The above image provides a context view of the evidence scene which is this case is the entire original Mars Odyssey THEMIS science data strip but here reduced to 30% of its original size. Now the basic artificial color in this image has already been added at official level and is not my work while the arrows and labels added are my work. Now before getting further into this report commentary, please go to the official link below and read the official lengthy comments on this particular locale applying mostly to its geological features and properties.
As per the official commentary, this general area is influenced by volcanic changes. This influence formed lengthy narrow fissures across the terrain. At this site and others nearby, over periods of time in the ancient past liquid water (as well as lava) has gushed out of the fissures pointed out by the black arrows and text in the northeast or upper right corner of the image and flowed down slope southwest from the upper right to the lower left. The paths of the stronger water flows eroding the terrain are obvious and marked in the image by the blue arrows.
The size of two of the craters in this scene is given and in the official text and reflected in the above image labeling. Note that the largest crater at the mid-right is some 12 miles or 20 km across. This reminds us that this image offers a very distant view. That means that objects down there appear normal size but are actually very much larger as only huge objects can be adequately seen.
Now my reporting here does not disagree with the official reporting. The visual evidence supports the fissure water outflows and the terrain erosion as the flows traveled from northeast to southwest. On the other hand, the intensity of the larger crater shadows is considerably less than the late afternoon shadows cast by the many smaller objects in the terrain all around them indicate. The exact opposite should be true of the more massive elevated objects like the craters that should be throwing long intense shadows but aren’t. The largest crater is the most guilty of this. This is a clue that some of this terrain has been visually manipulated and may not be entirely trustworthy.
The above second image demonstrates what the official science commentary had labeled “puzzle pieces.” The main consensus theory is that these huge blocks were once cooling and hardening lava rock riding on top of hotter more fluid lava layers below. On this shifting and unstable lower level surface, the surface cooling and hardening upper layers cracked forming into these huge titanic blocks. It is just some geological information thrown in here in this reporting for its interest factor.
On the other hand, note the fairly heavily eroded water course pointed out by the blue arrows and its path. Note that in the upper areas the water flow was deflected around the area of huge broken up blocks. Obviously, the water flow and its erosion happened after the time of the lava blocks presence and just as clearly the lava blocks represent elevated terrain partially blocking and deflecting the water flow path.
At the same time, note that all of the separations or great cracks between the blocks are oriented in an angled downward direction that would have allowed some of the rushing water to have been diverted into their maze. In fact, the crack direction orientation suggests it is likely that the rushing water helped carved out these gaps or separations between the blocks and in some part likely became trapped in this maze. Therefore, although we can’t see it here, it is quite possible that the deeper depths of these many cracks between these titanic blocks may contain residual water from the flows.
The above three images show some unusual smaller (but not small) terrain surface forms and demonstrates their lengthy intense shadows in this THEMIS imaging. As you can see, except possibly for the middle #3b image, the shadows are pronounced in the late afternoon sunlight but don’t seem to always agree with the object throwing them. Now remember that this is infrared imaging, so the lighter color the object, the more heat it is generating in the infrared and the cooler it is with the darker colors. This tends to wash out detail on the hotter signature objects preventing us from getting a good look at it.
The next above three images show another bright reflective object casting a shadow but viewed at three different 100%, 200% and 300% zoom factors. In the left more distant view with less detail, this at first appears to be a surface based tall object with a shadow radiating out from its based area on the left. However, something just looks too wrong with this picture the closer it is observed.
Note the shadow at the upper left end of the object and how the shadow end rounds matching the round end shape of the object but notice how it comes back under the bright reflective object. This suggests that there is no connection between the object and its shadow on the ground. In other words, the shadow does not seem to be radiating out from a base area on the object as it does with the object in the #3b image.
This in turn, despite the object appearing to be on the ground on its long edge, suggests that the object is entirely in the air suspended above its shadow. However, to get a better perspective in this way, you would have to turn your head at such an angle risking a kink in your neck. No need for that with the image below.
In the above next image I’ve rotated the view 90º clockwise and that’s all I’ve done. As you can see, the impression that the bright reflective object is suspended in the air relatively low above the ground and casting its shadow on the ground is now considerably increased.
Once again don’t you wish that we were looking at a regular optical image instead of this infrared image where the heat signature of the sunlight reflective upper surface of the solid object is washing out so much detail there on what we now consider the top surface of the object? Which orientation do you believe is the correct one relative to the visual evidence, the one officially provided, or this rotated view? Which visually fits the available evidence better?
The obvious suggestion is that we may be looking at some kind of craft suspending in the air low over this Mars terrain. Remember as well that this is distant imaging and that this object is actually far larger than it appears here in this image. This object at minimum would be the size of a super aircraft carrier or a small town here on Earth.
Now the scientist’s geology take on this THEMIS infrared image shown here in the first part of this reporting is interesting and understandable. There appears to be no deceit or obfuscation in their comments on their geological analysis of this scene and that is consistent with their scientific specialty. However, surely they are also men and women capable of using simple common sense logic and reason beyond just the scope of their formal training?
The problems with the shadows and their inconsistencies drew me in to looking closer. So why wouldn’t it be the same for them since shadows are normally a geological factor to be considered? How can one ignore much smaller objects throwing strong pronounced afternoon shadows from their base areas out across the terrain in the admitted late afternoon sunlight as shown in images 3b–3c and yet much larger much more massive taller objects do not do so? It is a mystery that should compel closer attention by any scientists, not turn it away.
Once you begin to investigate the shadows in the strip, then the above evidence of course must come into awareness. Do you really believe that NASA scientists did not note the shadows problem and look closer? If you are a NASA scientist, how can evidence like this in the #4a–#4d images just be ignored? Is it because it just doesn’t fit within the accepted mental paradigm box and is therefore routinely disposed of in consciousness? Are our paid professionals loosing the ability to question anything?
In any case, the above #4d image evidence, although not necessarily conclusive proof of anything, is none-the-less far too suggestive and titillating to just be so ignored. I thought it interesting and important enough to devote a report to but you must decide for yourself what you think.
http://themis.asu.edu/features/athabascafloods: This link takes you to the official Arizona State University Mars Odyssey THEMIS science data image from which this report’s evidence was extracted. Note the red arrow in the very first context image in this report pointing to the location of the primary #4a–#4d image evidence.