Mars White "Winged" Anomaly and "Crater" Anomalies

[ArMaP]

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 ) 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.

This 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.

This 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.

[rdunk]

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.

[rdunk]

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!! 

[Amaterasu]

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.

[ArMaP]

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.

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)

That is prrrrreeeeeeety close, for Mars estimates!

Yes, that was a very good estimate.

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???    

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.

[ArMaP]

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.

[rdunk]

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. 

[1Worldwatcher]

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

[ArMaP]

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?

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.

Why? To me they look like they were formed by the same processes that most of the surrounding features.

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"!!!

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.

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.

I think that you jumped the first part, what defines an anomaly.

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.

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.

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 .

How can you know the height of those features?

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.

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"?

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"!

Not to me.

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).

As I said before, to me, it looks like an unusual area, but not strange enough to be considered "anomalous".

For 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.

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.

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.

[rdunk]

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!

[rdunk]

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!   
...

[ArMaP]

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.

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.

That was just to compare the brightness, not the shape, because you said one of the objects is white.

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.

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.

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.

I think those are part of the ground, in the same way a hill is part of the ground.

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.

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 )

Thanks again ArMaP for your serious thought and comments. Obviously, on some areas we can agree to disagree!   

That's the best part of having an opinion.

[rdunk]

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??? 

[ArMaP]

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.

[rdunk]

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.