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.

 

Oddity on Mars Pic - Structure? Would be huge if so...

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful
a reply to: gortex

Whoops. My bad, right you are.

The point still stands, though. Mars hasn't been active since a very long time, and erosion of martian features must be considered as a factor.




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

Actually, and I really hate that I don't have the source off the top of my head, there was an article talking about Mars might be more active than we thought.

What we need to do is get some seismic instruments down there all over the planet so we can see and know the inside of Mars better.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Is there a badge of honor members get for "debunking" everything, I'm unaware of? Do you get more cookies from Des? Is there a secret inner circle you get to be a part of? Or does it just make us feel smart in some way? How many discoveries were called quackery and pseudoscience at one time, only to be common knowledge today? Seriously.

Why is it so damn hard for people to see more than one possibility? Yes, they could be natural formations, or a result of natural processes, but they could also be signs of intelligent life on a world that was possibly not so different from the world we live on now. What would the ruins of an extremely ancient civilization look like on a world we know little about at this point? As someone has mentioned before, if some of these images were taken on earth, archaeologists would be inclined to investigate further.

I see both possibilities here, and appreciate both sides of the debate. But some seem to have a need they can't resist to poo poo everything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. /rant

S&F OP



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I've read about this too. Good point, I agree, we should send indeed some real instruments there.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I would be the first to applause the discovery of an extraterrestrial civilisation on Mars. But I will need far more proof than a simple picture of a crater.

Ruins, pillars, even a simple brick would be a great start.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Klassified

I would be the first to applause the discovery of an extraterrestrial civilisation on Mars. But I will need far more proof than a simple picture of a crater.

Ruins, pillars, even a simple brick would be a great start.


I think the reason this one is odd for me is that it is in very close proximity to the formation on this thread.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

This is what I'm talking about. You're able to entertain the possibility without accepting or rejecting outright. That sir, is a truly skeptical mind. Debunkers are pseudo-skeptics. They approach everything with "Mind Firmly Closed."

Kudos to you.


edit on 11/18/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Wow. Not only is it a square, but one can also almost see chambers walls, inside the square. And I checked the source of the pic, it is indeed legit (USGS).



I am not saying it is a ruin, but I certainly observe that it is indeed most reminding of a ruin.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
I saw that thread, and found it interesting. This in conjunction with it, makes it even more interesting. This is one of those images that might stir an interest from archaeologists if it were on earth. They might find absolutely nothing, but then again...


edit on 11/18/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Vasa Croe
I saw that thread, and found it interesting. This in conjunction with it, makes it even more interesting. This is one of those images that might stir an interest from archaeologists if it were on earth. They might find absolutely nothing, but then again...



Similar train of thought here. With all the threads I have seen on ancient structures here, and mounds and circles built WAY back, this kind of caught my eye along with the other thread in that it looks similar to those ancient structures on Earth.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The main problem with interesting shapes in pictures is: We are not there to dig.

I know a lot of people jump on something because they see straight lines or sharp/90 degree angles, and considering in our modern day world, we're used to this is what we build looks like.

However, we do know that it's not forbidden by nature to produce things like this. I know most of you have been around long enough here on ATS to know that people will cough up pictures of natural formations here on Earth that look artificial, but are natural (Hex stones as an example, etc).

Interestingly enough however, is that a LOT of ancient ruins here on Earth had been buried over time, and didn't even give a hint at being visible, but only until we dug did we find them.

The Ziggurat's of ancient Sumaria are a great example of that. They were nothing more than very large dirt mounds as far as anyone knew for the longest time.

But because of stories that people had collected about an ancient people living there, we finally decided to go digging in those mounds, and underneath them, we found these huge temples that were the center of each Sumarian City.

It's quite possible that you have ruins not completely buried of course. Egypt is a great example of that.

But, while we scour through the pictures, I think the only sure way to find out is to actually go there and dig.

You all know the skeptic I am. But, I've always said, we find something that can in no way be denied, I'll be dancing in the streets and excited.
edit on 11/18/2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I just find the symmetry of these circle formations to be a bit too perfect to be coincidence.


I don't see perfect symmetry; one of the small craters is further away from the large crater group than the other one. The vaguely hexagonal shape around the small crater may be explained by the impact force which pushed the bedrock into the surrounding area (a hexagon is what you get when a circle tries to expand and meets resistance).

MRO's Context Camera provides a much more detailed view of that area, so have a look and be the judge on whether anything looks unnatural:



Closeup of the hexagon:



Explore in more detail:
CTX image 1
CTX image 2

I don't think there are any HiRISE images of that area, which would have shown even more detail.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Now that is a MUCH better pic. Looks like these are just natural craters from those.

Any chance you have the enhanced MRO pic of the square structure from the other thread as well?

Thanks!



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Two eyes, a nose and a mouth like this....



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Yikes! - a crop circle that graphically describes a hexagon in a circle.


Boom! - a square crater with rounded edges.

Just stuff that came up reading this thread. Not related, just thoughts that nature is art and visa vi.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I know it's mars, bit that looks just like a lighting strike on a rock that used to be in my yard. I'm going to try and find pics of it...



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




Is there a badge of honor members get for "debunking" everything, I'm unaware of?

I'm not sure who that is aimed at but I made a suggestion as to what the picture may show not a statement of fact , if that's unacceptable to you then I'm sorry but this is a science orientated forum about space exploration , given what we know about the history of Mars it's far more likely the formations are geological than created by an intelligence .....Fact.



edit on 19-11-2014 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex
I saw your post, and thought it was a good addition. If you didn't already, make sure you read my whole post, and subsequent ones. I think you'll understand what i was getting at, and you are not in that bunch. I've seen plenty of your posts. You are able to entertain possibilities, without necessarily accepting them or rejecting them based solely on your bias.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




I think you'll understand what i was getting at, and you are not in that bunch.

OK, thanks.
I guess I'm used to being the lightning rod



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

What i took away from your posts was that you wanted people to at least entertain the idea that it was an artificial structure...

Why would people have to do that when these are your typical run of the mill crater images? As higher resolution photos showed of the exact craters, there is no artificial structure and these are craters.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join