Do you accept that this NASA photo shows buildings on Mars? Video.

a reply to: klassless

As George Leonard, author of "SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THE MOON", is alleged to have said about his book after it was scrutinized negatively: "forget about it i was a bit of a fool when i wrote it".

So here I offer my apology to the membership for having gotten involved with the image under discussion. I've learned my lesson from the valid criticism.

Even though the consensus is that what he/she sees is not real, the contents of the image reminds of the "ruins" of Yonaguni Monument where the experts are divided between natural and manmade.

Logic dictates that image contains natural formations or formations created by computer. I won't argue as I'm a logical person. But...

Please let the thread die a painful death.

Yeah, there is all kinds of stuff there and on the moon.

a reply to: klassless

This thread died as soon as you mentioned Jeff Rense and buildings on Mars.

You might as well break out the face on Mars and Richard Hoagland while your at it because this story has as much credibility as that one.

a reply to: LABTECH767

No problems, and thanks for the explanation.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
The military are using far more sophisticated program's than you can buy from adobe or any other retail civlian software producer and they most definitely have proprietry technology's which are not in the public domein but you do make an excellent point about how much such an image obscurring technique can make, the closest would en automated blending and cloning tool which would morph cloned section's and use them to overfill the area's to be obscurred with after they had been altered with generated data based on a heuristic analysis of the image's data in area's that were not identified as potential artifact's near to the offending object by the initial image detection software and I for one actually do not believe that is beyond the capabilty of technology today and indeed no beyond the ability to real time manipulate date but it would indeed require some fast processing.

What you are describing is somewhat similar to Photoshop's "Content Aware Fill", but, as you can see in the video below, although it sometimes appears to work as if by magic, in other occasions it fails completely. Also, if you zoom in on the altered area you can usually identify the smaller copied areas.

A kind of "procedural content aware fill", like you describe, would be also possible, but I think that, like Photoshop's, although it could be great in some cases it would fail miserably in others. Something that may fail once in 10,000 cases and that needs to be applied 20,000 times cannot be used as an automated process if the failure means big problems, and being caught trying to hide something would be a big problem for NASA or whoever.

a reply to: ArMaP

Possibly, if you think back the method was used for a long time even before the like's of modern photo and image manipulation program's.
The old Amiga computer which was originally being developed more as a home entertainment system before commodore bought it up had a hardware method of sampling an area of the image on screen and moving it around called a Blitter, a little like a next generation sprite if you can remember the old commodore 64 which used sprite's.
Now they were low end home computers (though the Amiga at inception if not at launch was a real leap forward for home pc's and it remain's a shame that it's superior Motorola cpu technology was destined to become an anachronism due to the prevalence and continued adherance to the older 86 and compatible intel cpu technology's which we are still using today.

To explain that not in doubledy dutch jargon a computer is built around three main component's, it's I/O (input and output such as your keyboard, pointer hardware and ports-connections which includes in technical term's it's internal expansion slots such as graphic's etc), it's Heart which is the CPU and it's storage in the form of it's memory and data storage such as hard drives but of these the most important section is the CPU and it's encumbrance architecture.

What you have in your PC for a cpu is even if it is 10 years old a master work of contemporary technology which thirty years ago would have needed a room sized mainframe to even come close too in term's of ability's but it is held back by being forced to be compatible with what has become the industry standard 8086 operating instruction set, a series of binary command's which are expressed in a compiler as hexadecimal code, this is a serious bottleneck and actually hold's the technology back from being many magnitude's more powerful than it really is a little like putting a speed limiter on a ferrari.

This is because the old 8086 code is actually legacy from older 8 bit computing day's and your CPU is actually a 64 bit piece of hardware and it forces even with some side code and a method called virtualization and newer extended binary command's the real power of your 64 bit engine to have to throttle down when some of this older 8086 code is called and performed, of course your cpu is so fast that this is not noticable except in term's of operational latency.

Now back then in the 1970's the US military had it's own proprietry hardware which was probably not based on the simple 8086 instruction set and was most likely built under licence by the then industry giant's in the computing world Cray computers or Vax computers though it is also more than concievable that they had there own completely custom built system which was not based on these technology's.

So basically we do not really know just how much power these early military mainframe's had but I can tell you that back in the 90's the US military had some 1 ghz field pc's back when consumer pc's were at 75, 120 and 133 mhz speed's.

Now over in the UK our soldiers were still having to make do with field computers that actually lagged about 10 years behind the retail pc's (286 and 386 systems but so rugged that they could be exposed to a low yeild emp and still work and obviously the like's of intelligence etc had more powerful system's) so this was one area in which the US really did have the best equipment in the world at the time.

Given the vast budget that the US black operations and military intelligence had and have access to as well as there head hunting of every type of expert from computer boffin's to geologist and especially image analyst's as well as the presumably vast back catalogue of both self developed and seized patent technology's are we really comfortable saying that they could NOT do this simply because the retail consumer market lag's so far behind in this area.

Give a thought to the amount of military expenditure based on surveillance technology's and how vital this area of military spending was during the cold war and is today (wonder just how good there ability to detect undersea is as well since nuclear submarine's were a major threat and remain so today) and then consider the number of development's that they must have made most of which will only be leaked slowly by the corporate sector after they are no longer vital and then only to make a secondary profit in the retail sector and cream off from the development after the fact (another trick they use is to block similar technology's via proxy corporations when civilian development step's on there toe's if they think it is important enough to do so but this usually then precede's a release of there older and often more refined research in the form of a product at this stage.

Now 3DAnimator put it correct there is a huge amount of money to be made but only when the technology is no longer of primary military importance as the danger of letting it out of the bag so to speak is that your less developed enemy's and potential enemy's can then catch up on your own technology via the retail market's so keeping a throttle on certain application capability's is an important factor in defense strategy (where that can be achieved).

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ArMaP

Possibly, if you think back the method was used for a long time even before the like's of modern photo and image manipulation program's.
The old Amiga computer which was originally being developed more as a home entertainment system before commodore bought it up had a hardware method of sampling an area of the image on screen and moving it around called a Blitter, a little like a next generation sprite if you can remember the old commodore 64 which used sprite's.
Now they were low end home computers (though the Amiga at inception if not at launch was a real leap forward for home pc's and it remain's a shame that it's superior Motorola cpu technology was destined to become an anachronism due to the prevalence and continued adherance to the older 86 and compatible intel cpu technology's which we are still using today.

To explain that not in doubledy dutch jargon a computer is built around three main component's, it's I/O (input and output such as your keyboard, pointer hardware and ports-connections which includes in technical term's it's internal expansion slots such as graphic's etc), it's Heart which is the CPU and it's storage in the form of it's memory and data storage such as hard drives but of these the most important section is the CPU and it's encumbrance architecture.

What you have in your PC for a cpu is even if it is 10 years old a master work of contemporary technology which thirty years ago would have needed a room sized mainframe to even come close too in term's of ability's but it is held back by being forced to be compatible with what has become the industry standard 8086 operating instruction set, a series of binary command's which are expressed in a compiler as hexadecimal code, this is a serious bottleneck and actually hold's the technology back from being many magnitude's more powerful than it really is a little like putting a speed limiter on a ferrari.

This is because the old 8086 code is actually legacy from older 8 bit computing day's and your CPU is actually a 64 bit piece of hardware and it forces even with some side code and a method called virtualization and newer extended binary command's the real power of your 64 bit engine to have to throttle down when some of this older 8086 code is called and performed, of course your cpu is so fast that this is not noticable except in term's of operational latency.

Now back then in the 1970's the US military had it's own proprietry hardware which was probably not based on the simple 8086 instruction set and was most likely built under licence by the then industry giant's in the computing world Cray computers or Vax computers though it is also more than concievable that they had there own completely custom built system which was not based on these technology's.

So basically we do not really know just how much power these early military mainframe's had but I can tell you that back in the 90's the US military had some 1 ghz field pc's back when consumer pc's were at 75, 120 and 133 mhz speed's.

Now over in the UK our soldiers were still having to make do with field computers that actually lagged about 10 years behind the retail pc's (286 and 386 systems but so rugged that they could be exposed to a low yeild emp and still work and obviously the like's of intelligence etc had more powerful system's) so this was one area in which the US really did have the best equipment in the world at the time.

Given the vast budget that the US black operations and military intelligence had and have access to as well as there head hunting of every type of expert from computer boffin's to geologist and especially image analyst's as well as the presumably vast back catalogue of both self developed and seized patent technology's are we really comfortable saying that they could NOT do this simply because the retail consumer market lag's so far behind in this area.

Give a thought to the amount of military expenditure based on surveillance technology's and how vital this area of military spending was during the cold war and is today (wonder just how good there ability to detect undersea is as well since nuclear submarine's were a major threat and remain so today) and then consider the number of development's that they must have made most of which will only be leaked slowly by the corporate sector after they are no longer vital and then only to make a secondary profit in the retail sector and cream off from the development after the fact (another trick they use is to block similar technology's via proxy corporations when civilian development step's on there toe's if they think it is important enough to do so but this usually then precede's a release of there older and often more refined research in the form of a product at this stage.

Now 3DAnimator put it correct there is a huge amount of money to be made but only when the technology is no longer of primary military importance as the danger of letting it out of the bag so to speak is that your less developed enemy's and potential enemy's can then catch up on your own technology via the retail market's so keeping a throttle on certain application capability's is an important factor in defense strategy (where that can be achieved).

You see, what you are saying about the military having computers way ahead of us goes against everything i have ever heard, notably that they in fact use very old software and hardware because its reliable. Just like air trafiic control places. They only upgrade after YEARS of testing, by which point, the public have moved to the next tech.

So, yeah. Not calling you a liar, but im not sure im buying what you are selling .

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Now you are basing that hypothesis upon the current technological status quo, what do you really know about the history of the military and computing.

Ever heard of Bletchley park in Britain or a guy called Allan turing.
You could argue very correctly that this was the first modern computer though it was valve technology and it helped win the war by helping to crack the enigma encryption algorithm's whcih the German's were using, it was actually more important in that in fact than even the captured enigma machines were and the German's had nothing like it (that we know of).

Now of course if We Brit's were doing that in the early 1940's and we shared everything we knew with you yank's then what for goodness sake do you think you really had since it had been proven this early that computers were vitally important to military operation's, indeed it is conceivable that the civil sector eventually did catch up but if it did then it was only in the last 10 to 20 years as I can assure you most definitely that the military had at least in it's research and development sector access to far more capable machine's than anything in the public domein up until that point.

The biggest crux and idiotic action as to allow greedy corporation's to outsource there production facility's to China which has totally undermined there defence capability's, the Chinese may not be the most original inventor's but they are the best in the world at adapting and enhancing existing technology's that they learn about, the problem being that they are growing more and more militant today and threatening to both supplant all western powers as the global super power and also to invade (As they have litterally done already in the undefended international waters of the south china sea) territory's around them.
www.bletchleypark.org.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

A lot of these early military computers needed liquid nitrogen cooling as they ran so hot and consumed so much power and of course in the day's of valves they were highly unreliable (Valves are still used by the US military in some avionic's and other air force application's but not valves like you think, these are diamond valves (pressure chrystalised artificial diamond around a micro valve architecture making them almost totally impervious to EMP bursts, they very seldom if ever fail).

A lot of these system's were only for number crunching and it is well know for example that your digital watch is many magnitude's more powerful than the computer system Nasa used to send men to the moon during the apollo mission's but of course were there is a need (And military importance is seen as a definite need) and there is a necessary application (intelligence analysis etc) there is a way especially when there is a vertually unending stream of cash as was the case with the black budget so I should definitely not write off the capability's of the US military and US intelligene as far as there computer capability's were concerned, even the internet remember began as a method for linking military computer system's and because at this early stage it also linked the university's and research facility's of many campus in the us the early internet was born.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Now you are basing that hypothesis upon the current technological status quo, what do you really know about the history of the military and computing.

And what are you basing your hypothesis on? You have nothing to offer other than what you think they use or what you read they use.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
This is because the old 8086 code is actually legacy from older 8 bit computing day's and your CPU is actually a 64 bit piece of hardware and it forces even with some side code and a method called virtualization and newer extended binary command's the real power of your 64 bit engine to have to throttle down when some of this older 8086 code is called and performed, of course your cpu is so fast that this is not noticable except in term's of operational latency.

There are RISC chips that use a different approach to the instruction set and are not related to the x86 instruction set. The first RISC chips made by ARM were used in the BBC micro and later versions were used in Apple Newton, and today most smartphones have ARM-based cpus.

Now back then in the 1970's the US military had it's own proprietry hardware which was probably not based on the simple 8086 instruction set and was most likely built under licence by the then industry giant's in the computing world Cray computers or Vax computers though it is also more than concievable that they had there own completely custom built system which was not based on these technology's.

Probably is not a certainty, so I'm not interested in it.

Given the vast budget that the US black operations and military intelligence had and have access to as well as there head hunting of every type of expert from computer boffin's to geologist and especially image analyst's as well as the presumably vast back catalogue of both self developed and seized patent technology's are we really comfortable saying that they could NOT do this simply because the retail consumer market lag's so far behind in this area.

I never said anything like that, the problem is not the hardware, is the creation of algorithms that are good enough to fool thousands or millions of human brains.

a reply to: klassless

For what it's worth, I strongly believe that structures are most likely represented in the image selected & highlighted by the uploader.

I say this because I can see rounded organic shapes such as outcrops of rock, at the same resolution as the apparent structures, and the natural formations are not compromised by pixellation, thus the structures right next to these organic shapes cannot be said to be suffering from pixellation. If pixellation were to blame, the entire scene would be compromised by pixellation; however, as it stands, there are clear organic shapes nicely resolved alongside blatantly 'manmade' structures ('manmade' = artificial structures - probably built by the Nephilim, the Anuna gods, etc - prior to the 'War in Heaven' which annihilated their solar system-wide civilisation..)

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
I say this because I can see rounded organic shapes such as outcrops of rock, at the same resolution as the apparent structures, and the natural formations are not compromised by pixellation, thus the structures right next to these organic shapes cannot be said to be suffering from pixellation. If pixellation were to blame, the entire scene would be compromised by pixellation; however, as it stands, there are clear organic shapes nicely resolved alongside blatantly 'manmade' structures ('manmade' = artificial structures - probably built by the Nephilim, the Anuna gods, etc - prior to the 'War in Heaven' which annihilated their solar system-wide civilisation..)

It's not pixelisation, I think it's the result of too few grey levels on the images used to create the colour image used as texture for the 3D created scene.

Edited to add that this is pixelisation


this is too few colours.

a reply to: LABTECH767

UTTER BS a human operator would be more efficient at spotting items like that than any automated system back then.

This place is full of images like those many mambers have come & gone with the majority of their threads and posts full of over zoomed low res low contrast internet CR4P

They see straight lines and assume it's artificial but with digital imaes zoom in enough and a circle is made of straight lines.

Then we have the constant MYTH that the military always have tech way ahead of what we know yet the USA always struggles in conflicts from Vietnam on

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes I remember the first Risk PC's used in school's, sadly it did not enter the mainstream with the impact it should have but the technology was too good to just vanish, now sadly the company behind that technology is yet another western (British) company to have been bought up by east Asian concern's.

a reply to: wmd_2008

But human's make mistake's, fatigue makes operators tired and mistakes happen.

Computers may NEVER be as good but they do not grow tired and are able to hilight area's for human operators to confirm which is how it work's.

As for Vietnam, remember the Vietnamese later kicked the chinese people's army onto there arse when they invaded and tried to force Vietnam (indo china) to become another Tibet, unlike the Tibetan's the Vietnamese were not pacifist's and had just come out of over thirty years of war from the Japanese through the French and eventually to the US.

BUT the US had actually won the war, the Vietcong were on there last leg and almost totally defeated when there was a change of administration in the US, Public opinion really defeated the US military in Vietnam, it was a pointless war.

The US soldiers did NOT want to be there, the Vietcong were expert guerilla fighters fighting for there own country and there own Ideology and public opinion in the State's started to drift against the war when the coffin's started coming home until at last it was so unpopular that the new president ordered his troop's home in spite of the fact that the war was very nearly won and this allowed the Vietcong to spring back with a vengeance.

US technology was superior but we all know about the Vietcong base underneath the US base that never even knew they were there, that has since been remedied and military were the first to pioneer such technology's as ground penetrating radar (Which has since been superceded by far superior method's of detecting underground cavity's and installations and better anti tunnel/bunker weaponry) long before they entered the civilian sector.

THEY are ahead in almost all concerned technological area's and were they are not ahead they have other technology's.

Human operators are still the best for detecting these installation's but computer assistance and automation is definitely a part of that process with human's often only having to play umpire and interpret what the Computer find's.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: klassless

This thread died as soon as you mentioned Jeff Rense and buildings on Mars.

You might as well break out the face on Mars and Richard Hoagland while your at it because this story has as much credibility as that one.

Four pages does not indicate a dead thread, it's been well attended. And Richard Hoagland lost to improved technology. And on this thread it was/is disappointing that all of the "experts" failed to find a high res NASA image. So it ain't over 'til the corpulent lady sings.

a reply to: klassless

There are lots of much higher resolution images of Hale Crater:

www.uahirise.org...

and I can pretty much guarantee that as soon as one is found covering the same area as the one in the OP the word "airbrush" and some derogatory comments about NASA "hiding stuff" will follow pretty quickly.

a reply to: klassless
I think the caus are called sol. Meaning solar I suppose.
I'll look st the video

a reply to: klassless

I haven't been able to post the images I used on the original thread because I lost my ImageShack account (I didn't want to pay for it, so I closed it when the free service ended), so I have to look for the images on my computer.

But I'll be back.

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: klassless

This thread died as soon as you mentioned Jeff Rense and buildings on Mars.

You might as well break out the face on Mars and Richard Hoagland while your at it because this story has as much credibility as that one.

Four pages does not indicate a dead thread, it's been well attended. And Richard Hoagland lost to improved technology. And on this thread it was/is disappointing that all of the "experts" failed to find a high res NASA image. So it ain't over 'til the corpulent lady sings.

What he means I the content of your thread was a joke as soon as you mentioned Rense. And he's right. Rense is a charlatan.