Proof Of a Mine on Mars???

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

The thing I dont like about pics presented like this is the leading that they do with it.

#1, it is cropped in a way to show only half of the circular curiosity.

Hank, the photo is not cropped. That is how it look on the strip. Please go to Malin Space System and look or download it yourself. While your at it why don't you see where the wide angle shot is. It should have been taken at the same time. I can't seem to find it.

#3 They then make the bold statement of this being PROOF of a mine on mars, when at BEST it could be considered questionable evidence.

I know a little bit aout ming Hank. This hole was excavated. That part is not questionable. Whats questionable is who excavated it?

People need to stop seeing with their eyes and start seeing with their brains.

I would respectfully recommend the same advice for you.

The image is cropped unless Mars is nothing but that single strip of land. Whether cropped by mechanical or human doing, it is not an all inclusive image of the surface of Mars, and as such is incomplete.

Also, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I know a little bit about mining as well, considering I grew up between Copper Harbor and Iron Mountain, but I wouldn't claim to be able to apply my limited knowledge of human mining on Earth to other surfaces such as Mars.

(edit: I will not take my points any further, johnlear, until you are able to continue with the discussion, if you choose to.)

[edit on 25-11-2006 by HankMcCoy]

I know a little bit aout ming Hank. This hole was excavated. That part is not questionable. Whats questionable is who excavated it?

Am I missing something? The hole is excavated, just for my own benefict , how do you figure it out from the picture. (Genuine doubt here, not trying something smart!)

It looks like an old crater, like the one bellow.

This crater is in Mauritania.

To me it looks exactly like the Richat structure in Mauritania, Africa.

maps.google.com...,-11.403809&spn=0.379867,0.55481&t=h&om=0

EDIT: Damn you ArMaP, beat me to it!

[edit on 25-11-2006 by jra]

Originally posted by ArMaP
It looks like an old crater, like the one bellow.
This crater is in Mauritania.

Yeah, it looks like that one to me, too (nice find, by the way) - and therefore a geological effect. No mining equipment needed. No secret bases. No galactic civilization's long lost work.

But I guess that's not why we all come here. So by all means let's keep pretending this is proof of something.

it looks like way too perfect a circle to be natural

Originally posted by charliegrs
it looks like way too perfect a circle to be natural

That is one of most strange answers I have seen.

I suppose you never saw anything that was natural and round...

There is nothing in that pic that indicates that it was formed via mining.

I was curious about this thread, so I decided to look up the definition of exhumed...

ex·hume (g-zm, -zym, k-sym, ks-hym) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. ex·humed, ex·hum·ing, ex·humes
To remove from a grave; disinter.
To bring to light, especially after a period of obscurity.

As you can see if exhumed is really the choice of wording nasa used then it would insinuate that this is a very large scale grave or they are bringing something to light... Now my question is who came up with the idea that its an open pit mine? If you type in "open pit mine arizona" in the google image search engine you will quickly see that this is not an open pit mine lay out. I personally have worked in open pit mines rarely do they result in a point at the very bottom... typically as you can see in the pictures of the open pit mines in arizona there is a level surface on the most bottom section. So im afraid to say this is not an open pit mine, most likely caused from an asteroid much as our gulf of mexico was theorized to be created along with many other gulfs and seas. If youd like to be creative why not say it was an underground test site for nuclear weapons? at least it would have a similar crater?

Hmmm I overlooked Pstiffy's picture of the russian excavation... maybe it is an excavation... but I would warn people of assuming government organizations giving free information in such a manner... remember disinformation can be a brutal thing. Most importantly perhaps such things are happening on mars or the moon... but should we not be more focused on what's going on right here in our back yards? Just a thought to ponder.

Originally posted by Sophismata

Originally posted by ArMaP
It looks like an old crater, like the one bellow.
This crater is in Mauritania.

Yeah, it looks like that one to me, too (nice find, by the way) - and therefore a geological effect. No mining equipment needed. No secret bases. No galactic civilization's long lost work.

But I guess that's not why we all come here. So by all means let's keep pretending this is proof of something.

How convenient.. just rub your hands together and its all done



Not so fast though, because that picture does NOT match what we are seeing on Mars according to my eyes. The place in Africa looks like some kind of impact but the Mars image is not necessarily an impact. The grooves in the Martian crater are spiraling and the hole is a lot deeper vs its diameter.

The grooves in the Martian crater are spiraling and the hole is a lot deeper vs its diameter.

Spiraling? How do you know that? Furthermore without seing the complete thing????

Hematite concentrations in the Sinus Meridiani make mining an interesting possibility, but there's a quick, sane way to check. How deep is it, how many teirs are there, and how uniform is the distribution of tiers? Any reasonably sophisiticated mining operation will regulate the height/width of each tier for safety reasons.

I think we also have to consider the occurance of these features though. To be legit, they should all occur in rock of about the same age. If we see "mines" both in geologically "new" basalt plains and in older rock, it's probably just meteor strikes. If we see them only in one age of rock, it's more compelling. In that case we want to look at how many and what the soil in "mined" areas holds.

If we see aggregate mines, we're looking at a civilization on Mars possibly. If we see only metal mines, particularly for a specific kind of metal, we're more likely talking about interplanetary operation. Even then though, there are economics to consider. One hematite mine doesn't make sense. One would expect more, especially if they were on the newer rock and thus less likely to have been covered over.

Originally posted by denythestatusquoThe grooves in the Martian crater are spiraling and the hole is a lot deeper vs its diameter.

I do not see any spiraling, and as we only have half of the "feature" there is no way of knowing if those markings are concentric or if they are spiraling.

The area around the concentric/spiraling marks also looks like the result of an impact, with some material projected to the outside of the impact area

Is not proof based on fact?

My burden on proof must be higher than most on here.

ArMap's Mauritanian crater must have been created by the same Alien technology

Perhaps we are the Martians. Having used up all of Mars resources we moved to Earth and started mining in Mauritania.

It could be a hole in the ground possibly caused by a subterranean collapse in my humble opinion.

But lets see:

a) It could be the subsidence of an underground nuclear test, as the Martians entered the nuclear age thousands of years ago.

b) It could be the dust and rocks excavated by the force of the Martians mighty Starship as it blast its way to Earth, as the Martians begin their voyage into space and more importantly begin their anal probing of weird looking, loner Earthlings with no girlfriends.

c) It could be a giant Martian Popcorn cone.

d) It could be the hole that Virgil Tracy made with the Mole thousands of years ago as the Thunderbird team tried in vain to save the Martian race.

d) It could be a Wrexham girls birth canal opening (not big enough though).

e) It could be....well practically anything an active imagination can dream up.

But note I say could be. Not a headline grabbing "Here is the proof"

All the time you guys come up with this kinda stuff you discredit to your cause.

And remember there are disinfo guys out there having a ruddy good laugh when they create this kinda stuff.


TT out

May I suggest a double thickness of a stronger Aluminium foil

*duck and runs for cover*

lets go back to proof

except the fact that it looks similiar to other mining sites there is nothing that indicates it was from mining, except your beleif that is wasn't from mining.


proof for one is not proof for another we went over this on the dulce base thread, even when u have tangible proof, (moon landing) people still disbeleive and rightfully so (that is there opinion)

so there is NO SUCH THING that is 100% proof of something

unless u'r talking about math, but places, events and other complicated happenings can always be debated.

"is proof not based on fact" sounds like a reasonable assumption to you think about it

what are facts? facts can be disputed? and questioned? something's like the capital of massachusettes? u can find a definitive answer to. but what u need for something like this picture is an actual picture of people mining it and well if that happened you will never find it, and if u did and tried to get it out you would be killed.

even if u had a video of people digging out a mining hole at this site. some one would question wether it was on mars, or wether the footage was faked, or wether the website that had it was unreliable .

[edit on 25-11-2006 by cpdaman]

FYI, more information and a wider view of the area here.

"Exhumed" appears to refer to a process of wind removing sediment from the crater. A Google search for "mars exhumed crater" turns up more information.

Edit: Here's a much larger picture: external image

[edit on 25-11-2006 by nataylor]

Originally posted by nataylor
FYI, more information and a wider view of the area here.

"Exhumed" appears to refer to a process of wind removing sediment from the crater. A Google search for "mars exhumed crater" turns up more information.

Edit: Here's a much larger picture: external image

[edit on 25-11-2006 by nataylor]

I checked your link and the only thing that strikes me as odd, is that there is a single block of nothingness directly above the picture. Is this just an ordinary thing? Or is it blocking something else? I'm curious and would really like to know.

Originally posted by SneakySquirrel
I checked your link and the only thing that strikes me as odd, is that there is a single block of nothingness directly above the picture. Is this just an ordinary thing? Or is it blocking something else? I'm curious and would really like to know.

The black area is a data transmission error. That's fairly common on data returned from any number of probes.