This site your pointing to is just someone’s personal debunking site.
That's my site. The front page has only the one link, to an article examining an anomaly claim several years ago, because people were looking for it after The Electric Warrior wrote a retrospective about it. I use the site as a general repository for Mars image work, accessed through specific links into it. There's no table of contents to give you the complete picture, which is too bad--most of my Mars work is "straight" science.
This is not science by any means. The photo you provided looks like a cheap imitation of Sigmond's photo.
Get a grip. I published the original images. The photo Sigmond referenced is a poor reproduction, from a magazine, and an enlargement to boot, that just "happens" to cut off the telltale lower part of the original that makes it easier to see that it's just a camera artifact.
Nonsense? Sounds like you don't know much about science. A basic part of science is examining the evidence...like I did. That's how you separate the nonsense from the truth. Nonsense is selecting one image out of dozens showing the same camera streak, and trying to sucker the gullible into believing it's an alien spacecraft.
Unfortunately, it worked, didn't it?
--Robert
Space/Science » in reply to Not obvious at all. The case looks to be still open...
Get real