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.

 

Strange Alien Structures on Eros And Miranda! Whodunit?

page: 2
69
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
If the image is rotated kind of looses the structure feel, but not that much, it happens the most in the images below the original, you can see that here:



But still it looks like something completely out of place there, unless it is a trick of the light as some of the rotated images seem to show.

But, i believe is something else, there are no more pics from this same area maybe that we could look at and see if it still looks the same from other angles?

Kai




posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Perhaps the Terrapapers are more fact than fiction. There seems to be many such structures in our solar system.



Originally posted by starwatcher1
Might want to read the Terra Papers on your trip... might be an explanation... THANKS


Yep! I've read the Terra Papers. Pretty interesting stuff!
And if you have the time, you may like to take a peek at a thread of mine Can Anyone Debunk This Theory? that I wrote way back in 2006! Shades of the Terra Papers!!

Cheers!



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Where did these pictures come from?

How did "those" in control of the pictures let this one get out?

I don't think you found anything here...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Ok,
The first pic really makes me wonder. It looks more like a vehicle to me than anything.


So now I am going to give a bit more credence to the rectangle strucutre found on mars recently.


wow. I think you might be on... er ON TO something here.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Well the Eros picture does have a foreign object on it. Thats the probe NEAR they sent to orbit the asteroid, and when it finished its mission they decided to try and land the probe on the surface. The landing was successful. Apparently someone was able to capture a photo of it resting on the surface.

www.space.com...

www.space.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Interesting picture of Eros. It definitely looks like a structure that is not naturally formed. Can you post a link to the NASA web site where you obtained the original picture? I would like to see it from the original source and check to see if they have pictures of the same location from a different angle.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CAPT PROTON
 


Great catch CAPT PROTON. The picture of the object on Euros is a picture of the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) Shoemaker spacecraft sitting on the surface.

"NEAR Shoemaker made a journey of more than 2 billion miles (3.2 billion kilometers), and performed a yearlong observational campaign around Eros. As the first asteroid orbiter, the probe was not built for landing. Scientists and engineers made a go-for-broke decision to attempt a touchdown on the rocky mini-world. They succeeded in soft-landing the probe onto Eros, with the craft plopping down on the asteroid at less than 4 miles per hour (between 1.5 and 1.8 meters per second). The science data from the asteroids surface was received almost five years to the day after NEAR Shoemaker was launched on February 17, 1996."
Source: www.space.com...

Ummm....I may have been to hasty in saying that the object in the picture is the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft. Here is a link to a NASA website with the exact same picture stating that it was taken BY the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft during "low orbit" on May 2, 2000. It is the 8th image from the top. The object is there and it can't be the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft. The caption next to the picture actually identifies the object as a large rectangular boulder about 148 feet wide. No way is that a boulder.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Erasurehead]

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Erasurehead]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Thanks Mike for more information...
still struggling to get my mind around the "TP" where do you get such great information. Your posts are the best. What can I say? Sounds like you have found several pieces to the puzzle
Would be interested in more information... Thanks again



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


The problem with the Terra Papers is that the story is too clean. It combines numerous theories that have floated for decades and does it to cleanly.

I'm not to comfortable with the Sumerian stuff and the Terra Papers appear to be taken directly from that no matter what the author claims.

I did a quick trace on Morning Sky to see where he is and found records of only one person to have that name. If I remember right he is in Arizona with an unlisted number and I could find no address. I was hoping to contact him to find more info, but no luck. I did find one copy of the Terra Papers someone was selling for $275.00 I think it was. As I recall the story he was laughed out of graduate studies for his version of our history.

As always and as I often am; I could be completely wrong. I think he pieced together the Annunaki stuff, mixed it with other similar mythologies and passed it off as having come from one of his people as related to him. A little too convenient for me. The way he connected words based on similarities is pretty suspect. The names Alan and Alex are close but that does not equal the same person and neither does his word connections.

Sorry for rambling off topic. I did not know about the Eros approach to Earth. Interesting object you found.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


I think you're correct in your second paragraph. Capt. Proton probably missed this sentence in the OP's first post:

"But before we go there let’s have a peek at a strange structure on Eros taken by the NEAR probe"

which no doubt means the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft. No worries. I agree that the object in the crater doesn't appear to be a boulder. I wish we had a high resolution TIFF of this image.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Mike you keep finding these "things" and I am afraid to ask how much time you spend looking for them
but thanks for taking the time cause I find your posts most interesting.

About this "object", does it not have a weird shadow? kinda looks like half a shark
or maybe it is not a shadow?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
probably just a rock...i dont really see a structure,especially like another poster said when you turn the pic round..btw where do you guys get all your high res pics of planets surfaces...and what software? I have adobe lightroom...if thats anygood....sorry for going slightly off topic...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Have seen this Eros picture before someplace. OMF?
The shadows of this structure/boulder almost looks like a P&H wire excavator with its bucket lowered on the ground. Live near a open pit mine that closed some ten years ago and those type (P&H2100 - 2300) of giants were left behind to be scrapped or sold.
www.phmining.com...
Not really thinking its a excavator/showel, but thats what first fell in mind then i saw Mikes sketches.
Then into the mining business this could also look like a conveyor belt going up to a silo



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


The first time I saw the first photo was here on ATS, maybe a year ago, in a thread where i remember Zorgon also posted.

More photos of Eros taken by NEAR are available here.

And yes, Eros has many strange things, including the square craters.

The second photo is too strange, it does not look like a real photo, more like a computer generated image, or an image that was made from a small original.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I love this site! I will be checking out the terrapapers tonight (or maybe tomorrow). As far as those apparently structures go the first one is incredibly intriguing and I will be doing a bit more research into this, see what I can dig up. Great find tho!



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Ive never even thought of any interest in planets like uranus let alone the moons....

thanks for the education Mr Singh....have a ladoo on me....

p.s - A glass of coke in Paris will cost you €6....



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
The image of Eros is certainly interesting.

You opinion over Miranda however is flawed.

Miranda is on the size limit for a body to pull itself into a virtually spherical shape via its own gravity.As a result of this (and other factors) its features are quite unlike any other planetary body.

Several of the images of Miranda you display are either Arden,Elsinore or Inverness.They are very interesting scientifically,but to the conspiracy fan,nothing more than individual geological features termed Corona (nothing to do with Venus`s coronae,except maybe for the concentric pattern).

One problematic image is the one claiming to show `domed` structures.This is a result of image processing,not Miranda`s surface.The bright areas you claim are domes are actually bright impact craters,located on a feature called Elsinore corona.

Again,another incorrect interpretation is of the "structure" "16Km length 4 km width",it is nothing more than a cliff,with the cliff face running up centre/middle of image (large bright area lacking in radiation darkened ice/dust which covers surface),viewed down and slightly left,with direction of illumination coming from right of picture,thus hitting higher albedo of cliff face nicely.

Interpreting illuminated topography is an important skill,angle/direction of sunlight can make hills look like holes and play various tricks on untrained eyes.This is an error frequently made on websites such as this.

Important thing to know is that cryovolcanism on Uranus`s regular satelites would produce lava ices rich in ammonia,resulting in highly viscous flows.This is the case for Miranda,it also explains the strange topography around the coronae,Elsinore in particular.

Another factor which may/may not have played a role in shaping Mirandas strange surface is tidal forces.There is a possibility that in its history Miranda may have been in orbital resonance with Airiel or Umbriel.The combined tidal forces,combined with the borderline gravity to pull itself spherical allows the possibility that Miranda may have fragmented then re-accreated.One cannot rule out the possibility of a giant collision,which any moon orbiting close to a giant planet risks.Whatever,Miranda shows signs of possible re-accretion.

Simply put,there is no logical,scientific reason for Miranda (or 99% of other planetary bodies) to be on a conspiracy website.

Im sure there are people here who will ignore the science and believe that Miranda is just one of many Solar System bodies which harbour,or atleast exhibit signs of intelligent life.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Here are some more strange features. Do you notice what look like similar shaped monoliths which I've marked in yellow?






[edit on 17-7-2008 by mikesingh]


So does anyone else see a similarity to the Plaedes constellation here?

I mean, it is not exact, but let's consider the potential age of such monoliths and remeber planetary changes (earthquakes, etc) over hundreds of thousands of years.



Just something i thought i'd point out.

We know that the Pyramids of Egypt align to the constellation of Orion - could it be that these 'monoliths' align to the Plaedes?


...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Nice stuff mike. Good to see you're still very active on the site after I've been away for some time now. The photo does indeed interest me. In fact, I won't be surprised if it's really some sort of structure than some living being made. Not saying that's what it is, but it's quite possible that that possibility exists.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Even if your conclusions are wrong, you have still uncovered some wonders of our solar system, and have contributed to our better understanding of it. Beautiful work, Mike.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join