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 - Anomaly in JUVENTAE CHASMA - Strange Spherical Object

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
What if it's just a crater with snow in it? We know it snows on mars Co2 Snow anyone?




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


There is ice as the object is very close to pole. There is also a very unique ''swiss cheese'' style formation in and outside of the object. However i dont think it's a crater, it's more of a very strange a almost perfect circular depression.

It is very deep into the ground and very strange indeed..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 

I've seen that before and posted on ATS as well. Not even the Hi-rise team can explain 100% what it is....

Have they even tried? I haven't seen any of their explanations thus far. This is nothing but an impact crater, which have shallow floors made of solidified lava, and central uplifting like a single peak or multiple peaks.

Anyway, can you provide a link to the site where, as you mention, the HiRISE team has failed to explain this?

Thanks!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Yeah the information page is here:




This 4 kilometer diameter feature near the edge of the South polar residual cap was recognized in Mariner 9 and Viking Orbiter images taken in the 1970s, but its origin could not be inferred. It was therefore targeted for HiRISE stereo imaging.




It also appears that the "swiss cheese" terrain of the residual cap has buried the floor of the circular depression, as well as the terrain surrounding the feature, making it difficult to infer the origin of this depression. Its circular symmetry is consistent with an impact origin, but there is no evidence of a crater rim or ejecta (perhaps because they have been buried). The depression may have formed by collapse, but there is little evidence of extensional fractures that would be expected around a collapse pit. Analysis of HiRISE stereo data may help the interpretation of this feature.

HiRISE / PSP_005349_0930






It's not that they failed to explain it, but they can't give a definative answer....

If you use Google Mars, here are the co-ordinates:

86°44'31.05"S, 111°11'40.94"W

I'm not saying it's alien related, just saying that cant explain 100% what caused it. It is a very odd feature...


edit on 1-2-2011 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Don't be stupid any photo from NASA is just the arizona desert. Don't be stupid.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 

And that's the only page about that area that has any comment, although there are other photos from the area, two of them newer than that photo.

PSP_003728_0930
ESP_012760_0930
ESP_013617_0930

There's too many things for which science doesn't have an answer, at least not yet, even on Earth.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Here's an explanation for it, and much more.

www.thunderbolts.info...

Scroll down through the article if you are in hurry, and you'll see a section called domed craters. There you'll find a picture of one of the effects of electric arcing in the lab, look familiar ?

There are so many things that can be explained if this is considered. Crater chains, hexagonal craters, the lack of debris or fracturing, the hard scalloped edges, the kidney shaped arcs etc.... Impact theory does nothing for what we see.

The south pole area is a clear indication of electrical arcing. The Earth has it's atmosphere to protect it from the electrical currents that create the aurora, Mars not so good. See the big spiraling pattern? There's no doubt in my mind was created by the rotating fillaments of electrically charged plasma, (Birkeland currents).

Of course NASA can not even consider the visible evidence in this light or even the experimental evidence because it is outside the realms of their consideration. For now that is.
edit on 1-2-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Scroll down through the article if you are in hurry, and you'll see a section called domed craters. There you'll find a picture of one of the effects of electric arcing in the lab, look familiar ?
Yes, it looks familiar, it looks like what I have seen while using an electric arc welder.


The "domed" craters are not domes, they are optical illusion.


There are so many things that can be explained if this is considered. Crater chains, hexagonal craters, the lack of debris or fracturing, the hard scalloped edges, the kidney shaped arcs etc.... Impact theory does nothing for what we see.
Funny, I think the same about the electrical arc theory.

It may help explain some things, but I don't see how it can explain craters better than the impact theory.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


And how about this raw posted by Zorgon?

www.msss.com...


How can this be so different of your picture? I mean, Zorgon posted a raw image that shows the "anomaly" darker than the pic you provide. Why the images are so differents? It supposed to be the same thing.

PSP_003728_0930
ESP_012760_0930
ESP_013617_0930

edit on 1-2-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

Could you please rephrase it?
Thanks in advance.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


They show different areas.

The images I posted and that you added to your post (thanks for that, it made it easy to understand what you meant
) show the same circular feature near the south pole that OrionHunterX posted at the end of the previous page.

The only images I could find of that area on the opening post were posted here.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The "domed" craters are not domes, they are optical illusion.


Is this the official stance? If you believe that all appearances of domes are infact all optical illusions I'd have to disagree.


Funny, I think the same about the electrical arc theory.


Fair enough, however I would argue that the physical discharge experiments speak for themselves. No other experiments have come close to producing the anomalies mentioned.


It may help explain some things, but I don't see how it can explain craters better than the impact theory.


Believe me, I didn't get it or buy it at first either. When my conceptions of the universe and nature changed it made complete sense. Each to there own, good to see you leave a little opening for some things there at least.
I do understand how strange it sounds, so your response is pretty normal.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Seriously it is an optical illusion, i get caught by that trap myself... it all depens on image quality and angle of capture.

The same things happens with the Moon, some images make it look like Domes and other you can see the craters.

Trust me it doesnt vary from person to person, i see domes all the time but it all comes down to the image. Of course some geo features are domes or mounds but that is different. I''l give you an example of how an image and the angle of capture and lighting can make a difference.

The below images are of the depression we were discussing above:

With the below links you need to open the page and then just click the image for it to expand, you dont have to save it unless you want to.

In the first image you can clearly see the depression and that it is a ''hole'' basically.

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

In the second image the actual ''hole'' or depression looks flat.

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...


It's really just an optical illusion, angel of capture and lighting, even the fact that they are greyscale makes a big difference.

Hope it helps. I would have posted the full image but they are quite large and i'm sure you can click on links and have a look
without any problems.

After looking at them, does that make some sense??



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for the additional images, i did notice those on G - Mars with the spacecraft imagery mapping, i just thought that image and information was more relevant.

Before yesterday i didnt realise they had captured so many images of the area, although it is understandable as it is an odd formation.

I thinkwe discussed this feature awhile ago, didn't we?

Although at that time i didnt look properly and didn't realise all the other images were available.

Anyways i'm rambling on, thanks again.

Edit: oh i have been meaning to ask you, did you ever frequent the google earth - off world forums??

bbs.keyhole.com...

Before i joined ATS i thought that was the place to discuss off world things and more alien related stuff...lol i got booted pretty quick because it's full of (earth) geologists and '' know it alls '' that wouldnt even consider the possibility of anything on Mars but dirt and rocks..
edit on 2-2-2011 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2011 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 


how about this "rings on Mars"? ?
i1186.photobucket.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Is this the official stance? If you believe that all appearances of domes are infact all optical illusions I'd have to disagree.
No, that's my opinion.


All of the "domes" I have seen presented as such in Mars photos turned out to be craters, with the different shades of the sand inside the crater creating that illusion.


Fair enough, however I would argue that the physical discharge experiments speak for themselves. No other experiments have come close to producing the anomalies mentioned.
They don't, if they did everybody would agree with that theory.


Believe me, I didn't get it or buy it at first either. When my conceptions of the universe and nature changed it made complete sense. Each to there own, good to see you leave a little opening for some things there at least.
And are you sure that your conceptions of the universe and nature are closer to the truth than before?


And yes, I always think that there's the possibility of any theory being wrong, so I always accept the possibility of new theories being the correct (or closer to the correct) answer.


I do understand how strange it sounds, so your response is pretty normal.
It's a question of sounding strange, I just don't see the results of the experiments as showing what they are supposed to show.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
Edit: oh i have been meaning to ask you, did you ever frequent the google earth - off world forums??
Forums dedicated to just one topic are usually boring, with almost all people sharing the same ideas and with no intentions of discussing something that deviates (even slightly) from what they think they know.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join