA since day one except that they have become even more secretive about what really goes on inside some of those walls.
edit on 1-11-2014 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Blister

oh, i didnt catch that....was early in the morning


Apologies



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969

It is the same object, it's in the exact same location...



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: lambros56

Because if they moved in on every rock they wouldn't make progress...

Ever walked through the woods with a toddler? If you let them pick up every stick you'll only get a few feet...



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

It's an unexploded grenade left over from the last Martian World War .....or more likely..... it's a rock.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: lambros56

Because if they moved in on every rock they wouldn't make progress...

Ever walked through the woods with a toddler? If you let them pick up every stick you'll only get a few feet...



I didn't say every rock.....that wouldn't make sense at all.
I think you know what I meant.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: lambros56

And on this rock they did move closer, whether internationally or not, and there are now two more pictures of it.

What has happened? Now people are saying they switched the object, or that the new pics clearly show an artificial construction completely different from the first one they saw even though the images clearly show a rock. We can find similar ones on earth.

It's a no win situation for NASA.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Ive had a good look through the pictures from the selection on the nasa site, they sol did not go and look at it rather it came past it and photographed it again as it was leaving. This can be seen by the tracks of sol on the first picture in the OP. However it has interested me the reason why the pictures were taken of this area, as if you look through the raw images there are mostly only single or a double image at best of one area, this has 3 maybe 4.

Having looked at the last picture posted, where it is a close up i feel it isnt quite right. The position is correct if you look and compare to the patch of sands shape, however looking at the furthest left hand side of the object it does not look right. The edges of the object dont move into the background like the rest and i feel its a more mat black. The center of the object was the part i found strangest, when playing with the image the object had a hole through the middle. This was hidden by added black coloring. I dont know why and who but it is definately not right. If you want to have a look use you own preference of software and play with the exposure etc.



Any thoughts?




posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969

They take pictures of every area, constantly...the rover is moving through that area so they are taking pictures.

Think of the rover as an Asian tourist...

Stereotyping allowed as I have a friend of a friend who knows a guy who's Asian.

I can't find the hole you're referring to. However even if I did

A natural rock with a natural hole



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I know, but im referring to the number of images been uploaded to the site. And not the same number of pictures are taken of the areas, the cameras are sent instructions on how many photos to be taken at certain sites and certain days. Having looked through the raw images you would see that, and also get eye strain
.

If you want take the image for yourself and use software to change the exposure, bright, shadows, etc etc to see what it shows like under darkest conditions and brightest conditions. The object is not right, this is just my opinion and i am far from an expert. However i do have alot of experience in messing about with images and the object has had shape added to and color added to. Just for that reason alone makes me suspicious.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

No one is saying NASA switched the rock. What we are wondering is how come the object now looks totally different than it did in the two previous colour pictures.

In making the observation that the object looks different (which may be explainable simply because Navcam is being used) I have not discarded any theory aside, including the possibility that the rock was switched or otherwise altered. It may seem unlikely to peasants, but quantum physics suggests that highly advanced life forms would and do have the tech to play with our minds.

If we can think of it, they can do it, and better.

Obviously, the monochrome image from any of the Navcams is not satisfactory when doing a forensic inspection of this object.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join