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

originally posted by: idusmartias

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: IAMTAT

Definitely Pareidolia.

That image is NOT pareidolia.

Sarcasm.

Im gonna throw my two cents into this.

first.. we face a problem of when this site was created and/or how long it has existed.

we have seen here on earth things that have been created decades , hundreds , thousands and even millions of years that weather, water and other factors have altered from their original states. In ways that baffle us today even given we know much more about the sciences that would effect it.

two.. despite all the knowledge we gave gained about mars (from atmosphere, material makeup, weather , ect) our ACTUAL information is still in (lack of a better description) first or second grade school. Hell the finding of more water content is big news over what we "knew" just a decade ago.

so to come to some concrete "this is what it must be" to "well logically it could be" is just (to put it bluntly) GUESSING.

three... we all must admit nasa (despite its claim to the otherwise) has a real bias AGAINST almost anything being non terrestrial (aka advance alien made) in nature. they in the past have demanded proof well beyond what they demand of themselves and (by any logic you care to use) have hidden things from us.. what those were if we are being honest we cant totally say, but must be something that would either embarrass them (at best) or prove them outright lying to us (for reasons already stated in other OP) .

so to rely on their "expert explanations" is folly at best.

so taking into account all of the above factors, here is my two theories.

one.. some low level craft made up of materials (and possibly a "deflector shield") we can only dream of was doing NOE (nap of the earth) flying and lost some altitude to "plow" into the ground at the same level (give or take) plane until it was stopped by a harder substance, ran out of power, ran out of "shielding" or combination of all three..
or more simple term... kept running until it was stopped by some other force.

that would explain the long "trench" it made

two..

maybe we are looking at this backwards.

the "ship" is in a hanger or exit to a underground bunker. the "trench" is really a "runway" .

for some reason the "ship" never took off or got only part out of the hanger and just stayed there.

in both cases the "dunes" in the "trench" are because whatever happened did so a LONG TIME AGO and just as with our abandoned airbases can have their "runway" or crash site be effected by the environment they were built on.

we are just finding it out now and mars "nature" has altered the landscape.

Scrounger

a reply to: IAMTAT

What strikes me odd about a UFO Flying Saucer plow theory causing a trench…..or length beyond a mile is…..where are the mounds of dirt that theoretically should be off to the sides of plowing the trench?

And at the depth of the trench, it appears the UFO Flying Saucer should have created tons of dirt excavated and mounded on either or both sides of the trench or on top of the cliffs of the trench.

The simplest example I can show…. is the most basic way of plowing. Dirt is lifted creating a trench and at the same time, creates mounds of dirt to the sides.

I’m leaning towards weird erosion shaping……ala it’s a UDirtO


👽🛸🍺

NASA releases 'images' of Mars.

People notice strange things, like a skid mark, and a saucer, perhaps!

NASA denies there's anything 'alien' on Mars, or in their 'images'.

People think NASA's hiding the truth about 'aliens' from us, once again!


People 'demand' NASA tell them the truth, about what they know, and NASA says there's no 'aliens', nothing at all is kept from us.

This entire thing is a sham, start to finish. NASA's faked it from the start, Images are all fake, 'alien' stuff they put in the fake images, are also fake. Then they say 'no alien stuff there', and people think they're 'hiding' it all, and that's exactly what they WANT people to think!

And it's worked well, sad to say.

Spam

a reply to: scrounger

in both cases the "dunes" in the "trench" are because whatever happened did so a LONG TIME AGO and just as with our abandoned airbases can have their "runway" or crash site be effected by the environment they were built on.

So maybe this has philosophical implications for NASA?
It's time for Zeus to chain Prometheus to the rock?
I avoid those get rich quick real estate schemes on the tele that talk about getting rich using "other peoples money".
NASA "other peoples livers".

The one noun I have not read in this thread as a possibility, is Outcrop(s).

……” What does the word outcrops mean?
1 : a coming out of bedrock or of an unconsolidated deposit to the surface of the ground. 2 : the part of a rock formation that appears at the surface of the ground.”…..

What is another word for outcrop?
projection ———————-protuberance
ridge———————————protrusion
bluff ———————————boulder
crag ———————————outlier
rocky outcrop——————jut

Circular shaped outcrops are not unprecedented here on Earth. I suppose it could be the same for the landscape on Mars.

As for Earth …. Here are a couple of WWW title/descriptions:

“Circular geological structures outcropping in the sedimentary basins of Saudi Arabia”

“ Outcrops of chevron-type (A) and circular-type (B) folds observed from the Taishu Group, which are developed in sandstone-and shale-rich strata, respectively.”

It’s quite possible that an arc or crescent (parts of a circle) is actually an outcrop that protruded it’s way to the surface. That would account for the avalanche of dirt over it and the shadow under its curving shape.



Based on the OP picture….I’m going with an natural forming Martian Outcrop and not a crashed craft. As for the long trench? Natural forming erosion…..based on my previous post, dismissing the ….plowing causing the trench ….theory.

It’s conceivable that, depending on the material, that the Outcrop p, as I see it, will eventually collapse over time due to further erosion.

👽🛸☕️

It's obviously a weather balloon.

originally posted by: scrounger
so to rely on their "expert explanations" is folly at best.

I think most opinions posted on this thread were personal opinions and not an official NASA description (if there is one) of what we see on the photos.

one.. some low level craft made up of materials (and possibly a "deflector shield") we can only dream of was doing NOE (nap of the earth) flying and lost some altitude to "plow" into the ground at the same level (give or take) plane until it was stopped by a harder substance, ran out of power, ran out of "shielding" or combination of all three..
or more simple term... kept running until it was stopped by some other force.

that would explain the long "trench" it made

No, as the trench is not a straight line, it has two slight curves, one to the left and one to the right. A crashing object wouldn't have any reason to make that trajectory while carving a trench.

Also, there's the missing material removed by the "carving" of the trench, as Ophiuchus1 pointed.

the "ship" is in a hanger or exit to a underground bunker. the "trench" is really a "runway" .

for some reason the "ship" never took off or got only part out of the hanger and just stayed there.

Again, there's no sense in having a runway that makes a slight curve to the left and to the right.

I still think the best explanation is a geological one, no need to invent crashed crafts or hangars to explain what looks like a natural feature.

originally posted by: turbonium1
This entire thing is a sham, start to finish. NASA's faked it from the start, Images are all fake, 'alien' stuff they put in the fake images, are also fake. Then they say 'no alien stuff there', and people think they're 'hiding' it all, and that's exactly what they WANT people to think!

NASA images are consistent with images taken by missions from other countries, are they all in the same "sham"?

PS: have you ever thought of the possibility of what you see being only natural features and that there aren't any alien signs on Mars?

a reply to: turbonium1

You

NASA denies there's anything 'alien' on Mars, or in their 'images'.

Isn’t Mars by definition an alien world, and anything on it.

This entire thing is a sham, start to finish. NASA's faked it from the start, Images are all fake, 'alien' stuff they put in the fake images,

Then what are the probes transmitting broadcasts from Mars / space.


Other example

Kettering Grammar School Edit
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.[10][11] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[12]


en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Not an unreasonable suggestion but there's a few of things going against that.

Firstly, it's going at right angles to all other features in the area. The rock strata we see all run east-west, this runs north-south. Not impossible for it to be a jointed block in those strata, but then we have point two below.

Secondly, all the rocky outcrops that are visible are of more rugged appearance, this is relatively smooth and rounded.

Thirdly, the existence of the other dune features running across the trench and elsewhere, some of which are also sinuous and curved.

a reply to: turbonium1

NASA mostly doesn't say there are no aliens, they leave that to other people. NASA can't help what other people think.

Meanwhile, the scientific community carries on doing its work, not caring in the least little bit what you think.

Why aren’t there any previous pics of this location with the disc??

a reply to: YoungElohim704

There are, they just aren't as good quality. This, for example, was taken in 2005 by the Mars Global Surveyor, a year before HiRise:

Here's the source:

ode.rsl.wustl.edu.../00654&product_idGeo=11944772

and you can use the nasaview software to view the .imq file

pds.nasa.gov...

Here's the head of that trench, channel, whatever, compared in the two images. I've rotated and stretched the more recent one to match the older one as much as possible.

It wouldn't be right to draw definitive conclusions given that they are taken with different cameras, lighting conditions, viewing angle etc, but for my money the area around the object in question is different.

a reply to: YoungElohim704

There are many, many photos of that area, mostly from THEMIS, with a resolution between 50 and 100 metres per pixel.

Others, like the one OneBigMonkeyToo posted, from Mars Global Surveyor, have a better resolution, but at 1.51 metres per pixel doesn't show as much detail as the one from the opening post, from HiRISE, at 0.262 metres per pixel.

The problem with high resolution photos is that, for the same photo size, they cover a smaller area, so we need many more photos to have a full coverage of Mars.

As far as I know, ESA's HRSC (aboard Mars Express, one of the oldest missions still active) has made an almost full coverage at 60 metres per pixel (but around half that at 20 metres per pixel) and NASA's MOC (aboard Mars Global Surveyor) has a full coverage from its Wide Angle Camera, with resolutions from 200 to 1000 metres per pixel.

PS: the closest to the poles the lower the resolution, as the near polar orbits used by the mapping orbiters take them closer to the surface near the equator but farther away near the poles. Some missions are not even capable of taking photos of the poles. In this case, this area is just a little below the equator, so we have many photos.

Thanks to the information given by OneBigMonkeyToo and after more than one day trying things in Blender, I was able to finally make a video using the data from that area.



I hope it helps.

PS: if anyone wants another view I can try it, as I have everything set up to do it now.

PPS: for anyone wanting to try it, after following OneBigMonkeyToo's informations, in the qgis2threejs window, select the "File/Save Scene As" and then choose "glTF". In Blender, go to "File/Import/glTF 2.0" and import the image. Then you can set up your Blender scene with light and camera as you wish and create any image or animation you want, all for free.

a reply to: ArMaP

They call that ste(ga)nography, but its quickly crackable these days.
Machine artifacts sometimes limits the effectiveness.

a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

Steganography is an interesting topic, but I don't think it applies to this thread.

Also, if you encrypt the message before using steganography, nobody can read it unless they have the "key".

a reply to: Bigburgh

i love the black spaceballs with the hair pic in the movie


may the shawrtz be with you


-Yogurt