possible space anomalies, 2018 edition take 2

That one is pretty strange.

HUGE THANKS to every photo contributor! I hadn't seen many of these on ATS (or anywhere else) before now.

Maybe some on here should check this site for Mars Images

HiRISE Mars images at 25cm per pixel.

For example image below right click on it select view image then left click on it to see it even larger.



If you are going to look at images look for the best possible

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

That one is pretty strange.

Do you have the link to the original article? If we know the coordinates of this "anomaly" we can look up very high-rez images from MRO.

a reply to: Justoneman

again its almost impossible to probe trash have survived the atmopshere and crashed near the rover

a reply to: Arouet

why are you saying that? i use logic whenever i can and i know that a iron meteorite is the most plausible and likely explanation

a reply to: amazing

NASA actually rarely photographs a region more than once, unless that region is scientifically important or there is a surface mission currently ongoing there

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

definitely pareidolia, i think its sediment that has accumulated there over the years

a reply to: carewemust

i agree, i have been seeing some stuff here that is hard to find anywhere else

a reply to: wmd_2008

that image has been scoured a lot over the years and they never found anything interesting on it

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: wmd_2008

that image has been scoured a lot over the years and they never found anything interesting on it

What image the crater was just shown as an example of better quality images that can be found.

a reply to: wmd_2008

a reply to: wildespace
Larger image. (Higher resolution of wider area.)


Nearest link I can find is :
esa

The image I posted first has mars express info about the image and numbers at bottom of image.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

definitely pareidolia, i think its sediment that has accumulated there over the years

I disagree here. There are definitely a lot of cases of that running around but the faces are a consistent theme - and that one isn’t hard to see once you point at it.

After all of my anomaly reviewing from all over the webs on all sorts of celestial bodies I’ve found clear evidence of faces lots of places. However, this doesn’t happen with near the frequency/hardly at all when I poke around google earth. My suspicion is this - faces are the way different factions identify their territory. I’m also willing to bet that if you find faces on the sides of outcroppings like that but could get an overhead view you’d find something very similar that’s visible from above. It’s an easy way to claim your territory that isn’t a giant flag that draws attention.

Along those lines, it got me thinking that structures that are above ground draw attention meaning it’s obvious that something is there. Same goes for lights at night. I’ve started to wonder if the reason we don’t see anything above ground to speak of in these photos isn’t because stuff doesn’t exist but because space is a hostile place and drawing attention to yourself isn’t a great practice.

Also, NASA/ESA doesn’t take a single picture without a good reason - wasted resources. I suspect the picture in question was taken exactly for the thing that was pointed out so we could log the coordinates and know who is there.

It’s a military recon mission packaged as a science experiment over there on mars - no way we’re sending a bunch of people over there without having a handle/very clear grasp on any potential threats we might encounter with humans that far from home and no backup in sight.

If you read these photos like an intel analyst and realize a lot of the “scaling” NASA provides is bogus to through you off there’s a whole bunch going on over there - which I confirmed with someone who has a handle on intel analysis for just this type of purpose.

My 2 cents.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: wildespace
Larger image. (Higher resolution of wider area.)


Nearest link I can find is :
esa

The image I posted first has mars express info about the image and numbers at bottom of image.

Cheers. Here's this feature in higher rezolution, from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's CTX camera:



Oblique view from Google Earth:


Looks like some light-toned deposits exposed by erosion, probably water-born minerals like gypsum.

Full CTX image

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

somehown i doubt that

Here's a couple I came across while searching Mars

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

somehown i doubt that

Fair - it’s also a theory but one that I buy.

We had some documented circumstantial evidence we ran into “issues” like I’m sliding to with our moon landings and finding some things there that we didn’t expect to be there.

Its also human nature to have a perspective based on what you’re told the perspective is. For instance, if I walk someone out to talk to you about a subject and say “this is the worlds foremost expert on the subject blah blah blah” you’ll listen intently - even if that’s a load of rubbish - because I framed it that way. Opposite is also true if I telll you someone is a moron and has not reason to say anything on a subject (even though they’re well versed in it) and assume everything they say is bogus. Perspective and framing plays tricks on us all the time.

I have a friend who is quite involved in the UFO community (a little over the top involved imo - to each their own) who ended up at a non-ufo related work event for his wife and got to talking to another husband who is a Boeing engineer. Turns out, the guy from Boeing wouldn’t say much (go figure) but said that “I always laugh when I hear the news quote ridiculously long travel times to Mars - we can get there in hours.”

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

somehown i doubt that

Its also human nature to have a perspective based on what you’re told the perspective is. For instance, if I walk someone out to talk to you about a subject and say “this is the worlds foremost expert on the subject blah blah blah” you’ll listen intently - even if that’s a load of rubbish - because I framed it that way.

Not necessarily. I'd listen to what he has to say, but would also ask him about his credentials, and would look his name up on the Internet.

Turns out, the guy from Boeing wouldn’t say much (go figure) but said that “I always laugh when I hear the news quote ridiculously long travel times to Mars - we can get there in hours.”

Really strange for a guy from Boeing to say something like that. How much does he know about space travel, rocket and spacecraft design, etc? Again, just because someone who works at a big and important company says something, doesn't mean they're an expert on this.