Crashed disc on Mars appears on MRO image

An image of what clearly appears to be an impact furrow and an associated actual crashed UFO-like disc-shaped object has been discovered in a Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter photograph,
 https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/...-46-AM.jpg . An article discussing this is at https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/...mber-2006/ . This doesn't seem to be like one of the vaguely man-made object images previously offered - this one at least looks definite. The article writer even includes the ZIP file of the original high-resolution image. What does NASA say? Could this be a hoax?

 

An image of what clearly appears to be an impact furrow and an associated actual crashed UFO-like disc-shaped object has been discovered in a Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter photograph,
 https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/...-46-AM.jpg . An article discussing this is at https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/...mber-2006/ . This doesn't seem to be like one of the vaguely man-made object images previously offered - this one at least looks definite. The article writer even includes the ZIP file of the original high-resolution image. What does NASA say? Could this be a hoax?

 

At first glance it does appear to clearly show an impact furrow, but how do you know that? There's too little information to state such a thing. Such a statement reminds me how certain many had there was a "Mars Face" when in fact it was just a geological feature upon close inspection.

What does NASA say? Could this be a hoax?

It might be nice to see if the landscape suddenly rises where it’s buried. Why should it suddenly bury itself after ‘skipping’ along the surface for a while?

On further inspection it looks like the curved part that goes to make up part of the disc is similar to the many raised but straight portions along the ‘crash path’. 

Interesting, but to me, I doubt it’s what it possibly looks like. One for the geologists rather than ufologists?

It might be nice to see if the landscape suddenly rises where it’s buried. Why should it suddenly bury itself after ‘skipping’ along the surface for a while?

On further inspection it looks like the curved part that goes to make up part of the disc is similar to the many raised but straight portions along the ‘crash path’. 

Interesting, but to me, I doubt it’s what it possibly looks like. One for the geologists rather than ufologists?

I don't see much similarity there. 

And then, I don't think Nature produces naturally occurring perfect circles of the perfection demonstrated here. It does produce fairly straight and some square or rectangular block-like fractures and weathering in rock layers however.

I don't see much similarity there. 

And then, I don't think Nature produces naturally occurring perfect circles of the perfection demonstrated here. 

It is apparent you did not do a web image search. I want it to be aliens too but I am pretty sure it is a natural geological formation.

And then, I don't think Nature produces naturally occurring perfect circles of the perfection demonstrated here. It does produce fairly straight and some square or rectangular block-like fractures and weathering in rock layers however.

Surely a circle, like a sphere is the most obvious and simple shape for natural object to adopt? The Sun and Moon are roughly spherical, shaped by gravity, though distorted by rotational forces. On a smaller scale, rather than gravity, there are other forces which can produces spheres, such as surface tension in molten materials. Passage through an atmosphere of an object is enough to heat it until it is molten, as well as to shape it so it is a disc rather than spherical in shape. At ground-level, the action of wind or water can erode objects so the rough edges are rounded. It is easy enough to dig in the ground or on the beach and find pebbles which are round or flattened and round. These are natural objects. Nature also produces natural "ice circles".

I don't know what is in the photograph though. But I had two very different thoughts. One, a meteorite. Two (more likely in my opinion), an object which slithered along the ground by forces of the wind or possibly water. A google image search for "walking rocks" produces many examples on the Earth. Only one of the images shows a rock with feet.

Surely a circle, like a sphere is the most obvious and simple shape for natural object to adopt? The Sun and Moon are roughly spherical, shaped by gravity, though distorted by rotational forces. On a smaller scale, rather than gravity, there are other forces which can produces spheres, such as surface tension in molten materials. Passage through an atmosphere of an object is enough to heat it until it is molten, as well as to shape it so it is a disc rather than spherical in shape. At ground-level, the action of wind or water can erode objects so the rough edges are rounded. It is easy enough to dig in the ground or on the beach and find pebbles which are round or flattened and round. These are natural objects. Nature also produces natural "ice circles".

I don't know what is in the photograph though. But I had two very different thoughts. One, a meteorite. Two (more likely in my opinion), an object which slithered along the ground by forces of the wind or possibly water. A google image search for "walking rocks" produces many examples on the Earth. Only one of the images shows a rock with feet.

I can't think of any plausible natural forces-type of non-manufactured theories for an object like this 15-20 meters in diameter at the end of what appears to be a pushed-through trench. The molten meteorite theory doesn't work based just on our experience on Earth. Ever hear of a perfectly spherical or disc-shaped meteorite? A weathered boulder? Maybe, but I've never seen such a perfect circular arc produced by geological/meteorological conditions. It would be interesting to research geological sources for this. The forces of wind or water? On relatively recent Mars, with an exceedingly thin atmosphere and virtually no water at least on the surface?

The most likely hypothesis other than that it is really a manufactured object seems to me to be that it is a very clever digital fake, entirely or partially. For instance, it could be a digital retouch job starting with something only vaguely artificial looking. We know that the digital technology to accomplish this exists and works well, in fact the technology to produce very much more deceiving "deep fakes" of things like human faces and figures, even moving video images.

I would like to check the original image, but the file furnished in the article wouldn't load on my PC, partly because it apparently is very large, around 1.4 GB. And there of course is no guarantee it is really a genuine NASA file.

I can't think of any plausible natural forces-type of non-manufactured theories for an object like this 15-20 meters in diameter at the end of what appears to be a pushed-through trench. The molten meteorite theory doesn't work based just on our experience on Earth. Ever hear of a perfectly spherical or disc-shaped meteorite? A weathered boulder? Maybe, but I've never seen such a perfect circular arc produced by geological/meteorological conditions. It would be interesting to research geological sources for this. The forces of wind or water? On relatively recent Mars, with an exceedingly thin atmosphere and virtually no water at least on the surface?

The most likely hypothesis other than that it is really a manufactured object seems to me to be that it is a very clever digital fake, entirely or partially. For instance, it could be a digital retouch job starting with something only vaguely artificial looking. We know that the digital technology to accomplish this exists and works well, in fact the technology to produce very much more deceiving "deep fakes" of things like human faces and figures, even moving video images.

I would like to check the original image, but the file furnished in the article wouldn't load on my PC, partly because it apparently is very large, around 1.4 GB. And there of course is no guarantee it is really a genuine NASA file.

Too much thinking and not enough knowledge. A Earthly sand dune. Notice the similarity?    

https://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro...-dune2.htm

http://cosmicdiary.org/lfenton/2020/02/17/dome-dunes/

I'd like to add an alternative view.

The main article link here:
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/...mber-2006/
starts out with a deliberately leading or misleading headline: "Crashed Disc-Shaped Object"

I had a real-world example very recently. I was looking at an old family photo, one which was very familiar to me, but one tiny detail was quite ambiguous and somewhat blurry, as well as being partially obscured by the surface texture of the paper on which it was printed. I figured out a way to approximately remove the effect of the paper texture, clarifying the image to an extent. Suddenly I saw what it was.

Next I needed another pair of eyes to look at the newly cleaned-up image and tell me what they saw. There was only one other living relative I could reasonably ask, so I had just one shot at this. I could not afford to get it wrong. So I took great pains not to say anything at all about what I thought I saw. I didn't muddy the waters by saying the equivalent of "Hey, look at this crashed disc-shaped object!". That would have made asking for a second opinion worthless.

Likewise, the only way to get at what is really shown in the Mars photos is to discard any preconceived notions about what to expect. Just walk in there cold, without expectations. Study the whole image in its entirety, as well as the area under consideration. Do look particularly for similar features elsewhere in the image, if any. By all means narrow down attention to that local area under consideration, since it is a very large image and studying each tiny part in detail could take months.

Too much thinking and not enough knowledge. A Earthly sand dune. Notice the similarity?

https://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro...-dune2.htm

http://cosmicdiary.org/lfenton/2020/02/17/dome-dunes/

I'm leaning in a similar direction. There are a lot of features on the Mars photo which at first I thought might be cracks or fissures, but after looking at the picture from many angles, I think they are indeed sand dunes. The Earth photo of crescent-shaped sand dunes in Namibia to which you linked seems very close to what I was thinking.