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: 7
84
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Yamaha Dave
 
You can't get much more natural than that!




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
reply to post by micpsi
 


I must admit that this rock is strange.
But its possible for some crystalline rocks to break in straight lines or erode that way. Some examples (earthly) :









I don't think those eroded rocks compare one jot with the sharp angularity and straight lines of the Martian object.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
amazing how the pyramid of Giza and the monolith are so similar



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I would like to point out out another oddity concerning the "Monolith",
the sand/soil directly beneath the embedded object is obviously disturbed.

I do not believe this to be a dune shadow, as the light is shining directly onto the area and therefor would be lightened, not darkened.
Could it be that the object has recently jutted up through the surface?
Or perhaps if it were thrown from the upper ledge as some have speculated, that this must have also occured very recently, for us to witness the soil/sand still in a disturbed state.

What could disturb the ground around a standing stone, assuming it is a stone?

Curious indeed!





posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


I think that the fact that you rotated the image changes the way we think about it. As you posted, if the object fell, it fell from the right, not from the top.

Also, I don't think this is a new(ish) event, it is present in a 2003 photo, so it's at least 5 years old (the HiRISE photo is from July 2008).



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Originally posted by StevesResearch
That could be anything.


You should change your name to StevesLackOfResearch


Clap, clap. Gee, aren't you clever.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dampnickers

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.


That's funny, if I said "that's an artificial structure!" or something to that effect you most likely wouldn't be calling me ignorant. Without bearing in mind that rocks can appear symmetrical from a distance. I take it you're not a geologist either? How do you or anyone else here for that matter know the true geology of Mars?
I've noticed a pattern of childish behaviour on this site where if you don't share the view of some here you're pounced on with condescending remarks. I'm not as gullible as you, so sue me.
Having a dig at someone because they're not turned on by an inconclusive picture taken from a great altitude is immature. So who is the one really having trouble denying ignorance here?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by super70
 


I think that the fact that you rotated the image changes the way we think about it. As you posted, if the object fell, it fell from the right, not from the top.

Also, I don't think this is a new(ish) event, it is present in a 2003 photo, so it's at least 5 years old (the HiRISE photo is from July 2008).


Yes, the object is at an angle, I stated in the OP that I have rotated the image 81.0 degrees using the IAS software. I feel the image is much easier to view this way, but thats me. The fact that the object is at angle is even more intriguing, as it takes cosiderable more force to hold itself at an angle than it would straight up.

Also, the 2003 image is much to far away to tell if the object is the same, or at least if the object is in the same position. Did you notice the track marks that lead away from the object down the slope? I'm surprised no one has pointed that out yet. I will post the track images.




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by StevesResearch
 
Hi Steve,
Just trying to be helpful, in the context of the pics as seen you can't say "That could be anything" just because that is what you think, it needs qualification of some sort.We have probably all said that at some time from a gut feeling, although in this case it is quite obvious it is not anything.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Here is another view of the "Monolith" object.

Notice the strange tracks leading away from the object, noticable when a contrast is added to the photo. The tracks start at the object, then lead downhill.
Or do the tracks actually lead uphill TO the object?







posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 

i wish you would quit tying to advertise for that other website. the two monoliths ae totally different.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I'll qualify it with this, these pictures are taken from a great altitude. I've seen news footage of what some people swore was an image of the Virgin Mary. Upon closer inspection this "miraculous" image turned out to be nothing more than a fence post! Never underestimate the tricks that light, shadow, angle and distance can play on the mind. I'm not saying this is definately a rock, nor can I say it's definately artificial. That's why I stand by my original statement that it could be anything.

That doesn't mean I'm not at least intrigued by this picture. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get a picture taken at ground level, wishful thinking I know.

Cheers



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by StevesResearch
 
I do make mistakes,but I don't underestimate or overestimate anything.There are not so many posts on this thread so far, so maybe you should read through some of them, preferably all of them,then make a conclusion.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pappie54
Now that attention to this has focused everyone on Mars, is this playing into the hands of NASA and the idea of going to Mars and not the moon? I just can't figure why we would not want to go to the much closer rock that would be an easier and safer place to get our feet wet in rock hopping. With Bush wanting Mars and then we hear that the moon is a target again, now this to focus public attention back on Mars. With all this stuff of cover-up and UFOs, you tend to not trust those pulling the strings. Hey, Mars is cool, there is a lot of curious stuff there to check out but you know NASA, they probably land their asses out of some isolated field of rocks and dust, miles from anything interesting. After a while of hanging around here, you don't know what to believe anymore. Faith, trust, man that crap is shattered.


I agree with you on this one...seems fishy that they dont want anything to do with earths moon, maybe its true that we are not welcome there....so now they push for mars and its moon.
If we are not welcome on our moon what makes them think we are welcome on Mars...hehe.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I tend to agree with Steve here. until further evidence is put forward you could say it is or is not anything. The odd looking tracks remind me of the recent photos of the Apollo landing sites. with no road or sidewalk people tend to walk in a sort of s pattern, guided by terrain. other species might do the same as far as we know these tracks would be bigger though. Thanks to blaine91555 for the pic.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by StevesResearch
That doesn't mean I'm not at least intrigued by this picture. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get a picture taken at ground level, wishful thinking I know.

Cheers


Agreed.

With a mission to Mars, hopefully they go to the so called Face on Mars and the "alien statue".



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by StevesResearch
 
I do make mistakes,but I don't underestimate or overestimate anything.There are not so many posts on this thread so far, so maybe you should read through some of them, preferably all of them,then make a conclusion.



How do you know I haven't read all the posts here? Don't make assumptions.

You don't agree with my opinion, fine, but don't imply I'm not doing my homework because I don't share your view.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by elarmstrongo
 


Thank you. It's good to see there's some common sense here.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


Yes there are "tracks", thats why someone (I guess Armap) said that it rolled down the hill.
You will find such tracks at many places on mars, even on moon.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


Yes, I noticed the tracks, and I noticed that to the left of that area (in the not rotated, not map-projected image) there are some more of those tracks, common on slopes with rocks at the bottom.




top topics



 
84
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join