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: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Could it just be an exposure of a crystal formation? Mayhaps at one time there were suffice elements (material, pressue etc) to make a large structure?




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
Could it just be an exposure of a crystal formation? Mayhaps at one time there were suffice elements (material, pressue etc) to make a large structure?


It's a standalone something. No other rocks like it around. No other major singular formations. On earth I could say the rock was put there by Glaciers (I am more referring to the first image in that slideshow). Assuming Mars had water at some point in liquid form, glaciers would have been likely too. But if a glacier then why no other rocks?
edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: url

edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


I found it odd this was on YAHOO today
strange



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
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.


So.. if the image isn't real.. the rock/monolith isn't even there, and their explanation of the image they faked isn't real by default.. I am curious as to what you are actually saying, because it appears that you aren't saying anything of any value at all.

NASA LIES! I HAVE NO EVIDENCE OTHER THAN MY OWN IGNORANCE, BUT IT'S TRUE!

Change your name to HennyPenny, mate.


If that makes me a nutcase, then so be it.
I am taking this as permission to call you a nutcase and will refer and and all moderator actions to this post as your okay to be labeled such.


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


You say they lie to unless it suits their needs.
You then quantify their need as money.

Wouldn't there funding increase if they were FINDING crazy stuff like monoliths on mars?

This is the HUGE problem ideas like the ones put forward by nutcases like you have at a fundamental level.

NASA LIES AND ONLY CARES ABOUT FUNDING THAT THEY WOULD GET IF THEY WEREN'T HIDING ALL OF THE COOL DISCOVERIES THEY ALREADY KNOW ABOUT!!!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
edit: oops, wrong thread

edit on 12-4-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Well according to you,


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


I am not the one running around saying that everything is normal here. My point is: if NASA is lying to us, and has been lying to us, why waste our time and money on things like this? #s and giggles?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
I'm calling shennanegans until the source of the information is available as that article really is a mess. I don't have faith that some speculative comments weren't taken out of context to mean "OMG SUPER DINOS RULE THE UNIVERSE".


This is from HiRISE. I imagine the raw data is available somewhere in their archives online. Will have to depend when the image was taken maybe.
edit on 12-4-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


That post was posted in the wrong thread!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by usmc0311
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.
Then you probably already know my opinion, as I posted on that thread.

I don't think that the shape is a result of some light condition and that the rock does have, approximately, that slab like shape, it's not even an unusual shape,

As we can see in the following photo, there's at least one more rock that looks more or less the same. I suppose they fell from the higher ground.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Here's a closeup:




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
You have to approach this with a realistic point of view first, even if you believe intelligent alien life are flying through our solar system. The first realistic logical explanation is, it's a boulder. Shaped differently, but a boulder. Then you go from there. I always find it funny all these people that jump on the "it's made by aliens" bandwagon right off the bat. How is that an intelligent answer? Skip over the fact that boulders exist on Mars, some shaped unusual ways: 100% proven. For intelligent alien life lived/lives/visits Mars: Not proven. Most times the answer is the simplest.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
In my opinion the new HD picture is a poor example of proof that it's not a monolith. If the light was similer, even a little bit, I would be inclined to buy it. But, since the light flattens the image as a whole, creating an almost bland undetailed look of the thing in question. It's a poor example from NASA. The image seems to be intended towards prompting most to just write it off. Plus the big question still remains. How big is it, and how did it get there? I believe that even if it turns out to be a natural formation, it's still going to be a famous landmark for future generations, when they get to go.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by strongerthandirt
Plus the big question still remains. How big is it,


How big it is can be determined by finding the source photo, and the resolution and counting the pixels. I don't see what it matters how big it is. What I also don't see from the link in the OP, is verification that the enlarged inset is actually from the pan view that article suggests. Because at the resolution the article offers its impossible to see, so why did they do that on purpose?

Nobody has addressed that question yet and nobody has offered the source yet either. The article even prevents the save option on their supposed full resolution callout, even with their other link. Why doesn't the article offer the source of the image in their article? One would logically speculate that it isn't genuine, at least they offer no proof the image is genuine, except in prose. So I'm supposed to believe them because they say so? Even when one cannot make out the enlarged callout from the pan view they offer? That in itself should raise a red flag.

With all of that in mind I have little interest to research the source myself when the article is not forthcoming like it is. The links they offer have little to do with the subject of the article they published. Nobody is asking why?

Tell me, can you spot the source of the inset from this image?


One would assume the source should be close to the center of their circle, but can one see it? I can't. So why did they do this?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
After reading the news blogs, I have a bit of disgust here. At no point do they actually tell you WHERE on Mars the photo was taken. Which is a shame because you can use this link here to take a look at the HiRISE photo's themselves:

HiRISE Image Viewer

It would be nice to take a look at the original high resolution photos....




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


That image has been manipulated around the front. The shadow behind it looks consistent.

If i see what i think see (i'm no expert, but there are those around that are), that photo has been touched up. It looks like someone used the wipe and clean routine on that obelisk and erased or painted over.. something.

Which now begs the questions.. What did they mark out and why?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


From that 2009 thread, one of my posts:


Originally posted by ArMaP
The object is some 4.5 to 5 metres long, and I think it's just one of the rocks that fell from the top of that slope.

(click for full size)


This is the general area, with the object marked with a red circle (or more correctly, circumference
)
(click for full size)


I have seen in other photos from Mars other rocks like that, that look like large blocks, and in one of those photos it was visible an area that was breaking apart in block-like pieces.


That image is image PSP_009342_1725



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by cenpuppie
 


I don't think the image was manipulated, but if it was you (or anyone else) wouldn't be able to spot it.

I only used Photoshop seriously once, to manipulate a photo, and nobody was able to point to the area that I had changed.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Hmm i wonder


1 x 4 x 9



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   


Just having sum fun
I will brush my tooth and go to bed now



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join