MARTIAN-MADE structures,paths,statues...please POST

reply to post by ziggystar60

Hi back! It's OK, ZiggyStar60, I understand, and thank you very much for your kind words now.
I'm after some links because, from the list I can remember from before my PC stroke
, I haven't spotted any photo that shows Olumpus Mons giant volcano and the "T" shape altogether. ArMaP's photo is really great but it's hard to find closes-up that show the relation between the 2.

Sites I start getting familiar with:
**The Living Moon
**Msss
**Nasa Photo Journal
**Esa

any other help appreciated! Going to search now, see you soon hopefully!

TRIMMED POST from ArMaP////The red rectangle is the area of the photo.

You can see the page for that image here.

(EDIT for photo-size problem, previously attempted to edit, trying else this time, for original link, please see ArMaP's post on previous page )

The measurements and the conversion of the original IMG file were done with ISIS.

Indeed, seen the last photo, which I had seen before too, without recognising the "T" shape as a possible unnatural structure, I now understand why you didn't identify it straight away too. All my apologies dear Sir!

What got me wrong is the trim provided by scientists themselves. I can't venture to try and remember who exactly pointed to this pic in a conference, I will post the video reference asap.
I admit, seen this whole photo, it does look a lot more natural.

Last night I even thought that it was a different site, Phage must have thought I was confused if he read my post-reply, when I talked about a "similar pattern/shape", well I meant this one, without even knowing it was the same site.

Sorry about the confusion and I'm not happy about these scientists trimming the photo as if it was an isolated shape on its own.

until later, TC, Mag

[edit on 17-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]

[edit on 17-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]

Here is the conference where the trimmed photo of this site is exposed. Presentation and comments by Tom Van FLANDERN " Meta Research, Washington DC.
The video was issued onto You Tube on the 25th November 2006.



Yet I do not know who trimmed it in the first place. It's good to see scientists puzzled about these formations & structures too.

reply to post by MarsFanMag


No part of the feature was cropped (trimmed) from the "first" photo.

As ArMaP explained, and provides the links to; They are two different photographs. The first one was taken by the Mars Global Surveyor, the second, larger area was taken by the Reconnaissance Orbiter.

This whole discussion is a perfect example of what can happen when people get their hands on limited information and jump to incorrect conclusions. Like Van Flandern did in 2001. His resume shows no study or experience in geology, yet he is making claims about geology. He takes an image of a geologic feature and concludes, because of his limited knowledge and personal agenda that: "These are not normal products of nature". When, in fact, they could be, and probably are.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

True, at least I hold my hand up when I'm wrong and I don't go making conferences about it--but perhaps Van FLANDERN isn't totally wrong? Perhaps part of this site is sculpted in? Who knows?

Back to the topic, I saw on "Egyptian statue on Mars?" thread by iamamonkey an EXCELLENT VIDEO on St Vincent site, the part that contains the 'statue' and I still think that this particular location isn't natural.

I was trying to look at the '7 Sisters' caves on ARSIA Mons, from net sites but I couldn't see any photos due to recent PC problems.
If anyone could post any it would be great. Edits in light etc appreciated, usually these photos are much too dark, we can't see much! Most ppl just put a bit more contrast but it's no good, a bit more lightness and sometimes, slight solarization, colouration does it some good, as long as we know how it's been edited (well it shows by itself anyway),

Some scientists are very interested in these caves (see article I posted on "Egyptian statue on Mars?" thread) -- ARSIA MONS is part of the Tharsis Montes.
To search, 'Arsia Mons the 7 sisters' brings a lot of websites.

www.youtube.com...

From MARSROCKS999 about St Vincent, BRILLIANT.

Here's the link for "Egyptian Statue On Mars?" thread by iamamonkey:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Brilliant findings.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]

Originally posted by groingrinder
Those sure look like beams of some sort. Like a building is being exposed by the shifting sands/ice. I was replying to the three dark rectangles spaced symmetrically apart. That is the one that screams "intelligent life" to me.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by groingrinder]

How come there are so many links to pages that no longer exist? Is there some kind of black hole eating away at the website?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by groingrinder]

Sorry GroinGrinder I meant to answer you ages ago. Just re-reading this thread. Which photo did you mean, exactly?

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
www.youtube.com...

From MARSROCKS999 about St Vincent, BRILLIANT.

I found it distracting. There was no comentary so I made up my own mind:
The 'statue' looks like the natural process of erosion. Where what can be (mis)construed as a 'beard' terminates is the same more durable layer that you can see continuing on the right. Also, the top of the 'head' is contiguous with the sloping surface next to it, an erosional surface. That just a small taste of a very basic geological perspective.

If it was a 'statue' I'm sure the 'carvers' would have been more careful with the top of the 'head' considering all the effort 'they' put into the rest of it...or was it a case of: "I'm bushed here, Qwarfxoddle, can't be bothered finishing off our great godking Ringring's image today"
"That's o.k. Xonduffle, we're naturally lazy and won't last on this planet anyway, and I heard from Frucktuckle that we're moving to the next closest planet to the Sun to build some four-sided pyramids instead of the normal five-sided ones we have here"

Yep, I can just imagine it, and I think that's what this is too, the hopeful imaginings.
Still no 'proof',so I'll go with the most logical answer: Just rocks, subject to erosional forces.

reply to post by ChChKiwi

Like I said to ArMaP on the "Egyptian..." thread I DO sincerely reckon that ALL rocks do have TEETH...it's proven as a very well known FACT on every rock you could look at in awe. I see them EVERY DAY in my back garden, on local quarries or on any natural rocky formations...hee hee! cleaned by aquafesho triple action all in one.

but thanx for your interest...it's nice to see this thread bumped now and again. It PROVES a deep-down fascination...despite the day-job?

and I still do not see proofs of the contrary, I still search but HELL, have you not noticed, anyone else? these NASA & JPL photo websites take an eternity to come on... you'd think they'd be fast and handy, since they are public and so-called to everybody's interest... slow as slugs, maybe they have been cursed by the Martian Escargots, I mean, these SNAILS... or maybe it's the giant worms (dubbed "glass tubes") - effect... who really knows?, since with all the TAX-PAYER's MONEY, they've so-called sent only the ROVER that destroys things (but who cares? it's on Mars) and their distant-views cam super products of their controlled power, not to mention the big black & heavy marks, so obvious, of photo-masking-shopping...

--but hey, I dont live in the US, it's not MY money after all, a bit of tolerance for these fatly paid 'searchers' who quicly brandish the ROCKS theories for anything they've got! (especially on TV NEWS..)

Of COURSE NASA HAD the MONEY to send along robotic light-weight devices with CAMERAS & spider-legs that can climg and get everywhere, & take any close-up PHOTO of EVERYTHING, and BRING BACK SAMPLES, even if it destroys (same remark from me then as above, it's ONLY on Mars, could be worse for USA image, could have been in IRAQ!) that could and would, also capture the REAL COLOURS of Mars! Of course I get the feeling that they DID, the rover being just an 'EARTH-THOUGHT-BOX' for the average cretin to view and therefore think, "just Rocks! just Rocks!"...

But to all this I also do not have exact proofs...to PS (or = PHOTO EDITING BY NASA & JPL) it's different though, just search on the 7 Sisters, ARSIA MONS, and read the comments--of SCIENTISTS.

Lil ducks in a small pond: Welcome to what we can perceive of MARS PLANET, thanx to the American 'tactful' MONOPOLE.

Bravo! ,,, --> TRY AGAIN. :down:

I agree that there seems to be some inconsistency with the issuing of 'photographs'. That may well be an artifact of the bureaucratic process.

I, too, would like there to be definite 'proof' in one way or another, for or against, so that we can truly know. However, I don't think that we will see anything definite in the near future.

However, good work on keeping searching and yes, it does make a nice relief from the day job

You might find that I am not that different from you in these regards, but I am different as well, if that makes sense.

I'm not trying to knock you down, I'm just adding my two bits, as others can and do as well.

Good luck, and happy hunting!

I see you're looking for statues, buildings, etc.. ? How bout this?
All the blow ups and links to the original MOC image can be found on my original post/thread (link at the bottom). Please let me know what you think. Thanks much.

SpikeD.



www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=4012451#pid4012451



www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 20-9-2008 by spikedmilk]

Using this space as was an edit for duplicate-post, to post this photo, (see posts below)

Location for Acidalia Planitia:




[edit on 20-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]

reply to post by spikedmilk


This is brilliant SpikedMilk!

What a shape to study.

"ACIDALIA PLANITIA", where is its location on Mars, do you know? Going to search this.

Brilliant thread too, I've just had a look. So this shape comes from this bigger area, the photo of which you've posted on your thread. All the rest is very interesting too. Everything deserves to be studied there, and like on so many other areas, serious archeological research is needed!

I'd like to know, which processes of geology occured on Mars, as far as we can know, to this day, and for this region. Everything has rounder shapes than it seemed to have in origins, on this vast area. Ice, as mentioned, produces this effect.

Acidalia Planitia: a vast area covered in a multitude of ice layers? Or did a glaciation occur all at once?

The surface of the dome has the same appearance as the Cydonia pyramid, like ice.

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
"ACIDALIA PLANITIA", where is its location on Mars, do you know? Going to search this.

Acidalia Planitia is a large flat area more or less on the same latitude as south Europe on Earth, not much to the north or close to the equator.

Here is a link to Google Mars showing its location.

I'd like to know, which processes of geology occured on Mars, as far as we can know, to this day, and for this region. Everything has rounder shapes than it seemed to have in origins, on this vast area. Ice, as mentioned, produces this effect.

I don't think this area was covered with ice, it looks more like the bottom of an ocean, ice leaves too much broken rocks, and those are not visible on the photos from that area.

The surface of the dome has the same appearance as the Cydonia pyramid, like ice.

Cydonia is part of Acidalia Planitia.

Edited to add that the area with the "face" is just to the east of this area, and that can be seen in this image from ESA, so it's no wonder that it looks similar.

[edit on 20/9/2008 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by MarsFanMag...........
Acidalia Planitia: a vast area covered in a multitude of ice layers? Or did a glaciation occur all at once?

The surface of the dome has the same appearance as the Cydonia pyramid, like ice.

Thanks MfM, I'd say its a possibility. Comparatively, Earth is the closest thing to what Mars might've been so its very well within the realm of possibilty that it dealt with some type of global cataclysm including an ice age.

I too would like to see more studies in the area of archeaology when it comes to Mars.....

I hope as well that everything will be studied from very close, with a lot of samples brought back, from robotic equipment that can climb any surface.

however, I have a feeling that when it comes to this we're probably going to be in for some disappointment. Per this: mars.spherix.com...
there is microbial life on Mars. And if thats the case, well then cross contamination will become an issue and we face a possibilty of altered plans for future Mars missions... please see this:
www.ndtv.com...

reply to post by spikedmilk


Thanx SpikedMilk.
I was searching for more info about Acidalia Planitia, I see above that ArMap has done his home-work too and faster than me!

Here's a good photo-montage to clearly see its location:
en.wikipedia.org...:Acidalia_planitia_topo.jpg
// THIS LINK DOESN'T WORK, so please see PHOTO + link on post above ///

I agree about cross-contamination but perhaps we can think of equipment that doesn't contaminate, I imagine it would more be for the next century...and I must be over-optimistic. It would be nice for our Earth too, while we would be there, no more polluting cars etc... one of my dreams.

I strongly disagree with a big fat rover that destroys a lot, clean small robots would contaminate a lot less.

Thank you for bringing this area to view on the forum, I hadn't seen it before, I've searched on many websites including the excellent photo-galleries of HIRISE but the area you picked wasn't there, so, well done and, I'll go back to your thread.



[edit on 20-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]

reply to post by ArMaP
Hi!
Thank you ArMaP for all your additions and references.

About ice, what I try to get, by searching, is scientific info about these processes, their history etc, that could shed some light onto the matter. I think I read some parts about it on SpikedMilk's thread and I have to re-read this.

Just because it looks like ice doesn't mean it is,
, and, doesn't mean it isn't, ah ah. In an area where no smaller rocks would be, when glaciation occurs, why would it break smaller rocks since there wasn't any?!! I see where you come from with rocks getting broken by icing+thawing, but think, if if was a sea-bed, as you say, for example, there wouldn't be necessarily small broken rocks.

...and if there are not even any BIG broken rocks, then, it leads to different theories:

ONE theory (among other) is:
---------------------------------------
If these big things are rocks, then maybe they are still covered in ice, you do not have a clue more than us,

Or, they are not rocks...that one is far-fetched, (I think that even if they are artificial structures, they still look like made of rocks, yet let's not dicard any theory)

"Covered in ice"... is just a possibility, as I said, we do not know, excatly what they are composed of, nor do we know if we can apply geology, archeology, etc, to Mars since our sciences are human and apply to Earth.

reply to post by MarsFanMag


That area is not covered in ice, the ice is much more to the north.

On the Google Mars image you can see that maybe half of the north hemisphere of Mars is bellow the average altitude found on Mars, making a great target for a possible ocean.

In this photo from the Context camera aboard Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter we can see those features better, it looks just like a very smooth surface, but I don't think it has any ice, one of the reasons being that it is lower, and for lower altitudes the atmospheric pressure has a sharp increase (I do not know any real numbers).

(click on the image to see the full size version)

The image above has a resolution of almost 6 metres per pixel, while the THEMIS image has a resolution of 19 metres per pixel.

I changed the light levels on this image, after cropping it from the original 5056x30721 pixels image. The original IMG file, with 148 MB, is here.

reply to post by MarsFanMag


HiRISE, besides the photo of the "face", has this page about a photo in the same area, although I think it's not in either of the photos (the one with the face and the one "found" by spikedmilk.

It explains somewhat the type of terrain.