• Server Outage Announcement

    Hello, Everyone.
    We will be installing an update to XenForo (the forums software), and doing some server maintenance.
    Consequently, the forums will be unavailable from about 12 - 2 MDT / 2 - 4 EDT / 6 - 8 GMT on Sunday 9th May 2021.

Mars Surface Anomalies Viewed From Orbit / Afar

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
A good site, Art. It manages to be conspiracy minded without being hysterical about it.

Recently our astro-soc was given a talk by Dr. Sarah Dunkin, a planetary scientist. During questions afterwards I asked about the Mars images that appear to show tree-like or forest like formations. At first she appeared to think I was refering to 'dendritic' (tree-like) water channels that have been found in various places, but I was not. I said I would send her the URLs of some of these anomalous pictures (which mainly come from the Malin site).

This I did, but I never received a reply, not even when further developments gave me an opportunity for follow up emails.

Now one unhelpful scientist does not a conspiracy make, but I find it intensely annoying not to be given some kind of answer. How long does it take to reply to an email? She is very young (despite her doctorate), so perhaps she has not yet acquired the diplomacy of her elders, or even the confidence to admit that she doesn't know the answer to something. But it's not surprising that people start seeing conspiracies if scientists cannot be open with us.

Some different Mars oddities are here (part of a website I run for the society - the other website is here .) Dr. Dunkin knows therefore that I'm not just some nutter who wandered in off the street, but a serious and informed amateur.
 

phgnome

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
109
Reaction score
2
Points
47
As for the material at http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicmars.htm, those were some interesting pics - especially when you move on later to the Mars Anomalies section.

And, looking at those structures (which looks like they are manufactured by an intelligent civilization) -- can it be possible that intelligent life exists there right now? I'd find that easier to swallow than believing that those structures have been there for a million years. It'd be amazing if intelligent life existed there a million years ago but it would be far more interesting if those structures are less than a million years old. The structures do not show a million years of erosion, especially because dust storms happen so often on Mars and each of those storms would do considerable damage). I'm no geologist but I'm pretty sure that after a million years of erosion, we would not be able to see the details we see in those pictures today. But, since details can be seen, I think space agencies have a lot of archeological diggings they should do before they tear up the landscape for oil. There are too many unanswered questions about what we can see (and I could imagine all the stuff they won't let the public see).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

intaglio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
35
Points
69
What's the word on that dust storm, is it still going?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Have you seen these things posted before? I haven't and thought it was pretty interesting, especially the way they are all uniform. They REALLY show up in the second pic that's inverted. What kind of natural process could create them?

The link is long dead. The original website was:

http://www.marsunearthed.com/DWArchive/monolith_graveyard.html

... and it apparently died in 2001. The text of the webpage (but not the images) can still be accessed at the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/2005030...earthed.com/DWArchive/monolith_graveyard.html

Here are the surviving primary images and selected overview text from the MIA webpage ...

Monolith Graveyard

Dean R. Wetmore
IMRG Founding Member
Web Posted: 20 September 2000
Last Update: 7 April 2001

There are times in life when we as individuals experience "peak moments" some people call these moments epiphanies. During this flash of insight, everything becomes crystal clear. When I fist saw the image highlighted below, it was an epiphany. It sent me down a path of discovery that forced me to question my beliefs about Mars, science and state sponsored research. The image first came to my attention on the bulletin board of the Enterprise Mission (the website of Richard C. Hoagland), and ran across a thread that was posted by a person using the handle TexasJames, entitled "what IS this?".

I downloaded the image and analyzed and agonized over it for hours. What possible geologic force could have created a field of large blocks all of similar size and orientation? I ran through idea after idea, yet none of the natural explanations quite fit. It was then that it occurred to me that much of the evidence one would expect to find (if one were looking for clues to/remnants of an advanced civilization) would be buried under thousands of years worth of debris. Much like the monuments in middle east (portions of Mars cut a fairly close parallel to areas of the middle east in terms of geomorphology etc.).

The initial image looked like a pyramid complex, but not quite... The shadows were all off. After looking at the non-map projected GIF, it started to become clear to me that these weren't pyramids; they were triangular, but on closer examination they looked like large monoliths (megaliths) that had been partially buried in the snow and sand just leaving the top corner exposed. ...


M0102950_large.gif

here seems to be a deliberate pattern to this field of stones. In addition to the geometric relationships and curves, the blocks tend to align along a grid. While the grid does not conform to the elevations of the hill, it is peculiar how the monoliths seem to line up at regular intervals. Each Pixel represents 12.88 Meters. The grid is set at 10 pixel intervals, therefore, each square is 128.80 meters (422.57 feet) to a side. The monoliths' size would measure out at hundreds of feet. An effort is currently underway to create an elevation map so the objects can be measured and rendered more precisely. ...

Here is the original map projected JPEG that was discussed at the outset:

M0102950.jpg

FULL WEBPAGE (WAYBACK MACHINE):
https://web.archive.org/web/20010709232533/http://209.196.158.209/mars/monolith_graveyard.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
I have spent a lot of time on Mars (so to speak), and there are lots of strange things there. I did start a file of the most interesting images - when I can find it again I'll check whether this one is on it!

Take the last .gif image on the MSSS page and blow it up (Eg, R-click, Zoom in, or use a graphics prog) and I think it looks more interesting than the views given on Mr. Wetmore's page. (A name to conjure with, that!)

I'm also not very impressed by his curved and straight alignments. A circle can pass through any 3 points anyhow, and when you have as many objects as this in a small area there are bound to be alignments just by chance. I've spent a lot of time on computer programs to detect 'ley lines', and this convinced me that all claimed alignments are just random effects (except for small-scale structures such as the stone rows on Dartmoor).

This was emphasised by using non-ancient sites such as pubs and hotels, or telephone boxes (remember them...), from the Ordnance Survey maps and processing them with the same computer program: this produced alignments with the same statistical frequencies as those involving ancient or 'mystical' sites.

There are much more regular formations on Mars - I'll dig out some links later today.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm not impressed with their alignment, I'm impressed with uniformity of their shapes. They are all so similar and theres so many how can it be natural? And if it is natural what process could cause it?

To me this is one of the most bizarre things I've seen dealing with anomolies on Mars and virtually NOTHING has been said about it even though they are so.......odd......
 

Aben_Zin

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
74
Reaction score
3
Points
39
I suppose we just have to be thankful that they weren't found buried several hundred metres under the surface of the moon...

Az
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What kind of process could have caused these? I'm no expert, but I'd guess Photoshop.
Come on - these objects aren't casting shadows on the background even though they seem to be brightly lit on one side (this is expecially obvious on the inverted image), they seem to consist of the same four or five shapes repeated, they have a different tonal/textural quality from their background (which indicates a different dpi) - I could do a better job myself.
 

dot23

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
7
Points
69
surely an alien race coming across the giants causeway in ireland would ponder whether it was made by intelligent forces. Large crystals could have formed, been broken up by seismic activity and then partially covered. I agree with annasdottir tho' - looks like a fix up.
 

Mike_Pratt33

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
624
Reaction score
3
Points
49
The strangest aspect of this picture is that all the objects are the same shape and size. Even though they appear to be scatterred over a hillside those at the top and those in the plane below are all the same. Whether they are natural rocks or entity-made artifacts I would expect them to be buried by different amounts.

I reckon its Moles :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mars Monoliths II

For some strange reason I can't reply to threads, I get a server time-out error and I can only make new threads........but this is just a quick one in reply to Annasdottir:

I doubt the images were manipulated by photoshop (except for the inversion pic of course, you have to use SOME type of proggie to invert it) since he clearly points out which image this is that's available from the Mars image library. Here's the Link. All he did was blow it up and invert it. You can tell from the original image that it's kind of strange what process could create such uniform shapes over an area that size.
 

swelle

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Points
32
the trees, the trees

I was far more impressed by the recent photos of what appeared to be trees on Mars... did anyone see them? It was uncanny, it looked like the viewer is hovering over a sparse savannah-like stand of banyan trees. Of course, I don't think they're trees at all (Arthur C. Clarke does, of course), but it goes to illustrate that images taken from miles up can create some convincing illusions... even faces!
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
The 'trees' certainly look organic - another suggestion is that they resemble coral reefs.

I have already mentioned on another thread how I asked a professional astronomer about these at an astro-soc meeting, but got no response, nor to several follow-up emails.

Links to some tree-like images of various sorts:
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M07/M0702491.html
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0804688.html
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M09/M0902042.html
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M10/M1001442.html
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M07/M0701909.jpg
 

intaglio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
35
Points
69
MikeP and Annasdotir

Annasdotir, are you implying that someone at Nasa Ames is doctoring these images? That could be worth a thread on it's own :D. But check out the GIF images at high enlargement there's a lot of variation

MikeP, if you look at these images at the pixel level they are of similar but not the same size and all are of similar form. It is very dificult to judge the apparent width accurately from pixel size but the largest seems to be some 30m (give or take 12.5m) wider than the smallest. Shadow length also varies, but that could be due to topography.

Could they be weathered stacks similar to Monument valley and drifting sand gathered at the base? It's a shame we don't know the angle of the sun at the surface.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
If you delve into the details of the MSSS site you'll find they DO give the sun's angle - although annoyingly they call it "incidence angle", meaning the angle of the sun from the ZENITH, rather than giving it as the altitude above the horizon.
 

tastyintestines

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
164
Points
94
A new face on Mars?
the sites slow but its on there.
cosmicmajority.com
Link is dead, as is the entire website. Here are images and text from a 2003 Coast To Coast webpage.


2ndMarsFacex.jpg

Back in 1995 I was working for a company developing interactive CD-ROMs. While I was "beta testing" a CD (see below) entitled 'In-Terra-Active' (it was about physical geology) in the section dealing with planetary geology & evidence of water, they had this picture illustrating evidence of channels on Mars. But then I saw it, it's another Mars face. It says the photo is somewhere just north of the Martian equator.

I've been waiting for someone else to find this but it seems no one will (and time is running out). I've searched through hundreds of photos from NASA, JPL, MSS, etc. and I can't find this image. I'm not looking for publicity nor credit, I just can't keep this to myself, I want RCH to take this and run with it.

--Sim
Minneapolis MN
SALVAGED FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030226031823/https://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page58.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Face on Mars

Id like to see more?Are there any more images,Im always wary of Photo shop 6 ,hope Im wrong .
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That photo appereard in FT last Summer. I take it you heard this on Art Bell. He's always a little slow on getting news out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Is this final proof that the Mars face was only a trick of the light or... has NASA been faking images in order to make us think the above?
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Reaction score
10
Points
49
The picture *is* of higher resolution than that taken in 1976 by an order of magnitude, I believe, resolving details to a 1 metre resolution as opposed to around 10m [CAVEAT: Those figures are from memeory... Maybe Ryn can furnish the real deal there :¬) ]. This means there is more 'real' data and less interpolated information in the image. T76 image was simply passed through a noise removal filter, to remove the bit errors, and then simply smoothed. If you look at the new image you'll see a lot more detail inthe desert surrounding the mesa.

8¬)
 

ogopogo3

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
28
Points
69
Does this mean Richard Hoaglund will finally have to get a real job?
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
This is a 4 year old story!

It got a lot of coverage at the time because the pictures NASA released had (according to critics) been deliberately processed to make the terrain look flatter than it really is. The image was derided as the Catbox picture!

However, even with more appropriate processing (the sort of thing you can do on your own computer with photo-editing software), the image is certainly less face-like than the earlier Viking version.

I'll try to attach a pic comparing the originalwith the 'new' one, and the new one processed to match the lighting of the first one.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Woops, didn't realise it was old. First time I came accross it.

What I don't understand is that didn't several photos get taken of the face the first time around and some guys wanting to dis-prove the trick of the light theory did all the measurments and worked out that there really was an image of a face and it was no trick of the light?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
deliberate destruction

Why isn't anybody talking about all of those NASA probes that disapeared? The way I figure
it, NASA sent those probes (loaded with bombs) to Mars and blew up the face. Only after
they were sure it was ruined did they start transmitting pictures again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Then how come you still have the same cliffs and such where the face was, and where are the bomb craters? Yesterday on this site there was a link to some new pics of the face. Didn't look like it had been blown up to me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Those Ruskies had some Mars mission failures as well. superluminal, I think it would be far easier to fake some images and pass them off as where the face was rather than actually take away the face. Anyway, the face hasn't got too much attention so theres no point doing anything like that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Face of mars

NASA have always lied to the public, the moon landings i have seen pictures that proves that the moon landing photo's were fake.

They could not do it so they faked it.
 
Top