Weird Mars Photos????

What do people think about these photo's????, ive seen them on quite a few sites ....
I imagine this could be some kind of cooled/fossilised lava????

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

although from this photo, it looks as if the 3 tube things are all from/heading into that hole????, or is it a shadow

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and this????
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/Thor4.gif

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've seen these photo's along with many other similar anomolies from the surface of Mars, and I'm not talking about the face on Mars.

I put it into the category of very interesting, and absolutely in need of further research. However, I will not label it as proof of a previous intelligent presence on the planet.

1. Do I believe there's intelligent life in the Universe outside of planet Earth? Absolute. You'd be an ignorant fool not to think this.

2. Do I believe that we are being visited by Extraterrestial intelligent beings? Absolutely. The evidence stands on its own.

3. Do I believe Roswell was something other than the latest Mogul Balloon explanation? Absolutely I do. I just don't believe that qualified Military personel would have difficulty destiguishing a Weather balloon, from a Space Ship from another world.

4. Do I believe our Govmt(I use this term very broadly) has proof, and has had face to face meetings with certain members of this extraterrestial intelligence? Yes I do. Even moreso after hearing the latest Project Disclosure testimonies.

5. Do I think there are ancient or current, non-natural structures, on the planet Mars?? I don't have an opinion yet. I agree the evidence is intrieging, but it isn't enough for me to form an opinion yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is an exaplantion from a JPL photo analyst:

http://www.rense.com/general9/jpl.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ivan,

You collection of explantions, granted they're quoted from NASA, are another official collection of Bull shit. Especially, if they're direct comments from NASA.

I don't know what they are, but I will not accept they're an illusion of light, or shadows. That's way to easy of a way out. With all the other evidence pointing to possible structures on the planet, any new anomolies just points to the fact that they need to explore further. Or, better yet, have someone else explore this area. I've grown very leary of any US backed explanations regarding anything. That includes what happens on our own planet.

 

So the more plasible and realistic explanation of ground effect due to wind is shadowed by your hatred of NASA. Sounds like someone who's full of bullshit themselves. What the hell is wrong with people looking into things so much? A Virgin Mary on a tree stump, for example, draws out the loonies because there is a mild resemblence to a fucking oval. It's the same as these Mars pictures. They CLEARLY look like dunes that are formed in valleys when wind whips over one dune and forms dunes in the wind shadow of another dune. Nothing too special. So live your lives under the paranoia of the unknown...or get smarter and figure out realistic causes of interesting things. We're not living in an episode of X-files.

 

Ivan,

I'm not talking about Hoagland here. I find his theories to be very questionable. I'm also not drawing any conclusions here. It could very well be natural phenomana, but as of now, I think it should be researched more before an explanation is given.

What's wrong with saying we don't know what it is yet? Why the need to immediately stamp it with a conclusion?

 

Now where did I ever conclude anything??

If you go back and re-read what I posted, you'll see I only said it was interesting, and that it should be looked into further.

BTW: I have no hatred for NASA. What I do have is a deep mistrust in them. But hatred? Where'd you ever get that?

Also, how did the Virgin Mary get involved in this?

 

It was an example of people seeing more into something then there really is.

BTW: I have no hatred for NASA. What I do have is a deep mistrust in them. But hatred? Where'd you ever get that?

What you said is a rather bias statement. A deep mistrust means you expect something else to really be going on behind the scenes; a conspiracy perhaps? What I'm getting at is these are smart people and they are not trying to bullshit anyone. If you look closely at the pictures you can see what he is talking about, even without an explanation. Again, people looking into something more than they should.

 

Im not really sure what the "objects" are, but they dont look like sand dunes , every strange thing nasa comes accross they say it's nothing.

Nasa may be full of knowlegable people , but that counts for nothing if they have a closed mind.

also, i bet nasa doesn't have a clue what most of these "anomolies" are, but still they say its natrual formations etc....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

theres only one way to find out

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Regards

Alex

 

I think it is you who are reading more into my words than what I'm actually saying. I'll say it again, I think the photo's are intrieging, and should be further studied.

A biased statement??

It's an opinion based on a history of deciet & lies. I think you need to look into the history of NASA a bit closer. For the most part, it's been thier own people who have blown the whistle on them.

 

I referenced Hoagland since he broke this story. however, I know the photo is legit since some years ago I downloaded the original from NASA myself.

What's wrong is that we have what appears to be a complete explanation; we don't need another...for no good reason. The only investigation worth doing would be to confirm or not the claims of the JPL scientist. It sounds to me like he knows what he's talking about. Considering his position, he almost certainly does.

Investigate the author; not the photo. With some work you should be able to find other examples of this illusion.

 

Think again. A very mysterious observation would be a Cristhmas present to NASA. Don't you think they would just LOVE to be able to use such an observation in their annual struggle for funding? "Mr. President, something very odd is going on on Mars. We need to investigate before it is too late! 420 billion would probably do for starters."

Hans

 

Aside from the explanation given, my first guess, after first nearly peeing my pants and passing out when I first viewed the photo, was that these are some kind of silicate or crystalline structure formed by ancient and natural geologic processes. For example, I first imagined lava flowing underground, throough sand. If we consider the lava tubes found underground,near volcanoes, it seemed plausible that this process, if taking place in sandy soil, could result in the formation of glass tubes that were then later exposed.

Again, this is not my theory; these were my first thoughts upon viewing the photo. My point is that other natural phenomenon could account for something even as bizzare as these faux tubes appear to be.

 

If nasa would consider something strange on mars etc.... a christmas present, why do they LIE and dont take seriously the hundreads of satrnge incident on the moon, probes, and near the iss....

Nasa is a pile of crap intent on not taking the "strange" things seriously (as in ufo)....

surely a huge ufo hovering 100 miles above the earth captured on a wheather satelite should be taken seriously????

 

Star 1: Maybe it is because they realize that there is nothing strange there? Ya know, they have more knowledge of the possible conditions in these places than anybody else.

I always laugh at the ideas of huge UFOs hovering here and there. Are you aware that NASA and the DOD are tracking practically every bit of space junk (thousands of objects) down to about dime size continuously? Believe me, they would notice a "huge UFO"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Hans

 

Ii suppose

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BUT i have no faith in nasa and dod tracking everything, they seem to miss a awful lot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also, surely Nasa is just as clueless as us , i doubt they really no what mars is about , untill they send some decent probes there and possible humans , all anyone will be able to do is guess

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

NASA is merely a public front, much in the same way Project Blue Book was.

NASA knows full well what is going on.

They're aware that many UFO reports are real.

They're part of the coverup. Their own employees,(Astronauts) have stated they're told not to talk about what they see.

I believe that the Space program has been turned over to the military.

 

MRC_Hans, although I don't agree with star1, the idea that ET couldn't evade RADAR is equally unsupported. Even we can evade RADAR. Also, there are anomolous images that are dismissed without certainty as various lens flares and such. Just because someone can imagine a prosaic explanation for these images, it does not mean that they are correct.

In this case, the author claims that we can find examples of this illusion elsewhere. Since I have investigated these kinds of things for many years, and since I think I can tell a dodge when I see one, by my own experience and knowledge I take this gentleman at his word.

 

I saw some of those "tunnel" on some other mars photos i was ;ooking at (at the marlin website), i didnt make a note of which photo it was though, but it was iside a crater, and it didnt look like "sand dunes"....

Also on another website they had some other "tunnel" picture's i think it was the enterprise mission site....

I will endever to find the crater "tunnel" pic....

 

Yeah it looks wierd to me, but the lack of any speculation AND follor up from both sides erks me. An artificial tunnel? Hmmm... we need better photos. Just an anomoli? Can you show me a desert on Earth which created the same thing? Try Antartica and let's see if it does. There HAS to be more possibilities than these two, don't their? I haven't thought of any yet, but I'm stuck by how narrow in scope and focus both sides on this thread are.