Originally posted by Milkflavour
Originally posted by ColonelSF
This one is pretty intriguing! Looks like an airstrip with the accompanying infrastructure! Reminds me of the Nazca lines.
One needs to look at it in detail to pick out the geometrical designs...
Amazing stuff!edit on 1-8-2012 by ColonelSF because: (no reason given)
To be honest, this is pretty much the only one that caught my eye.... The problem is we have no perspective, nothing to compare it to and really, no idea whatsoever a to what we are looking at... I mean, what's all the wavy lines and such? Is the grey, rectangular shape elevated, buried, huge, tiny????
There are some definite shapes and what look like a lot of straight lines... One of the first thighs we were taught in camouflage and concealment was that "there are no straight lines in nature". I know that's probably a bit of an overgeneralisation but...???
Perhaps we could try to find pictures of similarly straight, seemingly man-made structures/formations that are naturally occuring, here on earth?... If we find some then perhaps it's safe to say that, what we are looking at is at least likely to be similar to what we see here on earth, if we find none then perhaps that adds at least a little bit of weight to the theory that perhaps this isn't a natural formation (though that would still be a million miles or perhaps, more accurately 100 million miles, away from proof)edit on 1-8-2012 by Milkflavour because: (no reason given)edit on 1-8-2012 by Milkflavour because: Spelling like a mongtard
A large (approximately 200 meters or 600 feet across) cloud of reddish dust has been kicked up at the base of the scarp. Fine tendrils of bright wisps are visible farther up the cliff face—these may be individual falls of material, before spreading out as the avalanche plummets downward.
Originally posted by Aliensun
I just did a brief check of the "dam"-like structure, image 12. Not found at ATU per the label given or with a couple of small changes. Note that Mike's name is not on it. Plus, the label perhaps contains some errors and a bit of data chopped.
I've not seen this image before and surely it is one of the best "supposed" images from Mars. I'll attempt to do some further checking into it. But my gut feeling is that it is too good to be true and even if it was posted at one time, it will be long gone. Need it be pointed out that there are probably over a hundred systematical lines and angles to the structure? 'No way for that to be natural if it is a legitimate image.
It was a different angle, I still believe it's a face myself, NASA doesn't want you to think it's a face because then we would know. We are not the only ones.
Originally posted by thebtheb
Can someone explain to me why the original 1976 Viking pic of the "Face" on Mars looks absolutely nothing like the pictures they took in 1998? I mean, even all the dots/holes above the 1976 pic are GONE in the 1998 one. I find that quite strange.
Originally posted by woodwytch
Hey there OrionHunterX ... thank-you so so much for this thread ... not sure if you were aware but there will be some who aren't that mikesingh used to be a very valuable member on ATS
Originally posted by bowtomonkey
This is why I avoid these threads. It's always a case of people being desperate to believe what they want to believe. It's really obvious guys. Popular theories become reality .. until nothing real matters anymore as it doesn't agree with silly notions that should just pass away.
Is any of this proof of something? Who knows but if you throw another 100 anomalies at me, I'm supposed to think there is proof, when all that happened is that someone tugged in my heart strings a great deal and it made me think it is real. That's how it works, so if you want the truth, these days.. look at the motivation.