Again your photos are far worse than mine. Find better evidence to prove I am wrong. It is a testing site however what has hit the ground in the immagery is unknown. First of all you have to know the area. I have been to the site and am familiar with the topography. I know what is natural and what is not. The object in the evidence I am putting forward is some kind of structured craft with a bubble in the middle of it. It is plain to see. Show me that you can prove with some evidence (i.e. photographic) it is anything other that ETV and I will believe you.
As long as you continue to make this statement based on a false interpretation, and decline the advice of those who have some experience in these matters, then I shall continue to point out it is a natural formation. I know this because, as a geologist, I was trained to interpret such photographs.
What is the strike and elevation of the site? What stratigraphic member outcrops there? What are the predominant species of vegetation? First, its very obviously not plain to see, or we wouldn't be having the discussion. Second, why would the military/government leave the alleged craft there for even the amount of time this thread has existed? Even crash sites of commercial airliners get removed to hangers for forensic study once the provenience of each piece is recorded. I think that it is quite clear that you do not know what is natural and what is not. Go see it. The burden of proof is upon you, sir. Not Persol or anyone else to prove a negative. There simply isn't anything in your photograph from the first page that is inconsistent with the geology/ecology of the area.
Okay... I've been looking back and trying to see if I missed something in your initial posts... First, the image from the post that you quoted above is much clearer than yours... they both originate form USGS, however. Second, what right angles are you referring to? Third, there really aren't that many roads in the area. Most of what you probably think are roads are merely erosional results of flash flooding. A hill.
Elevation is 5500 feet above sea level, the stratigraphic members are predominantly orientated from north to south not east west like the object in the photograph. The rock strata is limestone the soil is a sandy Lomb. Vegetation consists of three main species Mesquite sparse, Creosol common and Yucca sparse. That is a good question. The why I do not know. It crashed on property that is not open to the public. Let us say they shot it down it is possible. Now they may not need to move it if they can study it where it sits. They might of had taken piece by piece to study the object and may not need to move it. If you consider the recent project that NASA crashed into the ground they did not move it at first they studied the object where it dug into the ground from impact. It was much smaller so transporting the object was not an issue. Also it was not located in rough terrain. I do know the area and have tried to gain access to the site. I have been rejected access to the site on several occasions. The structure on the first page clearly illustrates an object with many right angles that do not occur in the natural landscape of the area and furthermore is evidence that it is an object constructed by and intelligent being. It is clearly not an outcropping. So I have put forward evidence to support my case. On the other hand you have shown little evidence to disprove my theory. To state it is anything other than a crashed object would require evidence to support that claim. The photograph you supplied was fuzzy and much less resolution than the one I supplied. Believe it or not It is my theory that this object has crashed into the ground and the evidence it overwhelming much more so than any evident to the contrary.
They both originate from the same place however the one I uploaded is of better quality. Compare both images and you will see the object with right angles. http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3681&stc=1 http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3682&stc=1 The roads are clear and defined. they are not due to erosion because the run horizontal with the grade and terrain. The object is on the back side of a hill and the roads around it are clearly to access the object. The road on the front side of the hill is visible from HWY 70.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that this image: <img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3681&stc=1"> is of higher resolution and of better quality than this image: <img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3571&stc=1"> I'm always fascinated by the number of people who will state "nature doesn't make right angles," But, the "right angles" you see aren't right angles at all. Nor do you even outline them with your edited version: <img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3682&stc=1"> Next, while there are roads present, much of what is also present is simply from a direction of slightly upper-left to slightly lower-right (NW to SE on either side of the hill). Roads and tank trails are to be expected throughout the White Sands training areas. Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are used heavily there, as is the M109 Paladin, both of which are tracked vehicles. Both of which require approximately 25 - 30 support vehicles ranging from Hummers to HEMMTs to APCs. They need roads. The DoD rotates training lands in accordance with land usage policies in order to prevent environmental damage... so one might not necessarily see evidence of use in obvious ways (like cammo nets and live fire events), but eventually, all the land gets used. I've been all over White Sands. I've even been in that area, though I don't remember it specifically. I assure you, there is nothing out of the ordinary in your photos. Moreover, I've used aerial and sat photos as intel on many occasions and can say that I'm experienced as anyone you might run across in interpreting these images. The specific site you have indicated is a hill. The "anomolies" are tricks of the light, which to the novice can look strange, but once you've seen enough you look forward to them because they can give you clues to dead-zones and cover that hills, valleys and saddles can provide. In conclusion, do you think its possible that you reject the second image simply because your "anomoly" isn't present. Clearly it is the one of finer resolution. You can even make out the individual ruts of the tank trail running along the northeast corner as well as individual scrubs.
For a small fee, you can have the Ikonos satellite images for your very own use.... http://vn4.cs.fiu.edu/cgi-bin/tfdis...&Long=-106.501000&tab=ikon&label=Ikonos Scene
Thanks I will look into the site, meanwhile can you find the helicopter in the immages above? Also your photo has been edited this is apparent when it is enlarged. The pixles do not line up and there is a figure of a man that is not in my photo so I am forced to believe they are not the same photo or they may be the same photo however the one you have supplied has been heavily re-touched "WOW" I must be on to somthing here. I have enhanced the photo one more time and it shows extreem interest in whatever it is look at the roads leading up to the object and what apears to be crains at the site. This detail in your immage has been obstructed. <img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3687&stc=1">
I would have made a slightly different interpretation given Starman's intransigence. I would have called it a fucking hill. Starman, open your eyes.
My eyes are open are yours? This is not a natural formation. I guess you feel that the millitary just is realy interested in a rock at that site. I was born at night but it was not last night.
Perhaps they are interested in a Meteorlogical station, radar station, communications relay station, etc, etc. I remember seeing all of these types of stations while working at White Sands. Indeed, they are each necessary in order to conduct live-fire and test-fire missions of indirect artillery and other weapons systems. There's nothing unusual about having fenced in station on a military base.
Granted however it is highly unusual to have something on that order located on the back side of a hill in rough terrain. There are plenty of tracking stations around, they are located at advantage points as would be any Meteorological station, radar station, communications relay station, etc, etc. Not hidden from view in a remote wash.
That's bunk. The station has a completely paved road leading all the way to it. Moreover, you put these things were they are needed not where they are convenient. I've been to several such stations during my 12 years in the military. Many were much more difficult to get to and in far more remote locations. Your hypothesis simply does not hold water. In fact, I think I've live-fired from that region with MLRS. They definately do not put those in places obvious to the public.
Come to think of it, I believe we had a field ASP (ammunition supply point) that was situated much like this station is. It would be ironic if this was that very station! I wish I still had my topo maps... I had all that stuff marked out with grid references in the margins.
Maby you can explain the rock wall they built around the site complete with guard stations. Not all the locations of the observation points are visiable to the public. Do you know about RAT SCAT?
What rock wall. Surely you're not interpreting one from the aerial/sat photos? Sure. http://www.rodentcontrol-supplies.com/ground_rat_droppings.jpg
Well RAT SCAT is a secret Radar Testing Facility at White Sands I was just trying to see how knowledgable you are about the area. I guess not as much as I thought. If you can not even see the Rock Wall and the Guard station then I will take the liberty to point it out to you. <img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3696&stc=1">
If it's secret, then how did you know about it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Besides, there are many things about my former career that couldn't discuss even if I wanted to (see this link). I can only tell you that none of it concerns flying saucers or alien spacecraft. If you think that bit of shrubery is a guardstation and the creek is a rockwall, then you really should look at the higher resolution photo that I linked to above that one. Have you ever seen these features in other images or in person?
