Mars Anomaly Looks Like A Square Structure Or Foundation Of Some Kind

Yeah but there's something else in the picture you all are missing.

a reply to: Phage

Going by the shadows cast by this and other features shown on the larger print, it appears like the feature is elevated and not depressions. Stereo pairs would confirm or not.

As you know near right angle geological formation are not all that rare; I don't see any evidence other than a natural geological feature.

a reply to: [post=23720690]Phage

Thanks for posting the link to a larger view of the area. There are other interesting natural geological features in the wider area that are worth a look.

a reply to: lunarcartographer

Going by the shadows cast by this and other features shown on the larger print, it appears like the feature is elevated and not depressions.

I think you're right
But it flips back and forth for me.

First it is a mountain..

originally posted by: amazing
Are there any archaeologists on the site?

I'm asking because, if this was a picture of western Syria or something and you were on the search for ruins or artifacts of an ancient civilization or city, what would you be looking for? What markers or correlations would you be looking for that would show it as a possibility for further investigation?

Leaving out for a minute that it's on Mars as that brings in all kinds of confirmation bias and other things before even looking at the evidence. If this was the Sahara Desert, what would make you say, let's send in some people to look further or Nah this is probably nothing?

Perfect comment, if this was in Egypt, perhaps the Gobi Desert, the western deserts of south america or indeed almost any local on earth someone would have dug the site or at least thought about it to see what it really was, to my mind it is a nice square regardless of whether it is formed of depressions in the terrain like a moat or indeed wall's of some kind now buried with martian dust leaving a depression by them as it blew dust over them.

I also totally agree with Baddogma's point.
My favorite site to look at these images is Marsruins.com
marsruins.com...
And my favorite image from that site is what appears to be a carpet bombed city with a substantial road system which NASA claim's are made by martian dust devil's or crack's.
There are large roundabout like ares, intersections', city grid pattern's and what look to maybe have been highway's for what look's to have been a very busy metropolis at one time, nearly completely bombed to hell though or at least it has plenty of quite precise looking craters in areas between many of these road's as if a city was carpet bombed - or something similar - into oblivion, nearby is a large sandy plane which may have once been sea.
www.marsruins.com...

Remember this about later images, it is far easier now to obfuscate evidence using simply digital algorithm's than it ever was in the day's of the old air brush monkey's as they were called whom TOUCHED up NASA images in the pre-digital imaging age and this mean's newer images are not always more accurate images for our purposes.

a reply to: LABTECH767

There are no images from Mars which are not electronic.
No film. Sorry.

a reply to: Phage

They were sent electronically even in the days of the voyager but those older system's were analogue electronic, also the computers of the day were rather huge if you remember as I do and not even as powerful as the device you have in your pocket for telephony so please don't try to poo poo this one.

I did hear a rumor back in the late 80's though about a program used for spy satellites which had been designed to spot camouflaged construction in the soviet union using image algorithm's and shown to be highly successful but was also detecting ruined city's and other sites a bit too well, it did it's job but produced too much data rather than not enough and a most of the sites it flagged were not soviet construction though they were indeed artificial if very old artificial, the rumor was that they ran the program on images of mars and the moon - as a test presumably - but that it started throwing up positive find's all over the place.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I have no "device" in my pocket and I will poo. Loudly.

You are spouting nonsense. The early images could be as easily manipulated as the current images. They were just much lower resolution. Guess what happens when you overzoom low resolution images? The zooming algorithm invents stuff. It's called artifacts.

a reply to: Phage

Oh phage you may poo as loudly as you wish but please, please give us advanced warning so we can open the window's first and stick our heads out of them.
Resolution is not the point, sometime's you have to step back to see a picture or indeed you can be so close all you see are the brush strokes and the art is lost to looking too close.

Look at stone henge, you would be forgiven for assuming they were just stones carried by a glacier from somewhere and dumped in the middle of no where until you see how those antler pick quarried stone's are or were arranges (there is rather more contention on that point than you may think with some of the earliest artistic images of stone henge showing them arranges in a square or oblong allignment before they were later restored.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Resolution is not the point,

Yes it is.
Low resolution looks like trees. High resolution looks like splits in the surface.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Very strange split's then would you not agree and later images as I contest are not necessarily more trustworthy, they may be at source but by the time we see them are we really seeing them?.

a reply to: LABTECH767

they may be at source but by the time we see them are we really seeing them?.

What?

Why rely on low resolution images when better images are available?

a reply to: Phage

Oh come off it phage you know exactly what I am saying, everyone holy grail when it comes to images is perfect one to one resolution and the closest we can get is high resolution and everything in those high resolution images is sampled, colour is sampled and rounded to the nearest digital value, shade is and even the image is merely a composite more akin to a Roman tessara floor.
But you know that this actually sometime's highlight's thing's the human eye would miss, destroyed wall's washed and eroded into natural looking lines suddenly for example start to show there symmetry which has been missed when observing them unknowingly too close.

We will sometime's see phantom's but sometime's those tell's are exactly what they appear to be.

My contention is simply that it is so much easier today to obfuscate images and details in those images than it ever was before and those who really pull the string's of NASA have had a hell of a lot of practice.

And they are NOT keeping it secret to protect us but to keep there masters in control as simple as that which is of course anti democratic.

siriusdisclosure.com...

Also I genuinely believe that the face on mars was deliberately destroyed by using a NASA orbiter which was supposed to take a closer look at it and which lost contact with control just before it's final entry turn, the same which if I remember correctly caused some furure as it had an isotopic reactor on board that green's did not want to be sent up there in case it came back down or indeed was it a reactor or something else entirely since the damage appears to have been cause by a near surface air burst of a high yield device to me with one side actually having slid down due to the force of the compression wave blast.
www.ancient-code.com...

Of course you remember mikesingh's great thread's, many of us miss him and his threads' as they were the thing we joined the site for in the first place not all this Obama/Trump/May dribble we have to read and that get's us riled up.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: LABTECH767

My contention is simply that it is so much easier today to obfuscate images and details in those images than it ever was before and those who really pull the string's of NASA have had a hell of a lot of practice.

Yeah. But wouldn't it be easier to not publish them at all?

Also I genuinely believe that the face on mars was deliberately destroyed by using a NASA orbiter which was supposed to take a closer look at it and which lost contact with control just before it's final entry turn,

You're talking about the Mars Climate Orbiter? You think they used it to nuke the "face?" No. It used solar panels for power. Sorry, you need a new belief.

a reply to: Phage

No people would still want to see them though of course they could claim there was a glitch in the data stream or the images were corrupted which are tried and tested - and most often true - excuses.

No think back phage, the one which there were relatively small but vociferous demonstrations about which had a nuclear isotopic generator on board - not voyage not that far back (I was only a wee burn back then) but in the 90's it was being sent to mars and caused concern in case it came crashing back down on launch since it could pollute a wide area but NASA kept on that it was safe, of course I may be mixing up two different program's on that point but I am quite certain I am not, it was only going to image the face though because of strong public demand and NASA had been trying to wriggle out of doing so (They probably already had far better images the public never got to see) but had to bend to public - political pressure on the matter since of course the senate over there likes to give the public a few denarius now and then before snatching it back Roman style by shifting tax burden from the corporation's onto the electorate.

a reply to: LABTECH767

The Climate Orbiter was in 1998. Unless you can refresh your own (questionable) memory and tell me which failed mission used a radioisotope power supply, I'm afraid I can't help you.

a reply to: Phage

Indeed questionable but I remember it being a good bit earlier than 98 more early 90's maybe 91 or there about's but like you rightly say questionable memory but most definitely not as late as 98.
A 98 the year I was in Japan training some Japanese guy's on a process we were using and also bringing back a process they trained me on (industry).

a reply to: LABTECH767

There's a thing called the internet. There is lots of information on it.

Information about Mars missions and the spacecraft used.

a reply to: Phage

I remember it from the News, there were protesters with placards, loud but peaceful, nothing like Greenham common over here just enough to catch the interest of the press but they did not want a nuclear reactor - even if it was only an isotopic decay reactor - flying over there heads, some even claimed we were polluting mars and space - suppose they have no idea were all that radioactive material actually came from but hey we are doing a good job of it with all our space junk clogging up our own orbital trajectory's, still business opportunity if a government is ever willing to pay for a clean up project.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I remember it from the News, there were protesters with placards

Not for any failed Mars mission. Pretty sure.

I think that the MSL (Curiosity) is the only mission to use an RTG. You can look it up if you want. You might find out that they don't carry enough material for a chain reaction though.

You might have to abandon that particular belief.