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.

 

Crashed saucer on Mars?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
To me, the "broken ring" looks like a collection of several rocks, with one sticking up to the right, another across the top and behind the first, a third along the left side and a small piece of rock poking up in the middle. I'm pretty sure that if you were standing over it the saucer shape is just an illusion made by multiple rocks.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If this can be called a crashed saucer, i should get a prize for my pipes...



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I've been offline for a long time, coming back to ATS every now and then and lurking. Unfortunately whilst absence makes the heart grow fonder, it hasn't managed to make the posts any better...

What disappoints isn't the (teeny tiny) "debris" being shown, nor the almost one line nature of the post - with no opinion or input...

No - it's that this by the title of the thread - this is meant to be debris of a "flying saucer"... there again a more correct title of "ever so slightly interesting image of teeny-tiny debris on Mars" whilst more correct - might not quite get our attention...

Personally I found the hybrid man goat image on the destination URL more interesting... gross yes... but more interesting.

LOL
askbaby
A Skeptic, not a basher, a skeptic... and watcher of thread titles!



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The all purpose answer too sticky question "It's a weather balloon!"


Brought to you by the makers of bluebook!



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by askbaby
 
It's obviously just another crashed saucer, dang, I wish these littlealienns would sort out their planetary operations dynamic systems, (PODS) 'cos it must be costing them a fortune, never mind the embarrassment of being headlined in The Sun, Der Bild, and most likely The National Enquirer and finally ATS. Oh well, it's one small step for a man to photograph a rock, but a giant leap for mankind to make a rock into a flying saucer...still an interesting pic though.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Humanity considers itself intelligent, highly technological and advanced...yet somehow we still manage to crash our vehicles all over the planet, our military, with the most intelligent operators, most advanced training and machinery on the planet, still somehow manage to have accidents and crash planes, tanks and just about everything else that has ever been flown, driven or sailed.

Intelligence and high technology is a poor match for the forces of nature and subject to the uncertainty principles of everyday existence as we are.

Ergo..even smart, highly technological ET's have accidents too.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by martinhuyton
 


Your are making an assumption regarding ET size.

I would have though that a high I.Q. would have meant you would have considered the plausible possibility that ET's come in many shapes and sizes, and as such could be what we humans would consider to be giants or titans just as much as they could be what we humans would call tiny or miniature.

Comparatively, that is.

Many factors would have a bearing on what form and size ET's have, from their DNA, to environmental conditions to genetic manipulation.

Perhaps there are intelligent species so small it would be difficult to see them and their technology without optics.

Strange as it sounds, it is possible. The differences of the size and shape of life here on Earth is staggering...and that's even in a relatively similar environment to one another, imagine if you added a denser planet, a different chemistry of atmosphere, a higher or lower gravity..the list of factors governing size and shape is pretty endless.

It is (IMO) short sighted to write something like this off because it's a foot or two in size, and not 30 or 40 feet or even meters (miles in some cases). A foot or two sized 'flying saucer' may contain ET's an inch or two in size for all we know.

In WWII, the 'Foo fighters' were reportedly very agile and fast, self luminous spheres or around a foot in size, roughly that of a soccer ball.

In recent times, we witness huge 'mothership' sized craft releasing these much smaller, 'soccer ball' sized self luminous, very agile and fast spheres... coincidence that we find something on Mars that appears to be artificial, has high symmetry, and is at least anomalous to it's surroundings, natural or otherwise.

Even those who could posses an I.Q. of 367 are still subject to the psychological and social conditioning practices the rest of us lower I.Q. folk are.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by spikey]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The debris looks like a crossbow, and got the size of..... a crossbow

looks like the right "arm" is broken off.

Speculation: I imagine the Marsians evolved on Mars to the middle ages, we were "planted" by the ancients on both Mars and Earth. Maybe the Marsians are still there, NASA could be lying about the toxic air, remember the one time the NASA forgot to paint the sky red on Mars?


What's the real color of Mars:
www.enterprisemission.com...

[edit on 7-12-2009 by conar]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Why can't it be rocks? I think that's a rather bold and unproven statement.. "obviously can't be rocks." Why not? Because it doesn't fit into what your preconceived notion of what all rocks should look like?

There was that "wrench" picture. I thought that looked MUCH more like debris than this. It looked like a tool, and was the first picture I actually thought was worth taking a further look at. I asked two geologists in my office to take a gander. They seemed unexcited, and dead-certain that yes, it was just a rock formation.

So yes... many times, rocks can look like all sorts of other things. Doesn't mean they are not rocks though.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Has NASA ever inspected some of the strange rocks that looks artifical, after people on internet pointed them out?

Like this




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hello,


Why is the rover images are always blackened out ?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 

If you mean the areas of the panoramas that are black, it is because there are no images of those areas. The panoramas are made up of many images joined together.

If that's not what you mean, I don't know what you mean.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Look around our own earth, if we wasn't here, and another civilization was looking around our planet, don't you think they would discover some amazing rock formations. This is all from the angle of the picture, little dirt, and some strange rock formations, thats all, nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by martinhuyton
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Chadwickus....you're correct, the object is very small so, having seen your picture with the rover's tracks I think we can safely assume that the mystery object is not a flying saucer. Whatever it is, it aint no rock so what's it doing on Mars?

MH


Haha, you said "Ain't" and didn't even spell it correctly - if you CAN spell ain't correctly that is.

164

And there ISN'T a saucer in that picture. NEXT!

Dorian Soran
The good doctor!


[edit by Dorian Soran - forgot to add that I was the good doctor - corrected!]

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Dorian Soran]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tristar
 

If you mean the areas of the panoramas that are black, it is because there are no images of those areas. The panoramas are made up of many images joined together.

If that's not what you mean, I don't know what you mean.


I am referring to when ever there is a panoramic image the rover seems to blackened out.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Rocks can be and mostly are just rocks.

If you look at the image, you'll see there are 'just rocks' all over the place.

That's why the OP and others are NOT saying that every rock in the image is anomalous, just the one's that look like they are.

See...rocks can be just rocks.

Sometimes, rocks look anomalous..mostly they just look like ordinary rocks.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by martinhuyton
Have a look at this web page....absolutely intriguing!

www.bild.de...

MH



[edit on 6/12/2009 by martinhuyton]


usually we like to see more than one sentance. but thanks for trying.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 

I don't know why. Perhaps because when the terrain is being imaged they don't bother with the rover itself.



[edit on 12/7/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Curious as to how this image you provided was taken, obviously the rover does not have an overhead camera brace and the satellites in orbit do have this high resolution imagery available but it has not been made public yet.

Conclusion: this is a photo montage



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 

Well, yes. It is a montage, just like all of the panoramas. The pancam has a very narrow FOV (16º x 16º) so it can't get much in a single image, especially if it is very close. The mast on which the camera is mounted is less than 1 meter above the solar panels. It took quite a few images to create that montage.
static.howstuffworks.com...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join