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: 5
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by rocksolidbrain
 


It does not look tall just because of its shadow. It looks tall in itself, as well too unnaturally rectangular and thin to be even part of a rock that sticks out of the sand. When did you ever see rocks having this shape?




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Tall and rectanguler shapes are not uncommon among natural rock formations, what IS unusual is the THINNESS of this "Monolith".

This is very odd.


I do not see how a rock of this height and slender shape coupled with an extreme thinness, may not only exist in a hostile environment without cracking in half, breaking apart or crumbling, but stand in an upright position!

If indeed this is merely a rock formation that has broken off from the upper ledge, then there are two things I would mention if this was this case:

One, that there would need to be the exact size and shape rock above it from whence it was sheared off.

Two, this must have happened very recently, because a rock of this fragile thinness could not last long in this environment.

Either way, this is a very unique object.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by super70]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
Well the image has been through an "Adobe" program of some sort.
(open it in "notepad"). Possibly for re-sizing but I say 100% fake.


Why do you say it's been through an Adobe program?
I mean edited in some way. What are the signs you're seeing?
I only ask because I'm a graphic artist and use Phototshop a lot, and I'm not seeing any sloppiness really.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I think his point was alluding to the idea that if Adobe was used then some sort of photo manipulation took place, CGI, etc.

Clearly not the case if you download the image for yourself.
This is the exact image cropped from Hirise.




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


yes,,,they are VERY interesting,,,!!!!!

be nice if NASA would fork up alot more that they dont show,,,,!!!

I agree,,,some objects may be natural structures,,,,the landscape up there is very awsome,,,,

but some are very odd looking,,,!!!!
to the point of confusion on what is it??

huggs!!!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The object is

* inconsistent with its surroundings
* of a shiny or reflective surface
* probably rectangular

Decent find



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


I have to agree that if it is on a slope, then the shadow being cast could appear to be longer than it actually is.

The caveat, however, is that this object is clearly angular on its "top"(almost a square from what I can see).

It appears to be smooth, but without a greater resolution it is very difficult to see.

A poster earlier said that the translucent tubes "had vanished" when the high-resolution images were released by NASA.

What we haven't had at all are the explanations for what those formations were in the original pictures. I cannot believe that such an unusual anomaly in a series of photgraphs can just pop up like that and then vanish without a trace in a higher resolution image of the same area. Something is wrong with that, I can't quite say what, but it just doesn't seem right.

For example, I can take images of ships passing near my town with my camera at normal resolution, and when I zoom in on my camera detailed shapes can be just about made out, and their colours too (when the air is very clear). But if I use the zoom on the camera to get a higher resolution shot of the very same ship, the colours are often different, and the shapes can appear somewhat different from what was originally snapped... The key is that the "shapes" are still there... It's not exactly the same thing, but it's similar enough to warrant investigation.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
good work super70!!!

even though we may not know what it is,,,

and if they are natural structures up there like this,,,its baffling in itself on the landscape and awsome beauty up there...

I personally think there are some very shocking/amazing looking things on mars that 101% need more attention paid to,,,,

I wish there was more an outcry to get some more rover there asap!!!!
also,,,we need (be awsome) if we were able to land a craft/pod on the moon that had a few mini drones that could zoom around and take some real close up photos!

NASA has tons of photos they are not showing to us!!!

here,,, we have spy sattlelites that assumingly can read liscene plates yet they show us ruff draft potos of moutain ranges...

maybe we need another spacerace scenario and some competion to get some more truth...
.
be a good kick(welcomed) in the buttocks if another country insulted NASA with their crap photos they are able to produce and had some better imagery!

star and flag!!!

huggs everyone...



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by StevesResearch
That could be anything.


You should change your name to StevesLackOfResearch



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Originally posted by StevesResearch
That could be anything.


You should change your name to StevesLackOfResearch


That was definitely the humour for the day... and I couldn't agree more.

It seems that the more people come here to "deny ignorance" the more people there are that actually don't know how to do it yet...

There's hope though. At least we have that.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by super70
I think his point was alluding to the idea that if Adobe was used then some sort of photo manipulation took place, CGI, etc.

Clearly not the case if you download the image for yourself.
This is the exact image cropped from Hirise.



If you will look closely in the pic you will see what looks to be a human eye with the brow located in the upper right hand corner. The more you gaze at the eye the clearer it becomes and for those with better vision will locate an ear. ^Y^

[edit on 26-7-2009 by amari]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by amari
 


I hate to say this but...

There is no eye in the upper right. If you look closer still it's a metalic-boob with the wire of a bra underneath it, clearly it fell off the 505ft tall metal lady that lives in that area - you're just looking at it upside down!

Anyone can see anything in images of landscapes like this, however the monolithic object in the image is certainly worthy of further investigation.

I do not believe anyone here is 100% sure it is artificial, as there isn't sufficient data to corroborate this hypothesis. Yet, the object is certainly very distinct compared to the surroundings. Nothing close to it bears any resmblence. Not to mention the fact that the angles at the top of the object seem to be 90 degree angles, meaning a square or rectangular top, the shadow indicates long straight sides... can you show me anything in nature that even loosley resmbles this in height, shape, and locale...

Cheers.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The object is

* inconsistent with its surroundings

No, not really.

If you look around in the original image you can see several rocks like that. You can see at least two on the image I posted on the second page.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 


Judging just from this picture:


I'd say it's a close-up of the back of my liver-spotted hand, with the metal splinter I acquired sticking out.

We need something familiar to compare it to!!!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK, do you suggest someone from your own family to be sent to Mars?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I happen to agree with you... which is why I said that it warrants further investigation.

Sadly though, NASA, nor anyone else, is likely to assist us in doing such a thing....



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Actually, in seriousness, I would go myself. BUT, I'm not sure I would be considered because of my age.

However, if John Glenn could wrangle his way onto a Space Shuttle flight, then maybe I could pass the physical. I'd be happy to be the guinea pig --- ermmm, volunteer.

edit to add: I always wanted to be 'buried' (or disposed of) in space after I die. Heck, this could be my ticket!


[edit on 26 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


If you all put money into a fund to build a Mars exploration vehicle that I could use to get there, I would get out there and explore until my supplies ran out or I suffocated, so that mankind could have some close up, un-edited pictures of these "anomalies".

It would be a bonus if I could get back from Mars alive, but sometimes you just have to make the sacrifice...



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Maybe this will help giving an idea of the size.

The Mars photo has a resolution of 26.7 cm per pixel, the aerial photo from Earth has a resolution of 25 cm per pixel, so they are close enough.



PS: I used the original photo instead of the rotated version that super70 uses because I think the rotation makes it a little misleading and because it's not a 100% zoom view, it's bigger (probably 200%).




top topics



 
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join