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.

 

ALIEN Structure found on google MARS!

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Thanks for posting.

It is certainly a Triskelion.

Whether or not it's an ancient artificial construct, or entirely natural is something that will have to be argued over...and over...and over.

And don't worry OP, i know there are a lot of replies to this thread whose authors could be described as being obtuse, but i at least realise you meant 'artificially created' when you say 'man made', and don't mean specifically human made.

Assuming it is an artificial Triskelion (three armed, legged, spiral or pronged structure, found in ancient times particularly among Ancient Greeks and Ancient Celts) I'd imagine it's very old and eroded. The sands and soil of Mars has built up and concreted along the 'leg' profiles, softening their appearance.
If it's natural, i'd be curious as to what processes on Mars could fashion this object, with it's *obvious* symmetry.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you visit the link, it's interesting to note (may or may not be connected to this possible anomaly) that the Trilateral commission in the US has this symbol as it's insignia.

So do did a couple of NAZI outfits around the 30's and 40's.

It is also used for a surprising number of country and corporate flags and logos.

And it also happens to be the same shape of components of human cells....maybe this was a genetic research centre, hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.

Well spotted, good find.

Cheers.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Arken
 


Not quite sure what your showing me there


Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me that symmetrical objects can form naturally?
edit on 28/2/2011 by Argyll because: (no reason given)


Dimensions my dear...... Dimensions....

Dimensions are very, very important in this kind of stuff.

Nature cant form a symmetrical object on an area of 3 kilometers perfectly squared and coherent angles or in a huge area of 12 km x 25 Km.


Thank you Arken. I was hoping that they had that kind of common sense. So i challenge anyone to show me this, here il put it in bold for you. To show me A NATURALLY MADE SYMMETRICAL ROCK, HILL OR INDENT FORMATION THAT IS EITHER A TRIANGLE OR A SQUARE OR ANYTHING WITH EVEN DIMENSIONS ON ALL SIDES THAT IS 1, 2, OR 3KM ON EACH SIDE.
edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Thanks for posting.

It is certainly a Triskelion.

Whether or not it's an ancient artificial construct, or entirely natural is something that will have to be argued over...and over...and over.

And don't worry OP, i know there are a lot of replies to this thread whose authors could be described as being obtuse, but i at least realise you meant 'artificially created' when you say 'man made', and don't mean specifically human made.

Assuming it is an artificial Triskelion (three armed, legged, spiral or pronged structure, found in ancient times particularly among Ancient Greeks and Ancient Celts) I'd imagine it's very old and eroded. The sands and soil of Mars has built up and concreted along the 'leg' profiles, softening their appearance.
If it's natural, i'd be curious as to what processes on Mars could fashion this object, with it's *obvious* symmetry.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you visit the link, it's interesting to note (may or may not be connected to this possible anomaly) that the Trilateral commission in the US has this symbol as it's insignia.

So do did a couple of NAZI outfits around the 30's and 40's.

It is also used for a surprising number of country and corporate flags and logos.

And it also happens to be the same shape of components of human cells....maybe this was a genetic research centre, hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.

Well spotted, good find.

Cheers.



What an interesting and constructive response. Thank you for that info.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 


Your challenge is a difficult one, but you are claiming perfect symmetry and exact angles from google mars, which is in turn using aerial photographs from a mars orbiter, many many kilometres above the surface of the planet. from the correct height on google earth it would make the meteor crater in arizona appear to be PERFECTLY circular, when in reality the edges are rather erroded and non uniform. Look at google earth and from a height allowing you to see the outer limits of a city, measure the width and length of said city, then ask a friend to do the same with the same city from the same height using the same landmarks... it is highly unlikely your measurements will be exactly the same, the reason being, from the heights these images were captured and then using google earths measuring tool, a mouse click that is 3 or 4 pixels differently placed on these pieces of software can easily give measurements that are hundreds of metres different. I am not saying that these images aren't interesting... just pointing out the futility of trying to prove something is artifificially created by using such a basic piece of software as google earth.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by lammypie999
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 


Your challenge is a difficult one, but you are claiming perfect symmetry and exact angles from google mars, which is in turn using aerial photographs from a mars orbiter, many many kilometres above the surface of the planet. from the correct height on google earth it would make the meteor crater in arizona appear to be PERFECTLY circular, when in reality the edges are rather erroded and non uniform. Look at google earth and from a height allowing you to see the outer limits of a city, measure the width and length of said city, then ask a friend to do the same with the same city from the same height using the same landmarks... it is highly unlikely your measurements will be exactly the same, the reason being, from the heights these images were captured and then using google earths measuring tool, a mouse click that is 3 or 4 pixels differently placed on these pieces of software can easily give measurements that are hundreds of metres different. I am not saying that these images aren't interesting... just pointing out the futility of trying to prove something is artifificially created by using such a basic piece of software as google earth.


As you can see in the video the measurements were off by .5-.10 but that is because we do not see the exact beginning and end of those lines. But that margin of error is too small to dismiss the object as natural. You mentioned a circular object seen on earth. Well there are many perfect circles on mars and i did not mention any of them since circles can be made by impact craters. But the shape, even dimension, symmetry and size of this object has never been observed to coincide with natures making.
edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelionofbabel
I can not believe this is public and noone has said anything about it. This can not be made by natural means. The "starfish triangle" has exactly the same dimensions on all sides. I would love for the scientists to give their feedback. Check it out!.

www.youtube.com...


edit on 28-2-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)



For those who think its a crater. Use a negative image. Most of NASA photos including this one are published in opposite colors for some strange reason. For macs use control option apple 8 to see the photo in negative. Craters appear as they should. Where the dents on the ground are inward and not outward. NASA either does this intentionally or by accident in order to distort what is actually there.

To distinguish between crater or structure please be aware that NASA photos are published in opposite colors. Not sure why. Below is an example.

Pic 1 published by NASA (all seem to look like scars from impacts. But the craters dont?
picasaweb.google.com...

Pic 2 After negative is applied.
picasaweb.google.com...

You can clearly see what is an impact and what is above ground.
edit on 28-2-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)


I would like to add that pic1 and pic2 example should be ignored. Although it is much easier to see the second picture it is just an optical illusion. That theory is sound. But since we know that craters leave an inward impression that are mostly circular. We know those to be indents. Observed closed, we can also tell if something is above ground be measuring the distance between the bright light and complete dark shadow. If the dark shadow is connected with the bright side then it is an indent or a hole. But if the bright side and dark shadow are opposite and farther apart. Then this means there is an object in between the bright side and the shadow cause the shadow to be on the opposite side of the object.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 


Well you like to keep moving the goalposts don't you??

However.........for you and Arken






Kronotsky Symmetrical Kronotsky stratovolcano, one of Kamchatka's most scenic volcanoes, lies between the Pacific Ocean and Lake Kronotsky, Kamchatka's largest lake. The flanks of the massive 3528-m-high volcano






Kliuchevskoi Kamchatka's two highest volcanoes rise above a sea of clouds. Their greatly differing morphologies reflect contrasting geologic histories. Construction of extensively eroded Kamen volcano (left) took place during the Pleistocene. It has been relatively inactive since. Its eastern (right) side was removed by a massive landslide about 1200-1300 years ago, leaving the steep escarpment. Symmetrical Kliuchevskoi, in contrast, is one of Kamchatka's youngest and most active volcanoes, growing to 4835 m in the past 6000 years.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 


Well you like to keep moving the goalposts don't you??

However.........for you and Arken






Kronotsky Symmetrical Kronotsky stratovolcano, one of Kamchatka's most scenic volcanoes, lies between the Pacific Ocean and Lake Kronotsky, Kamchatka's largest lake. The flanks of the massive 3528-m-high volcano






Kliuchevskoi Kamchatka's two highest volcanoes rise above a sea of clouds. Their greatly differing morphologies reflect contrasting geologic histories. Construction of extensively eroded Kamen volcano (left) took place during the Pleistocene. It has been relatively inactive since. Its eastern (right) side was removed by a massive landslide about 1200-1300 years ago, leaving the steep escarpment. Symmetrical Kliuchevskoi, in contrast, is one of Kamchatka's youngest and most active volcanoes, growing to 4835 m in the past 6000 years.


lol well im not a magician but i wasnt aware that craters had that effect. However i am still convinced that this object is no illusion since i have looked at it from both sides of the brain inward and outward. The shadow and distances from the bright light reflections proves it is a structure and not an indent. But regardless even if one said it was and indent in the ground, it would still be impossible for it to be natural.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 


You laid down a challenge, I accepted and provided you with the proof you asked for

To be honest mate, I think your trying to convince yourself it's unnatural, I have proven to you here that nature does indeed throw up some mind boggling formations, and that is on planet Earth........who knows what tricks nature plays on other planets?..........and if we do ever uncover any of those tricks, I doubt we will do it via google earth.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 


You laid down a challenge, I accepted and provided you with the proof you asked for

To be honest mate, I think your trying to convince yourself it's unnatural, I have proven to you here that nature does indeed throw up some mind boggling formations, and that is on planet Earth........who knows what tricks nature plays on other planets?..........and if we do ever uncover any of those tricks, I doubt we will do it via google earth.


I dont see how you proved or convinced anyone anything otherwise. My comment was to the optical illusion in two colors. I said it was a sound theory. But optical illusion has nothing to do with what ive shown. According to your response even seeing it in person can be called a mirage.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


Good examples, Argyll...at least, if the Google Mars "object" were in fact a three dimensional, above-surface anomaly.

In fact, it is most certainly a depression. A sinkhole of sorts. Oddly (nearly) "symmetrical",,,,really, without being able to survey very precisely, when just viewed from a mosaic compilation of satellite images processed through Google's algorithms.....the many claims (by others) of "perfect 3 KM", etc are really quite premature, to state with such "confidence".

Unfortunately, I lack the software and skills to properly screen capture an image from Google Mars, and prove that it is, indeed, NOT a projection that rises vertically above the surface. I can only use my visual acuity and judgement, and by comparing to other very, very obvious nearby features. (I will call them sinkholes too....versus an impact crater....since they do not resemble impacts). I keep hoping an ATS member with such skills and equipment will do so.

If possible, another route may be to research into the region on Mars, to see if there is any data at all, such as supposition published by experts --- terrestrial geologists --- who branch into extra-terrestrial study, and make careers out of using their expertise and knowledge of Earth formations and processes, and inferring based on that, from the photos and other information, such as it is, about Mars (and other rocky planets/moons).



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelionofbabel

Originally posted by Arken
A really strange and amazing structure....

A triple (3) sides with a lenght of three (3) Kilometers each one!


Unnatural!


Thank you Arken.


Please feel free to fudge the end points so they come out the way you want.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 





I dont see how you proved or convinced anyone anything otherwise. My comment was to the optical illusion in two colors. I said it was a sound theory. But optical illusion has nothing to do with what ive shown. According to your response even seeing it in person can be called a mirage.


You really need to stop doing this mate, because you sound like quite an intelligent bloke.

you said that nature could not produce symmetrical formations............I proved that you were wrong.
you then moved the goal posts and claimed that you implied nature couldn't produce symmetrical formations of a certain size, and I didn't have the common sense to second guess this!............again I proved you wrong.

You are now harping on about optical illusions!..................where have I alluded to the fact that "seeing it in person it can be called a mirage"?

You have found a formation on Mars that you claim to be a proven artificial structure, your basis of this is that nature can not form such a structure naturally.

I have proven to you that nature can indeed form symmetrical structures of massive size quite naturally.

That my friend is the crux of this debate.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 





I dont see how you proved or convinced anyone anything otherwise. My comment was to the optical illusion in two colors. I said it was a sound theory. But optical illusion has nothing to do with what ive shown. According to your response even seeing it in person can be called a mirage.


You really need to stop doing this mate, because you sound like quite an intelligent bloke.

you said that nature could not produce symmetrical formations............I proved that you were wrong.
you then moved the goal posts and claimed that you implied nature couldn't produce symmetrical formations of a certain size, and I didn't have the common sense to second guess this!............again I proved you wrong.

You are now harping on about optical illusions!..................where have I alluded to the fact that "seeing it in person it can be called a mirage"?

You have found a formation on Mars that you claim to be a proven artificial structure, your basis of this is that nature can not form such a structure naturally.

I have proven to you that nature can indeed form symmetrical structures of massive size quite naturally.

That my friend is the crux of this debate.


WTF dude your a real troll arent you? YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IT IF YOU DONT THINK ITS REAL. move on. The point is that its something worth a look. Now that you have seen it and think its rubbish move on.

I knew about the snowflake. This damn thing isnt a snowflake!!! its 3KM IN DIAMETER. Here prove this. show me A NATURALLY MADE SYMMETRICAL ROCK, HILL OR INDENT FORMATION THAT IS EITHER A TRIANGLE OR A SQUARE OR ANYTHING WITH EVEN DIMENSIONS ON ALL SIDES THAT IS 1, 2, OR 3KM ON EACH SIDE. Good Luck!

If you dont find one does that mean im right? Heck NO! Unless anyone can convince NASA to send me some High Res pics of it i cant prove it.
edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelionofbabel

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by thelionofbabel
 





I dont see how you proved or convinced anyone anything otherwise. My comment was to the optical illusion in two colors. I said it was a sound theory. But optical illusion has nothing to do with what ive shown. According to your response even seeing it in person can be called a mirage.


You really need to stop doing this mate, because you sound like quite an intelligent bloke.

you said that nature could not produce symmetrical formations............I proved that you were wrong.
you then moved the goal posts and claimed that you implied nature couldn't produce symmetrical formations of a certain size, and I didn't have the common sense to second guess this!............again I proved you wrong.

You are now harping on about optical illusions!..................where have I alluded to the fact that "seeing it in person it can be called a mirage"?

You have found a formation on Mars that you claim to be a proven artificial structure, your basis of this is that nature can not form such a structure naturally.

I have proven to you that nature can indeed form symmetrical structures of massive size quite naturally.

That my friend is the crux of this debate.


WTF dude your a real troll arent you? YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IT IF YOU DONT THINK ITS REAL. move on. The point is that its something worth a look. Now that you have seen it and think its rubbish move on.

I knew about the snowflake. This damn thing isnt a snowflake!!! its 3KM IN DIAMETER. Here prove this. show me A NATURALLY MADE SYMMETRICAL ROCK, HILL OR INDENT FORMATION THAT IS EITHER A TRIANGLE OR A SQUARE OR ANYTHING WITH EVEN DIMENSIONS ON ALL SIDES THAT IS 1, 2, OR 3KM ON EACH SIDE. Good Luck!
edit on 1-3-2011 by thelionofbabel because: (no reason given)


JESUS!!!!

IV'E SHOWN IT TO YOU!!!!.......WHY ARE YOU IGNORING IT????.......TYPING IN CAPS IS NOT GOING TO WIN YOU THIS ARGUMENT!!



Where did I mention a snowflake?

Why should I move on?......why is your opinion worth more than mine?........you do know that this is a forum where we debate things don't you?

why don't you move on?......I've proved you wrong, why don't you have the good grace to concede that whatever you have asked of me I have provided?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Doesn't look quite so symmetrical when you do it properly does it?





posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
Doesn't look quite so symmetrical when you do it properly does it?




ooo that's bad, it looks like you have pen tooled Africa.i guess you haven't done much cropping.

but what's the point of this if there is erosion on Mars?

funbox



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by funbox
 


Who's linear markings of the area in question would you say is the more accurate?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


from experience i would say a position intermediate to both but if i was to do it i get a better picture than this .. are there no better pictures of this region?, surely the great ats crew can collaborate to at least establish whether it is a indent or not ... to me it looks raised. ill spend some time on it


funbox



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by funbox
 


Well using your experience, why don't you have a crack then?

If you get a perfectly symmetrical result I'll buy you a pint!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join