Mars Monolith

[Just Dave]

Here we can see how Buzz was talking about monolith on Mars...i thought he was crazy and spreading lies..

Now i read in OUR newspaper about monolith on Mars, there is no doubt that this structure is there physicaly. What is its purpose i don't know nor does anyone on this planet.

Your thoughts on this? This is no natural phenomena, the object is too properly made in design.

[Taun]

Well.. it certainly looks interesting... But it could very well be a natural feature - A non-eroded pillar of stone (basalt perhaps) like The Giants Causeway in Ireland or Devils Tower in Montana (or is that Wyoming?)...

I've found no reason to believe that any race of intelligent beings ever orginated or developed on Mars... As to 'visitors' doing it... Why?...

The simplist solution is the best - and IMO correct one... It is natural...

[Just Dave]

Well.. it certainly looks interesting... But it could very well be a natural feature - A non-eroded pillar of stone (basalt perhaps) like The Giants Causeway in Ireland or Devils Tower in Montana (or is that Wyoming?)...

I've found no reason to believe that any race of intelligent beings ever orginated or developed on Mars... As to 'visitors' doing it... Why?...

The simplist solution is the best - and IMO correct one... It is natural...

I think you can't know... you can guess thou. Noone can know since planets existed long before human race did. Maybe race was there before some event took place on red planet, who knows but i am very sure it is not natural made if so why there isn't more of this monoliths?

[Rlyeh]

In the video he says it is on one of mars moons.

[Timothy]

Well.. it certainly looks interesting... But it could very well be a natural feature - A non-eroded pillar of stone (basalt perhaps) like The Giants Causeway in Ireland or Devils Tower in Montana (or is that Wyoming?)...

I've found no reason to believe that any race of intelligent beings ever orginated or developed on Mars... As to 'visitors' doing it... Why?...

The simplist solution is the best - and IMO correct one... It is natural...

^^This

Just another convenient image of another natural structure most likely...

[Mentalcase]

In the video he says it is on one of mars moons.

Yeah, this video has been beaten to death. You are right and the picture in the OP, of the Square structure is completely unrelated. Buzz is talking about Phobos. There is a tower-like structure there which does seem out of place.

Nuke_em, do you have the coordinates of the location of the Squarish structure?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Mentalcase

[Space Commander Travis]

I know this is the serious Space Exploration & Spaceflight section and not UFOs, but it is, perhaps, interesting to ponder that just because no sign of something is visible on the surface, that needn't mean that there might not be something there; look at how we've only discovered proof of some ancient civilisations on Earth through actual hands-on excavation. I'm not necessarily suggesting that there may be ancient civilisations on Mars or any other planet or moon, but even if we've been able to look at every square metre of Mars through one means or another, it by no means need mean that we know all about it. There's no substitute for actually going there and digging around for ourselves, and if President Obama was interested in anything other than imposing Martial Law and herding everyone into FEMA Camps, one thing he might have done that might have been a lasting legacy might have been to commit to a serious manned space program.

[Taun]

I know this is the serious Space Exploration & Spaceflight section and not UFOs, but it is, perhaps, interesting to ponder that just because no sign of something is visible on the surface, that needn't mean that there might not be something there; look at how we've only discovered proof of some ancient civilisations on Earth through actual hands-on excavation. I'm not necessarily suggesting that there may be ancient civilisations on Mars or any other planet or moon, but even if we've been able to look at every square metre of Mars through one means or another, it by no means need mean that we know all about it. There's no substitute for actually going there and digging around for ourselves, and if President Obama was interested in anything other than imposing Martial Law and herding everyone into FEMA Camps, one thing he might have done that might have been a lasting legacy might have been to commit to a serious manned space program.

Agreed... The collapse of the US Manned Space program is oneof our greatest disgraces as far as I'm concerned... and while I am not a fan of Prez. Obama (by any stretch of the imagination), it's not just his fault... This has been a problem ever since the Apollo program closed... I largely blame NASA itself, as the powers that be there appear to be enamored of robotic exploration and not human exploration...

[randym23]

it's the TARDIS

[Simbi Laveau]

it's the TARDIS

ahem,but seriously.It looks man made,or alien made .

There's life out there.They dont ever set up house in this galaxy,because we dont even know we are in a slum part of the universe.

[Arbitran]

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

[DONTEATUS]

I know this is the serious Space Exploration & Spaceflight section and not UFOs, but it is, perhaps, interesting to ponder that just because no sign of something is visible on the surface, that needn't mean that there might not be something there; look at how we've only discovered proof of some ancient civilisations on Earth through actual hands-on excavation. I'm not necessarily suggesting that there may be ancient civilisations on Mars or any other planet or moon, but even if we've been able to look at every square metre of Mars through one means or another, it by no means need mean that we know all about it. There's no substitute for actually going there and digging around for ourselves, and if President Obama was interested in anything other than imposing Martial Law and herding everyone into FEMA Camps, one thing he might have done that might have been a lasting legacy might have been to commit to a serious manned space program.

Better back off The Obama Im a Texas And we Shoot peeps for that !

Nah ! just Obama isnt the place to talk about on a Mars,Moon,Crazy site like this !

U/M is for foward thinking peeps ! And just remember the Two Yahoo`s that almost Killed America ! Hint-It rymes with BUSHs

[+OverSword]

One word. Disclosure

[Kryso]

I'm reading Graham Hancock's The Mars Mystery, covers all this and more

[spud the mackem]

When we sent robot explorers(the wheeled buggies) to Mars,why were the sites they landed at chosen in the middle of arid plains ?.Could they have chosen an area nearer the polar caps which may contain water,and the tiniest possibility of bacterial life or fossils thereof ,it doesnt make sense to me to be digging around in a sand pit...unless they are looking for something specific like Uranium etc....As for the monolith,well we didnt put it there,and monoliths aren't natural objects.Is info being withheld again as usual.Keep the Public in the dark,and feed them bulls**t and we all turn into mushrooms....When is some self respecting Gov't going to stand up and be counted ? and tell THE TRUTH...

[Karlis]

Here we can see how Buzz was talking about monolith on Mars...i thought he was crazy and spreading lies..

Now i read in OUR newspaper about monolith on Mars, there is no doubt that this structure is there physicaly. What is its purpose i don't know nor does anyone on this planet.

Your thoughts on this? This is no natural phenomena, the object is too properly made in design.

What are your thoughts on the following (highlighted in blue), as explanations?

According to Jonathon Hill, a research technician and mission planner at the Mars Space Flight Facility at Arizona State University, who processes many of the images taken during NASA's Mars missions, the object in question is no more than a roughly rectangular boulder.

The HiRISE camera that photographed it has a resolution of approximately 1 foot (30 centimeters) per pixel — impressive considering the 180-mile (300-kilometer) altitude from which it photographs the Martian surface, but not quite sharp enough to capture the cragginess of a mid-size boulder. "When your resolution is too low to fully resolve an object, it tends to look rectangular because the pixels in the image are squares. Any curve will look like a series of straight lines if you reduce your resolution enough," Hill told Life's Little Mysteries.

The location of the boulder at the bottom of a cliff near many other boulders suggests it broke off the cliff and tumbled to its current spot sometime in the distant past, Hill said. Such a perilous location is itself an argument against deliberate placement by aliens:

Source

PS: as an afterthought, > here are some photos of natural rock formations right here on Planet Earth that could look "artificial", if photographed from satellites.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Karlis

[spud the mackem]

What are your thoughts on the following (highlighted in blue), as explanations?

According to Jonathon Hill, a research technician and mission planner at the Mars Space Flight Facility at Arizona State University, who processes many of the images taken during NASA's Mars missions, the object in question is no more than a roughly rectangular boulder.

The HiRISE camera that photographed it has a resolution of approximately 1 foot (30 centimeters) per pixel — impressive considering the 180-mile (300-kilometer) altitude from which it photographs the Martian surface, but not quite sharp enough to capture the cragginess of a mid-size boulder. "When your resolution is too low to fully resolve an object, it tends to look rectangular because the pixels in the image are squares. Any curve will look like a series of straight lines if you reduce your resolution enough," Hill told Life's Little Mysteries.

The location of the boulder at the bottom of a cliff near many other boulders suggests it broke off the cliff and tumbled to its current spot sometime in the distant past, Hill said. Such a perilous location is itself an argument against deliberate placement by aliens:

Source

PS: as an afterthought, > here are some photos of natural rock formations right here on Planet Earth that could look "artificial", if photographed from satellites.

Ah,but was he under orders to say that from the secret squirrels on a "need to know" basis..Buzz Aldrin is a highly respected Ex Astronaut on a world wide platform,who I would tend to believe,as a man of his stature would hardly go to the length of telling untruths...I havnt seen any square boulders about, if they tumble off cliffs or whatever they tend to be roundish,and if a cliff gives way there is tons of rock all over the place,but this picture doesnt seem to show that...of course we cant get a picture of height etc looking from above..Maybe it has a plaque on it saying "Kilroy was here"..Until proven otherwise I go along with Buzz..cheers

[Just Dave]

What are your thoughts on the following (highlighted in blue), as explanations?

According to Jonathon Hill, a research technician and mission planner at the Mars Space Flight Facility at Arizona State University, who processes many of the images taken during NASA's Mars missions, the object in question is no more than a roughly rectangular boulder.

The HiRISE camera that photographed it has a resolution of approximately 1 foot (30 centimeters) per pixel — impressive considering the 180-mile (300-kilometer) altitude from which it photographs the Martian surface, but not quite sharp enough to capture the cragginess of a mid-size boulder. "When your resolution is too low to fully resolve an object, it tends to look rectangular because the pixels in the image are squares. Any curve will look like a series of straight lines if you reduce your resolution enough," Hill told Life's Little Mysteries.

The location of the boulder at the bottom of a cliff near many other boulders suggests it broke off the cliff and tumbled to its current spot sometime in the distant past, Hill said. Such a perilous location is itself an argument against deliberate placement by aliens:

Source

PS: as an afterthought, > here are some photos of natural rock formations right here on Planet Earth that could look "artificial", if photographed from satellites.

Well i think it could be it, still we have no real reassuarance. Some guys guess is other guy fact... It is most likely to be just a pixel still... We would need more pictures of that area, and if possible HD pictures. I'm buying this pixel theory, since it is very possible. Thanks for your thoughts

[spud the mackem]

Well i think it could be it, still we have no real reassuarance. Some guys guess is other guy fact... It is most likely to be just a pixel still... We would need more pictures of that area, and if possible HD pictures. I'm buying this pixel theory, since it is very possible. Thanks for your thoughts

Hiya again,I am sorry I dont agree with the pixel theory, (1) because these pictures would have been taken by a very good H.D. camera, and the image shown although taken from 180 miles as quoted are of good quality given the distance (2), If pixels were to blame for the square shaped object,why ar'n't all the rocks on Mars or anywhere else "square" shaped,and some of the nearby debris isnt square..which convinces me that the pixel theory doesnt ring true..I still stick by good old Buzz..I trust that this post wont offend as its just my way of thinking..Regards

[bison]

I enlarged the image with my computer. This does not appear to be a tall rectangular slab. On the shadowed side of the monolith, which should be dead black, I can see a grey area, indirectly lighted. This makes the monolith appear more like a roughly prismatic shape. The shadow itself is odd for a tall slab, too. Judging the angle of the Sun by the long side of the shadow lower down in the image, the coresponding upper edge of the shadow extends too far beyond the monolith. Something on that side, other than a rectangular edge, appears to be casting a shadow. This extended shadow appears to be associated with an extension of the low-lighted area mentioned above, which appears to reach around the side of the object. This is probably a sloping area, forming an oblique angle, rather than a vertical one.

Edited April 14, 2012 by bison

[Space Commander Travis]

I enlarged the image with my computer. This does not appear to be a tall rectangular slab. On the shadowed side of the monolith, which should be dead black, I can see a grey area, indirectly lighted. This makes the monolith appear more like a roughly prismatic shape. The shadow itself is odd for a tall slab, too. Judging the angle of the Sun by the long side of the shadow lower down in the image, the coresponding upper edge of the shadow extends too far beyond the monolith. Something on that side, other than a rectangular edge, appears to be casting a shadow. This extended shadow appears to be associated with an extension of the low-lighted area mentioned above, which appears to reach around the side of the object. This is probably a sloping area, forming an oblique angle, rather than a vertical one.

Sounds suspiciously pyramidal ....

[bison]

I believe a pyramid would cast a triangular shadow. I once became fascinated with a feature on the inside wall of the crater Tycho, on the Moon. It looked a great deal like a very regular, symmetrical hexagon, and very flat. It appeared to have four dots arranged in a square, with a common center with the hexagon. Thought I'd really found something. Unfortunately, further search eventually revealed a better, clearer image. The hexagon no longer looked so smooth and regular, nor did it look convincingly artificial.

[spud the mackem]

I had another look at this picture,and in the bottom right corner there are 5 small rocks arranged hexagonally with 1 in the middle,??..It looks too artificial to be put there naturally...I'm intrigued !

[Lilly]

Honestly, it looks like a natural rock formation to me.

I think this topic would be better served in the astronomy sub-forum though...on second thought the "Natural World" fits even better.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Lilly
addition

[spud the mackem]

Honestly, it looks like a natural rock formation to me.

I think this topic would be better served in the astronomy sub-forum though...on second thought the "Natural World" fits even better.

Edited April 15, 2012 by spud the mackem