While researching a very high quality Mars Orbiter Camera photo, I have found several anomalous items, with some being "craters". I am going to use three posts, in order to focus, in detail for you, on each of these anomalies.
The first anomaly I term a "white winged anomaly". This object is clearly seen in the photo (circled), and it appears to be on a launch platform. There is another white winged object behind this one, but it is not ready to launch. The 2nd white winged object seems to have a "limp appearance", so these may not be hard surface or metal surface flight objects.
This white winged object is fairly large, being about 500 feet wide, wingtip to wingtip. This entire "launch/recovery" area, from side to side, is about one mile wide. All of these measurements are based upon relationship measurements to known crater sizes in the area. The photo does show what looks like four or five flat surface launch/recovery platforms in this place
These white winged objects have a very different look, in their exterior design. As large as these objects are, I assume they are of intelligent design. Also, I would assume that whatever support is needed here, is provided from the underground, behind the launch area. (crater anomalies to be posted following will lend credence to this statement)
There is another similar "elevated flat surface" area just to our right of this place, that also may be involved in some type of launch/recovery operations. I will post a screenshot also of this area.
I am posting a screenshot of the the white winged anomaly and launch area, along with a link to the original photo. The screenshot is different from the original photo, because I have rotated the screenshot to make it more easy for us to visualize.
Link to MOC photo - http://viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/ctx/P13_006266_2147_XN_34N346W#start
This is the second piece of this OP, and I will be discussing three anomalous craters. These three craters are just above the area of the white winged anomaly area. While each of the three craters are similar, and are about the same size - about 2,000 feet in diameter - each of the three are different. However, they do have one very important thing in common - they each appear to have a very discernible opening in the crater bottom.
In the screenshot, each of the craters are numbered, and I will comment on each separately.
The #1 crater has the most obvious/questionable character, relative to it "just being a crater". Please notice that the bottom of the crater seems to be composed of some type of "something", other than rock. It has folds, and seems to have areas that are shredded. Notice that the bottom opening is "open", and we can see something else - it is some other type of material, maybe metal, with a very peculiar piece on top of it. This piece seems to have a vertical plane, and is five-sided, with three sides forming two 90 degree angles, and the other two sides coming to a point. The piece is about 250 feet wide, between the two parallel sides that form the 90 degree angles, so this is no small item. Whatever this is in the bottom of this crater, seems to have been made to move, and the wear and tear shown looks like it does move. Could this be an entrance to the underground??
The #2 crater pretty much the same appearance as the #1 crater, except, it does not seem to have the vertical five sided structure that #2 has. Its bottom is shown to be open, and depicts another surface below it. It also shows multiple folds in the interior sidewalls of the crater. This crater also looks like it could be an entrance to the underground!
The #3 crater is very similar to the #2 crater. The floor of #2 crater does have some "stuff" to the left side that is not identifiable. It also has an opening in the bottom. This crater does have an attached adjacent area to the right, that is also i\\\\\\different, but could be just a small crater.
To me, these three craters do not seem to be completely natural. as discussed above. These areas
This is the third piece of this OP. Here I will be discussing another crater here in this area, that is totally different from the three craters discussed earlier. For one thing, this crater is about three times the size of the others, and is about 6,000 feet in diameter.. Another difference is, one cannot see whether this crater is open at the bottom, because it shows to be constructed with five very distinct levels, with only the top level, and level two being totally in view.
I have numbered the levels in the screenshot photo, and will comment on a couple of areas. Notice that level #1 rises vertically, and its interior wall almost encloses the area. Notice that on level #2, the only opening in the level #1 wall is at the place I have marked with an "x". The entire level #2 area seems to be very smooth, and we can see that at the "x" area, level #2 extends into an opening in the "crater" sidewall.
There is nothing particularly remarkable in what we can see in the other levels, but level #2 is very interesting. The level #2 open area is certainly large enough to support launch and recovery of various type of craft, with an exit from level 2.
So, as with the others, this crater looks nothing like a "normal" crater, except for the fact that it is rounded. We can't say for sure that civilized actions are taking place here, but, this crater, as well as the others, certainly does have a questionable appearance.
I will post a screenshot for this crater.
Maybe it's My machine or screen, but I found Your images to be very dark so I upped brightness and contrast...
I must say... VERY weird if "natural" formations.
Amaterasu, thanks for your help. Yes, they are a little dark, but all of the details were still clear for me, so I just didn't taKe the time to lighten them up.
As I said, the 'formations" just don't look all that natural to me, especially the white winged objects. To me, it is pretty clear, in the photo, that things unnatural are going on here.
Most welcome, rdunk!
The rock piles in the three craters are what caught MY eye. Didn't see them until I brightened them. I said "WOW!" when they first popped into My view.
They look like the stacked rocks People love to build on river banks and to use for markers on trails.
Surely not what One would expect naturally.
Sorry I don't know what "rock piles" you are talking about, for I don't see any rocks in the craters, your pics or mine. :o
In the one I call 3 Craters... To Me, it looks like two to three rocks piled on top of one another in the two rightmost... And maybe even in the left hand one, as well...
Maybe *I*'m not seeing correctly.
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 20, 2012, 06:34:33 AM
In the one I call 3 Craters... To Me, it looks like two to three rocks piled on top of one another in the two rightmost... And maybe even in the left hand one, as well...
Maybe *I*'m not seeing correctly.
Amaterasu, my #1 crater, which is the one fartherest to the right, does have some type of structure in the bottom of it. It is raised vertically, and has five sides, two are parallel, and two come to a point there, on the near side. This "structure" is about 250 feet wide. Because the pic is taken from altitude, it looks like a piece of hardware, like a five sided nut of some sort. But that is not what his is, because of its size.
I don't know if that is one of the "piles of rocks" you see or not, but, to me there is not much else to see there??
How about the white wingrd anomaly, are you seeing that?
Yes, I see Your angel things. I could see them with the darker image, too.
Maybe it is because of My crappy monitor (I have "red snow" on My screen) that I cannot see the five sides. It looks like a large flat stone was placed covering halfish, maybe a bit more, of the crater floor, then a smaller flat stone was placed on top of that, then a boulder was placed on top of that.
That is what reminded Me of the stone cairns.
I don't see cairns. I see terraced areas like I've seen here for farming, rice paddies.
(http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Scenic%20-%20rice%20terraces.JPG)
(http://plantandsoil.unl.edu/croptechnology2005/UserFiles/Image/siteImages/No-tillterraceIA-LG.jpg)
(http://www.picturescolourlibrary.co.uk/loreswithlogo/2398184.jpg)
(http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/multimedia/slideshows/images/chn_throndsen26.jpg)
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 20, 2012, 05:27:03 PM
Yes, I see Your angel things. I could see them with the darker image, too.
Maybe it is because of My crappy monitor (I have "red snow" on My screen) that I cannot see the five sides. It looks like a large flat stone was placed covering halfish, maybe a bit more, of the crater floor, then a smaller flat stone was placed on top of that, then a boulder was placed on top of that.
That is what reminded Me of the stone cairns.
Hi Amaterasu! - "angel things" - that is funny. Yes, they are white like angels are thought about, but the white winged object, as I said in the OP, is about 500 feet wide, "wing tip to wing tip". So, probably not an angel, although, I do hesitate to be one to limit an angel's size!! :)
Quote zerocd: "I don't see cairns. I see terraced areas like I've seen here for farming, rice paddies"
...
Hey zerocd, thanks for commenting. I am sorry, I have no idea what your "earth based terraced areas" are related to, as far as this OP is concerned. I did go back and look at the pics I posted, and don't really see any such terracing in those, so you are sure seeing something I don't............yet!
I see just a few.....terrace like flat areas, in the three craters, rather than a pile of large flat stones.
Not like the side views, photos, I posted. Top view.
Making sense?
0CD
Quote from: zerocd on February 20, 2012, 10:17:44 PM
I see just a few.....terrace like flat areas, in the three craters, rather than a pile of large flat stones.
Not like the side views, photos, I posted. Top view.
Making sense?
0CD
Zerocd, of course you make sense. and, I even know what you are talking about now. And, as always, we each get to see what we see! What you are seeing as "terraces, I see as some type of folds in whatever type of material the inner sides of the "craters" are made of (whether they began as actual craters is still a question).
The very first time i saw these three craters, I thought it to be very coincidental to have three craters, right here together, with each being about 2,000 feet in diameter - two literally side by side with rims touching.
While that is not out of the realm of possibility, do you think that might be a little strange??
Here is an image with all three features, taken from the IMG file and with the light levels adjusted in ISIS.
The yellow arrow shows the direction from where the light was coming, so we can see (at least I do :D ) that the craters have some layers, with each layer below the previous one and with a smaller hole, trough which we can can see the next layer, like when a pudle of mud starts to dry and does that by stages, with a step for each stage.
QuoteThis object is clearly seen in the photo (circled), and it appears to be on a launch platform.
To me it looks part of the scene and not an object.
QuoteThis white winged object is fairly large, being about 500 feet wide, wingtip to wingtip.
I measured 16 x 26 pixels, which, at a 5.81 metres per pixels results in a 93 x 151 metres feature.
I used the "Measure" tool from ISIS, but as this image has no camera data embedded I could only measure it in pixels.
PS: at least you posted the source of your image. Thanks. :)
Hi ArMaP, it is good to have you and your perspective, and experience, here with us. As we have discussed, I do understand your cautious skepticism, and will always look forward to hearing what you have to say, about some of these "crazy" Martian things. Some of the "craziness" will disappear, when the full truth (that many of us see now) about Mars is finally revealed by NASA/Government. Until then, we get to play back and forth in the credibility of what we post, and what we see.
So, now regarding the "crazy things" in this OP ---
* AmArP, regarding the white winged anomaly, you said, "To me it looks part of the scene and not an object".
I guess i don't understand what you mean by "it looks like a part of the scene". That statement says, you do see the "white part", but don't see it as something different from the 'rocks" that are there in the "scene"? Do you not see both white "parts" in the "scene", with one part laying limp in the rear, and the other part setup, at the front edge, and ready to go (maybe take flight)?
...........................................................
* Regarding size, you said:
I measured 16 x 26 pixels, which, at a 5.81 metres per pixels results in a 93 x 151 metres feature.
I used the "Measure" tool from ISIS, but as this image has no camera data embedded I could only measure it in pixels.
..........................................................
ArMaP, you did good. I originally measured the craters with the Google Mars tool, and then used that
measurement to extrapolate the size of the winged object. I am amazes at how close we are to its size . I said "about 500 feet wide". And you said that in measuring pixels, your result was 151 meters, which equates to about 496 feet. That is prrrrreeeeeeety close, for Mars estimates!
Now, I do think it a little "interesting", if on one hand, you think it is "just a part of the scene", and then on the other hand, you are able to measure it, down to meters X pixel??? ::) ;)
As i said, this is a "crazy" anomalous post. It is from a very high resolution (or high quality) photo. Everything is fairly plain to see, even in the darker screenshots, when they are opened. What is here is pretty obvious in the photos, but exactly what is happening here can only be relative to subjective imagination, discussion, and skeptical prerogative.
Thanks again for commenting.
I am posting another "dark" screenshot of two of the three different anomalies in this OP, as I still believe this seems more clear than the enhanced photos.
ArMaP I hesitate to mention this, but I just noticed something is wrong with your enhanced pic. There is no way to rotate that pic, and make it right, with the original photo. Maybe it is just reversed, backside/frontside? Or maybe reverse it, and then rotate it?
Maybe you can figure it out!! ;)
Here's what *I* find odd... Below You will find a pic where I started out thinking it odd that the "little crater" looked almost like a square more than a circle, so I drew a box around it.
I then enlarged the box, constraining proportions so it's the same ratio side v. side. It fits nicely over the leftmost "crater" which the "little crater" is attached to. I did that because the big one had hints of rectangularity, too.
This might be a mere mental gymnastics on this latter "crater..."
But, when I enlarge the box further, though it does not have a feature that fits perfectly, I find that the same line I got on the smaller rectangular "crater" matches perfectly with the deep gully of the "angel" feature...
What are the odds? That natural formations would make rectangular craters with edges that match perfectly, at that distance with a gully?
I say definitely intelligently designed.
Quote from: rdunk on February 21, 2012, 03:14:17 AM
I guess i don't understand what you mean by "it looks like a part of the scene". That statement says, you do see the "white part", but don't see it as something different from the 'rocks" that are there in the "scene"? Do you not see both white "parts" in the "scene", with one part laying limp in the rear, and the other part setup, at the front edge, and ready to go (maybe take flight)?
That's what happens when I am falling asleep while posting. :D
What I meant was that, although I see both features, I think they are ground features (in the same way a hill or a crater is a ground feature) and not independent objects.
(I hope my new explanation makes more sense) :)
QuoteThat is prrrrreeeeeeety close, for Mars estimates!
Yes, that was a very good estimate.
QuoteNow, I do think it a little "interesting", if on one hand, you think it is "just a part of the scene", and then on the other hand, you are able to measure it, down to meters X pixel??? ::) ;)
I just need to see a "frontier" between that feature and the surrounding ground to be able to measure it, like with a crater or some dark patch of sand.
Quote from: rdunk on February 21, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
There is no way to rotate that pic, and make it right, with the original photo. Maybe it is just reversed, backside/frontside? Or maybe reverse it, and then rotate it?
I noticed that when I was looking for the "winged" anomaly, and it's not the first time I see photos that, apparently, were "mirrored" instead of rotated.
I don't know why that happens.
ArMaP said: "What I meant was that, although I see both features, I think they are ground features (in the same way a hill or a crater is a ground feature) and not independent objects".
...
ArMaP, I believe you are touching on what anomaly research is all about, especially with Mars. And that is, recognizing an anomaly within all of the rocks, and sometimes, recognizing an anomalous rock within all of the natural rocks. That sometimes is like looking for a hay-colored needle in a haystack, and then sometimes it is just seeing an object that is so different, you just know it doesn't actually/naturally belong there, among the natural stuff.
These "winged white objects" pretty much fit the last comment. One can see them pretty easily, and right away just know they do not "naturally" belong in that "hill of rocks. That is especially true, on the basis that one of the white objects is "sooooooooooo visible"! We can see that is has peculiar shape and design, and it is "white", verses all of the other "haystack stuff" (rocks) here. These things pretty much just scream out "anomaly, anomaly and anomaly"!!!
Then, when you find an anomaly/anomalies present, the automatic question becomes, why are they present, where they are, in the photos. That now is the question here. The research is continued, as other "rocks in the area" are examined.
In this case, the further examination results in seeing that there are other "rock objects" here that also appear anomalous, in a supporting way, to the white winged objects. The "rock-looking objects" appear to have very smooth/very flat top surfaces, as if they have been made that way. They are about 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet tall, and the most visible flat top surface is about 1,500 feet long . These are very large seemingly assembled here together "rock-looking objects", with surfaces that appear to be capable of supporting launch and recovery of flight capable objects.
And it is pretty obvious that one of the white winged objects is positioned in such a way, as it seems to be ready to "take flight"!
Obviously, in my opinion, we are looking at a very important anomalous area - important to somebody, on Mars. What is here is not just a simple pile of rocks, but is anomalous to the extreme, and likely fits into the activities supported by the other crater anomalies (possible underground entrances) presented here in the OP (first three posts).
For the present time, anomalies are about the only thing we have to help us know the real truth about Mars. And even then, some of us seem to see them, and some of us don't. But as time passes, on the basis of anomalous objects, we will have a strong basis of evidence that can help us to know the reality of Mars.
Hello ArMap, rdunk nice too see you both here on the Pegasus website.
I have read every post and every pictured is now in my D/Led files. I really enjoy looking at these types of images, if one keeps in mind the that these are "possibly" structures setting on it's surface, we must also take into consideration the enhancements with what we have to use too expand these images with in a few hundred feet or so from the current miles high views we now currently have.
"rdunk, is there any other photo's of this vicinity that are closer/more 'zoomable' for a closer look without pix-elation loss?"
When I was working with the S.B.O.M.R. I literally would have to go through hundreds of a single photo to find the one that was best viewable with my current PC tech I have available too me, These photo's you have provided us with are truly great photo's, but too have an excellent one would be more desirable that wouldn't get so distorted as zoom-in is attempted.
And by the way "S.B.O.M.R." Secret Bases on the Moon Research...just an FYI.
Great thread and very perplexing to say the least. I for one know there are some very strange artifacts that have been left in rather obscure places, and they seem to be getting further and further away for the exact understanding of their anomalous uniqueness for understanding exactly what these topographical anomalies are.
I have downloaded the images for duration examination, and you can bank on a full review by me!! Thanks for giving something to do being's I am off of work for the next few days!!!! LOL
Later Armap & rdunk..
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: rdunk on February 25, 2012, 06:11:03 PM
ArMaP, I believe you are touching on what anomaly research is all about, especially with Mars. And that is, recognizing an anomaly within all of the rocks, and sometimes, recognizing an anomalous rock within all of the natural rocks.
That's something I would like to know, how can someone say what is and what isn't natural on (in this case) Mars. How can we classify something as an "anomaly"? Do we know what's "normal" in Mars? As far as I know we do not even know what's normal on Earth, so how can we talk of "anomalies" on Mars?
QuoteThese "winged white objects" pretty much fit the last comment. One can see them pretty easily, and right away just know they do not "naturally" belong in that "hill of rocks.
Why? To me they look like they were formed by the same processes that most of the surrounding features.
QuoteThat is especially true, on the basis that one of the white objects is "sooooooooooo visible"! We can see that is has peculiar shape and design, and it is "white", verses all of the other "haystack stuff" (rocks) here. These things pretty much just scream out "anomaly, anomaly and anomaly"!!!
The white object is not that different from the rest, the areas circled in yellow in the attached image below have the same or higher brightness (it's impossible to know the colour of the objects in a greyscale photo, but we know that the photos taken with the CTX camera are sensitive to light in the 500 to 800 nm range) than the white object. To me they don't scream anything, they just look like the other features on the area.
QuoteThen, when you find an anomaly/anomalies present, the automatic question becomes, why are they present, where they are, in the photos. That now is the question here. The research is continued, as other "rocks in the area" are examined.
I think that you jumped the first part, what defines an anomaly.
QuoteIn this case, the further examination results in seeing that there are other "rock objects" here that also appear anomalous, in a supporting way, to the white winged objects.
Or, if we see things from a different perspective, the white winged objects look the same as the other "rock objects". To me, they all look natural geological features.
QuoteThe "rock-looking objects" appear to have very smooth/very flat top surfaces, as if they have been made that way. They are about 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet tall, and the most visible flat top surface is about 1,500 feet long .
How can you know the height of those features?
QuoteThese are very large seemingly assembled here together "rock-looking objects", with surfaces that appear to be capable of supporting launch and recovery of flight capable objects.
Could you please explain what's the difference between a common piece of ground and a surface that "appears to be capable of supporting launch and recovery of flight capable objects"?
QuoteAnd it is pretty obvious that one of the white winged objects is positioned in such a way, as it seems to be ready to "take flight"!
Not to me. :)
QuoteObviously, in my opinion, we are looking at a very important anomalous area - important to somebody, on Mars. What is here is not just a simple pile of rocks, but is anomalous to the extreme, and likely fits into the activities supported by the other crater anomalies (possible underground entrances) presented here in the OP (first three posts).
As I said before, to me, it looks like an unusual area, but not strange enough to be considered "anomalous".
QuoteFor the present time, anomalies are about the only thing we have to help us know the real truth about Mars.
No, the photos are the only thing we have to help us know the truth about Mars, each person's interpretation is just that, it may take us closer to the truth or farther away, we don't have any way of knowing it.
QuoteAnd even then, some of us seem to see them, and some of us don't. But as time passes, on the basis of anomalous objects, we will have a strong basis of evidence that can help us to know the reality of Mars.
I don't have problems seeing them, I just have a different interpretation of what they may be. And we will never really
know the reality just be making hypothesis based on our interpretation of the photos.
Hello 1Worldwatcher! It is good to see you here too. Thanks so much for your anomaly interest, and for your comments. I will enjoy hearing the results of your reviews on these and other anomalies posted here.
You mention that better photos always make it better. I could not agree more! One of our biggest problems in the area of anomaly research, is finding photos that are of the highest resolution/best quality possible. Obviously, anomalies are never "posed" in the photos, so we are pretty much at the mercy of the camera, when it comes to having a good enough pic of an anomaly to fully know just what we have found.
Specifically relative to this OP, with the "winged white object", and with the "anomalous-looking craters", this is a very high quality photo, and I have found no better. As a matter of fact. I have not seen these objects in any other photo, as I recall. I did first see this sometime last year, and haven't looked for more pics since. I will take another look, to see if any others exist, and will let you know.
I'm look'in forward to hearing from you again soon on these anomalies!
Quote ArMaP: That's something I would like to know, how can someone say what is and what isn't natural on (in this case) Mars. How can we classify something as an "anomaly"? Do we know what's "normal" in Mars? As far as I know we do not even know what's normal on Earth, so how can we talk of "anomalies" on Mars?
Well, for all of us, here is a common definition for an anomaly:
"something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected : there are a number of anomalies in the present system"
What is "normal" on Mars is not even relative to whether an object is anomalous or not. What is actually anomalous on Mar, to us, is based upon what we know, and have been publically told, about the reality of Mars. The terms "standard", "normal", and "expected" really classify an anomaly into the "unknown", meaning the "non-standard", the "abnormal", and the "unexpected"
What we know, from what has been publicly communicated about Mars is:
Paraphrase - "THERE IS NO LIFE OF ANY KIND - PLANT, ANIMAL, HUMAN, BIRD, INSECT, FISH, - ON THE PLANET, AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN". Actually, surface "water" was on the list of anomalous items until recently, and NASA has now publically admitted there are specific signs of surface water on the planet.
What that means is, almost anything that is not rock, sand, ice, or gaseous, fits into the category of being an anomalous object, on Mars. That should make it pretty simple in our discussions about whether an object is a Martian anomaly or not. Now agreeing upon what is an anomaly vs what is a rock remains a matter of opinion, based upon knowledge, logic, and definition recognition, which can vary person to person.
But, we can discuss to any length that we desire, and in the end agree to disagree, when seemingly appropriate.
_______________________________________________________________________________
ArMaP Quote: "The white object is not that different from the rest, the areas circled in yellow in the attached image below have the same or higher brightness (it's impossible to know the colour of the objects in a greyscale photo, but we know that the photos taken with the CTX camera are sensitive to light in the 500 to 800 nm range) than the white object. To me they don't scream anything, they just look like the other features on the area."
ArMaP, the white winged/shaped objects in this post are nothing like any of the other lighter, or brighter areas/objects in this photo, as you have circled. There are two or three really bright spots in this photo, and I would really like to know what they are also. An obvious possibility is "lighting of some sort" for the area, but that is just conjecture, because, all they are in the photo is "bright spots".
______________________________________________________________________________
ArMaP quote: "I think that you jumped the first part, what defines an anomaly."
See first comment above, for "the first part"!
_______________________________________________________________________________
ArMaP quote: "Or, if we see things from a different perspective, the white winged objects look the same as the other "rock objects". To me, they all look natural geological features."
ArMaP, thanks for sharing what you think you see or don't see. I believe that would be termed "skepticism prerogative".
____________________________________________________________________________
ArMaP quote: How can you know the height of those features"?
I measured these "rocks" just like I measured the white winged object, that we discussed earlier. I don't do pixels, but I can extrapolate, on the basis of known facts.
______________________________________________________________________________
ArMaP quote: "Could you please explain what's the difference between a common piece of ground and a surface that "appears to be capable of supporting launch and recovery of flight capable objects"?
First-off, we are not talking about "ground" here. We are referring to very large items ("rock-looking"), that are about 4 football fields (or so) tall, about 4 football fields (or so) long, and about 1 football field (or so) wide. The white winged object seems to have wings, and is readied for flight. Wings would indicate atmospheric flight characteristics. Wing supported flight objects optimally require smooth and relatively flat takeoff and landing surfaces, as some of these "rocks seem to have.
Don't see much "plain ground" in this photo!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks again ArMaP for your serious thought and comments. Obviously, on some areas we can agree to disagree! ;D
...
Quote from: rdunk on February 26, 2012, 05:05:52 AM
What is actually anomalous on Mar, to us, is based upon what we know, and have been publically told, about the reality of Mars.
Thanks for that, as you probably understood, I was seeing this from (in this case) Mars' point of view, regardless of our understanding. Your definition gives us a better starting point, even it makes things more difficult to define, as each person has their own knowledge.
QuoteArMaP, the white winged/shaped objects in this post are nothing like any of the other lighter, or brighter areas/objects in this photo, as you have circled.
That was just to compare the brightness, not the shape, because you said one of the objects is white.
QuoteI measured these "rocks" just like I measured the white winged object, that we discussed earlier. I don't do pixels, but I can extrapolate, on the basis of known facts.
But for the horizontal measurements you had a reference and top-down view, to the same with height you would need a reference and side view.
QuoteFirst-off, we are not talking about "ground" here. We are referring to very large items ("rock-looking"), that are about 4 football fields (or so) tall, about 4 football fields (or so) long, and about 1 football field (or so) wide.
I think those are part of the ground, in the same way a hill is part of the ground.
QuoteThe white winged object seems to have wings, and is readied for flight. Wings would indicate atmospheric flight characteristics. Wing supported flight objects optimally require smooth and relatively flat takeoff and landing surfaces, as some of these "rocks seem to have.
At this resolution, a parking lot full of cars would look like a smooth surface, and I think you are taking that wing resemblance too far, as far as we know we could be looking at Dumbo with its ears spread to the sides (and yes, I know they were also used as wings :) )
QuoteThanks again ArMaP for your serious thought and comments. Obviously, on some areas we can agree to disagree! ;D
That's the best part of having an opinion. :)
ArMaP, thanks for another pertinent and lengthy reply. I think we probably have covered these areas pretty well, so, we pretty well know what we each are seeing here. I do have one comment relative to your statement regarding - "as far as we know we could be looking at Dumbo with its ears spread to the sides (and yes, I know they were also used as wings )".
I thought that was very funny. Can't you just visualize, in your mind, a "dumbo" that is about 500 feet wide!! ;) Now that really would be "a sight for sore eyes".
You know, one of the problems most of us have in looking at these various Mars camera photos, is actual size relationship. With the Rover photos, the Rover is often so close, that often the rocks and other objects in the photos look much larger than they really are. And it is just the reverse with many of the mars orbiter camera photos, as with this pic of the white winged anomaly. Ever though we both have measured it to be about 500 feet wide, still when i look at it, it looks like a bird, just getting ready to fly - a 500 foot wing span bird?? Possibly but not likely, because as we know, "there is no life on Mars", so it just could not be a "big bird"!!
Again, regarding Dumbo - you, and others will probably laugh at this, but I have a strong belief that there is a damaged, but full statue, of what looks much like Dumbo (an elephant), in the Rover photographs. The camera shot is not a good angle for us to see it, but that is what I think it may very well be. I may post it sometime, just to see what you and everyone else thinks about it. As I said, maybe a good laugh for all.
But then, there once was a "Martian Horse" - if a horse, then why not an elephant??? ;D
Quote from: rdunk on February 26, 2012, 06:39:24 PM
Again, regarding Dumbo - you, and others will probably laugh at this, but I have a strong belief that there is a damaged, but full statue, of what looks much like Dumbo (an elephant), in the Rover photographs. The camera shot is not a good angle for us to see it, but that is what I think it may very well be. I may post it sometime, just to see what you and everyone else thinks about it. As I said, maybe a good laugh for all.
At least with the rover's photos we have more chances of getting another photo, as the rovers only move(d) in a straight line in areas with not much to see.
As for the "winged" anomaly, this is the best photo I could find that shows that area, from THEMIS, taken in 2004-02-28. The "winged" anomaly was already "readied for flight", so I guess the flight was delayed. ;)
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 21, 2012, 04:04:44 AM
Here's what *I* find odd... Below You will find a pic where I started out thinking it odd that the "little crater" looked almost like a square more than a circle, so I drew a box around it.
I then enlarged the box, constraining proportions so it's the same ratio side v. side. It fits nicely over the leftmost "crater" which the "little crater" is attached to. I did that because the big one had hints of rectangularity, too.
This might be a mere mental gymnastics on this latter "crater..."
But, when I enlarge the box further, though it does not have a feature that fits perfectly, I find that the same line I got on the smaller rectangular "crater" matches perfectly with the deep gully of the "angel" feature...
What are the odds? That natural formations would make rectangular craters with edges that match perfectly, at that distance with a gully?
I say definitely intelligently designed.
Amaterasu, sorry it has taken me so long to comment on your reply. You certainly did give us a different perspective on these craters. I too think these craters are indicative of intelligent design. If "almost anyone" just looks at these craters, it is not too hard to see artificiality in their interiors. They are just very different from typical craters, and have peculiar features that almost scream out "look at me"! That is why i posted them. They do in fact cause one to think maybe they possibly are actually underground entrances and exits.
I am a little surprised that no one has commented on the single multi-level crater that I also included in the OP's. It too has a very artificial appearance.
Quote from: rdunk on February 27, 2012, 06:34:50 AM
Amaterasu, sorry it has taken me so long to comment on your reply. You certainly did give us a different perspective on these craters. I too think these craters are indicative of intelligent design. If "almost anyone" just looks at these craters, it is not too hard to see artificiality in their interiors. They are just very different from typical craters, and have peculiar features that almost scream out "look at me"! That is why i posted them. They do in fact cause one to think maybe they possibly are actually underground entrances and exits.
I am a little surprised that no one has commented on the single multi-level crater that I also included in the OP's. It too has a very artificial appearance.
I might add that the two "craters" top and right have edges that also line up with a side of the box. I'll relook at the OP pic. [smile]
Quote from: rdunk on February 27, 2012, 06:34:50 AM
I am a little surprised that no one has commented on the single multi-level crater that I also included in the OP's. It too has a very artificial appearance.
I didn't make any comments because I don't find those craters that strange (and much less artificial looking), to me they just look like craters that were affected by erosion (probably cause by water).
AmArP said: "I didn't make any comments because I don't find those craters that strange (and much less artificial looking), to me they just look like craters that were affected by erosion (probably cause by water)."
ArMaP, you may be right, but since these craters look so common to you, I will give you a little challenge - locate and show to us, any other crater(s) on Mars, that have similar interior features to these. The interior of these OP craters look so artificial to me, I just need to see those you referring to. One of these craters even has a very obvious raised and shaped structure of some sort right in the middle of the bottom of the crater.
We will look forware to seeing your very similar crater examples!!! ;)
Quote from: rdunk on February 28, 2012, 03:17:14 AM
ArMaP, you may be right, but since these craters look so common to you, I will give you a little challenge - locate and show to us, any other crater(s) on Mars, that have similar interior features to these.
I didn't say that they look common, I said that they do not look that strange, that's not the same thing. But I will look for more craters like those. :)
QuoteThe interior of these OP craters look so artificial to me, I just need to see those you referring to. One of these craters even has a very obvious raised and shaped structure of some sort right in the middle of the bottom of the crater.
I see it as an "sunken", not a "raised" feature, like three (for example) levels corresponding to three occasions in which a lake lost a large part of it's water.
QuoteWe will look forware to seeing your very similar crater examples!!! ;)
I will see what I can do. :)
ArMaP, what do You think of what I demonstrated with My boxes...
I mean... That little feature was particularly rectangular - and that cut out canyon with the "angel" feature does follow the same lines...
What are the odds?
Amaterasu, I know we can each call the "angel" feature as we see it. Just to be sure, what I am calling a "white winged object", and is your "angel", is in my opinion a "flight object" of some sort. As I said prior, because the second white object seems to be laying limp, then these are probably not metal structure "flight objects".
The primary winged object really does seem to be primed for flight, don't you think. The wings are obviously positioned, and I just assume this is a working object, rather than being a statue. And most likely, the beings that would support any flight operations, would be underground, having gone down through crater opening/closing.
You say winged object, I say angel - Let's call the whole thing off! LOL!
Yeah, it does not look "natural" in that it looks far too symmetrical. But it is the identical line orientation of that rift with the small rectangular feature that sells ME on the idea there is more going on there than past or present weather.
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 29, 2012, 04:16:00 AM
I mean... That little feature was particularly rectangular - and that cut out canyon with the "angel" feature does follow the same lines...
That crater is somewhat rectangular, but nothing special, and the sides do not really make 90ยบ angles with each other.
As for the alignment with the "canyon" it doesn't look like a real alignment, as it looks like the line you draw does not follow the main shape of the "canyon".
Maybe this is all because I am used to technical drawing, so I look at this photo and I see how those shapes could be constructed with drawing tools (I learned "old style" technical drawing, with drawings made with a ruler, a set square (or whatever they are called) and a compass, almost any shape can be drawn with those tools).
QuoteWhat are the odds?
If, as it looks to me, that area was mostly shaped by water or other liquid flowing into it, the odds would be relatively high.
Thank You for Your assessment. I disagree, of course. I do find the the whole area suspicious. While You are right that the "canyon" is not a nice straight line, the "coincidence" that it is nearly so and has the same average direction, along the the other strange aspects, looks more to Me like someone attempting to make a facility look "natural."
My take. Thanks again.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 01, 2012, 02:22:20 AM
Thank You for Your assessment. I disagree, of course. I do find the the whole area suspicious. While You are right that the "canyon" is not a nice straight line, the "coincidence" that it is nearly so and has the same average direction, along the the other strange aspects, looks more to Me like someone attempting to make a facility look "natural."
My take. Thanks again.
Of course, I agree with you, that this area has fairly specific evidence of intelligent intervention. There is one thing about these craters, as possible underground entrances - If one needs to get under the ground, for whatever reason, then using an impact crater to do that could be just about perfect in many situations. If we assume the "impact" made a crater of some depth, then, if we "start digging" at the bottom of the crater to get "underground", we are already the depth of the impact, below the general surface area. That means a lot less digging to get to a starting depth. Speculation, of course, but it sounds good to me because I always try to find the best easiest way to get something done! 8)
Amaterasu, I don't know whether my coming comment will affect how you (and others) view these anomalies or not, and it may just be another terminology difference ---but, I "think" that what may look like a "canyon" to you, is (may be) actually a place forged into the side of a "cliff", or "down-slope". At least, that is the way I see it.
Perspective can make a difference to us regarding what we see in some of these Mars anomalies. And that can impact our viewing results. Seeing this as being on the side of a hill, makes it more plausible to believe that these craters are entrances to the underground of this hill, for support of this "flight operation" on the side of the hill,, as well as for whatever else might be going on "underground" here.
I am posting another screenshot of the anomaly area, for viewing in this regard.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 01, 2012, 02:22:20 AM
I do find the the whole area suspicious.
Why?
QuoteWhile You are right that the "canyon" is not a nice straight line, the "coincidence" that it is nearly so and has the same average direction, along the the other strange aspects, looks more to Me like someone attempting to make a facility look "natural."
If both features were shaped by the same event, don't you think they would have some similarity between them?
Amaterasu said: "I do find the the whole area suspicious"
.
And ArMaP said "Why".
______________________________________________________________
ArMaP, can you not see that the crater on our right has something in the bottom of it. There is an opening in the bottom of the crater, and there is "something" that looks metallic rising vertically from whatever that is below the opening of the bottom. And that piece that is rising vertically is a shape that has 5 sides, with 2 90 degree angles separating two of the sides. It is my estimate that this feature measures about 250 feet between the two horizontal sides.
The other two craters have open bottoms, but no vertical feature.
Then we have the white winged object(s) just below these craters.
There is just a lot here that makes one "suspicious" relative to civilized action and intent. There is no known acceptable explanation for these two white winged objects, and the general area, not being artificial.
I do understand doubt and skepticism, but this high quality MOC CTX camera photo almost speaks for its self. "Intelligent activity of some sort"!!! :)
Quote from: rdunk on March 05, 2012, 12:47:18 AM
ArMaP, can you not see that the crater on our right has something in the bottom of it.
Yes, I can see that, but it doesn't look strange, as I said before, I think it looks like it was full of water that evaporated in two or three stages.
QuoteThere is an opening in the bottom of the crater, and there is "something" that looks metallic rising vertically from whatever that is below the opening of the bottom.
That I don't see, and I don't know how you can see an opening or how something can look metallic on a photo like this. I also do not see anything rising vertically.
QuoteAnd that piece that is rising vertically is a shape that has 5 sides, with 2 90 degree angles separating two of the sides. It is my estimate that this feature measures about 250 feet between the two horizontal sides.
I don't see any of it, maybe I'm looking at the wrong place.
QuoteThe other two craters have open bottoms, but no vertical feature.
What do you mean by "open bottoms"?
QuoteThen we have the white winged object(s) just below these craters.
That I think is just a geological feature.
QuoteThere is just a lot here that makes one "suspicious" relative to civilized action and intent. There is no known acceptable explanation for these two white winged objects, and the general area, not being artificial.
Only if you ignore common geological explanations. :)
QuoteI do understand doubt and skepticism, but this high quality MOC CTX camera photo almost speaks for its self. "Intelligent activity of some sort"!!! :)
Either you are seeing things or I am going blind, you talk about things I do not see on that photo (although I used my version of the photo instead of your version, too dark to be useful).
ArMaP, thanks for your very detailed reply. I am not going to try to re-reply to each of your thoughts, for we obviously see things very differently on this anomalous area.
I see obvious evidence of intelligent design in and around the "white winged anomaly", and you see "geology".
I see obvious intelligent design associated with aspects of those three 2000 ft. diameter craters, and you see geology.
I still can't imagine how anyone could give an acceptable "geological explanation" of the two "white winged objects", with one being obviously lying "limp, and the other positioned upright, as if ready for flight.
ArMaP, one thing you said, I want to address, and maybe help with this a little. You said, "Either you are seeing things or I am going blind, you talk about things I do not see on that photo (although I used my version of the photo instead of your version, too dark to be useful)". Well, maybe it could be because of "your version of the photo", I don't know.
What I have done for you is to modify the photo of the primary crater we are discussing, to maybe help you actually see that somewhat special vertical feature at the bottom of the crater. I have enhanced the photo, and I have even over magnified it to maybe bring it more into view for you. and I have included adjacent locater lines to hopefully bring your eyes right to it. As I said, whatever this vertical feature is, it is about a "football field" wide. I have no estimate for its height.
I am posting a new screenshot of this crater, with the mods. Let me know what you see!! ;)
Quote from: rdunk on March 10, 2012, 10:52:59 PM
ArMaP, thanks for your very detailed reply. I am not going to try to re-reply to each of your thoughts, for we obviously see things very differently on this anomalous area.
Sorry for that, my way of answering is a little strange, but it makes it easier for me to rearrange the ideas in my head while I write. :)
QuoteI still can't imagine how anyone could give an acceptable "geological explanation" of the two "white winged objects", with one being obviously lying "limp, and the other positioned upright, as if ready for flight.
Could you please point to the "limp" and the "upright" as you did with the crater? That would make things easier. Thanks in advance. :)
QuoteWell, maybe it could be because of "your version of the photo", I don't know.
It probably is.
QuoteLet me know what you see!! ;)
The only difference between what I see in my version of the photo and what I see in your version is that in your version that central feature really looks more like a pentagon, while on my version (taken directly from the closest to the original I could get) it looks more round.
Also, looking at the direction from where the light comes, I think that is a sunken and not a raised feature, and not much deep, because the shadow is not that big.
Hello ArMaP!! Well, I think we are making some progress with our discussion. :)
First, I want to say "your way of answering" is certainly not "strange", to me. It is good to see the detail of your thoughts, in your very organized presentations. I just meant that I wasn't going to rebut each of your comments, as my reply preference is to address where we might find more areas of agreement. (I am just not as organized - lol)
I am glad to understand that you do now see the "pentagon" object I discussed in my photo (your term, and I like it). I did look back at your pic, and it is just not very clear. I have found no image as clear as the MOC CTX camera pic, the link to which I included in the OP.
Relative to whether the pentagon is sunken or vertical, we can actually see three of the five sides, including shadows, and they look vertical to me. I believe that if the feature were sunken, we would more likely, and rather, be able to see the inside of the two other sides instead. Regarding vertical height, that would be left to a guess. But, knowing about how wide the feature is, and looking at the height of the shadows, a decent guess would be for it to be about 1/2 as high as it is wide - don'tcha think??
For your other comments, and per your request, I am posting another screenshot of the original CTX pic, with some contrast/shadow changes, to lighten the pic a little. Also, I have reduced the magnification slightly, to make the pic a little more crisp for you
To this screenshot, I have added a circle for the "pentagon", a circle for the white "limp" object, and an arrow to the "upright white winged object". While the #2 object is not totally clear, the shape of its head (on the left) is a giveaway as being seemingly identical to the #1 object.
Hopefully these additions will help in some of these areas.
Quote from: rdunk on March 12, 2012, 02:59:54 AM
Hello ArMaP!! Well, I think we are making some progress with our discussion. :)
Great!
QuoteI am glad to understand that you do now see the "pentagon" object I discussed in my photo (your term, and I like it). I did look back at your pic, and it is just not very clear. I have found no image as clear as the MOC CTX camera pic, the link to which I included in the OP.
I think "my" version of the photo is clearer than the one you are using, and knowing that "my" version is closer to the original, it makes sense that "my" version would be better. To me, the "pentagon" is the result of the worse image that you used.
I suggest you download the "PDS Data" version (the one I used). You can open that file with NASAView (free) or with Photoshop (I can explain how if anyone wants to know). I used ISIS, but in this case it didn't made a difference when compared with Photoshop (and Photoshop is easier to use).
QuoteRelative to whether the pentagon is sunken or vertical, we can actually see three of the five sides, including shadows, and they look vertical to me.
I think the feature is sunken with vertical sides.
QuoteI believe that if the feature were sunken, we would more likely, and rather, be able to see the inside of the two other sides instead.
But we can see them.
QuoteRegarding vertical height, that would be left to a guess. But, knowing about how wide the feature is, and looking at the height of the shadows, a decent guess would be for it to be about 1/2 as high as it is wide - don'tcha think??
No, I think it's much lower than that, I will see what I can do with the information about the height of the Sun. :)
QuoteFor your other comments, and per your request, I am posting another screenshot of the original CTX pic, with some contrast/shadow changes, to lighten the pic a little. Also, I have reduced the magnification slightly, to make the pic a little more crisp for you
Thanks. :)
QuoteWhile the #2 object is not totally clear, the shape of its head (on the left) is a giveaway as being seemingly identical to the #1 object.
Thanks for that, it really helped, but I don't see why you say that one is upright and the other one is limp, looking at the shadows they look the same to me.
Thanks!!
Quote: Thanks for that, it really helped, but I don't see why you say that one is upright and the other one is limp, looking at the shadows they look the same to me".
Of course "limp" is just my term. I do refer to #2 as limp, because, to me it is pretty obvious the head-part of feature seems to be hanging down (ie, limp). And it is the head of #2 that is the most identifiable similar piece to #1. And #1 seems to have "wings spread", while #2 does not, to my view.
And, I don't yet understand why you say your pic is a better source than mine, as, mine is the best quality original(?) CTX pic I have ever seen. It is far better in detail than most you will see. However, I will look at your pic again, and comment in a later reply.
Thanks again.
Hi ArMaP! You said, I think "my" version of the photo is clearer than the one you are using, and knowing that "my" version is closer to the original, it makes sense that "my" version would be better. To me, the "pentagon" is the result of the worse image that you used".
Well, I am going to post below both your pic (with large yellow arrow) and mine, because, to me your pic is for sure no better (in my view), and it actually is not as clear to me as the CTX pic I posted. As I pointed out in a prior reply, your pic is "reversed", which does give you an opposite view of where the shadowing is. Maybe that is one of the reasons you are seeing the "pentagon" as being recessed. It certainly doesn't look that way to me, but the seeming perfectly shaped pentagon feature is still just that, reversed/recessed or not.
Quote from: rdunk on March 13, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Well, I am going to post below both your pic (with large yellow arrow) and mine, because, to me your pic is for sure no better (in my view), and it actually is not as clear to me as the CTX pic I posted.
That's the problem of subjective things like this, to me, "my" version looks better. :)
The image you posted has more contrast, which means that it has less subtle details. It also looks like it has some compression artefacts (What version did you use? Did you downloaded on of the available images or did you do a screen-grab?).
QuoteAs I pointed out in a prior reply, your pic is "reversed", which does give you an opposite view of where the shadowing is.
That's something I do not understand, the image information has a "N" on the "USAGE_NOTE" field, meaning that the image should not be flipped, but the image needs to be flipped.
I'm not sure yet about the direction from where the light is coming, I have to look at it again.
QuoteMaybe that is one of the reasons you are seeing the "pentagon" as being recessed.
I don't think so, but it's possible, if I'm looking at the light from a wrong point of view I may be seeing reversed shadows.
QuoteIt certainly doesn't look that way to me, but the seeming perfectly shaped pentagon feature is still just that, reversed/recessed or not.
It's not a perfectly shaped pentagon, even in the image you posted it's more like half pentagon/half circle, but I think that is the result of image compression.
ArMaP, as I mentioned previously, my original photo is the one in the link posted in the OP. Even magnified to the maximum, that CTX pic remains very vivid and clear. And, yes, I did use that photo for my "screenshots". It does depict all if the details I have outlined as being anomalous, and of obvious possible intelligent design, ie, the "white winged anomaly", the anomaly "launch area", the "three craters" having very anomalous crater bottoms, and the "fourth crater" that clearly shows to be multi-level, with an expansive upper level having a very flat and smooth surface, that also clearly shows an "exit" into the crater rim.
If we just had that quality of Mars Orbiter photos for the entire planet of Mars, the anomaly research would be even more exciting!! A released Obiter photo of this quality seems to be a little rare.
ArMaP, thanks so much for your comments. You have spent a lot of time "trying to get me straight" on this. But alas, to no avail - lol lol.
While we do see some of these things a little differently, I believe this anomalous area is worthy of note, and should be kept in our thoughts as possibly indicating civilized activity. And maybe that means keeping a watch for later photos, and/or for other similar areas for comparison.
On that thought, there are a few other craters in this area that also appear to have very unusual bottoms, as if they have some kind of entry "flaps". If you look around with my full pic (magnified), I am sure you can find some of those also.