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' Object on Mars? What Are Your Thoughts?

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Came across this today and found it a little strange. The photo expert seems to think it is a boulder but I just do not know. Anyone know anything about this photo?



www.livescience.com...


Amateur stargazers have discovered an intriguing object jutting out from the surface of Mars. The seemingly perfectly rectangular, upright structure, found in NASA images of the Red Planet, bears a striking resemblance to the monoliths planted on Earth and the moon by aliens in the classic sci-fi film "2001: A Space Odyssey."



I was just looking through an old thread from 09 on this photo and no concensus seemed to be concluded so I am hoping we can shed some new light on this and maybe learn what it may be.
edit on 12/4/12 by usmc0311 because: added content.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Can't say what it is. It's location is in a dramatic slide though. Apparently rather smallish. Another example of life stranger than fiction? Solidified frozen CO2 ladened mineral surface plate that cracked just so with aberration edge submerged?

Does look peculiar.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


That's interesting isn't it. Looks like a giant piece of stone henge. However, the first thing i notice is where the shadow falls. Is it different to where the shadows appear in the craters? It looks to me like the shadows are all in the top left of the circular craters meaning the light would be coming from the top left of the photo, that wouldn't match up if this was a boulder sticking up from the floor?

Cheers J
edit on 12/4/2012 by Jab0rnal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 

when i look at the monolith, it looks to me like it is altered. something is wrong with the light effects on the object. anybody sees this, too ?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
hmm could be something, could be nothing.



If its a real monolith, wouldn't it be burried under hundreds of feet of sand? Since it would have been left there millions of years ago, it would be much more buried? not just jetting out like that....



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Not really sure what the big deal is here..

The explanation given is perfectly reasonable, scientifically sound, and technologically accurate.

Low sun height on the horizon makes the low resolution image of a minimally rectangular boulder appear taller than it actually is.

What is the big deal here?
edit on 12-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jab0rnal
 


The shadows look consistent to me.

Of course I haven't yet looked into the website to uncover their historic article trends. I will say however that their enlargement detail cannot be discerned from the pan view. It could be a hoax fake because I see no indication at the resolution that the inset is actually from the pan view. Why did they do that?
edit on 12-4-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthinfact
hmm could be something, could be nothing.



If its a real monolith, wouldn't it be burried under hundreds of feet of sand? Since it would have been left there millions of years ago, it would be much more buried? not just jetting out like that....

What if that is just the tip of something that is buried? The lighting does seem to be off to me, all the other objects seem to have light coming in at a slightly different angle. Or, their shadows are coming off of them at a different angle.
Cool pic.
edit on 12-4-2012 by smashdem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I have seen another with a so called monolith more of a "square" shape and I cannot find the context image that it is contained.

My thoughts are this...send a rover. Check it out, if it looks like more than a rock send a team and then unlock the mysteries of the universe.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


And that should cost about $20 for a speculative satisfaction trip(s). Congress would pass that in an instant!

It's not like the plate is attacking us.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
Not really sure what the big deal is here..

The explanation given is perfectly reasonable, scientifically sound, and technologically accurate.

Low sun height on the horizon makes the low resolution image of a minimally rectangular boulder appear taller than it actually is.

What is the big deal here?
edit on 12-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)


Yeah just light reflecting off Venus that shines through swamp gas. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

You know these excuses from NASA are getting old and ridiculous. I don't believe half of what they say anymore. Furthermore, I find it a bit odd that every time someone finds these artifacts on Mars NASA dismisses them as natural, then a few months later they have some gigantic announcement relating to life elsewhere (aside from earth) only to stop short of saying they actually found it. Look back at their "explanations" for these artifacts and you will see a pattern. They are all the same excuses...natural formations or pixels or something messed up with the most high tech cameras in the world. Coincidence? Sorry but you aren't going to convince me of that.
edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify add



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I wonder if Buzz has some inside info on this subject.








posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Makes me wonder where they got the premise for the classic video game "Doom".

Alien artifact is found on Phobo's, turns out to be a stargate, goes haywire and begins teleporting inter-dimensional/negative energy beings into our galaxy. The beliefs of modern secret societies are often guised with fiction.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
You know these excuses from NASA are getting old and ridiculous.


Where did you read an official NASA statement on this. I'd like to see it.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
You know these excuses from NASA are getting old and ridiculous.


Where did you read an official NASA statement on this. I'd like to see it.



I was actually quoting and replying to what the poster said.



The explanation given is perfectly reasonable, scientifically sound, and technologically accurate. Low sun height on the horizon makes the low resolution image of a minimally rectangular boulder appear taller than it actually is.


Whether NASA or not...I have grown tired of the same excuses over and over. Kind of makes me wonder why any of us post these things in the first place?
edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Doesn't look natural to me.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


Now that is clear.

When NASA says they observe something that they don't have an answer to yet, it basically means that maybe 2% of the 98% they can verify is not entirely localized as a recognizable substance due to detection, observational time span or interest. It doesn't mean the rest is totally off. Scientists like dotting the i's and crossing the t's before they make confirmations. Laymen take that as 'not knowing or lying'. Because laymen say things as fact they have less than a 50% confirmation of, and are used to it, because that is their speak.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


Now that is clear.

When NASA says they observe something that they don't have an answer to yet, it basically means that maybe 2% of the 98% they can verify is not entirely localized as a recognizable substance due to detection, observational time span or interest. It doesn't mean the rest is totally off. Scientists like dotting the i's and crossing the t's before they make confirmations. Laymen take that as 'not knowing or lying'. Because laymen say things as fact they have less than a 50% confirmation of, and are used to it, because that is their speak.


My point is: NASA spends billions of dollars on finding life outside our own planet. Whenever something possibly remarkable comes up, that could bring a whole new light on the situation, the usual suspects for excuses are: Natural, photographic errors or image artifacts/lens flares etc and they publicly brush off the incidents. They basically get handed the possibilities on a silver platter and then fail and or refuse to do anymore research on said incidents...at least publicly. I am sure they already have an excuse filed away for this one. I bet now it's only a matter of time before they release it.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

Originally posted by Furbs
Not really sure what the big deal is here..

The explanation given is perfectly reasonable, scientifically sound, and technologically accurate.

Low sun height on the horizon makes the low resolution image of a minimally rectangular boulder appear taller than it actually is.

What is the big deal here?
edit on 12-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)


Yeah just light reflecting off Venus that shines through swamp gas. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

You know these excuses from NASA are getting old and ridiculous. I don't believe half of what they say anymore. Furthermore, I find it a bit odd that every time someone finds these artifacts on Mars NASA dismisses them as natural, then a few months later they have some gigantic announcement relating to life elsewhere (aside from earth) only to stop short of saying they actually found it. Look back at their "explanations" for these artifacts and you will see a pattern. They are all the same excuses...natural formations or pixels or something messed up with the most high tech cameras in the world. Coincidence? Sorry but you aren't going to convince me of that.
edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify add


Well aren't you a right condensing piece of work.

You don't believe what they say, but you WILL believe the images? How does one get the images without believing that NASA actually took pictures of Mars.. based solely on their word alone.

You are a study in inconsistency that would make your supposed inconsistent boogiemen at NASA proud.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

Originally posted by Furbs
Not really sure what the big deal is here..

The explanation given is perfectly reasonable, scientifically sound, and technologically accurate.

Low sun height on the horizon makes the low resolution image of a minimally rectangular boulder appear taller than it actually is.

What is the big deal here?
edit on 12-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)


Yeah just light reflecting off Venus that shines through swamp gas. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

You know these excuses from NASA are getting old and ridiculous. I don't believe half of what they say anymore. Furthermore, I find it a bit odd that every time someone finds these artifacts on Mars NASA dismisses them as natural, then a few months later they have some gigantic announcement relating to life elsewhere (aside from earth) only to stop short of saying they actually found it. Look back at their "explanations" for these artifacts and you will see a pattern. They are all the same excuses...natural formations or pixels or something messed up with the most high tech cameras in the world. Coincidence? Sorry but you aren't going to convince me of that.
edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify add


Well aren't you a right condensing piece of work.

You don't believe what they say, but you WILL believe the images? How does one get the images without believing that NASA actually took pictures of Mars.. based solely on their word alone.

You are a study in inconsistency that would make your supposed inconsistent boogiemen at NASA proud.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)


I never said I believed this image, or any others. So far as i am concerned, NASA has been altering images of everything from the start. If that makes me a nutcase, then so be it. I have believed for several years that NASA doesn't tell the truth unless they have to or it suits their needs only. They don't care about science, they just care about funding. But like this image, and so many other more interesting features on mars and elsewhere, they will be brushed off and ignored so we can all watch dust devils on the Martian deserts.
edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: url




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join