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.

 

Dome on Mars

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I swear I saw that object in another pic and Tiger Woods was getting ready to pound that thing down a martian fairway...

What's Martian for "FORE!"

[Edited on 20-1-2004 by intelgurl]




posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Mabe NSA made a mistake when hoaxing all those pictures, or that is an alien base or something.

That doesn't look natural.



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
[Edited on 20-1-2004 by NetStorm]



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
If you make the image a negative, the dome seems to go away





posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Netstorm,

What are you talking about? The dome doesn't go away on. this is a very interesting find. It was referenced to in another thread a few weeks ago, but received little interest. Strange.

It is not just an impact crater. As stated above, an object that size would create a much larger crater. To stay in tact and be that shape is a real anomoly. Also in the article referenced to above, note that there are two crates like this within proximity of each other on mars...the really strange part is that both spheres are "exactly" the same size.



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lukefj
Netstorm,

What are you talking about? The dome doesn't go away on. this is a very interesting find. It was referenced to in another thread a few weeks ago, but received little interest. Strange.

It is not just an impact crater. As stated above, an object that size would create a much larger crater. To stay in tact and be that shape is a real anomoly. Also in the article referenced to above, note that there are two crates like this within proximity of each other on mars...the really strange part is that both spheres are "exactly" the same size.



Ok, maybe I should have used a better word than "go away" What I meant to say is the "sphere" turns into a depression (or appears to be a depression)when you negative the pic.
I agree it is an awesome find, I just thought it interesting how it looked when you reverse the colors.
Have you looked at the pic I posted of the rover animations? Whats the "black" panel right in front of the rover as it drives along.
Or what is the depression that is in front of the big rock the rover is approaching. The hard thing about these pics is how to determine size, cause to me...the rover would bottom out if it ran over the rock that is right in front of it.


[Edited on 20-1-2004 by NetStorm]



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Of course it would turn into a depression?? I don't understand what you are trying to prove. If it is just to try to determin size I believe there were measurements and dimensions provided in one of the earlier links in this thread.

I agree "disappear" is definitely the wrong word.



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lukefj
Of course it would turn into a depression?? I don't understand what you are trying to prove. If it is just to try to determin size I believe there were measurements and dimensions provided in one of the earlier links in this thread.

I agree "disappear" is definitely the wrong word.


I'm not trying to prove anything, except that if you turn the shadows into light, it looks different OK?
Just like in the normal photo it looks like there is a "covered tunnel" leading away from the dome.






posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Ok, I'm ignorant . You made the statement of "Originally posted by Lukefj
Of course it would turn into a depression?? "

Can you tell me why an apparently round structure, would appear to be depressed if you made it into a negative?

These didn't




[Edited on 20-1-2004 by NetStorm]


For more info on the Mars dome...go here
www.viewzone.com...

[Edited on 20-1-2004 by NetStorm]



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
It's a matter of the source of light. In the second picture you tried to disprove me with the light source was from above. However, if you shif the light source to either horizon as it is in the Mars phot, you will achieve the same results.


PS. "ignorant" I made no mention of you being ignorant...perhaps just an oversite, or oversimplification, or looking for something where there isn't anything. Certainly not ignorant, I have a great deal of respect for all posters on this forum. I would not resort to name calling, of any kind...atleast not yet. Lol.
Luke

[Edited on 20-1-2004 by Lukefj]



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Ok, this is my first post on this forum. Don't flame if it's allready known ok?

In 1955 Ernest L. Norman used remote viewing to write a book about mars.



On Mars the cities are all underground and are connected together by huge oval metal tubes from three to five hundred feet in diameter...Because of the great distances between the cities, these tubes have been built only partially submerged...The shifting desert sands often cover or uncover them which leads to further confusion inasmuch as they seem to appear and disappear...Like all cities on Mars, it is built on the floor of a huge metal dome. These domes are sometimes four or five miles in diameter, and up to three thousand feet high....As these domes are built in the bottom of excavations, the sands soon drift over them and cover them up, giving added protection from the strong surface rays.


Same dome?

Full story HERE



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
It'll be orgotten about and brushed aside with some half assed explanation and us peons in the general public will never hear of it again... we should fund our own mars lander



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheConservative
Sometimes, when meteor fragments slam into planets, craters like this are formed; creating mountain-like formations in a variety of shapes - depending on the angle which the meteor hit. Here is an interesting link about the strange Mars craters:

www.viewzone.com...


______________________________

This was an excellent link provived by TheConservative, and after reviewing these detailed photos- I am amazed. It appears to me as if it is geodetic construction....



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
All skepticism aside, it looks like one of two things.

First, it may have been built inside that crater purposefully; such a site might be selected because of the fact that it guards against elemental forces like wind erosion.

Second, it may be an extramartian (and presumably extraterrestrial) object of fairly large size and spherical shape. A sphere is not an illogical shape for a spacecraft by any means; in fact, it's one of the more efficient ways to go, and it'd be easier to simulate gravity in a sphere than an irregular shape. If they went to that trouble to regulate gravity, we could assume that it was a long-distance (in relative terms, of course) voyage that culminated in a collision with Mars... this makes the second possibility less likely, as any pilot with enough sense to make it here from another world wouldn't likely go running into a rock when he was almost to wherever he was going.

Perhaps, assuming option one to be true, this was a rare surface structure? It's fairly evident that Mars had the characteristics needed to support life; perhaps said life lived underground for whatever reason. It's very possible that a civilization could have risen, flourished, and died on Mars before we figured out that it was a good idea to live inside, as Mars didn't have the 'benefit' of a planetwide extinction early in its career as a world.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Dang, I was wondering why I couldn't find that golf ball!
I did hit it pretty hard...

Seriously, though, that's really wild! I'm looking forward to reading the rest of this thread for theories and links, then I'll get to do my own research, and I'll be talking to y'all soon!



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genya
Hi all!

Great image!

I am *not* a geologist (or astro-geologist either, come to that!) but could this be an example of a volcanic caldera/ dome under the influence of a lower gravitational "pull" and less "weathering" and erosion as we would find on Mars??

Here's an image geopubs.wr.usgs.gov...

And a Google search will reveal more...

Just a thought...


Good point!



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Hmmm think I read something about another shpere close by? Weird. *thinks* I'll come up with something.... be back sometime..........



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genya
Hi all!

Great image!

I am *not* a geologist (or astro-geologist either, come to that!) but could this be an example of a volcanic caldera/ dome under the influence of a lower gravitational "pull" and less "weathering" and erosion as we would find on Mars??

Here's an image geopubs.wr.usgs.gov...

And a Google search will reveal more...

Just a thought...


Great image, I set it as my desktop background.. really awesome sight.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
adjusted and split for viewing with 3D Glasses for those who have some. The ones I use have the Red on the Left and Blue on the Right. If yours are different it may not work the same


Just turn them upside down if so


Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Quote from the site's header:

THE BROWSE AND JPEG IMAGES ARE NEITHER RADIOMETRICALLY NOR GEOMETRICALLY ACCURATE AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR QUANTITATIVE OR INTERPRETATIVE PURPOSES.


I think they mean that these are intended for the purposes of raw data and do not accurately depict the surface of the planet. Sorry guys, Bust.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join