Crashed Flying Saucer on Mars?--Sure Looks Like it!

Is there reason to believe it’s something other than the wind, sand, and light playing tricks on a 2D image?



Or something like this on a larger scale?

How does the site checkout with other types of surveys like radar and ultraviolet?

a reply to: neutronflux
You are thinking too human.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: VierEyes
..... I think NASA should check it out.

I'm sure they're all over it

That was a great bit in that movie. LOL

originally posted by: gspat
I don't think it's a trench, it looks a lot more like a cliff face, with some rock slides going through them. Kinda like what's showing below in the image provided by ArMaP.

The arc of the disc, though, not sure.

Wouldn't it be funny if the photo was from Arizona?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: micpsi
Want is not involved do you even realize the scale if this was an actual UFO its like 300 k wide see the mountains this supposed UFO would be huge. And that ridge is very close to the size of the grand canyon. Even if a 300k ship crashed its not going to skid for 3000 kilometers.

The physics just isn't possible

scale and physics is what makes the image look phony to me

the 'walls' of carved-out canyon must be a 'sticky sand' material, too unnatural

the topography makes the plowed-up channel/canyon a once-in-a-Trillion happening,,, the 'saucer' plowed a rut better than any known road-grader on Earth over a impossibly long distance

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Looking in the opposite direction, we can see how those channel edges emerge on another lump of higher ground, beyond which are further indications that the strata continue.

Looking less and less like a crashed UFO and more and more like a natural geological formation covered by dune formations. Unless you really don't want it to be that

Nature does not do too many round things. What is the ratio of that shape to its diameter? If its like 3ish, then no, not nature.

originally posted by: TrollMagnet

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Looking in the opposite direction, we can see how those channel edges emerge on another lump of higher ground, beyond which are further indications that the strata continue.

Looking less and less like a crashed UFO and more and more like a natural geological formation covered by dune formations. Unless you really don't want it to be that

Nature does not do too many round things. What is the ratio of that shape to its diameter? If its like 3ish, then no, not nature.

I’m not going to box in what Mother Nature can, and can’t do.



desertlandforms.weebly.com...

a reply to: St Udio

it is well known that there is a good amount of water right under the surface of the Martian sands.


they even have a video of liquid water coming out of cracks in the rocks/sand


and depending how hard the impact and was heavy the object was it would make the surrounding sand/dirt stuff into a hard material, or at least compact it enough to hold its shape.

the air pressure on mars is so low that a almost 300mph wind would feel like a strong breeze to us. but over time it the sand would wear at the object and the walls of the crash site into what it looks like today


that could be millions of years old for all we know.

That’s not Mars, that’s Hollywood studio based in Nevada. No alien exists other than fallen angel, known as sons of God. No one can leave earth, period.

a reply to: IAMTAT

originally posted by: gspat
I don't think it's a trench, it looks a lot more like a cliff face, with some rock slides going through them. Kinda like what's showing below in the image provided by ArMaP.

That's what I thought until I saw the anaglyph, as it shows perfectly that we are looking at a trench that gets deeper the further it goes from right to left on the image.

The arc of the disc, though, not sure.

Looks like a dune to me, at the deepest part of the trench.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TrollMagnet

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Looking in the opposite direction, we can see how those channel edges emerge on another lump of higher ground, beyond which are further indications that the strata continue.

Looking less and less like a crashed UFO and more and more like a natural geological formation covered by dune formations. Unless you really don't want it to be that

Nature does not do too many round things. What is the ratio of that shape to its diameter? If its like 3ish, then no, not nature.

I’m not going to box in what Mother Nature can, and can’t do.

desertlandforms.weebly.com...

That has nothing at all to do with circles.

originally posted by: St Udio
the 'walls' of carved-out canyon must be a 'sticky sand' material, too unnatural

Why do you say that? What looks "unnatural" to you in a situation like that? There are dozens of examples like that on Earth.

the topography makes the plowed-up channel/canyon a once-in-a-Trillion happening,,, the 'saucer' plowed a rut better than any known road-grader on Earth over a impossibly long distance

For a falling flying saucer, maybe, but not for a natural formation.

originally posted by: penroc3
they even have a video of liquid water coming out of cracks in the rocks/sand

Are you sure? The closest I remember is an animation made from photos taken at different times showing that something flowed downhill.

originally posted by: TrollMagnet
Nature does not do too many round things. What is the ratio of that shape to its diameter? If its like 3ish, then no, not nature.

Which shape are you talking about? I can't see any round things in that photo.

Having a proper look I'm not sure. Does It look like somethiNG? Maybe. Most likely not.

Geez, pretty flimsy landing trench and curiously circular embedded object, there buck-o.

As a self-important internet gadfly and armchair Mars artifact debunker, before my esteemed personage invests the time and money to go out to Mars to make some Earth shakin' discovery and/or salvage spare alien parts from the derelict saucer I'd need much more detailed information and at least double the child-like sense of wonder regarding this crazy place we somehow came to be in.

I'd put a /S after that, but really, I cannot define the double reverse meta mood I was in when I wrote that... I need more information, obviously... and several more semesters of Martian topography.

a reply to: ArMaP




if you slow a movie down its just pictures


they have a sequence of images taken over a period of time that shows the salty water coming out of some dune

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Looking in the opposite direction, we can see how those channel edges emerge on another lump of higher ground, beyond which are further indications that the strata continue.

Looking less and less like a crashed UFO and more and more like a natural geological formation covered by dune formations. Unless you really don't want it to be that

I was thinking someone has sooner or later link photo from same anomaly, showing different angle, nothing to see here, its just a potato, and there it is

originally posted by: TrollMagnet

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TrollMagnet

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Looking in the opposite direction, we can see how those channel edges emerge on another lump of higher ground, beyond which are further indications that the strata continue.

Looking less and less like a crashed UFO and more and more like a natural geological formation covered by dune formations. Unless you really don't want it to be that

Nature does not do too many round things. What is the ratio of that shape to its diameter? If its like 3ish, then no, not nature.

I’m not going to box in what Mother Nature can, and can’t do.

desertlandforms.weebly.com...

That has nothing at all to do with circles.

This circular stone has nothing to do with circles in nature? By all means. Please show how the circular “object” on mars is more perfect and not stone.

By the way. It’s seems my question was ignored on how corresponding surveys of the area by radar and ultraviolet for example support the question of this thread? Or don’t support the question of this thread….