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.

 

Another too symetrical object mars?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Interesting find.
When I looked at it via the original image though I didn't see anything too special about it.

I am more impressed by the soil/salt/water that shows up in the Rover's tracks.




posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beamish
I so want to see something completely mindblowing in an image from Mars. What we are getting are teasers, and as such have to be careful before we jump to conclusions.


I guess we all have our different ideas about what is "obviously" a manufactured artifact "too symmetrical" to be a natural formation. Some folks will take something half buried that kinda sorta looks like it might have a marginally straight edge on it that isn't just a shadow and immediately imagine they see a piece of an engine or a skull or a shoe tree or an alien GameBoy that has been eroded over millions of years, but still recognizable, by golly.

But if you just look at the difference between say, the Mars Rovers themselves, which are actual pieces of machinery, and the scrubby little bits of whatever that vaguely resemble something, there's really no comparison. Yeah, yeah, erosion. Too bad about that, but that's not my problem.

I want to be shown something as blatant and obvious as a Mars Rover component sitting there on the surface. If these other things can be seen, why not something as obvious and undeniable as a Mars Rover wheel?

Oh, yeah, the erosion. Well, if we're just going to make up assumptions, like the aliens only existed millions of years ago and this is all that's left, then why can't I make an assumption that there were never any aliens to begin with? I mean, fair is fair. Right?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
even with the yellow outline to persuade me i have to say "nope. it's just a rock." i realize the shadow that sort of bisects the object might be leading you to think it's concave in some way but i think it's just a shadow of a bulge or that they are 2 separate rocks and you're getting a shadow from the one on top.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Great find. At least this is reasonable when it comes to "what is that rock!" type of stuff.

I found this "Bowl" shaped object of interest. It looks as if it is filled with sand and continues under tha sand to the left. Perhaps natural, but stood out to me since there is a bowl shaped object in front of the item you presented. I am sure someone could explain this occurance in nature.





I also thought this rock was strange. It seems to be floating and casting a shadow under. I am sure this is explainable as well.




Now, I really enjoy these type of posts and believe there may be something to past civilizations on MARS, but I am not one who believes all or really many of claims. Items that actually had desernable shapes that may or may not be natural are worth a look. What I am posting are not great examples of what I would normally examine but worth submitting since they are on the same photo and shows how items can be found on most photos from MARS. Is this natural? If you don't look and discuss then we will never know the truth.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Beamish
I so want to see something completely mindblowing in an image from Mars. What we are getting are teasers, and as such have to be careful before we jump to conclusions.


I guess we all have our different ideas about what is "obviously" a manufactured artifact "too symmetrical" to be a natural formation. Some folks will take something half buried that kinda sorta looks like it might have a marginally straight edge on it that isn't just a shadow and immediately imagine they see a piece of an engine or a skull or a shoe tree or an alien GameBoy that has been eroded over millions of years, but still recognizable, by golly.


No-one jumped to these conclusions in this case, it was just stated that this object or rock seemed to show sings of tampering since nature doesn't produce such stand alone, rectangular artifacts that present a rectangular excavation. Of course, if you fail to see or recognize it then by all means it's just a stone with a wierd shadow.


But if you just look at the difference between say, the Mars Rovers themselves, which are actual pieces of machinery, and the scrubby little bits of whatever that vaguely resemble something, there's really no comparison. Yeah, yeah, erosion. Too bad about that, but that's not my problem.

I want to be shown something as blatant and obvious as a Mars Rover component sitting there on the surface. If these other things can be seen, why not something as obvious and undeniable as a Mars Rover wheel?



The Burren - Poulnanbrone Dolmen.
www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/738/178464.JPG
No wheel of a mars rover around?..can't be a sign of civilisation then!



Oh, yeah, the erosion. Well, if we're just going to make up assumptions, like the aliens only existed millions of years ago and this is all that's left, then why can't I make an assumption that there were never any aliens to begin with? I mean, fair is fair. Right?


same as above!


[edit on 1/4/08 by icblue]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by icblue
No-one jumped to these conclusions in this case, it was just stated that this object or rock seemed to show sings of tampering since nature doesn't produce such stand alone, rectangular artifacts that present a rectangular excavation. Of course, if you fail to see or recognize it then by all means it's just a stone with a wierd shadow.


But that's just my point. Some people think it "seemed" to show signs of tampering, since in their opinion nature doesn't produce similar shapes. That's just a matter of opinion, really, isn't it? That at a certain point a shape can't be produced by nature. But there's no absolute, agreed-upon line that specifically defines where the natural ends and the artificial begins. Some people think that if something has a kind of straight edge (or used to, allowing for the erosion), then that qualified it as probably artificial. Others would rather see a bit more measurable order, symmetry, construction, linear script, etc.

The thing is, I can post a lot of images of things nature has fashioned into very artificial-looking shapes, and others can post photos of Mars rocks where they've drawn lines to highlight what they perceive are the artificial aspects of the object. But neither of those things prove anything. That's right, neither. Because it's not dealing with the object, but rather images of the object or other images, and images don't prove anything, anywhere, anyway.

So all anybody is left with are their opinions. The person who thinks a particular thing on Mars is an artifact can claim this as a victory, I suppose, but it really isn't. It's not even a victory if suddenly a whole ancient city is discovered on Mars using subsurface radar. Because even that wouldn't say anything about the particular object in question. It would be like saying that because there are people living in New York City, the squarish rock I found in Arizona must be manufactured.

And you know, I think I've already written too much in another one of these pointless threads. If you get a thrill out of looking at a blurry image and thinking a rock on Mars is some kind of decayed alien carburetor, hey, knock yourself out. No skin off my nose.

Ridiculous.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Nice find. Flag for you can you post the link please. As I know theirs, a few people who would be interested including my self Thanks



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
[But that's just my point. Some people think it "seemed" to show signs of tampering, since in their opinion nature doesn't produce similar shapes. That's just a matter of opinion, really, isn't it? That at a certain point a shape can't be produced by nature. But there's no absolute, agreed-upon line that specifically defines where the natural ends and the artificial begins. Some people think that if something has a kind of straight edge (or used to, allowing for the erosion), then that qualified it as probably artificial. Others would rather see a bit more measurable order, symmetry, construction, linear script, etc.


AND there is one more thing to this you say Nohup; we are al under the assumption that nature works in a way we know it should. While in fact we are still investigating (and discovering) how nature works. So how can we know how nature works on an other planet (if you can call it "nature").

But I can appreciate the attempt to show something "out of the ordinairy" on Mars, there is much to show...

And who knows: maybe we will be wiped from our feet by some amazing find. I for one still expect such a thing to happen, but maybe only if we are really standing on Mars' surface so we can pick up anything looking suspicious and deal with the arguments on the spot, i stead of heaving to do with only a distant one-sided picture.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by icblue
 


Nice find iceblue! I'm glad you are looking at Mars with a tooth comb!


This object, at first glance looks pretty symmetrical, but when one runs it through a few filters, it seems it isn't connected but comprises two different stones. Take a look….



So it's probably the effect of light and shadow. But keep looking! You never know what you may find!

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Icblue. had a quick look at the post this morning( just got up) didn’t see you had the link up. My apology. still a nice find . Keep looking and posting.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I could just as easily draw a curved outline around the object. The resolution is not high enough to draw any conclusions. This kind of exaggerated speculation distracts attention away from the really obvious anomalies which the authorities want you to forget about.

What is far more interesting in that photo is the darker (wet?) tracks and the white stuff (ice?) on the very same tracks.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
And you know, I think I've already written too much in another one of these pointless threads. If you get a thrill out of looking at a blurry image and thinking a rock on Mars is some kind of decayed alien carburetor, hey, knock yourself out. No skin off my nose.

Ridiculous.



I can agree with you to a point.

Consider this: I believe we're hardwired to recognise patterns that indicate artificiality, familiar shapes that would suggest intelligent construction etc.

This is supposition based on observation, but would it not be feasible to assume that our ancestors had deduced systems of territorial marking, as "primitive" tribes do up to the present day?
A bent twig here, a pile of stones there, a bone left in a tree would all mean something to a wandering tribe or individual. To ignore them would mean missing out on food, placing onesself in danger, or losing a path.

Now, if this ability to "read" the landscape is still inherent, hardwired, as I described earlier, then maybe it is being utilised for a different purpose in the study of Martian photographs?
An example; we use road markings to navigate journeys. Many are numerical and use text, but a large amount are symbolic, artificial shapes that stand out from the background noise. Their import triggers an acquired knowledge. We obey them because we know they are significant.

I fully realise that this is a tenuous hypothesis, but any hypothesis is valid until disproven. For centuries we have used this faculty to not only survive, but prosper. It's only a manufactured version of scent marking. Now, it is part of us, and we use it without thinking every day.
Indeed, many years ago I walked an archeological site on the Greek island of Thassos. Amazingly, the site was open to the public. It consisted of rocky ground and centuries of natural detritus.
However, I was able, without too much trouble, to spot potsherds, pieces of Hellenic glass, and fragments of decaying metal amongst the litter. And I wasn't really looking. This might not sound remarkable, but it goes someway to illustrate my point.

I admit we don't always get it right. Humans are stubborn and wilfull and will ignore the obvious, even at the risk of danger or retribution. What those who pour over NASA photos are doing, IMO, is utilising this primal skill, albeit unknowingly, to validate the widely held theory of a once, or presently occupied Mars.

What they find, they post, and for that I am personaly gratefull. The findings may well not be artificial, indeed, most of the time they're not, but it doesn't, and shouldn't stop them looking.

Is it ridiculous? Hardly. Anyone who spends time searching for the seemingly immposible is only following a long tradition of explorers and researchers who had faith in the existence of the legendary and ellusive.

To actively hunt for something that the majority of people vociferously believe mythical or invented is both foolhardy, but wonderfully, completely, undeniably human.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
the rock below it also looks concave.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


But that's all we get from Nasa, just a few hints and glimpses and that's those we're running after to extract as much information off them as we possibly can. By no means, no-one wanted to present this as PROOF of extra-terrestial life on mars, no-one said "hey look, that's a half burried safe or cash register".

It all comes down to drawing the attention to something that, in the image doesn't fit there at first and second sight and where the obvious normal explanations don't fit. Then it's thrown out to the community here where it's discussed from every point of view.

I appreciate your give on it as much as the next one IF it's based on a logical approach. What I don't want to accept is general statements like "everything we get to see there can only tricks of light and shadow..so move along..nothing to see". With that approach we will toss out the baby with the tub and likely miss the one good shot that might trigger further exploration.

What I accept and highly appreciate is when someone like mikesingh (whom I asked to come take a look at it) runs graphical filters on it and deals with the basic picture to draw out more information that either supports or invalidates the initial hypotheses -star-

I consider myself as an "open skeptic" meaning I don't buy everything at face value, but I also don't reject everything that isn't blessed by mainstream narrow-minded self-sufficient scientists.

That said, what is the give of on the ice- salt like substance that was brought up in the rover tracks?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Well, now, I'll have to disagree with that. Look at the original image. It's obviously (to me) one stone, though I didn't see any symmetry until the yellow lines were added. I don't usually disagree with you Mr. Singh, but I don't feel your claim to have busted this because Photoshop's filters failed to pick up any connection between the two sides is all too strong.

I've ran it though a couple different filters and obtained different results:



It appears the only reason Photoshop want's to separate the two is because of the two strong shadows on the right sides and then a slightly darker region connecting the two. While photoshop's selection and contrast detection tools are some of it's strongest points, it isn't all knowing.

I won't say it's a cinder block, but I refuse to say the case is busted.

edit: to fix picture
edit: to fix grammer

[edit on 2-4-2008 by memoir]

[edit on 2-4-2008 by memoir]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by memoir
 


sorry memoir, I can't seem to able to access the document you posted, can you review the link maybe?
thanks


edit: link works now, was too fast


[edit on 2/4/08 by icblue]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I'm just saying I find the tracks WAY more interesting, is there an explanation?

I mean we are all talking about this stone, but damn look at those tracks! lol.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I want to pull up an image from my computer files and it won't let me.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by memoir
reply to post by mikesingh
 

Well, now, I'll have to disagree with that. I don't feel your claim to have busted this because Photoshop's filters failed to pick up any connection between the two sides is all too strong.


Oops memoir, me busted nothin'!!


OK, seriously, that was just a suggestion I made after hauling the image through a few filters.

Now the filter you have applied is the 'trace contour' filter with a level of around 115 which has resulted in the middle pic like this….



Now, the same image has been put through the same filter but with a level of 100, and this is what emerges…



So with the contour filter, it all depends upon the level of the slider. But hey, needless to say, the jury is still out on this one! Not fully busted yet!!


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Interestin thread. I downloaded and put the pic through a high pass tonality filter. Result. IMHO its an edit and was never in the original that was taken. As the small rock? is in the NASA original, the edit was made before they posted it. Reasons for my opinion is this. When The filter is applied the shadows on the anomally are darker than the other few rocks in the surrounding are. Also the object at 2 o`clock to the anomally is to identical and can be oplaced almost perfectly over iether the front left or right sections of it. P.S. Credentials : I am a professional photographer and designer.

Link to www.4thdimensionimage.com/portraits/imagepages/image1.html
and click on the thumbnail.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join