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 monument 'proof of life'

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
There are a whole bunch of NATURAL formations and structures here on Earth that are a lot more astounding than a simple, rectangular stone block. Although I suppose aliens might have made those too




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
There are a whole bunch of NATURAL formations and structures here on Earth that are a lot more astounding than a simple, rectangular stone block. Although I suppose aliens might have made those too
I agree with you, but what I see is a strange formation (probably natural) in the middle of a desolate landscape. It seems out of place.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Curio
 


Usually you don't find a large stone block standing on its own unless someone has put it there.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Agreed that this is very interesting. It does seem to be artificial in both shape and location but of course that is just speculation based on the limited information we have so far. At the very least it is an unusual geographic anomaly perphaps naturally forming that deserves more research. What kind of "rock" can withstand the elements for millions of years without eroding? Good find op.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Actually, standing stones is a very common occurrence on Earth.

Now, I fully understand we are talking about Mars and as a side note, one of it's moons.

But, look at the links and see what you think.

www.pitt.edu...

www.google.com... vision&cd=3

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by A TRUE AMERICAN
It seems out of place.
It seems out of place in that photo.

A larger view would show more stones stuck in the ground, although not with the same shape.


As I said in another thread about this (the thread from where they "stole" the image), I think that this was a rock that broke from the above area and fell on that place. I think the same thing happened to the other rocks in that area, but I am not a specialist in Martian rocks, only a fan.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
***spoiler alert***
Thu Sun is a TABLOID.

^SPELLING FAIL

***spoiler alert***
The Sun is a STAR.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



That gives us much better perspective of the surrounding area. It doesn't seem quite so strange but still only that one rock seems like a monolith and that area does still seem worthly of further research. Speaking on the possibilities of a Rover. How far is this area from cydonia? Could a rover concievably visit both places and where in relation is the "glass tube" area for lack of a better term? These are three areas that would benefit from up close camera investigation. I wish NASA wasn't the ones picking the places to send rovers, but that they accepted more input from the general population.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
That gives us much better perspective of the surrounding area. It doesn't seem quite so strange but still only that one rock seems like a monolith and that area does still seem worthly of further research.
A monolith is a rock (mono=one + lithos=rock), so the other rocks are also monoliths, but I understand what you mean.

There is another rock that is relatively similar to the "monolith", but as it is not in the same position it's difficult to know how similar they are.


Speaking on the possibilities of a Rover. How far is this area from cydonia?
Around 5000 km to the "face", Cydonia is a very large region.


Could a rover concievably visit both places and where in relation is the "glass tube" area for lack of a better term?
Opportunity is some 2500 km from Cydonia, 5100 from this "monolith" and 2500 from the "glass tube".

Spirit is some 9000 km from Cydonia, 5300 km from the "monolith" and 8800 km from the "glass tube".

Considering that the rovers, in 5.5 years have travelled around 12 km each, it's obvious that we would need three different missions for the three different areas, but I don't think any of these areas would be considered a good target by NASA, I don't see anything special in these areas to choose them over other areas.


These are three areas that would benefit from up close camera investigation. I wish NASA wasn't the ones picking the places to send rovers, but that they accepted more input from the general population.
Unfortunately, that is not possible.
Imagine what would happen if 500 people would send ideas for 50 different places, what would they do? Would they do what the people want and sent, at worst, 50 rovers just to take photos of those areas? Or would they choose just some of those places? And if those missions would just take photos that would be a huge waste of time and money, photos, although important, do not give that much information, and you would see people on ATS complaining that NASA was using crappy cameras on a mission that was extremely expensive and they wanted their tax money spent in a different way.


Some things are possible but, in reality, not feasible.

Edited to correct the quotes.


[edit on 9/8/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for your posts and analysis - much appreciated.

I'm curious about one thing:
What do you think about the media saturation about "disclosure" etc over the last couple of years?

It's mostly occurred in Murdoch media.

Considering that Murdoch has a reasonable (at least) relationship with government leaders, it's reasonable to assume that there is at least a little collusion.

I just keep looking at what they are trying to slip under the radar...



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
What I don't get is why NASA would want to hide this... NASA could use this as hype to get funding to go to mars, to build bases on the moon on mars, yet they do the exact opposite, squelch these findings, even if they are 100% speculative, you think NASA would be smart enough to use the stories of hype to hype funding, that's what I don't get, it seems NASA has tried everything in their power to hide something, hide what exactly I don't know, but I do sense a great deal of opposition against even the idea that artificial structures exist elsewhere, I know repeatable science is what their after, but they forget that it was the imagination of man in space that pushed us into space in the first place.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
MY GOD ...

it's filled with STARS.


Second line.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by carnival_of_souls2047
 

Making a second or third line on a useless post doesn't make it any more useful.

PS: maybe some mod can delete these two useless posts.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I don't think that there will be any disclosure for two reasons.

First, I don't think there is anything to disclose (when talking about UFOs or ET life), second because I think that if there was a reason to keep it hidden I don't see how that reason may have disappeared and made those that have been hiding that secret wanting to make it public.

I think that the media is just following the money, as usual, and seeing that there is a possible new market they are following it and making it bigger, to keep their investment profitable.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I don't have to squint and poke my eye with a finger this time while standing on my head


most convincing mars anomaly so far...

s&f



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


It is very interesting......

That said, I see no evidence it is artificially made.

Until we have more evidence that it did not form naturally, i say no evidence of aliens making it.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Domain name: $8 a year

Hosting Service: $10 a month

Posting any hoax, any lie, and untrue story, and sci-fi theory, any wild thought, any opinion, and absolutly anything in the world, AND getting viewers to view it: Priceless



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Why get excited about an upended rock casting a vaguely rectangular shadow ? Are you expecting a monolith ala' 2001/ Arthur C Clarke ? I trust the satpics very much less than the rover pics,and you KNOW how they've been tampered with to block out the evidence of life on Mars. One unfortunate strategy adopted by Mars independent researchers is non-disclosure of the original image,so that Nasa photo-clowns don't make it disappear or modify it beyond recognition after the "life-objects" have been noticed and destroyed.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


The monolith looks like a giant tomb stone of stone tablet of some sort to me.



Maybe something is 'written' on it?

Haven't got the foggiest idea IF the Phobos monolith and the one on Mars can/could be related. It's an appealing concept to brainstorm about tho



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join