Mars. Three objects at the same distance from each other. The forgotten smoking gun?

a reply to: enjoylife

i wonder if the word 'similar' distance' would satisify some on this thread?

Whilst its an interesting line of objects its not as rare as some seem to find it, if you remember that with just two objects there's no unnatural distances so two of them could have been there all along, its only when a 3rd comes along that the distances matter, now you have a line of 3 all at very similar distances (that's without scientific elevation of landscape checking etc) in what looks a straight line. So all its needs is a fluke of a 3rd object to appear near the other two in a line which considerably drops the chance factor.

People seem to be working on the idea that they all fell or whatever at the same time, had there only been two no one would have questioned it, if the 3rd came later its weird but not beyond chance with objects hitting the surface all the time.

As said, two object and the distance are irrelevant, the 3rd gives the weirdness but its not ultra amazing that something might drop near the other two in a line but here on ATS that means ALIENS and not juts randomness..

Calm down and take your meds like I just have..

Paul..

Look at Earth, we have equidistant multiples of objects over the place that are not man made and while it IS possible that non Human or Visitors created these items here never has and workings been found at the places so basically visitors would have come here just to move some boulders around that do not form an mathematical sign or star chart so basically they came for a large game of marbles and buggered off...

Likely?

Not really...

a reply to: Box of Rain

I stand corrected! Great info! Ill admit that I am biased towards the thought of an ancient Mars civilization. Ive been reading Dr. John Brandenburg's reports, research and books, and will also admit Im not very educated in Geology.
If you are open minded to the ancient Mars civilization theory, I recommend checking out his work.

Good day!

originally posted by: Tardacus
even if you do find something completely "alien" and unnatural on mars the chances are pretty good that it`s just human made space junk from one of the many failed mars missions.
google,failed mars missions, all the debris from those failed missions is scattered around somewhere on mars.
We haven`t managed to land a human on mars yet and we have already started polluting it with our junk.

Its not pollution if its 'scientific'. Then its research and exploration.

Kind of like when oil companies do exploratory drilling. Thats acceptable, when really the whole goal is to find crude, dig it up, refine it and burn it in engines. Thats called progress. Not polluting at all.

a reply to: Aliensun

Today, with the exact same observations you would be quick to suggest that the objects are probably old Apollo hardware rather than a curious result of natural activities.

No, always look to natural occurring first. From orbit Monument Valley looks like 'structures', too. Which... they are.

Ancient Alien "Structures"

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Tardacus
even if you do find something completely "alien" and unnatural on mars the chances are pretty good that it`s just human made space junk from one of the many failed mars missions.
google,failed mars missions, all the debris from those failed missions is scattered around somewhere on mars.
We haven`t managed to land a human on mars yet and we have already started polluting it with our junk.

So your saying "space junk" fell in a straight line equidistant like that?

How are you calculating your "probability" exactly?

Show your work.

Heres some work...

string of pearls

The notion box of rain laid out is that a comet could be broken apart into pieces along a string impacting a planet or moon like 'stitching'. But I din-a-get yet whether these are objects or craters?

a reply to: Box of Rain

For example, If these are craters, then they could have formed from three pieces of one broken-up asteroid that were floating in space at roughly the same distance from each other. Similar to Earth, Mars rotates. As each piece of the asteroid hits, Mars then rotates under the asteroids a nit before the next one hits, and the rotates a little more as the third hits.

Not out of the realm of possibility. Jupiter took multiple impacts, there are other examples of straight line cratering. If they are craters and not eroded from subsurface strata.

Images

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I brought the same image and then discover on page two you already did.

To answer your question, Monument Valley was 'probably' created by a monster Tsunami from major (Yucatan?) impactor.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
They aren't in straight line, they aren't the same distance apart, they aren't the same shape. I've upped the resolution here to 300 dpi, and the distances between the centre of each one is 373 and 383 pixels. The black line is one I've added to show that they are not in a straight line.

Thanks your image also shows that each sits atop its own 'Butte' a lot like Monument Valley, Arizona. If they are monoliths and not craters. To me they look like monoliths.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: enjoylife

Interesting find. When looking at the context of the terrain, we find similar features nearby (at latitude -0.948897°, longitude -6.773180°). Although there's no HiRISE image available for that particular spot, there is one for an area 8km to the north which also has these kinds of formations (however not so nicely arranged).

Here's some more context:

Large version

For comparison, a nearby region with similar (hi-res) features:

Large version

Details of large terrain feature from the image above:


Source CTX
Source HiRISE

And the blue ribbon goes to...

The case, it is sol-ved.

Sorry mods I'm attempting to quote my previous images but don't seem to be able to? I'll come back and add the pics instead. Cheers!

Btw the image quoted by 'Interprtr' is upside down and measures only the shadows, it's void. These objects do align when shown in the correct orientation, as I showed. Case is absolutely not solved (lol)

Very interesting but having looked at the reply's I can not argue an artificiality for these item's, at least not without a much closer view showing such and of course the skeptical will point out all manner of similar natural formation's right here on earth but that does not detract from this, a great thread and there is still plenty to be explained out there.

Here, remember those intriguing shot's of the moon, boulder's rolling UP hill and the like, well boulder my a^s.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Funny looking six wheeled boulder in an advanced state of decay were it seem's to have stopped moving a very long time ago, decay does happen on the moon due to micro ductile stress from temperature varience between light and dark, shadow and direct sun light as well as micro particle bombardment and hard particle radiation but given that the apollo artifact's are in relatively good shape after all these years that would ask how old would this therefore be if it was an artifact.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Ooh let's not forget the Apollo holiday snap shot's of something else that has had it's own thread on more than one occasion.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Is that a tracked vehicle with it's track's blown off and it's cab split in two and upturned near to something larger that may not be a boulder?.
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Now watch as they throw stone's at us again?.

So if that exists much closer to home then why can artifact's not also exist on Mars, I feel that many in the Nay Sayers camp are actually self deluding and psychologically deflecting there fear of what this may mean to there own personal universe by claiming it can not be so so it is not so and so we are wrong.

Great thread, S+F.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
They aren't in straight line, they aren't the same distance apart, they aren't the same shape. I've upped the resolution here to 300 dpi, and the distances between the centre of each one is 373 and 383 pixels. The black line is one I've added to show that they are not in a straight line.

Can someone overlap Orions Belt over this image please?

a reply to: galaga

I actually thought about that but if so when if ever did Orion's belt look like that from the solar system, if they are artificial then that would give a good method if we knew the rate of star drift and how the constellation of Orion has morphed to find a rough astronomical based date for construction, however they may simply be natural but then again maybe not, at the very least if artifact's then hundred's of million's of years if not more is my best guess but an astronomer with a fairly good measure of how the stars in orion are moving relative to one another and when and if they ever had that exact configuration would have a better idea.

The layout of the three Egyptian pyramid's at Giza is based on how the Three stars of the Duat looked when they built them (the seat of Osiris the sword was in there belief a ladder into the Duat - Egyptian heaven and also despite being in the sky the Egyptian underworld) and that was only about 5 thousand years ago or if you accept Bauvals research which I believe is solid based on how they appeared over 10.500 years ago or so and the star's have through the procession of the equinox changed there location in our night sky relative to a geological location on earth in that time but have barely moved in relation to one another so my best guess is if these martian features were artifact's and were based on Orion's belt then it would have been a very great time ago, more than million's and at least hundred's of million's if not billion's (which also raises the possibility that they were then laid out when mars was able to sustain life in a manner similar to the earth today.

Very good point.

a reply to: LABTECH767

The fact that there are strange things on the Moon doesn't mean that there must be the same type of things on Mars (unless we are talking about rocks, but even those are different, as they were created by different processes).

That last photo you posted is one of the few that I think need an explanation, as although some things look roughly like rocks they do look like rocks shaped with unnatural shapes. Show me something like that on Mars and my opinion will be the same.

Up to now I have yet to see any thing that looks artificial on Mars (if you ignore the things sent by us, obviously).

a reply to: ArMaP

Well all I can really say is if they were on earth would you look twice or even argue that they may or may not be artifact's.

Personally I disagree though there are many thing's on mars that look odd, not natural, of course it is a much smaller and therefore less dense body than the earth, it's geological process may be slightly different and if it ever had techtonic's then they stopped a long time ago, it's core may be dead and olympus monze which may be the last kick of it's death throw's, indeed it may have been thrust upward due to an impact on the opposite side of the planet which may have helped to nail the final nail in mars coffin and also caused the great rift the largest known valley in the solar system and a rift which is even more impressive than the giant volcano.

I would argue that Sidonia does look artifical, that there are many feature's but we each have our own opinion's, as I can not prove mine beyond a doubt neither can you, you have the luxury however of being in line with the official consensus on that subject but as you know yourself not even all scientist's agree with that point though to go on record can bring them into disrepute with the entrenched and established opinion of there community and even cause them to lose standing if not worse.

Remember these in Egypt which May or May not be pyramid's perhaps older and even bigger than Giza's three titan's.
www.dailymail.co.uk... rger-Giza.html

a reply to: ArMaP

I have to say that I completely disagree with you on
everything you have ever written towards mars.
It seems all you see are rocks.
you never even are moved to think something could be there..
It's very interesting of you.

originally posted by: galaga

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
They aren't in straight line, they aren't the same distance apart, they aren't the same shape. I've upped the resolution here to 300 dpi, and the distances between the centre of each one is 373 and 383 pixels. The black line is one I've added to show that they are not in a straight line.

Can someone overlap Orions Belt over this image please?

The middle one does not match up whether Orion is upright:


or if Orion were upside-down:

Please can we stop using this image(first one pictured below) it is upside down and is only showing the shadows and not the objects in Question themselves.

The objects do align (inverted) displayed correctly.

Here's another colour change might help to see around in a bit more detail?

I've put a yellow circle where I think the sun direction could be coming from. There are possible reflections off the objects, with shadows cast behind them? Shadows and illumination direction are the same for the terrain in comparison.

I've gone through a few moon pics using these techniques and there's bunker bases and all kinds of things there, these 3 objects in question atm may have a particular function, I don't know, just an idea? I've circled in blue an interesting area, have a look back in pic above see what you think..