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.

 

Monolith on Mars? Interesting image

page: 10
84
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



www.youtube.com...

Of course Buzz has never been to a Martian moon so it's probable that if this thing is a hoax, he's merely repeating.

[edit on 7/29/2009 by biggin]




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Now somebody is paying attention!!! Thanks bubba, isn't is strange that all the other features have a shadow facing the viewer and the so-called monolithe is bright!

Make's ya wanna go Hmmmmmm!!

April fools guys, you've been had!
LOL



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
While there are so many pictures of "alien skulls," "humanoid creatures," and other rock related tricks of the mind, I am kind of perplexed at this one. The general shape and the shadow cast behind it is somewhat odd. Especially where it was "placed." It doesn't really look like it belongs there!

I have no idea what it may or may not be. Does anyone here have a clue?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
almost looks like a little land rover, like the one we sent to mars in 1997.

not saying it is, just giving an example.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Although speculating as to the purpose of a weird feature such as this is interesting, allow me to pump the brakes, if you will, and remind everyone that humans have consistently misinterpreted unexplained surficial features of Mars in the hopes that they are indicative of life on Mars. Remember the "canals"?

I believe that there is a much simpler explanation for these "monoliths" that has been overlooked. It is possible that these are butte- or plateau-like features, large hills with very steep, near vertical sides. Features like these are very common on Earth. In fact, some of the best examples of buttes with vertical or near vertical sides on Earth are found in very arid environments (i.e. East Mitten Butte, Arizona), not completely unlike those of Mars.

Another possible terrestrial analog for these features in Devil's Tower in Wyoming. It is a tall, steep-sided platform produced from the weathering of an igneous intrusion. It is very easy to see how someone may misinterpret a similar feature on a different planet as being the result of some sort of architectural effort.

Therefore, it seems most likely to me that these "monoliths" are really just curious, but not unprecedented, surficial features of Mars that are the products of erosion and weathering of more resistant rocks. This is by no means the only explanation or even the best explanation. But to me it seems like the most reasonable.

Someone that is more proficient at geometry than myself could do some very interesting work on the image provided by the OP. If someone knows the scale of the image, they could deduce the size of the shadow projected by the "monolith". Then, with a little more patience and sophistication, someone could figure out the angle at which the sun is hitting the "monolith". With these two pieces of data, someone could then approximate to a good degree of accuracy the height of the "monolith". It would not be easy work, but the results could prove highly beneficial to this debate. If the scale of the "monolith" is on par with buttes, mesas, or plateaus on Earth, it would provide evidence that we are simply looking at natural erosional features on Mars. If the scale is completely anomalous, then another explanation may be needed.

Thanks for taking the time to read my entire post.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by geojk119
 

I don't think that the monolith from the OP is something like those possibilities you mentioned, because of the way it looks, its surroundings and its size.

The image below may help to get an idea of its size, in metres.


And although we know the sun's angle, we do not know the angle of the surface or the angle of the monolith, so we cannot know its real height. If it was on a flat surface that would be possible, but not in these conditions.

Edit: welcome to ATS.


[edit on 1/8/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
First, if your scale on the image is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it is not), then I agree, the width is not in agreement with terrestrial plateaus, buttes, or mesas. However, because environmental and atmospheric conditions are different on Mars, erosion probably occurs differently and may very well generate features of different widths and morphologies. Therefore, this hypothesis cannot be completely disregarded because of the scale of these features, but it is severely weakened.

Secondly, I still believe it is possible to arrive at the general height of the "monolith" using geometry with a few simple but intelligent approximations. For example, we can easily bracket what the angle of the ground beneath the monolith must be. The angle of the slope of the ground that the monolith is sitting on is somewhere between 0 and 35 degrees. That may seem like a wide distribution, and in reality it really is, but it does allow us to impose some restrictions so that we can perform these important calculations. Discerning the slope of the monolith, however, is a more difficult task, because it requires visually approximating the angle from a bird's-eye-view perspect, a approach that is highly suspect and prone to error. On the other hand, if we assume that this monolith is perfectly vertical, we can complete our calculations and develop a "ball park" figure for the height of the feature. Will it be 100% correct? Absolutely not. But it will give us an idea as to what the general height of this monolith may be.

Third, disregarding its width, what exactly about the way it looks precludes it from being a butte-like feature? Also, what about its surroundings suggests that this hypothesis is incorrect? I understand that it looks like it is a surprisingly anomalous feature completely surrounded by unremarkable, flat Martian soil, but the surface is probably much more irregular than the picture suggests, and this monolith, in reality, does not stand in quite as much contrast as one may think.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by geojk119
 


I think that the error margin would be too high for any calculation to be useful, it even looks like the ground where the shadow is cast is not completely flat, besides being at an angle both to the horizontal and to the monolith.

The surrounding ground makes me think that this monolith is somewhat recent (in geologic terms) and probably fell from the above plateau, because of the way the dust surrounding it accumulates, but it's obviously just my opinion, based on a subjective interpretation.

Looking at it once more, I see that there isn't really anything that makes it impossible or less likely for it to be part of the ground and not something that fell on that place.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Wow, this is all I can say....

It does not lokk like a natural weathered object (even though I am not an expert)!!!!!

Why would that be there ???



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
First of all, If you look at the general area (picture posted on page 1), you see that the objects (I say objects, because you've got more than one object sticking up and casting a shadow, but one is more enticing to us than the others) are situated on a slope, where rocks and sand is sliding down. Around several objects on the slope there's a highlighted area above and a darker area below, which I - for the time being - interpret as if these objects are stuck in the ground and resisting the slide.

I ask myself, if I was an Martian architect, would I construct (or even raise a monolith) on a place like this, on a steep slope in a geologically unstable area? I would have to say no, but that's just me, with only a couple of images to go at. I cannot pretend to understand what I'm looking at, neither can I say what this place was like ages ago.

If this was on Earth, I'd definitely take a closer look at it. How soon could one of the rovers get there?
Faster than a New York cabbie, I bet.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Is it me or do the shadows look different for the monolith , which is behind and up to the right as against the other features which seems to be up to the left?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


In which images?

There are several images with different orientations.

The original image, as taken by HiRISE, the map-projected image, in which north is at the top of the image, and the image as posted by super70, rotated 81.0 degrees to put it in a more "photogenic" position (I think, I see no other explanation for that action).

As you can see in the following image (taken from the original, not map-projected version), the shadows all point in the same direction (with some small differences that are probably the result of the difference in the angle of the slope, this is not only a slope, it's a curved slope, as you can see in the larger image).

(click for full size)



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Probably just my eyesight



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Have to say that this picture of the monolith is amazing. I know where the evidence leads!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
with the disturbance around the base i reckon its an object/junk which has fallen from the sky and dug itself into the ground. Discharge from one of the landers?


[edit on 5-8-2009 by mrploppoop]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Seems Mr. Aldrin is making his move at last.

Thought all this about Mars rang a bell with me when i answered this thread before, so i went hunting through my bits and pieces....lo and behold, in 2002 (in an interview with UFO mag/UK) Buzz was talking about how he and small consortium were making hard plans for space tourism...guess where?

Yep, Mars.

Seven years later, and he pipes up about this megalith on Phobos.

Curious. His grand plans are for space 'cyclers'.

These cyclers would be many times more efficient forms of space travel than conventional rocket technology. The idea is pretty straightforward, in that the cycler craft would never land planetside, instead would use gravity assist, to cruise between Earth and Mars' orbits.

A small amount of propellant would be carried for small course alterations etc.

'Taxis' would then launch from Earth or Mars, and taxi the passengers to and from the planets surface. A trio of these cyclers would be needed to cut down on the wait times to go or return.

Each cycler would carry around 50 or so passengers.

He was planning this back before 2000, so it's only taken him nine years to mention the 'megalith' on Phobos.

Anyone care to take bets (now he's talking about permanent bases on Mars) on how long it will be, before he announces his fleet of cycler ships?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
This story just Broke in the English Press yesterday Friday 07 2009


www.thesun.co.uk...

This is a tabloid newspaper with massive mainstream circulation in England.

Steps towards disclosure



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by druid1
 


Talking about rocks is not disclosure, unless they are talking to people that do not know that there are rocks on Mars.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I think you will find he meant that the rock/whatever, is artificial and therefor proof of other life out there.

Proof of other life out there, is the start of disclose of aliens and ufo's.

I don't know that I agree with him, but I see his point....



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I apologize if this information has already been presented. I searched and skimmed the previous posts and could not find any mention of this.




THE mystery of the rocky Mars "monolith" which set tongues wagging around the world when it appeared to show evidence there was once life on the Red Planet has been solved - and alien hopefuls won't be impressed



But Britain's Daily Mail newspaper reveals scientists at the University of Arizona, which captured the original image, insist it's just a broken boulder.


While this explanation may be accurate, the fact that so much controversy has stirred recently and explanations have been so quickly issued appears to be good reason to raise an eyebrow or two.

SOURCE:
www.dailytelegraph.com.au...



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join