It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Put the Crown Face Image on Mars Through Photo Editing And This Is What I Got

page: 8
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you have a hard time believing this is a natural formation?
taobabe.files.wordpress.com...


There are those that believe the Earth, the entire planet, and all other astronomical bodies are in fact, segments of a larger life form, or rather a life force..in which case, if they are on the right track at least...there are NO natural formations, all is deliberately lain out before us, using natural materials to form these odd looking unnatural features.

Depends on your point of view in more ways that one i suppose.
edit on 27-5-2015 by MysterX because: typo




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you have a hard time believing this is a natural formation?
taobabe.files.wordpress.com...


There are those that believe the Earth, the entire planet, and all other astronomical bodies are in fact, segments of a larger life form, or rather a life force..in which case, if they are on the right track at least...there are NO natural formations, all is deliberately lain out before us, using natural materials to form these odd looking unnatural features.

Depends on your point of view in more ways that one i suppose.


So. . . the face of Jeebus in a piece of toast is put there by the universe?!



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you have a hard time believing this is a natural formation?
taobabe.files.wordpress.com...


There are those that believe the Earth, the entire planet, and all other astronomical bodies are in fact, segments of a larger life form, or rather a life force..in which case, if they are on the right track at least...there are NO natural formations, all is deliberately lain out before us, using natural materials to form these odd looking unnatural features.

Depends on your point of view in more ways that one i suppose.


So. . . the face of Jeebus in a piece of toast is put there by the universe?!


I suppose that still requires some laws of physics, wouldn't you say?

The transference of energy from one to another. The energy is heat is transferred to a burnt image. Science in action.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I have to admit that the enhanced pic is interesting, but only as a curiosity. Because it's "enhanced" and shows features which are not there. I really wanted the Face to be there, but it's not. There may be life on Mars or evidence of life on Mars, but I don't think this is it anymore.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
Because it's "enhanced" and shows features which are not there. I really wanted the Face to be there, but it's not.


Features are there, that's why you see them.

You see a face because of the the features, right? So therefore you see a face.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: jaffo
Because it's "enhanced" and shows features which are not there. I really wanted the Face to be there, but it's not.


Features are there, that's why you see them.

You see a face because of the the features, right? So therefore you see a face.


Nah. You see something vaguely face-like until you enhance it. THEN you see a face. And as has already been shown previously, MANY features right here on Earth look very much like faces even though they are not in fact carved or altered by anything other than nature. A civilization that could alter an entire mountain would surely have left other traces of their endeavors which should be pretty visible. Who knows? Maybe time will prove me wrong if and when we land there, but for now I am going with "it's a rock." That said, Mars' moons are very strange as well and I still wonder what in the world caused the marks we see on Phobos. So anything is possible. . .



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

ok - can we have the workflow path that created this " enhanced " image ?

because - to be blunt - most " enhanced " images that get posted up here - are run through filter after filter - saving only the edits that show what the " enhancer " wants to see and undoing any changes that dont .

i suspect that this is your MO too .

which means that your " results " are utter twaddle



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Now we are left with interpretation. And that's what science is all about, interpretation of facts.

FACT: There are features that look like a face.


A HUMAN face... with a terrestrial "crown". But then you are not referencing anything human, yes? So the assumption now is that "aliens" have human-like faces and wear terrestrial-looking hats, or have heads with human-like faces and crown-like skull caps, and built mega structures in their own likeness in martian antiquity. Now who's making the assumptions again?


FACT: By applying filters to said image, the face is more obvious.


By applying filters it looks more like you want it to look.


FACT: I published said scientific method.


What method... photoshop?


FACT: I published it for peer review.


Where? Who reviewed it?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

A HUMAN face... with a terrestrial "crown".




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: WarminIndy

ok - can we have the workflow path that created this " enhanced " image ?

because - to be blunt - most " enhanced " images that get posted up here - are run through filter after filter - saving only the edits that show what the " enhancer " wants to see and undoing any changes that dont .

i suspect that this is your MO too .

which means that your " results " are utter twaddle


Very glad to show you what I did...

I went here to the free online photo editor by Pixlr (an Autodesk program), I uploaded the image.

Then I went to Adjustment ---> Brightness and Contrast.

When the dialogue box appeared, I merely slid the Brightness down to -36 (it might be different on your monitor, mine is a Sony Vaio All in One Windows 7 with Nvidia). Then I slid the Contrast to -5

You can do it as well, those are the only steps I used.

Pixlr --> Upload --> Adjustments --> Brightness and Contrast

No MO and you can do it also.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

A HUMAN face... with a terrestrial "crown".





And after applying my published and peer reviewed scientific filtration method we get this:




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Did you not even read my post?

I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.

I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.

I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.

Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.

You can disagree all you want, scientific method relies on interpretation of facts. I offered all that is required. Now you can stop the accusation of hoaxing because I have shown what steps were taken. And if you had read my posts you would know that I said that I had wanted to debunk it.

Everybody now has access to replicate it by that same method.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
Regardless if the theory presenter is right or wrong, someone else picks up a nugget and creates a massive breakthrough -

How would someone thinking they see something that doesn't actually exist lead to any sort of "massive breakthrough" in anything?


It is a speculation that it doesn't exist; none of us have been to Mars to verify this - so we speculate...and on a website such as ATS that scrutinizes everything produced by NASA, or Aliens - speculation is a common practice.

I applauded this persons ability to question and think outside of the box, which helps others to think outside of the box., and by thinking outside of the box - that's where breakthroughs come from and why I said we need more people doing this.


As Aristotle said - It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought with out accepting it.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

'Our world' is my reference not to Mars - but our history and the use of today's technology to define and expand on what is more than a passing curiosity, to uncover what many still believe is a mystery.

Some believe our world is only 6000 years old where others believe we are much older...and others believe we are invaded/helped by Aliens -

Regardless of a theory being right or wrong, for in time the truth of it will be proven ..I am grateful to those who push the envelope and help others to open their minds.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2

Did you not even read my post?

I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.

I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.

I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.

Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.

You can disagree all you want, scientific method relies on interpretation of facts. I offered all that is required. Now you can stop the accusation of hoaxing because I have shown what steps were taken. And if you had read my posts you would know that I said that I had wanted to debunk it.

Everybody now has access to replicate it by that same method.


"Peer reviewed." You keep using that word. . . I do not think it means what you think it means. For example, if I write a paper stating that magic elves build my shoes and include grainy manipulated pictures of said elves and then pass that around to my friends, or "peers," it does not mean that my paper has been "peer reviewed." I'm just saying.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Power_Semi

Many say I do...but I don't think it's a special power. youtu.be... This is my personal decoding of the mysterious Nazca Lines. Some call it pareidolia while others claim it to be the Holy Grail to Antiquity. Decide yourself.

I think everybody has the same ability, they haven't refined it or choose not to use it. The reality of it is, we live in a fear based world with many bullies so the majority of people lose the courage to go against what the crowd is doing...or believing.

For the record...I have no opinion on the Mars faces being real or that Cydonia is in fact a pyramid city - I am merely applauding the ability of someone's nature to question authority and think outside the normal stream of conciousness.

edit on 27-5-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2

Did you not even read my post?

I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.

I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.

I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.

Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.

You can disagree all you want, scientific method relies on interpretation of facts. I offered all that is required. Now you can stop the accusation of hoaxing because I have shown what steps were taken. And if you had read my posts you would know that I said that I had wanted to debunk it.

Everybody now has access to replicate it by that same method.


"Peer reviewed." You keep using that word. . . I do not think it means what you think it means. For example, if I write a paper stating that magic elves build my shoes and include grainy manipulated pictures of said elves and then pass that around to my friends, or "peers," it does not mean that my paper has been "peer reviewed." I'm just saying.


May I say again...
Scientific method was used. ANYONE can use scientific method. I think you prefer the Establishment to tell you that you can't think or investigate anything on your own?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2

Did you not even read my post?

I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.

I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.

I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.

Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.

You can disagree all you want, scientific method relies on interpretation of facts. I offered all that is required. Now you can stop the accusation of hoaxing because I have shown what steps were taken. And if you had read my posts you would know that I said that I had wanted to debunk it.

Everybody now has access to replicate it by that same method.


"Peer reviewed." You keep using that word. . . I do not think it means what you think it means. For example, if I write a paper stating that magic elves build my shoes and include grainy manipulated pictures of said elves and then pass that around to my friends, or "peers," it does not mean that my paper has been "peer reviewed." I'm just saying.


May I say again...
Scientific method was used. ANYONE can use scientific method. I think you prefer the Establishment to tell you that you can't think or investigate anything on your own?



Yeah, you go ahead and lean on that vague, nebulous "establishment" term to denigrate people you don't even know and who have dedicated their lives to research and discovery utilizing proper methods while you champion photoshop as a leading research tool. Sure, that sounds reasonable, lol. . .



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

A HUMAN face... with a terrestrial "crown".




And after applying my published and peer reviewed scientific filtration method we get this:



HAHA! thank you for that!



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2

Did you not even read my post?

I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.

I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.

I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.

Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.



This statement of yours, is honestly, in my opinion so intensely jaw dropping... for what can only be obvious reasons. I am rarely without words after reading things on here, this time though, I am still trying to come to terms with it actually existing. I keep asking myself, "Is it real? Did I really read that??".
Wow.




top topics



 
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join