Saturday, August 8, 2009

The Monolith of Mars?

Monoliths, monoliths everywhere....

This one sure does look the part (it even seems to have the correct 1:4:9 proportions), despite the fact that it appears to be white and not black. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke are smiling somewhere and having a laugh...

Granted, this does come from the Sun (not that there's anything wrong with that -- I do so love Page 3) and there is no image number, but it sure looks like a legit MRO image.
Thanks to Joe for the link.


  1. Maybe the white color is only
    the glare of the sun....


    Hathor -- Looking at the bright side (small pun)


  2. Is crystal clear that near the monolith is Fred Flinstone,
    Bamm-Bamm and Dino. Wilma is on a movie with Pebbles and Bety & Fred.


    I only said that to discourage Jimbo to make another clever statement.


  3. It's a real Hirise image. I've downloaded the pic and it's really there just like it looks in the pic you posted. It might take a minute for me to dig it up again but I could post the image number if you want.

  4. Hello.

    Here's the monolith....(copy and paste the link)

    Sure looks like it. A flat piece of "rock".

  5. Actually KS15, looking at that image I see another 2 possible monoliths.

    The other 2 don't look as symmetrical as the one the arrow is pointing to.

  6. Hey jimbo it's a hirise picture. You can find it at the hirise website. I thoght that was pretty obvious. Shouldn't a big time science guy like you be able to figure things like that out? How do you get all those jobs showing up on TV when you don't even know where to look for pictures from mars?

    Anyway, just because you want me to hold your hand, here you go.

    Now you'll have to download the big image and have the right software to view it. But didn't you allready know that too?

  7. I read the Sun article and got a *huge* laugh over the obligatory 'skeptic disclaimer' at the end of the article:

    "A spokesman for the university's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory said: "It would be unwise to refer to it as a 'monolith' or 'structure' because that implies something artificial, like it was put there by someone for example."

    Unwise? More like 'unwelcome', as far as the secret-keepers are concerned. It is way too symmetrical and straight-edged to be anything but artificial, so the lid is now off on the presence of a MONOLITH, thanks to the hi-res imagery. This is just what the suppression-at-all-costs folks fear: images that need no helpfully obscurant 'decoding' and are of sufficient quality to exclude the possibility of the 'equipment artifact' excuse.

    The last paragraph of the Sun article went on to observe:

    "In reality it's more likely that this boulder has been created by breaking away from the bedrock to create a rectangular-shaped feature."

    I'm sure everyone is noting that they are not saying that the object *is* a weathered feature; rather, they are being dragged along kicking and screaming by the very blatant and un-fudge-able evidence, so they use the old feeble-speak: 'more likely breaking bedrock'. This is tantamount to a back-hand admission, that probably would sound something like: '*cough*, *cough*, *monolith*, *cough*, *cough*'...




  8. to me..looking at this amazing picture...the obvious question is...why is the shadow wider than the width of the monolith..the sunlit part that is..? form of structure or architecture of this monolith or this artificial slab is not the likely explanation given the lightsources angle for it would not be a monolith then...

    anyone :-)

  9. Looks like the top part of the shadow is the same width as the slab, but the bottom part is wider, maybe because the shadow is picking up part of the rise or platform upon which the slab stands.

    Mono=one, Lith=stone



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.