Mars Weird Anomalies!

I want add this example:



Napoleon Bonaparte Before the Sphinx, (ca. 1868) by Jean-Léon Gérôme, Hearst Castle

Do you see? It's the Sphinx like appear in 1868... after just some century/thousands years from the manufacture.

This is now:

Originally posted by theitalian


After 100.000 or 1.000.000 years a planet could change (and maybe it was a "pentagon" building)... in anyway, still "unusual" (not artificial for sure, but unusual).

So its not artificial so it wasn't built therefore its a natural feature so has nothing to do with pyramids etc!

reply to post by ArMaP


Fair enough.Perhaps it would be closer to truth to say these things rarely appear in nature.If that is not good enough then maybe you could provide me with some examples.

reply to post by mardukiscoming


Limestone and basalt are obvious choices, but if you want bigger structures I have to look for them.

reply to post by ArMaP


Interesting.I stand corrected then.I don't mind being told I am wrong if you can back it up.And you just did.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by boiledeggs
For those of the 'natural anomalies' mindset, I'd be great full if someone posted satellite views of Earth showing known natural features that look man made. At least we'd know how often these things can happen

Why dont you google "rocks with faces" also the surface of the earth is a lot more active than Mars water,wind,quakes etc so these things will erode quicker.

Now if this was found on Mars no doubt some on here would claim it as proof of a giant statue buried in the ground

Okay, I have to admit that was funny.

reply to post by thetiler


These are great images and I love that they are referenced to HiRise images. Are these from the JP2's ? or from the low res jpgs? Will definitely check them out.

I'd like to add another image to this collection ESP_023024_1010


A line of oval features 7m wide by 20m long. spaced at 100m intervals along a straight 143m line
www.facebook.com...

The features were found on the south polar region of Mars. It was captured by HiRISE onboard Nasa's MRO in June 2011, (see hirise.lpl.arizona.edu... )

The features were originally seen on Mars Global Surveyor image M0901354 (see www.msss.com...)
where they are seen as a row of sharks teeth along a smooth area.

HiRise offered no comment on the features, how they might have been formed or why they were so regularly spaced.

They may well be natural, but are too small to be features left by a fragmented meteorite and look out of context from the surrounding terrain. What is strange is that there is an almost exact alignment between adjoining quadruple features.


I'm making some noise on social networking about this but its met with silence - what is that all about? are the scientists so afraid of the association with cranks that they close their minds and eyes. Next they'll be telling us that the great science fiction writers were cranks.

Sunil

@mikesingh, square rectilinear features in ESP_014417_1975 are likely to be the result of landslips that have been occupied by dunes. There are lots of them about see

ESP_014417_1975

load the select the large grayscale map projected image into the hirise viewer from this url
hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...

and use the navigator function to goto location: scale 1.000 x=1032 y=10156.

you'll see what I mean

Originally posted by open768
They may well be natural, but are too small to be features left by a fragmented meteorite and look out of context from the surrounding terrain.

They look natural to me, and no, I don't think they are the result of some meteorite, as they are not holes, they are small mounds/hills.

You can see that because of the shadows, as the direction from where the sunlight was coming shows that those features have the darker side on the side opposite to the where the light was coming.

(the yellow arrow shows the direction of the light, according to the sub-solar azimuth value)

I'm making some noise on social networking about this but its met with silence - what is that all about? are the scientists so afraid of the association with cranks that they close their minds and eyes. Next they'll be telling us that the great science fiction writers were cranks.

Maybe they're just like me and mostly ignore social networks, or maybe you're using the wrong ones.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by open768
They may well be natural, but are too small to be features left by a fragmented meteorite and look out of context from the surrounding terrain.

They look natural to me, and no, I don't think they are the result of some meteorite, as they are not holes, they are small mounds/hills.

You can see that because of the shadows, as the direction from where the sunlight was coming shows that those features have the darker side on the side opposite to the where the light was coming.

(the yellow arrow shows the direction of the light, according to the sub-solar azimuth value)

I'm making some noise on social networking about this but its met with silence - what is that all about? are the scientists so afraid of the association with cranks that they close their minds and eyes. Next they'll be telling us that the great science fiction writers were cranks.

Maybe they're just like me and mostly ignore social networks, or maybe you're using the wrong ones.

Why do the ridges above the yellow arrow and next to the features and in other areas appear to have shadows on the wrong side then

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Why do the ridges above the yellow arrow and next to the features and in other areas appear to have shadows on the wrong side then

Maybe these will help:





I have noticed some years ago that, if the light is not coming from the left, I am not able to get an idea of what's an "inner" or an "outer" feature, so I always rotate the images. In cases like this, we have the light's direction to help, that's why they include it in the metadata of the photos.

Hey Guy's Nice to see we're keeping the legend alive! Hope you like my latest find. Cheers!

A strange formation inside Pasteur Crater.....



There are dust storms and dust devils on Mars, but could they have produced this at the bottom of a crater? Or is there something more than meets the eye?

reply to post by OrionHunterX

It looks like that common blue dust accumulated at the bottom of the crater, but those marks near the top of the crater (top in the image, obviously) look like the marks slow drying water (or another liquid) make.

Interesting.