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.

 

Mars Image: Crashed Disc? PIC

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Here is a closeup of the last one...



You ought to realize by now that these are all in fact space crafts

Well at least some of us here can see that... attacking my 'character' as Viceroy etc is downright silly and shows you haven't a clue what you are seeing




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bloodline
 


Wow, Thanks for the timely Response! I appreciate it very much


Would you say that we could safely conclude this object as being a geological or topological feature?

Does the same apply to Zorgon's latest image?


[edit on 15-5-2009 by Exuberant1]


No we can't absolutely conclude this object as being a geological or topological feature. However, from my EVIDENCE* we can conclude that it is most likely a 'ROCK' or a 'CRATER'.

I don't know what zorgon's second image is. I know it can't be called a 'spaceship' without some specific evidence that it is one. Do you have any evidence? Maybe post up what a spaceship looks like please? Do you have any real photo's of spaceships? At this point I'd take an autograph copy of a picture of Tuvok, but a spaceship would be nice to compare to zorgon's second image since he is the one making the claim that it is in fact a "spaceship".
necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
IN OTHER WORDS: Where's the evidence?

(* that which includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.)

Where's Enrico Fermi when you need him?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but what is the point of posting all these images?

If there was anything in these photographs, NASA & JPL would have removed them. That is also taking into consideration that the images they have supplied you with are genuine and are not computer generated.
Has that ever been considered? The very images you're frothing over, could be fake. There's probably a whole parking lot of various craft parked on Mars and you wont see them because you're looking at fake terrain generated software.
They take some basic images, upload what is expected to be found, rocks craters etc, pump it into the computer and out comes what they want you to see. You sit there, running advanced imaging software, that they probably had a hand in developing, but wont be as advanced as the software they use.


Originally posted by zorgon
I will never understand the pathelogical need of some debunkers to pounce on every new anomaly thread and call the OP out... perhaps they have no life?



This forum on this board was made for such speculative topics. Its what made ATS so popular, but lately the noise created by self appointed naysayers is becoming a deafening roar. Perhaps it has a purpose? To silence those who dare to look for the unusual?

If the material has no merit, then leave it alone and it will pass into oblivion soon enough... but by the rash of debunkers hitting on it, all it does is keep it on the front page...

Silly Lemmings




Leave it alone and it'll go away, yeah that method always works a treat doesnt it


Don't like people pulling at the threads of your theories, then make sure you dont leave any dangling.
My opinion of what a rock looks like, is just as valid as your pictures of rock shaped space craft



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


According to the resolution of the photo, that object is some 15 metres wide, and that is the only thing I can say about it for the moment, without more references I do not have anything to base my opinion, so, no opinion, at least for the moment.


And one of the reasons I do not have more references is the fact that your coordinates are wrong and I could not find the object in the photo, so could you please correct them? Thanks.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Back to the OP,
very interesting!

It definitely looks like an object somehow lying on the ground. I can see a somewhat complex structure (it looks like it has some circular protrudence in the middle?) and it looks shiny.

Great find.




[edit on 15-5-2009 by theufologist]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
Sweet Jesus, you're really grasping at straws here

Are you honestly holding this up as evidence, or did you just feel like making a post?




do you actually have anything to offer towards the thread or are you just posting to insult and harass people?

i thought so

anyways there no way for ANYONE to know whats in that pic
no one knows so what gives you the right to be a pompous jerk about it and insult the thread maker before you visited mars and checked it out yourself?


your clearly trying to assassinate his character and im calling you on it

[edit on 15-5-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Zorgon, I have read many of your threads and find your discussions interesting. However, in the earlier pictures I totally agree with bloodline.

How can you say they are spacecraft just because they are shiny. I just dont get it. Maybe you know something we dont..



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
love the avatar, lol, it looks like peter griffin dressed as tron, i am on the floor

2nd line



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Ya, I'm sorry but I really don't see anything but a bunch of pixels, no refference point to anything, this really seems like grasping at straws, sorry.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
If there was anything in these photographs, NASA & JPL would have removed them. That is also taking into consideration that the images they have supplied you with are genuine and are not computer generated.
Has that ever been considered? The very images you're frothing over, could be fake. There's probably a whole parking lot of various craft parked on Mars and you wont see them because you're looking at fake terrain generated software.
They take some basic images, upload what is expected to be found, rocks craters etc, pump it into the computer and out comes what they want you to see. You sit there, running advanced imaging software, that they probably had a hand in developing, but wont be as advanced as the software they use.


and what, exactly, is your evidence for this claim?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodline

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bloodline
 

Wow, Thanks for the timely Response! I appreciate it very much

Would you say that we could safely conclude this object as being a geological or topological feature?

No we can't absolutely conclude this object as being a geological or topological feature. However, from my EVIDENCE* we can conclude that it is most likely a 'ROCK' or a 'CRATER'.


Ok bud, you got it coming! Seems you didn't analyze zorgon's first image well enough. Just because it looks like a crater after your massive zoom effect (Which sucked!!
) that blurred everything into oblivion!

If you have the time and inclination, I recommend you do a study of the shadows in that area. It may finally dawn on you that the object in question is convex in shape and not concave. So what does that imply? That it's NOT a crater. At least I haven't seen a convex crater as yet! Have you?
And the 'shine' of the 'structure' doesn't seem natural. Sticks out like a sore thumb!

But I'm glad you didn't insist that it is a crater after all!!


Cheers!



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I believe we are seeing a crashed disc of some sort here



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
I'm sorry, but what is the point of posting all these images?

If there was anything in these photographs, NASA & JPL would have removed them.


The point of posting all those images is to show how easily skeptics pounce on a presentation without doing ANY research whatsoever and pronounce them "its only rocks, your nuts"

Thanks to ArMaP and Mike for holding back... but EVERYONE of those pictures is of a spacecraft, and NASA did NOT edit them nor cut anything out, in fact NASA identifies each of those space craft. A simple search like "spacecraft on Mars from orbit" would have shown this.

The first image is of Viking II an d the second one is Viking I. The very large gif file that no one even explored shows the Opportunity Lander in the small round crater upper left and the white fuzzy blob on the left is the parachute. The last picture with the white thing is Phoenix lander descending to the surface.


The point is the 'believers' get blasted when they spot something unusual on the surface and think it MIGHT be a spacecraft (or UFO). So what I did here was present some REAL space crafts on Mars and what they look like from orbit. That now gives us a comparison with which we can judge other anomalies and see if there is anything there.

The image in the OP looks very close to the Viking II lander in the NASA image. You 'non believers' are all so intent on debunking, you never once take the time to actually analyze or even look up on line for facts... you just shoot off an opinion and say the 'believers' are grasping at straws...



That is also taking into consideration that the images they have supplied you with are genuine and are not computer generated.
Has that ever been considered? The very images you're frothing over, could be fake.



Well if they are then I would have absolute proof that NASA is faking images




There's probably a whole parking lot of various craft parked on Mars and you wont see them because you're looking at fake terrain generated software.


You are right, there is. And I showed you a bunch of them, but you still think they are rocks



Camera on Mars Orbiter Snaps Phoenix During Landing
www.jpl.nasa.gov...

PIA05229: Reconstructing the Scene of Landing
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Viking Lander 1 (Thomas A. Mutch Memorial Station) Imaged from Orbit
www.nasa.gov...

Viking Lander 2 (Gerald A. Soffen Memorial Station) Imaged from Orbit
www1.nasa.gov...


If one is going to hunt for spacecraft on the surface of a planet, it is good to have a reference as to what an actual spacecraft on Mars would look like, isn't it?




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
so the debunkers said "rocks" and the believers said "crashed disc", which only goes to prove that neither group is qualified to pass judgment on orbital photos of Mars since neither group has the requisite background in planetary geology, orbital imaging systems, etc.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Good stuff Zorgon!

I'm glad that you created this thought experiment. It had to be done.




[edit on 15-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Seems like a waste of effort here, its not necessarily the shape of the rock that is fooling the eye, but the light and the way it is hitting it. Keep searching!



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Longchenpa
so the debunkers said "rocks" and the believers said "crashed disc", which only goes to prove that neither group is qualified to pass judgment on orbital photos of Mars since neither group has the requisite background in planetary geology, orbital imaging systems, etc.


Hmmm yes quite...

So I guess then we should all just pack up and go home... and leave the topics for the 'experts', wherever they are...


Gee, its gonna be awfully quite around here...




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So I guess then we should all just pack up and go home... and leave the topics for the 'experts', wherever they are..


JPL is in Pasadena, Malin Space Science Systems is in San Diego.

This board should discuss the findings of the experts. It just so happens that the experts in Martian geology and imaging have not found anything but geology.

Now, there are experts in the investigation of the UFO phenomena, alien abductions, etc., and their findings should be discussed too. Vallee, Hynek, Friedman, Mack, Hopkins, Jacobs, Turner, Randles, etc...

so this forum can draw people's attention to the studies by these experts, news stories, and yes, for entertainment, silly youtube videos and maybe a few not-so silly ones. No need for quiet around here, just a bit of critical thinking.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


All I have to say is I like your style.....very well done....hope you get many stars for your guidance....



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
That pales in comparison to me finding the lost city of Atlantis

sorry google screwing up on me

here: /q3rh43

[edit on 15-5-2009 by contemplator]

[edit on 15-5-2009 by contemplator]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join