UFO on mars?

I was looking at google mars...and stumbled across this.

It looks the same color as the ground so its more than likely just a rock, but it looks like it has a shadow beneath it.

I dunno lol, thought id post it and let you guys toss it around for a bit

You should be able to see the coordinates at the bottom of the pic if i resized it right

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
I was looking at google mars...and stumbled across this.

It looks the same color as the ground so its more than likely just a rock, but it looks like it has a shadow beneath it.

I dunno lol, thought id post it and let you guys toss it around for a bit

You should be able to see the coordinates at the bottom of the pic if i resized it right

I still think this is THE best pic of disc shaped object(s) on mars, Some say they are nothing but craters. I don't believe they are.

It looks like a nipple.

Which begs the question, what protoplanet was sucking on it?

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz

Is that Obama?

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
It looks the same color as the ground so its more than likely just a rock, but it looks like it has a shadow beneath it.

It doesn't look like a shadow to me.

Judging by the shadow of the crater rim, the shadow for that "object" would probably be bigger.

I will look for a better photo.

Edit: I couldn't find any other photo from that area.

reply to post by ArMaP


Im not too sure to be honest.

Ive been trying to look for a clearer image too....a different date would be enough to tell if was a rock or something moving.

Do you think there are some more recent images available of this spot?? Il keep hunting

It looked odd to me....i looked around the surrounding area and found nothing similar.
I didnt measure the object? and dont know how to type the coordinates back into google earth haha....

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


Apparently this is original photo used by Google. It's from Mars Express' HRSC.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db9c1006da6b.gif[/atsimg]

In this photo, it looks more like a bright pixel than something on Mars.

Originally posted by ArMaP
In this photo, it looks more like a bright pixel than something on Mars.

Those pesky Martian Pixels get ya every time... so how big are those pixels what 30 meters or so?

There's all kinds of junk on Mars.

There was a between-lives implant station there for quite a long time.

I wouldn't be surprised at anything that showed up there.

All the ETs tell us it was inhabited at one time. None of them mention the implant station, though...

reply to post by zorgon


25 metres, but the brighter spot, when zoomed in, is bigger than one pixel, with the other three pixels having a slight difference in brightness, so it's not very likely to be a bad pixel.

Jeez, I really cannot believe people still use pics from Google maps...

Image artifacts, poor resolution, suspicions of tampering and the dubious role of computer generated (ESA is a great one for that) or enhanced imagery (NASA's favourite) all make these images the scientific equivalent to a load of bollocks.

A word of advice, go direct for the source image at the highest resolution possible - NASA and ESA publish their own pics. Do not even look at poor quality images (created or compiled by computers) for any other purpose other than your own idle intrigue. If the "UFO" or other whatever thing you see is still there, then depending on the image, how it was produced and obtained, how it has been processed etc., I might sit up and take notice.

The images supplied thus far on this thread: Aargh! A whitish load of pixels on a Google image? That is a UFO? Nah, it's a god damn rabbit curled up. Your claims seem to me that absurd. Oh, and the round crater that is some UFO? I would like to see better resolution pics before I judge that one...

Originally posted by Blister
Jeez, I really cannot believe people still use pics from Google maps...

Image artifacts, poor resolution, suspicions of tampering and the dubious role of computer generated (ESA is a great one for that) or enhanced imagery (NASA's favourite) all make these images the scientific equivalent to a load of bollocks.

A word of advice, go direct for the source image at the highest resolution possible - NASA and ESA publish their own pics. Do not even look at poor quality images (created or compiled by computers) for any other purpose other than your own idle intrigue. If the "UFO" or other whatever thing you see is still there, then depending on the image, how it was produced and obtained, how it has been processed etc., I might sit up and take notice.

The images supplied thus far on this thread: Aargh! A whitish load of pixels on a Google image? That is a UFO? Nah, it's a god damn rabbit curled up. Your claims seem to me that absurd. Oh, and the round crater that is some UFO? I would like to see better resolution pics before I judge that one...

Thanks for the reply.

I haven't claimed its a UFO....ive asked if anyone can identify it. I also stated i didn't think this was the best image to base any thing on....and was most likely a rock.

I posted this in the hope that someone could find a better higher res image.....maybe you could have a look as you claim to be an expert in this field It shouldn't be too hard for someone with your superior intellect to find to be honest.

I wont be disappointed if it turns out to be something as mundane as a rock or an image artifact.....it was just an observation i made whilst on google maps

Huh, whilst you do not actually say that the whitish blur is a UFO your thread title "UFO on Mars?" clearly shows your line of thought. Personally I do think that there are very strange things on Mars as can be seen by some other excellent threads. But taking a Google image and extrapolating a bunch of pixels and posing that question raises the question as to what thought processes you use to guide your investigations.

The image posted by DisturbedToo of a nice round "crater" to me has some factors that raise eyebrows:

(1) The symmetry of the crater
(2) The apparent clear demarcation lines around parts of the crater - suggest other than a natural formation. This though needs further examination.
(3) Possible "twindling effect" that covers parts of the surface of the ground around the crater. Again this needs closer looking at. Out of interest "twindling" is an effect given by polarised and otherwise invisible/transparent cloaking devices. The effect seems to be only visible from certain angles when the lighting is of a poor value. Look on Mars (using high res pics and you will find the effect pretty common place, both from HiRise and the rovers).

Ultimately, the lack of a good quality image makes further examination futile - even if interesting. Though there are traces of the above interesting factors present, there are Google-associated problems such as artifacts, possible computer generated processing marks (similar to the Hale Crater pics from ESA), the grainyness of the pic, the possible seams between compiled images, and - maybe - a lack of context (the Google image has an even lower res pic extremely close to the site of interest - as the above pic shows) that may provide clues as to the age, geology, geography and climate of the area.

At first guess the craters (there another one directly north of the one provided above, if viewed from the longitude perspective) are actually inverted craters caused by weathering/possible geologic processes. (See hirise.lpl.arizona.edu... for a good example of this).

Oh, before I go. No, I am not an expert, though I do have a university education. Maybe instead of slagging off with snide comments those that question the veracity of your suggestions you should pick yourself up and go get those pics from the agencies that they really do provide for everyone to see. Take a look and show us something that the JPL/Arizona teams just do not have the time or resources to investigate, without clear understanding and purpose. We can help them see things they don't bother with.

Keep up the fight

Originally posted by Blister
The image posted by DisturbedToo of a nice round "crater" to me has some factors that raise eyebrows:

I think that "crater" appeared in another thread, and when I looked for the original photos it really looked like an inverted (dome shaped) crater and not a real crater.

Are you talking/ranting at me???

Snide comments??? Slagging people off???

I would suggest that when you reply to a post you apply the same manners and decorum that you expect back.
You basically call me a moron, that is why responded as i did.

You have a university education.....good for you...well done....you must be very proud I too have a university degree, yet.....its not important in this thread, so unless yours is in geology, astronomy, or a similar science i see no reason as to why you had to tell us you had a degree???

CBA with you to be honest, your a new member with a bad attitude....you completely missed the point of the thread despite your higher education.