It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


**AMAZING** Artifact On Mars!! Original JPL Picture source included!!

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:04 PM
your close up shot makes it look like a shark getting its ass sniffed. brill post, could it be a piece of debris from one of the sattelites or landers they keep firing at the place

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:32 PM
Strange pictures indeed....

Two possibilties came to mind spontanously

First, you just discovered the first crimescene on Mars. We got a body (skull) and the murderweapon (wrench).

Second, you just found one of the tools that astronaut Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper lost while performing a spacewalk.

Okay, just kidding

First impression, doesn't seem like an eroded rock to me.

But has anyone an idea on the size of this object ?

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:23 PM

So, so far this thread has been divided into two groups: Those who think it HAS to be a rock (either 'intellectually', or because anything else is just too outside their comfort zone)

And those who think its an 'Artifact'. these people are sub-divided into people who think its a: 'fossilised fish', piece of the rover, fallen debris from a failed mission or...and actual ALIEN artifact.

(notice how the 2nd group are not arguing with each other? just a thought)

Now I have a serious problem with the "rock" theory for several reasons. I would like the "rock" advocates to explain a few questions regarding this object.

Preferably i would really like people with a background in geology to chime in, but of course, everyone is welcom


So, the MAIN issue with this object is the 'slender handle'. We'll leave the 'fish head' for now as erosive forces would have no problem at all in carving that out

Ok, the Slender Handle.

Q: How does such a thing form? The 'curvature' of the handle is VERY precise!?

Now, I understand that we have MANY types of rock on earth that can break in in a 'linear' shard-like fashion, Slate being one of the more common forms.

Slate is a fine-grained, foliated, homogeneous, metamorphic rock derived from an original shale-type sedimentary rock composed of clay or volcanic ash through low grade regional metamorphism. The result is a foliated rock in which the foliation may not correspond to the original sedimentary layering.


The way in which the materials are laid down in LAYERS over years is why it breaks off into 'thin/flat' pieces.

But these peices are STRAIGHT!

So how on earth did this piece end up like this....

The blue and yellow lines 'continue' the original trajectory of the 'handle'.

The red lines show the approximate 'thickness' of the handle.

With the B/Y lines we can easily see that the curve is quite uniform. Were we to assume that this was metal, we would might say this was due to the object having rested there for some time, maybe it was extremely warm at some point to 'fatigue' the metal, or we might deduce that the composition of this material was such that it has succomb to gravity over time becuase of its 'weak' nature.

Either way, these are the tings we would suggest to fit the apparent uniform curve with this theory.

So how do we explain 'bending rock'?

Just now i was trying to find a good example on mars with regards to 'waffers of rock'. can't find any right now, but i remember there were various areas where these 'carboard thin' waffers of rock are sticking out of the ground.

Any way, we know that mars can do this with rocks/minerals,...but BENDING?

Surely, 'bending' is more plausable than rock splintering off in a parabolic curve?

And lets just take a look at the surroundings....

There is absolutley nothing there that looks remotely similar to this shape. Similar in TEXTURE yes, but not in shape.

If there is geology present in this area that formed this object, WHY no other objects like it?

It it came from somewhere else, HOW has something so 'brittle' survived?


If it was water that moved it, it must have been QUITE A FLOW to have lifted its 'head' off of the ground. So why is evidence of heavy/linear water erosion greatly lacking in this area?

If it 'flew' here from a meteor explosion (as someone had suggested), again, something so 'brittle looking'; landed so softly?


Ok! on to the next picture....

1: Shows just how thin this 'handle' is, and clearly shows the top part of the curve.

2: this clearly shows that theobject is indeed a 'stand alone' object, (or at least the handle is). I read some post stating they could definately see the Handle as being 'attached' to the rock or some such, but as we can see here, this is ABSOLUTLEY untrue.

The sun is comming down at a rough -12:15- angle (clock analogy). You can very clearly see the shadow of the Handle, AND the light being cast on the OTHER side (behind) of the Handle.

This is most definately a 'stand alone' object being propped up against the rock.

3: Could very well be a rock! Nature would have no trouble at all with forming such an object. Unfortunately, the original picture is too over exposed to tell for sure; the relationship between the bottom half and the top half.

As seen with this dodgey alteration below, you can quite easily imagine the Handle without the fish head. The bottom of the Handles trajectory almost looks as if it takes us BEHIND the head.....

...But that still doesn't explain the Handle's origin.

I really do feel this object needs a definative explanation, even if it is just geological

And I feel that Just saying....and i mean literally 'just saying', "It's a ROCK!" or "It' a ALIEN!" etc. (as quite a few people have been doing) really doesn't help.....'s the investigation that really counts, so lets hear some ideas; not just statements

And i'd just just like to thank all you guys/girls fro making this a great thread

I really apprieciate all the 'appreciation' your sending and the input you're all giving.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by LaLiLuLeLo

You left out the other 3 definitions.


You 'OUTED' me!
How could you do this

If i could change the damn thread title i would. I'd replace 'Artifact' with something like "amazingly odd object'!

For some reason (i know why really
) the word "AMAZING" and "ARTIFACTS" are thin ice round these parts



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by glimmerman
It will be at that point in time, and our lives, that the skeptics and naysayers will have to deal with their own narcissism.
A sceptic does not (or at least tries not to) involve narcissism or any other feeling in his/her thoughts, at least this is the opinion of this sceptic.

The fact that I doubt things does not mean that I would not like to see the discovery of new life forms, for example, on Mars or anywhere else, I just doubt that the things that I have seen so far are indications of that.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism

I think the arm of the object is an illusion which is actually part of the larger Pumice looking rock on top of the object in question.

"Blocks or bombs of volcanic rock debris may be ejected as ballistic projectiles that fall or strike areas near the vent." quoting source

After examination I can see that the rock to the right obviously was broken off during an impact type event. See images. It fits. Plus you can see debris scattered about that has the exact same texture and detail as the larger rock.

Perhaps a nearby Martian Volcano ejected that larger chunk and it landed on this smaller rock breaking it. That could easily cause a rock to break into unnatural looking chunks.


[edit on 10-2-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:44 PM
someone in an earlier post said there is a sharp pixel line caused by a square blur...why has no one else brought this up? ...modified my NASA goosestepping jackbooted cover up artists?

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:47 PM
Looks like an eel.

But I would guess it is just that....a rock.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by 4demon
Man, I've seen this so many times before, trust me. People say they've found something, turns out to be nothing, a few children cry. But coming on here just to say "It's nothing at all" then mocking the people who think otherwise, is just counter-productive. Sure, I'm not saying let's promote stupidity, but I don't think this is one of them. It's pulling ideas together, which is great, and is a big part of ATS.

Ok...let's go with this. What ideas is this really pulling together here? And be honest. It shows that people can see any number of things, it shows that people can post pictures of wrenches and barrels and god knows what else, but really...this is like a finger painting exercise. As others have said, this same picture itself has already been analyzed, not to mention the hundreds of similar cases. And guess what....the argument is exactly the same thing time and time again.

It could be anything, AND it is very possible to swing either way. Nothing is 100%. The only useful skeptic, is one with an open mind.

No, it's not. This is simply bad logic, I can't put it any other way than that. I've already explained this before, but there is a very LOW probability that this is anything other than some natural formation. In fact, this should be an obvious given, seeing as how we KNOW Mars is scoured with rocks and debris, but have NO REAL EVIDENCE that something intelligently made is there. And again, the more extraordinary the claim, the more you need to back it up.

So the odds of one answer versus the other are hardly equal, and thinking they are is nothing but wishful thinking or a misunderstanding of reason.

But go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and declare how wrong everyone else is.

I declared that the OP was foolish in opening with such strong definitive statements. Did you miss the part where I stated if he had expressed his OP as simply food for thought, or merely an opinion, things would be different? Yeah, you probably did. Why this seems to be such a hard point for people to grasp, I don't know. *shrugs* It's why this type of argument will never go away, because some clown is going to dig up an old photo of the Moon, poop his pants because he thinks he's just discovered the 8th wonder of the world, and rush off to fame and glory on ATS.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:12 PM
Awesome find.

In my opinion, this absolutely could not be a rock. This is made of a porous, flexible material, and it has flexed in a drooping position.

If I were to guess, I'd say this is one of the many many parts from one of our rovers up there. Either landing gear (probably) or maybe just something that fell off.

We have probably littered that planet with weird little metal pieces over the years. We have millions of pieces of debris flying around our planet's atmosphere at this moment.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:28 PM

I believe you are looking at a single rock. I have used a better methodology on the picture enhancement below to bring out more detail on the rock.

As you can see, it shows the same vesicular texture as the surrounding rock which appears to be volcanic in origin.

It is the brightness of the specular that is fooling your eye into thinking it is two rocks. I have pulled out more of the mid-range with a filter that gives me far more control than the standard "levels" in PS so you can see far more detail and better understand what you are looking at; which is of course a weathered rock.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm

Seriously! you can't be saying that the 'brighter' space past the 'shadow' under th the FACE of rock?? You can see and follow the shadow, corresponding to the Handle.

The handle obviously detaches from the main bolder.

You can even see where the shadow of the sloping rock; meets the back side near the tip of the Handle.

The texture AND ambient hue/colour, in front of the shadow (blueline) is CONTINUED through to the OTHER side of the line.

A shadow is also cast where the thin side (closest to us) meets the rock! Again, suggesting that it is a seporate object.

RED Arrows are the shadows.
YELLOW Arrow is the sun light cast behind the object.

I really don't think that this 'thing' is in ANY way 'attached' to that rock.

Thats my opinion anyway



[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by SantaClaus

Rock can have both a concave or convex fracture. You are incorrect. Not only is that type of fracture possible, it is common. For a good example look to Flint, Chert or Obsidian. Massive rock can also have a similar fracture. Basalts often show this trait as well as other types of Volcanic Rock which I believe this to be.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism

The way you are post-processing you are loosing some of the mid-range. See my example in the post above you. Your contrast is too high.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:35 PM

Originally posted by existenz
can you guys instuct me on how to post a picture?...not sure, bit of a
Upload the image to a site like ImageShack or PhotoBucket.

When you are writting your post, click on the image that looks like this.

Paste the URL for the image you uploaded.


posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:37 PM

I added nothing to this image. What you see is in the original. All I did was bring more of the detail out. You will not be able to that with PS or a knock-off. I'm using a software product from Nikon I use to enhance photo's.

Edited to add: You might be able to do this with the "Raw" plug-in in CS4. I'm using CS3 along with the latest version of "Capture" from Nikon so I can process more levels than are available in PS.

[edit on 2/10/2009 by Blaine91555]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism


Great Find, Thanks for Sharing

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555


Thanx for your input, but 'wow'!

I swear, people look HARDER to see things that aren't there when they NOT looking for aliens.

This arguement can niether be proven nor disproven, but i just...cannot...fathom how ANYONE could think they were connected.

I think we've gotten to the stage where the 'rock' advocates are starting to match the 'alien' advocates with outlandish claims

Is it so hard now, to explain this object as a rock that we have to start saying 'it's an optical illusion'?

I really don't think that this 'Bolder' and 'Object' are one and the same

But i do appreciate y'all trying to look at it in a different light



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism

Imagin if you will, on a planet far, far away, a battle of massive poprtions and teck. The planet is leveled and all that were there have become burried.
Over time what was burried becomes foccilized.
Over time what was foccilized becomes exposed.
Enter probes taking pictures.
I believe that is what we see here.
Until we have the real data on all the images, it is just rocks or normal features or swamp gas.


posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:50 PM
I could easily be convinced that this does not show a rock.

Just post some chemical or material analysis of it that shows it to be some kind of metal or plastic.


What? There aren't any? Well, that's just a shame. And here I was all ready to admit that it wasn't a rock that just happens to look like the most cumbersome, poorly designed wrench ever invented by man. Oh, I mean Martian.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in