Proof Of a Mine on Mars???

even though it says crater it is looking more and more convex or relatively flat the more I look at it. To me it's the best way to look at it for figuring out what thoes knoby like formations are along the side of the landform are. The real question is if it is flat or convex then those step like lines, concentric circles whatever are really water marks, or something similar and that too would complicate things.

I guess no one has read the link I posted. It says how such a feature was created:

The circular feature was once an impact crater. The crater was 2.6 km (1.6 mi) across, about 2.6 times larger than the famous Meteor Crater in northern Arizona. Terra Meridiani, like northern Arizona, is a region of vast exposures of layered sedimentary rock. Like the crater in Arizona, this one was formed by a meteor that impacted a layered rock substrate. Later, this crater was filled and completely buried under more than 100 m (more than 327 ft) of additional layered sediment. The sediment hardened to become rock. Later still, the rock was eroded away -- by processes unknown (perhaps wind) -- to re-expose the buried crater. The crater today remains mostly filled with sediment, its present rim standing only about 40 m (130 ft) above its surroundings.

Originally posted by Terapin
Care to offer any SOLID evidence that it was indeed dug out other than mere speculation and imagination?

Care to provide any solid evidence of God? Or Black holes? Or how the Moon got here? Or the Big Bang? The age of the universe? Our own origins? Or even evidence that the Egyptians built the pyramids? All conjectures, right? But we don't know for sure. All based on hypothetical models.

Having said that, probably the only way one could ever get some evidence is to go there and collect soil samples and analyse it. But then again, would we EVER know its origins if the 'mine' was hundreds of thousands of years old?

There are so many unsolved enigmas on Earth itself that we call history's mysteries, that have remained so, till today. Mars is a long way off!!

Originally posted by nataylor
guess no one has read the link I posted. It says how such a feature was created:

...Like the crater in Arizona, this one was formed by a meteor that impacted a layered rock substrate. Later, this crater was filled and completely buried under more than 100 m (more than 327 ft) of additional layered sediment. The sediment hardened to become rock. Later still, the rock was eroded away -- by processes unknown (perhaps wind)..

Yes. Read the link. It says "...by a process unknown (perhaps wind)". So, conjecture again! Not evidence! So I'm not buying this theory of an impact crater just yet!

[edit on 28-11-2006 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Yes. Read the link. It says "...by a process unknown (perhaps wind)". So, conjecture again! Not evidence! So I'm not buying this theory of an impact crater just yet!

[edit on 28-11-2006 by mikesingh]

You seem to be implying that the theories that it is a hole dug by magical faeries from the planet Krypton and that it is an impact crater have equal amounts of evidence (in you opinion, none). That's just not right. There is plenty of evidence it is an impact crater. By what process do you suggest it was formed? Are there other examples int he solar system you can point to that would back up your supposition? Are there years of research and theories that have stood up to peer review and refinement, fitting observable evidence and correctly predicting new discoveries to back up your opinion that it is not a crater?

Personally, I'll believe the geophysicists about the origin of this particular feature.

Manicouagan - 100Km

This one does not look like the Martian "Crater", but it is interesting if its a big as you propose. What would smack into the earth, big enough to make a 100km impact crater, and not punch a hole in the ground ? It says the rock there is very tough, but even a small nuke would make quick work of solid rock at ground zero.


Vredefort - 300Km

this one seems more like the martian example but even it lacks the depth and drama of the martian one. I find it really amazing that an impact of that size would not punch a bigger hole in the ground that couldn't so easily be filled by sediment and new growth that it appears as if its nothing but some concentric ripples in the surface. do you happen to have a ground levle pic of this one? if not, i can see if i can find one.

mikesingh said:

Care to provide any solid evidence of God? Or Black holes? Or how the Moon got here? Or the Big Bang? The age of the universe? Our own origins? Or even evidence that the Egyptians built the pyramids? All conjectures, right? But we don't know for sure. All based on hypothetical models.

my response:

lol! not to mention, quantum physics. schrodinger's cat. i can't believe in this day and age, so many people are still completely sold on the idea that the mainstream versions of history and science are totally and all other ways, verifiably true. folks, it's called hypothesis and theory for a reason.

Originally posted by undo
my response:

lol! not to mention, quantum physics. schrodinger's cat. i can't believe in this day and age, so many people are still completely sold on the idea that the mainstream versions of history and science are totally and verifiably true. folks, it's called hypothesis and theory for a reason.

Undo, well said! The tragedy today is that most of us want to remain within the constraints of conditioned conventional thinking and shudder at the thought of out-of-box ideas.

If most of us are agreed that we are not alone in this huge universe, then why do we make such a fuss and a skeptical racket even at the very thought of Mars having been inhabited at some period in the past? What's the big deal if it was? Even if a teeny hint of possible life outside our li'l planet is mentioned, all hell breaks loose!! A Paradox eh??

For a change why don't we ask for proof that there is or was NO life on Mars? Is there irrefutable evidence that there is or was no life there? Hell's bells! I'm kinda getting into deep water! I'm outta here!!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by undo
my response:

lol! not to mention, quantum physics. schrodinger's cat. i can't believe in this day and age, so many people are still completely sold on the idea that the mainstream versions of history and science are totally and verifiably true. folks, it's called hypothesis and theory for a reason.

Undo, well said! The tragedy today is that most of us want to remain within the constraints of conditioned conventional thinking and shudder at the thought of out-of-box ideas.

If most of us are agreed that we are not alone in this huge universe, then why do we make such a fuss and a skeptical racket even at the very thought of Mars having been inhabited at some period in the past? What's the big deal if it was? Even if a teeny hint of possible life outside our li'l planet is mentioned, all hell breaks loose!! A Paradox eh??

For a change why don't we ask for proof that there is or was NO life on Mars? Is there irrefutable evidence that there is or was no life there? Hell's bells! I'm kinda getting into deep water! I'm outta here!!

Well, they entertain the notion that since they are in the superior of position of having mainstream thought to support their positions on such subjects, that we are automatically the sole inheritors of the burden of proof. Fortunately, the natural curiosity of most scientists drives them to find out, anyway. lol

Originally posted by undo
This one does not look like the Martian "Crater"

Sorry, I didn't noticed that you wanted only craters like that on Mars. If you want only those type of craters then I do not have any to show you.

do you happen to have a ground levle pic of this one? if not, i can see if i can find one.

This is not at ground level, but I think it shows want you want.

Or this.


About the destructive power of a meteor and the capacity of absorbing that power, as I said in another post, you can go to the impact effects calculator and make some tests.

For example, a 10Km iron meteor, with a impact velocity of 20.00 km/s, hitting sedimentary rock at a 90 degrees angle, would have this results (I only show some of the information that site gives).

The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

Final Crater Diameter: 197 km = 122 miles
Final Crater Depth: 1.45 km = 0.901 miles

The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 7450 km3 = 1790 miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater , where its average thickness is 835 meters = 2740 feet

If I try something bigger, like a meteor with 500Km diameter, hitting the Earth 18.000Km away from me:

The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

Final Crater Diameter: 5970 km = 3710 miles
Final Crater Depth: 4.05 km = 2.52 miles

The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 9.32e+08 km3 = 2.24e+08 miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater , where its average thickness is 249 km = 155 miles

The fireball is below the horizon. There is no direct thermal radiation.

Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 18000 km:
VII.
VIII.

After some tests I reached the conclusion that to completely destroy Earth it was needed a meter bigger than 6.000 Km in diameter.

As you can see, if you believe the people who made that calculator, it is very difficult to destroy a planet.

Originally posted by mikesinghThe tragedy today is that most of us want to remain within the constraints of conditioned conventional thinking and shudder at the thought of out-of-box ideas.

Another problem, and one that does affect many of the people that speak of thinking "outside of the box", is that many people only think outside of a box to think inside a different box, and when they think that they are having an open mind they have a mind opened only to what other people, who are against the mainstream thinking, tell them to think.

I don't think that you are one those people, mikesingh, but I would look to your threads in a different way if you used the results of your investigations and not just what you find on sites that usually post altered photos.
(Yes, the fact that you use those photos from those sites, as well as saying that this photo shows, for example, a mine, instead of asking us what we see in it, makes me read your threads with a little prejudice against your opinion, if it really is your opinion, that is why I am always trying to prove you wrong)

I am not saying that you shouldn't do this, and I appreciate your effort to try to bring to ATS all those things that some have never seen, but I think that it was better to look at those photos and, instead of saying the same things that they say on those sites where you find them, you had an approach of looking to the photos without reading what they think the photos show.

Maybe you do this, and if you do, congratulations on having what I think is a really opened mind.

In any case, keep looking, learning is the only thin we can do in any circumstance.

ArMap,

I have a bunch of mars images, I've been collecting for years now. I've never posted them to the net (as they were already posted to the net on NASA's site anway). I figured, if anyone wanted to know for themselves, they'd download the images and investigate, but sometimes, people don't have enough time for all that and just let official or unofficial sources tell them or show them. So, folks like mikesingh, come along and save them the trouble, and offer an interesting hypothesis to go with it. i see nothing wrong with it. certainly no worse than saying there's absolutely no water on mars, which we've seen quoted so many times over the years, that if we weren't all totally convinced by now, there's no hope.

Originally posted by undo
certainly no worse than saying there's absolutely no water on mars, which we've seen quoted so many times over the years,

really , by who , and in what context ?

you do not seem to have been paying attention

source

publshed 28th may , 2002

Water-ice has been found in vast quantities just below the surface across great swathes of the planet Mars.

source

published 5th janurary 2001

Plenty of clues suggest that liquid water once flowed on Mars --raising hopes that life could have arisen there-- but the evidence remains inconclusive and sometimes contradictory

source

published : 25th june 2000

NASA hasdiscovered evidence of water on the Red Planets surface. The finding, made bythe Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, fuels hopes that there may be life onMars.

source

published : 27th may 1998

New mineralogical and topographic evidence suggesting that Mars had abundant water and thermal activity in its early history is emerging from data gleaned by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft.

vikling lander experiments reported incredibly low partial presuures of water vapour , and the presence of solid ice in 1976

so please drop the strawman demonisation of astronomers and astrogeologists

Ignorant Ape,

The problem is, this is not agreed upon across the board. So when you say to scientist so-and-so, they think they've found water on Mars, you get responses like:

All liquid water on mars vanished a long time ago if it was ever there to begin with. All that's left is ice on the poles.

Even amongst mainstream thinking on the subject, there are disagreements on this particular subject. Perhaps because the information is not widely disseminated or the scientists in question are hold-outs for some other pet theory. Who knows.

Originally posted by undoSo, folks like mikesingh, come along and save them the trouble, and offer an interesting hypothesis to go with it. i see nothing wrong with it.

I have no problem when people offer their hypothesis, and I don't even have a problem when someone proposes other people's hypothesis.

The problem when they offer other people's hypothesis, is that if we should have an open mind then we should not be constrained by some people's theories while avoiding other people's theories only because they are the official theories, we should be open to all theories.

For example, the fact that the site where mikesingh got this photo says that it looks like a mine (in fact, they say that this photo matches the aerial view of that copper mine in Arizona, and that is not true and they must know it, because they do not provide any photo in a similar angle) may have made some people loose the capability of seeing in it a different thing, and maybe those people were the only ones that could see what it really is.

And the thing that irritates me the most is the fact that people many times do not use the original images, freely available, but copies, usually with a brightness and contrast change, maybe to make some features more clear, but loosing detail in the mid-tones.

But I have no problem with people showing these photos, much less with mikesingh, who looks like he is trying to present the photos in a unbiased way.

For those who like to look at odd things on mars, my thread called "Mars, An Alpine Vacation" is here www.abovetopsecret.com...
I don't mind telling you that it is very weird. mars is just weird.

Mining on mars

www.marsruins.com...