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.

 

Is this a huge structure on Mars?

page: 3
81
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Good catch skyblueworld , that structure in the picture sure does not look natural to me but will nasa drop a used up satellite on it as per usual to wipe it out




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
Poor ol' Op is getting a bad time, perhaps Scot Waring's treatment of the picture is mostly the blame.
He decribes the image as if it is done and dusted that it is some kind of building, and goes on to say how it's been eroded over millions of years as if.


I take it on the chin like a British person is suppose to
No hard feelings towards anyone anyway, I post for myself to learn more from others.

It's a shame the original discussion on ATS from the 2007 thread was so short, Richard Hoagland obviously never helped the cause in that thread either.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

It's well worth reviving the discussion.


It's a fascinating subject and this image is certainly one of the more interesting ones I've seen.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld



Astronaut Gene Cernan already said he went to the mars though. So its not tat baffling anymore. And it was no mistake
Starts at 2:59



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I thought Northrope Grummond did the satellite dropping.a reply to: douglas5



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Very interesting find OP. I will be keeping tabs on this. I wonder what the official word will be on this one, if they give any official word. I can't see this forming naturally at all.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thisbseth
a reply to: skyblueworld



Astronaut Gene Cernan already said he went to the mars though. So its not tat baffling anymore. And it was no mistake
Starts at 2:59


That deserves a thread of it's own!

Has NASA retracted his allegations?

Mind boggling!



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JustMike

If it is a walled citadel then walls serve a couple of purposes:
To keep things out (like what?)
Or keep things in (like who?)
Now my imagination is really taking off.
Martian Chronicles anyone?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: skyblueworld

(...)

Re the image: as we now know that the resolution is 6.08 metres/pixel and we know the image size is 537px × 2,017px, someone with the time and patience to do the measuring can tell us the rough size of that (apparent) rectangular shape. At a very rough guess I'd put it at around 1 km on its long axis but that's just by eye, without accurate measuring.




Counting the pixels in photoshop (through cropping and rotating), I got roughly 306*366, which gives 1860.48 x 2225.28 metres (with 1 pixel = 6,08 metres).

so, again roughly :

1.27 x 1.67 mi / 1.86 x 2.22 km


edit on 18-11-2014 by LeFaiseur because: wording



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: skyblueworld

It's well worth reviving the discussion.


It's a fascinating subject and this image is certainly one of the more interesting ones I've seen.


Well the rectangle is curiously buffed right up to the edge of the crater, and does make you think that it is a later formation no matter what. I must look see if there are any current pictures of that area.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
There's no structures of any size. Even the pyramids are small. There was water everywhere before Mars was burnt up.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabot
There's no structures of any size. Even the pyramids are small. There was water everywhere before Mars was burnt up.


Could you please clarify: When exactly was Mars "burnt up." ?

Sources would help too.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: Thisbseth
a reply to: skyblueworld



Astronaut Gene Cernan already said he went to the mars though. So its not tat baffling anymore. And it was no mistake
Starts at 2:59


That deserves a thread of it's own!

Has NASA retracted his allegations?

Mind boggling!




There was/is a thread somewhere. To be honest though, I think he just meant "go back to the Moon", possibly also talking collectively, meaning the nation dedicating itself to further exploration.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Now that's what I call interesting. I'm perfectly aware that many near perfect to perfect shapes can be found in nature. But a square with a clean 90 degree angle on four sides?

Thanks for sharing, this is pretty neat.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabot
There's no structures of any size. Even the pyramids are small. There was water everywhere before Mars was burnt up.


Where are you getting the info from dude?

We all know Mars once had Water, and some major catastrophe wiped out it's atmosphere and it's protective effects.

NASA say over 4 billion years ago too. They had a probe called MAVEN to try and figure out why.

But NASA keep secrets so..



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: LeFaiseur

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: skyblueworld

(...)

Re the image: as we now know that the resolution is 6.08 metres/pixel and we know the image size is 537px × 2,017px, someone with the time and patience to do the measuring can tell us the rough size of that (apparent) rectangular shape. At a very rough guess I'd put it at around 1 km on its long axis but that's just by eye, without accurate measuring.




Counting the pixels in photoshop (through cropping and rotating), I got roughly 306*366, which gives 1860.48 x 2225.28 metres (with 1 pixel = 6,08 metres).

so, again roughly :

1.27 x 1.67 mi / 1.86 x 2.22 km



Thanks for that, so the structure? is massive then..

Lake Malta is 2.2km long to give a little perspective of the size then.






(post by Chemicalbrother removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Since when do we make personal attacks in Skunk Works ?

It's a fascinating picture OP.

Everything has been discussed on ATS...

You are not required to post reference material in Skunk Works.

It's for stuff that is way out there.
edit on 18-11-2014 by whyamIhere because: Rudest thread I have ever read...



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

In olden times -- talking on our planet, I mean
-- walls on that sort of scale (like around cities and/or citadels) were generally defensive: they were to keep marauders/invaders out, rather than keep anyone in. If they wanted to keep undesirable people confined it was relatively easy; they just threw them in dungeons and chained them or otherwise made it hard for them to escape.

Keeping undesirable people out was always much harder, hence high walls and/or an elevated position was often a good option. In a more complex arrangement, there could be a walled city with a citadel (fortress) at its core, which had its own even stronger walls and defences and could even be moated. So, if things got desperate and the city walls were breached, people could fall back and take refuge in the citadel itself.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Great find. I also noticed this, maybe its just me but seems like something that is perfectly circle. Also I wanna know why we get pictures of THIS place. What are the reasons behind some the locations that these pictures are taken from...

cuperti.no:8080...
edit on 18-11-2014 by tmpxvx because: trying to get image link to work



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join