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.


Mars - Sol 676 - Black Box?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by vze2xjjk
Just realising your pic is a slightly different angle
and a little more left from the OP's making "The Cube"
look more rectangular,thanks.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by smurfy]

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by notsoobvious


your not offending anyone hun....

99% of things are explainable and can trick the eye when it comes to photographs,,,,.

I think there are some very intriging photos of mars,,,,which we should all be taking a second look on....

I think NASA keeps 90% of the photos to themselvs?????
And we are paying them from tax dollars!!!

as desolate and un-hospitable as Mars it sure looks beautiful.

I bet theres grand canyons like ours there but way bigger!!!

we are lucky those rovers are still working,,,,
to bad we dont have a couple dozen up there...

but when NASA keeps so many photos private make me cofused and mad....


posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Starseed32

Well, my take is that depending on how long ago this would be from, it could end up like ruins in the Sahara, totally covered after several dust storms. But, like you said, just total speculation. It was just the first thing I thought of!

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:28 PM
Tough angle, prove to me it's a perfect cube/square/rectangle whatever. The side facing us is dark, and hard to tell if it's flat, the top is barely visible, hard to make out if it's also square, and 3 sides are always facing away, so at this point it's - "what are the chances of a rock having one relatively good square face?" The answer is - unlikely, but still possible. Sorry but I don't think there's much to debate. If it's really a perfect box, we can't tell, and if it isn't, it doesn't matter.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:19 PM

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:21 PM
OK, we can settle this once and for all! I am organizing a trip to Mars. If the US government can do it for billions, I am sure that common citizens can do it for under $350 - using the government's propensity for over pricing. Of course at these prices each person will need to bring their own snacks and extra clean undies.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by smurfy
Yes I realize the mis-match because of compression.Nasa masks the pics so you can't see the faces.I see the faces sometimes and try to present them in a way that others can share the experience.I'm more positive than negative because I'm hunting information,discovery,answers.Here is a species not found on Earth. Last week I was unaware of this species.If I waited for the negative comment people to find faces on Mars I'd die a slow death.
Yes this is the pic of the "box" object,but other aspects of it and how it fits in the big picture of falsifying pictoral data to withold evidence of Life on Mars by nasa.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:06 AM
I just can't believe some of the things I'm reading in this thread..

Planes time-warping and crashing on mars?

Pulling random semi-face looking patterns out of the random chaos and calling them extraterrestrials?

There isn't anything in the photo that looks particularly extraterrestrial or terrestrial other than, maybe, the rocks themselves. I think it's great that some folks spend alot of their free time sifting through the data and the images from the Mars rovers. And I still believe that NASA is withholding information regarding UFO's. But what I'm hearing here has reached a whole new level of ridiculous.

People sift through the photos and post hundreds/thousands of images of random stuff that doesn't mean anything except someone's brain telling them there's a pattern in the chaos. That's fine. But this has reached a point where people are willing to connect all the dots they can in order to substantiate their own already-existing beliefs without considering the very normal potential explanations.

I know this is ATS and we can talk about, discuss, and debate the possibilities until our eyeballs fall out. But we can't just ignore the most likely answer because we want to believe in X.

The most likely and probable scenario is that happenstance lighting conditions and positioning of the camera with relation to the object probably combine to create an illusion of a solid cubicle shape. There is no reason to suggest this might be something of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin. Odd shaped rocks abound on earth as well as mars.. That's what happens after billions of years of water, wind, and sand erosion.

Naturally-occurring geometric shapes in nature do not necessarily imply any kind of alien connection, time travel/vortex, or proof of intelligent design. In fact, geometric shapes in nature are quite normal and can be caused by a variety of very normal geologic processees'. The same geologic processes that have affected, and continued to affect, planets like Earth and Mars.


posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:52 PM
I did some imaging "enhancements" that I think prove this is part of the larger rock to the left of the alleged cube.

Here is the cropped area of the original photo in the OP's Post.

Same cropped image with colors reversed (negative).

Lastly, I applied some very interesting gradient enhancements that bring out some of the detail surrounding the cube.

Gradient map - Red, Yellow, purple

Gradient map - Orange, purple


posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:15 PM
I also think it's important to note that there isn't even any feasible way to determine whether or not it is even a cube to begin with. At least not with this image alone from this one angle. It's quite possible that the shadowed part of the "cube" facing the camera juts out slightly. It could be the same on the other side. There just isn't any way to tell with this image, alone. But it does appear to be part of the larger rock on the left. And considering the erosion that appears to have shaped all of these rocks over time, we also know that those same erosive forces have acted on this "cube" portion of the larger boulder.

When you consider the distorted, eroded shapes of the rocks we're seeing in the original photo, is it really so hard to believe that this could be naturally-occurring? You can look at that large boulder, alone, and see the kind of immense erosive forces that have acted on that boulder over time. It just doesn't seem so extraordinary to me when you consider the overall image for what it seems to show.. Not just the alleged cube.

Something else that is important to note..

Look at the large boulder
The side facing the camera.
Look how it tapers inward towards the base where it contacts the ground.
This causes part of the boulder to jut out along its outside edge just a couple inches from the ground.
The back end seems to jut out as well which seems to create the illusion of a cubicle form. I think what we're seeing here are erosive forces at work and this at least partially proves this.

This could be all we're seeing on the back end, which combines with a flattened, eroded top that makes this look like a flattened cube when it really isn't. Just my thoughts.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by BlasteR]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by BlasteR
There is the familiar and unfamiliar when looking for faces on Mars pics. I exagerate them since most people miss them entirely.If I give them a chance to see what I see it raises the possibility for them to experience the vision of life on Mars as being as real as life on Earth,but just very different.If I am spoon-feeding images of faces to feed the masses and correct nasa's poor judgement at non-disclosure,then I'm doing a service.
If not,then I'm merely entertaining.I see Mars faces.Do you see them too?

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:44 AM
What I see in all of your photos are random patterns of rocks and shadows that are being processed by the human brain to pull familiar shapes and humanoid faces out of the chaos. It only makes sense that you're finding faces in the randomness. Faces are one of the first things the brain notices when tasked with making sense of complete randomness. This has been scientifically confirmed.


Pareidolia (pronounced /pærɪˈdoʊliə/) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- ("beside", "with", or "alongside"—meaning, in this context, something faulty or wrong (as in paraphasia, disordered speech)) and eidolon ("image"; the diminutive of eidos ("image", "form", "shape")).

Carl Sagan hypothesized that as a survival technique, human beings are "hard-wired" from birth to identify the human face. This allows people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility but can also lead them to interpret random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces.

A 2009 magnetoencephalography study found that objects incidentally perceived as faces evoke an early (165 ms) activation in the ventral fusiform cortex, at a time and location similar to that evoked by faces, whereas other common objects do not evoke such activation. This activation is similar to a slightly earlier peak at 130 ms seen for images of real faces. The authors suggest that face perception evoked by face-like objects is a relatively early process, and not a late cognitive reinterpretation phenomenon.

A more broad, but still applicable, term for this same phenomenon is "Matrixing".

Matrixing: a process by which we humans continually organize, order, align, or standardize, the un-organized, un-ordered, mis-aligned, or non-standardized, allowing us to manage the chaos around us into something that is more beneficial to us.

In psychological terminology, Pareidolia is one form of "Apophenia" .

Apophenia is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. The term was coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad, who defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness".

I will say this though..
I almost see Apophenia as a derogatory term used by psychologists to describe and explain the tendency for an otherwise normal, healthy person to believe in things like UFO's and the paranormal.

With regard to this particular psychological term, the overall assumption that UFO's, the paranormal, aliens, and conspiracy theories are just cases of people running around connecting random dots is a pretty immense assumption to make. It excludes the factor of supporting evidence and only considers the factors regarding the human mind.

In other words.. It's easier for the psychologists to call us normal people with crazy tendencies than to come up with some other more basic and logical reason people believe in these things. Things like.. These things being real and not imaginary, for example.. In the meantime, they'll just chalk it up to Apophenia involving people with too much time on their hands.


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:32 PM
Hey ,slow down there debunker ! Are you so sure that there is NOTHING THERE?
I hope these reproduce well and don't get cut off.This is a Moon crater. The finder posts at .He is a major contributor of the unexplained.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by vze2xjjk]

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:19 PM
But ,anyway back to the BOX present best guess is that it's another hack cover-up job by Nasa to disguise a face by blackening it beyond recognition. As I showed you what a mailbox head looks like,I could show you over 20 faces in this pic that you wouldn't recognize because they don't exist in your experience of earth animals to compare with them. I look for symetry,a simple test,since DNA favors symetry for highly evolved living,moving beings. Some of them already have very squared heads and bodies(crawlers). I have seen much larger ANCIENT versions,like dinosaurs in comparison that look like giant BOX HEDGES sitting on hills with faces(fossilized).
BOXXY...think outside the BOXXY.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by vze2xjjk

DNA doesn't favor symmetry. It attempts it, but no organism is perfectly symmetrical.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by BlasteR
Blaster can you explain this artifact ? No,it's not a pair-of-doilies.
I suggest the naysayers wake up,or be crushed with the truth.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by SelfDestruct
Self-Destruct,how many fingers and toes were you born with? 10 each probably. Even PLANETS and SUNS/stars tend toward spherical symetry.Because DNA splits it favors symetry to replicate.This radio comedian(Fez Whatley/Ron and Fez Show/Sirius/XM) has a famed GAP between his teeth,which I highlighted in white to make it easy for people to find.It's right there in the MIDDLE between his upper front teeth.It is an indication of symetry in humans.

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by Extralien

Was watching a program the other day about possible life on Mars and I think this may be the image that has been officially dubbed the "ammo box" on Mars. Doesn't look to natural to me.

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by Extralien

Nice find.
Why do they not add a scale to the images indicating size.

To the left of the box lools like netting something similar to those used to camouflage tanks etc in the desert.

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:01 PM
I wonder if the box belonged to Pandora ?
nice find

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in