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

a reply to: IAMTAT

Finally, someone in this thread who isn't going along with the pure nonsense bandwagon line that this is just sand & there's no tracks, etc. I simply can't believe how many people are looking at this & quickly claiming paraedolia, etc. I mean, come on - have you ever seen a more perfect 'crashed UFO' image anywhere? It's clear as day!

I'm intrigued by the alleged 'dunes' which have formed through the crash trench - I've always thought that those things look more like animal activity underground, like martian moles & whatnot. They're similar in some ways to the traditional 'glass tubes' which were oft spoken about in Mars-themed discussions of old. I wonder if the local wildlife came to check out the crash site, take readings, analyse what they found, etc.

I wonder if the wildlife might even be sentient, or proto-sentient at least, on the cusp of developing true sentience (which I believe comes as a sudden flash of light in the minds of a group of creatures as their brains have matured collectively over the millennia). Similar to how when one rat solves a maze in the lab for the first time, suddenly rats all over the world can solve it too, even if they had no luck a hundred times previously. I think when the time comes, the group as a whole is treated to the experience of beiming self-aware, noticing themselves & one another in new ways all of a sudden.

Great, traditional, old-style ATS thread at the very least. Let the speculation run wild!

a reply to: IAMTAT Oh yea thats an old Marangian Star eater. They saw a few in the atmosphere right after The Day The Earth Stood Still came out. One engaged with ground to air but managed to limp out of the atmosphere. This is proly it.

a reply to: IAMTAT

No way they fly accross the universe the crash into a small, slowly moving ( relatively) object. Great bait to get you to figure out how to get it though. With the stuff they bribed our leaders with in the past. Hmm we will be there soon.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
Having been an “artifact hunter” on and off and looked at likely thousands of images I’m pretty comfortable with my analysis of the picture containing construction that is not naturally occurring. I would have been extremely excited and interested if I came across this image.

Having been a fan of geology for the last 40 years or so, I don't see any thing that could not be natural.

Then again, most would disagree given they either a) don’t think ET exists b) don’t think we have the tech to get to or inhabit Mars c) wouldn’t believe NASA would show an image that contains either of those things.

Well, I believe in the possibility of life outside Earth, but I don't think there's advance life forms in the solar system in any place besides Earth.
As for the tech to get an inhabit Mars, maybe we have it, but do we have a strong enough reason for doing it? Most people are not interested in science, so to spend huge amounts of money on that kind of action they would want some return from it, and I don't see what it could be.
Finally, I am one of those that think that, if the images show something that could be mildly related to "national security" we would never see them, unless they are not expecting that to happen and do not examine all the images before publication.

My reason for disagreeing is, as I said above, the fact that nothing of what I see in the photos looks artificial to me.

Doubt they tell us the full truth about Mars but lie to us about everything else.

I agree.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Finally, someone in this thread who isn't going along with the pure nonsense bandwagon line that this is just sand & there's no tracks, etc. I simply can't believe how many people are looking at this & quickly claiming paraedolia, etc. I mean, come on - have you ever seen a more perfect 'crashed UFO' image anywhere? It's clear as day!

Well, my opinion is based on what I know of geology and on the many hundreds or thousands of photos from Mars I have seen since I joined ATS, 17 years ago.

I'm intrigued by the alleged 'dunes' which have formed through the crash trench - I've always thought that those things look more like animal activity underground, like martian moles & whatnot. They're similar in some ways to the traditional 'glass tubes' which were oft spoken about in Mars-themed discussions of old. I wonder if the local wildlife came to check out the crash site, take readings, analyse what they found, etc.

Yes, the famous (back then, I wonder why are not famous now, maybe because better photos show what they really are) "glass tubes" were the same thing, dunes perpendicular to the winds that created them and that follow the shape of the ground, as wind tends to do, on Earth or Mars.

Great, traditional, old-style ATS thread at the very least. Let the speculation run wild!

With that I agree.

originally posted by: ArMaP

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.

'Significant amounts of water' found in Mars' massive version of the Grand Canyon. 12/16/2021

originally posted by: MetalThunder
'Significant amounts of water' found in Mars' massive version of the Grand Canyon. 12/16/2021

I saw that news this morning, but it doesn't change the fact that there aren't any videos of water flowing on Mars, only animations made with photos taken several months apart.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: VulcanWerks

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
If that’s reality, then we may be looking at a craft in flight entering a “hangar” of sorts in a depressed valley. Not crashed, functioning - and the “reconnaissance” orbiter could have been snapping pictures of this area for surveillance.

Not very likely that the "craft" was entering the "hangar" in the exact same position at two different occasions.
And it doesn't look anything like that to me.

Fair enough. We’re all just guessing here anyway.

True, but there's educated guesses based on an understanding of geomorphological processes, the behaviour of sedimentary rocks, probability and then there's wild speculation.

Having been an “artifact hunter” on and off and looked at likely thousands of images I’m pretty comfortable with my analysis of the picture containing construction that is not naturally occurring. I would have been extremely excited and interested if I came across this image.

Then again, most would disagree given they either a) don’t think ET exists b) don’t think we have the tech to get to or inhabit Mars c) wouldn’t believe NASA would show an image that contains either of those things.

a) not that it doesn't exist, just that there is no credible evidence for it. Yet.
b) we have the tech, just not the budget.
c) Remind me where this photo is again? Or any of the many other photos in which alien proof is supposedly found? NASA is not the only player here.

Because that’s what everyone has been told since forever - which influences perspective and official “fact”.

There's always the possibility we're told it because it's true.

Most official narratives are false via omission at minimum - I suspect the subject of Mars is no different. Doubt they tell us the full truth about Mars but lie to us about everything else.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence of anything artificial here other than pareidolia.

Point by point:

- True, geological processes matter. Probability is murky at best - it’s based on what you base your baseline assumption on. Not sure what you do for work, but I can tell you from being inside of a “corporate machine” what’s talked about and what’s publicly said are two very different things on many occasions. Also, the reasons why something happens are usually different than what the masses understand. I view the world through that lens because it requires zero speculation. I’ve lived it and been part of shaping a reality for people who currently live under one set of assumptions but reality isn’t what they think it is. So, we’re approaching this from wildly different views on what constitutes reality and how it’s communicated. Wild speculation, I agree with your point.

- We have the budget. If you think every line item is recorded and reported you’re fooling yourself - and that isn’t just for government. Also, some people will work for things that aren’t money… it’s far more complicated than accounting line items.

- there is the possibility what we are told is true. I simply doubt it. Lying tends to become pathological - you lie even when it’s not required. I view literally anything that’s communicated from an authority who controls the narrative as BS until proven otherwise because I’ve been in a boardroom setting understanding how the BS is made. I 100% promise you a bunch of things in your life that you think are the way they are for false reasons - you were manipulated and lied to. Most of those lies won’t hurt you - they’ll just fleece your money (the whole point of marketing and branding) or get you to do things to help an entity that says it’s for one reason but it’s actually for another.

- I could flip your last argument on its head easily. It’s not a strong point - just flipped viewpoint.

End of the day this isn’t about convincing for me - it’s about opening perspectives.

a reply to: ArMaP

Fair points all around.

I take your post as being thoughtful. I appreciate that.

I’m fairly certain Mars is important. Why? That’s pure speculation. But, we have been conditioned to believe that mars is important.

Could that be a smoke screen? Sure.

The why behind your question? My gut reaction is because it represents the ability to do projects unseen and off-world. That’s valuable.

There are few countries (e.g. not China) who could actually have an orbiter there to observe the situation. Go underground and if they found or rather observed the underground ops many would immediately blame the human mind and say “ET doesn’t exist” and that’s the end.

Ironically, I suspect China might be far more open minded to ET. It’s blue water.

Power lies in the places no one looks or occupies. The moon? Mars? Your conscious (or subconscious as the modern narrative goes)?

If the blue water (marketing term btw) is right, we need to be observing the world not through what we’re told to think but rather what could be.

All innovators imagined what could be. If you think like that, it means what you’re told isn’t the real deal and what could be is where the people who do know operate.

I appreciate your contribution to the thread - though the thread isn’t mine to say that for.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

I take your points, and they are well made and fairly written, but we clearly come from very different perspectives on such things.

You have a view that is coloured, maybe even tainted, by experience in a corporate environment where maintainaing a market advantage relies on not telling everyone everything. I come from a science background where openness with data is fundamentally the basic premise. Both of us have a priori stances that inevitably direct our perspective, but in the end it comes down to data: what data do we have?

In the specific case of this photograph, which someone making a name and/or living for themeselves has declared to be a crashed UFO, all we have is one image. A freely available that no-one has hidden, despite the usual claims that NASA (boo, hiss) hide such images. That image, when combined with topographic moidels of the surface, allow us to get a very clear picture not only of the feature itself but the landcape around it. Anyone can, and should, do this if they want a compelte picture, rather than rely on the word of someone with a vested interest in promoting their story.

There are many features in that image that are entirely consistent with natural processes for which we have terrestrial analogues, and that point to the channel in question being a continuation of sedimentary strata either side of it.

There is only one feature that is being latched upon that people feel makes it a spaceship - an apparent curve that people are projecting into parts of the landscape we can't see to make a complete circle. There is no debris from the supposed impact creating the channel the curve sits in. The channel is not perfectly straight, nor is it of uniform depth and width. The processes being used to explain the lack of excavated debris are the same ones that produce natural phenomena like arcuate and transverse dunes.

As for absence of evidence, the conventional conspiracy theorist mindset (and I'm not saying it's one you have) is that the lack of evidence in support of a viewpoint is because it has been hidden away. In this case. as with pretty much all similar ones, it's more reasonable to say that the lack of evidence is a result of their actually not being any. We need to work with the data we have, not with the data we wish we had, or that we believe someone else has and isn't supplying. That data, and Occam's razor, says that this isn't a crashed UFO.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Well stated and I appreciate your perspective here.

You’re correct that I’m not, at least intentionally, coming from a conspiratorial mindset. My sense of where we diverge isn’t really fundamental. I completely agree with Occams’s Razor for most things, studied physics, love engineering, data, etc. I work with data on a daily basis to drive business results at scale and make informed decisions that are based on deeply understanding what actually is with that data - McKinsey approach if you will.

I’ve had the opportunity to pick the brain of 3 billionaires - two of which most people would recognize by name alone. One of them I’ve worked with more closely. The key takeaway - and I was told this directly to me and about me - is you need to “think bigger”. What they really meant - in context - is that not only is what’s possible wildly exceeding what most people think is possible, true reality of what is also far exceeds what most people - even “smart people” can truly comprehend.

These people are a mesh of visionary thinking, deep touch with reality and deep connection to self and the possible. Earthly matters bore them in many ways - the typical persons life would bore them. In practical terms, there’s a clear demonstration from each of them that they “get it” and that “it” is extremely hard to articulate.

To the extent I’ve helped create or propagate a narrative devoid of complete transparency of its aim - none of that has been to harm “people”. Position our mouse trap to be better than the competition? Sure. Grow our revenue by virtue of that? Absolutely. But, my endeavors truly help people and I can define that so I sleep with a very calm mind and frankly find satisfaction in overtaking competitors who I know, factually, are screwing people over. I might be getting paid for my services but I know the value customers are getting is transparent, legitimate and fair. And I’ve been a part of a business that has turned into a model that makes others jealous on that basis.

The more time has gone on, the more I’ve realized we’re told just about as much as we need to know (or less) of the truth and the rest is filled in with spin, lies, coercion and more.

So, when I say “think big” and couple that with a better understanding of the “why” behind many things I end up at the lived and experienced realization that “possible” is actually “reality” and that “reality” is a lot closer to what many people would perceive as “fiction” than can be appreciated - a “reality” sufficiently different than one’s own would be experienced as fantasy or fiction. The narrators of humanity create, define and guide history - and thus the reality of the masses.

Maybe it’s a saucer. Maybe it’s a smudge on the film. Maybe it’s a frisbee. Maybe it’s a quarter stuck in the ground here on earth and blurred out. None can say for sure.

Whether it’s an ET craft or a quarter, it’s something and I suspect that true “reality” would 100% blow the mind of all of us if we were let in on it.

Like one poster said it looks like a collapsed lava tube. I have to agree I have seen something similar before. Many features on mars have similar looking anomalies. It looks like sand falling into the crevasse from above giving it a circular feature.

Also the shadows create an optical illusion that the object is somehow elevated but that could be because the falling sand and mound may not be uniform creating a shadow below. Perhaps the mound has a lip and is casting a shadow below?

a reply to: s1nGuL4r1ty

it was me that said it was a lava tube/land slide

that new shot you posted seals the deal for me

nothing extraordinary

amazing but not supernatural

After several attempts with four different programs I gave up on trying to create a 3D model of the scene.

Two images are not enough to get enough data and/or the difference in the angle of the images is too small for the programs to understand the differences in position.

If I knew how to use Blender I could try a different approach, but I have to learn how to use first.

a reply to: ArMaP

I got Blender to work once - it's not exactly intuitive!

For QGIS models:

Install QGIS and activate the qgis2threejs plugin from the 'manage plugins' menu.

The files you need tend to be geotiffs, where the location data are encoded in the file, or types where you need a label file to give that information.

On the HiRise page is a link a DTM details page, which is here:

www.uahirise.org...

On that page is a 'full directory listing' link.

From there, download the .IMG file at the top - that's the file with the surface elevation data.

Now pick one of hte other .JP2 files and its associated .lbl file.

In QGIS, drag the .IMG file into the contents pane on the left. If you right click you should get an option to 'zoom to layer'.

Next, drag the .lbl file in there. It should load the photo on top of the elevation map.

Zoom into a desired location and click the qgis2threejs icon. A new window will open up with the model showing. You might need to select the layer with the elevation data, and also go into scene settings to play around with variables in there.

Good luck

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Thanks for that, I'll try it!

REAT
fortunately.
ral events on a planet known to have extremely harsh and unpredictable weather/terrestrial conditions anomaly and how convincing the tales were that some form of intelligent beings were responsible for constructing a sculptured monument that coincidentally contested the sheer size of earth's greatest mountain ranges.....which we all know now turned up to be a whole lot of nothing more than a naturally formed surface feature for the red planet.
The culprit of the mass misconceptions of course was indeed the combination of camera resolution, angles from which the pics were taken from as well as the time of said picture, producing the perfect shadowing of its peaks and ravines alike giving way to the appearances of a face of sorts.
That said, the image you have produced in post could be a myriad of naturally occurring possibilities such as the path of the planet's daily weather disturbances like tornado-like massive dust devils or sand storms (could explain the formation of the smaller sand dunes within the trench/ravine). It could likely be the terrential scarring made by lava flows.
Point being thepossible explanations of natural events on a planet known to have extremely harsh and unpredictable weather/terrestrial conditions is far more likely the case of the interesting image.....unfortunately.
Until new, high definition images are produced I'm afraid it will remain exactly that....an interesting yet unidentifiable image.
Still a great post!

Something to think about when looking at Mars' geology.

The rover's latest finding suggests that the bedrock it has been driving over since landing was once formed by volcanic lava flows -- something that was "completely unexpected," according to mission scientists. Previously, they thought the layered rocks Perseverance took photos of were sedimentary.

Source

I suppose I have to stop assuming layered rocks on Mars are sedimentary.

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
The “ufo” just looks like a sand bar at an unfortunate angle to me. The trails of sand are curious tho 🧐

I suggest you "see" an optometrist.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: IAMTAT

Definitely Pareidolia.

That image is NOT pareidolia.