The Why Files and THE Alien Artifacts on Mars: What NASA doesn't want you to know

a reply to: wildespace


So you are saying they can't doctor the reflecting telescope images either?
They are purer than the previous, doctored, camera photos?
That looks too smooth to be even a natural rock formation, let alone un-doctored.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: GoShredAK

Politely asking you to post some evidence is "rude"?!!!!!

I know your underlying intent, it seeps through every post on every thread.

So I don't feel like taking the time to post anything just to prove a point.

The video from the op alone presents evidence by citing years of research from different sources.

If you really wanted to see some evidence you would watch the video with an open mind and branch out from there.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: GoShredAK

Your claim. Please post your evidence for it?

That's how it works on here.

Is that asking too much?

This video contains some of what I'm talking about....

I challenge you to refute any of what's being presented here.

Eta: this one is very worth watching! It's short and entertaining, yet mindblowing and hard to dismiss.

a reply to: GoShredAK

Thanks.

If you want me to spend the best part of half an hour watching a video you are expected to at least give a bit of a summary?


"I know your underlying intent, it seeps through every post on every thread."


Quite frankly, with that sort of attitude, I really can't be bothered to talk to you.

a reply to: 727Sky

I've been away from the computer for almost a full day and have not had a chance to read the replies to my post of last evening some of which may need responses or clarification. Never the less, I offer some information that others may not have been mention in the growth of this thread.

It is common knowledge findable in many books about Mars--and I have many, that the satellites of Phobos and Deimos are peculiar, even mysterious, and should have been shown much interest by astronomers and astrophysicists as their parameter's were attained over the years. After all, one of their jobs would be looking for evidence leading to finding the homes of the equally mysterious UFOs. What is striking about therm is several features.

First, the two flaunt conventional thought about how heavenly bodies behave according to the accepted laws of physics. you would think that two bodies doing something scientifically irrational would be an eye-opener. Well, maybe not in a regimented science like astronomy, but maybe they just didn't want to talk about the problems the two presented. But as I said, the problems have been mentioned but swept under the rug of science.

The first scientifically accepted fact is that Mars has not the volume to attract satellites such as the two it has attracted. Second, it is scientifically accepted that without undue influences upon them, they could not have eventually located themselves so close to the surface of Mars. Third, they could not have almost perfectly circularity to these orbits. Fourth, their compositions are not of what should have been fairly local materials but is evidence of coming from the outer edge of Jupiter's asteroids. Fifth, the simple fact that that are both outlanders shows a joint relationship to their very existence of being outlanders.

I can tell you that Phobos was discovered by the Viking Orbiters to give evidence for being put into that position. In short the many "grooves" it has in its surface are evidence for it having been moved from its original natural home to being where it resides today. The grooves were created as loose material, debris, slid around and even off of the light gravity of the surface as it went through its final positioning. I reckon that the massive and prominent crater, Stickney, is the business end of the power source that was used to push the body to its place and is not the result of a strangely aligned impact from an smaller body.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Thanks. (Obrigado).


The first, the "extremely tall" monolith, is from photo PSP_006737_1265_RED.

(click for full size)

According to the image's information, the Sun was 22° above the horizon, and the shadow, at 100% zoom, like in the image above, is around 25 pixels long. With the Sun 22º above the horizon (and if I got my trigonometry right), a 25 pixels long shadow means a 10 pixels high object.
Another information about the map projected photo (the one I posted) is that the resolution is 25 centimetres per pixel, which means 25 pixels x 25 cm/px = 625 cm (6.25 metres) long shadow and 10 pixels x 25 cm/px = 250 cm (2.5 metres) tall object.

Hardly "extremely tall".

As a kind of PS, the width of the object is around 10 pixels, so looking at it on the surface of Mars it would look like a cube.



As for the "10 miles high" object, as I don't recognise the photo I cannot really try to get more information about it, but what I can say is that whatever it shows it doesn't look like a shadow to me, I would expect the shadow to be more from right to left, judging by the other shadows.

I'll try to find the original photo, but I doubt I will find it, most "anomaly hunters" and "anomaly spreaders" never identify the photos, I wonder why...

PS: your last sentence should be Eu vou a Portugal este verão. A minha esposa é Portuguesa

So I panned through the video pretty quickly to just see the pictures and am I the only one that sees a scenario of basically looking at clouds and seeing a bunny?

originally posted by: GoShredAK
You could start with the Op.

I watched the video in OP in fast forward, stopping when I saw something that I thought could have some interesting sound.
This is what I found:

1 - The "extremely tall monolith". Already explained in my previous post, it's only 2.5 metres tall. That doesn't mean it's not an interesting feature, but it surely is not "extremely tall".

2 - The "10 mile high" object. Already mentioned in my previous post. I don't think we are seeing a shadow but a somewhat V shaped feature on the ground. One mistake many people make is considering that all dark areas are shadows, ignoring or forgetting that Mars has rocks and sand of several different colours.

3 - The pyramid. The supposed pyramid does not have "symmetrical symmetry", as one of the edges was arbitrarily created on an area where no edge exist, but it fit the preconceived idea that this must be a symmetrical feature, so they did it. We can also see that the angles they mention show that the other sides do not make a perfect symmetrical pyramid.


When I look at photos of the "pyramid", these are the edges I see:


I wonder why they added one and ignored another...

4 - The "giant tracks". Really? How much more deceitful can that guy be? Those are not giant tracks my by giant machines, those are dunes, and we have some of those here on Earth too.


5 - That "object" is not an object, better quality photos show that, once more, people should not consider darker areas as shadows.


(Source)

6 - The "totem pole", to me, looks like two different objects, one in front of the other, giving the impression that it's just one object. Looking at the shadows we can see that the object is not what it appears to be.


(Source)

As I couldn't find a stereo pair for that photo we can only make suppositions based on what we see.

7 - The "glass worms" are the same as the "giant tracks", only in a different place.

8 - The "orb of light". Hard to say, as that in more than one occasion photos from the rovers showed white spots. Besides something moving across the Martian landscape, it's possible to be a dead pixel (I know that dead pixels do not move across the frame, but without the original photos it's not possible to know if it really moved or if those are photos from different cameras).

9 - The imprint from a "valve or a gear". It looks like an imprint because it is, done by one of the rover's instruments on sand, not an "ancient machine".


You can read about that here.

10 - The colours of Mars photos. When they say that there was a filter on the photos they are right, but that filter wasn't added by NASA, it was added by the dust in the Mars atmosphere. The same thing happens on Earth (I have seen it) with dust storms, even if it's just the edges of a dying dust storm, like the ones I have seen.
Here's an example of that on Australia, a few years ago.



Using an auto colour process (in this case done in Gimp), we get this:



Why do you think the Mars rovers have a colour target? It's to allow them to adjust the white point of the photos.
The fact is that both the orange the non-orange photos are correct.
The orange photos show things as they look when the photo was taken, under an orange filter created by the dust in the air.
The non-orange photos show things how they would look under a white light.

Those knowing about this, like me, have been posting colour corrected images on ATS for a long time.

11 - The copy/paste on NASA photos.
This one is more complicated, as there are at least two possibilities:
a) Photos that were processed by NASA and where they used the clone tool or did a basic copy/paste (I have seen cases of that);
b) Panoramas created by connecting two or more photos. When that is done, sometimes, the joining software (or the person doing it, if it was done by hand) is not capable of finding the exact common points in two photos and repeats part of one of the photos. I have seen that happen many times.

The cases from possibility a) that I have seen were not many, (three or four) and they happened on the more public relations oriented pages, in which someone (stupidly) thought it was a good idea to alter the original photos to make them look "better". Besides the use of the clone tool I have also seen examples of clearly edited images, like one photo of the Moon that someone thought was a good idea to remove all the colour, to get a clean grey look, but they didn't select the whole image and a two pixels line was left with the original colours. There's a thread about that on ATS, as that was found by one ATS member.

The cases from possibility b) are more, because anyone today can make a Gigapan or something like that, and if we do not care about the final result (and depending on the software used), it's easy to end up with repeated areas.

PS: the cases I didn't talk about was because I don't have any thing to say, as I don't have enough information.

a reply to: carewemust

It's almost as if science continually acquires and processes new information to add to the body of knowledge or something...

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Should we wait for your proof that anyone lied or is paid to lie, or do we have to just take your word for it?

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

The change in definition was not by NASA, and was done because there are technically many rocks orbiting the sun that would also count. There are precise criteria that define a planet that excludes these. Pluto doesn't meet them. Doesn't stop it being interesting or worth sending a probe to.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Those sure look like pyramids on cydonia and according to the experts they are too mathematically precise to be natural formations.

Experts in what? I have never seen a perfect pyramid shaped feature on Mars, and I have seen thousands of Mars photos.

Oh probably Richard Hoagland.

a reply to: 727Sky
Seems like we got our 'aliens and UFOs' forum, mixed up with our 'space exploration' forum. One is for science and the other is for 'no need for evidence'.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Yeah, I've decided I don't need the so-called 'experts' redefining Pluto as a non-planet. My choice.

Cheers

What they forget to mention is that a human biorhythm is actually based on a 25 hour day. Mars has a 25 hour day.

originally posted by: Fairtrade141
What they forget to mention is that a human biorhythm is actually based on a 25 hour day.

It is? I don't remember that number.

PS: does anyone still thinks about biorhythm? That's so last millennium...

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: wildespace


So you are saying they can't doctor the reflecting telescope images either?
They are purer than the previous, doctored, camera photos?
That looks too smooth to be even a natural rock formation, let alone un-doctored.

Any image can be doctored. But there is no evidence that MRO images have been.

originally posted by: Maxmars
I find it somewhat amusing that scientist labor so hard to refuse to look t something because of the fervor over an image they obviously mistakenly shared prior to editing, then after getting busted over and over... they "produce" a newer - more modern - "higher tech" image and say "Here.... see... we told you it was nothing." as if they couldn't have simply done it again.

Once you demonstrate base dishonesty don't expect that ending your next words with "honest!" makes it all believable...

I remember the 'cat box' image manipulation fiasco clearly... and the new images in all their glory, seem to defy an reasonable exposure to sunlight producing a 'face shadow'. But hey... they're in technicolor and hi-def and NASA produced them so they must be 100%, no?

does this stuff remind anyone else of the covid thing?

how about when the rover showed a nice blue sky at mission control?

i remember threads about it here.

but what don't they want us to know?

originally posted by: sarahvital
how about when the rover showed a nice blue sky at mission control?

i remember threads about it here.

I do not. Do you remember more about that case, like which rover?

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Much is a rehash of what some of the subjects and discussion we have seen here on ATS.

Yes, face on mars in early photo, and later higher resolution images show the source of the shadows which caused the illusion of a face. You can still see the ravine that formed the "lips" and the depression that formed the "eye socket" in the higher resolution photos, but the shadows aren't as distinct and you can see it doesn't look much like a face in those.

So, an interesting initial illusion but remember we are programmed to see faces everywhere, it's part of normal pareidolia. I see a face in this box, even though it's not really a face, that's just the way our minds work:


I can almost see a similar face in the random formation on the left, but neither of them are really faces, that's just how our brains work, we try to see faces and recognize patterns, it's what we do.

originally posted by: GoShredAK
This video contains some of what I'm talking about....

I challenge you to refute any of what's being presented here.

Eta: this one is very worth watching! It's short and entertaining, yet mindblowing and hard to dismiss.

I don't know what you could possibly expect in a refutation of that video that's not already in there.

A little over halfway in the video, he says: "There really is no debate among mainstream academics about the who, when why or how of the great pyramid". Then he asks what if they are all wrong and talks about some pseudoarchaeologist who fudged data to make his case at Giza. Seriously? The video literally says all mainstream academics agree this pseudoarchaeologist is wrong, so how do you expect anybody to debunk it any more clearly than that? That seems like an impossible challenge, but I'll add this anyway:

Here's more about Graham Hancock ignoring the inscriptions on the actual Giza structures explaining when and why they were built, so he can make up his own nonsense to sell to gullible marks.

Graham Hancock

he (Graham Hancock) aligned the Giza complex to the constellation of Orion as it was some 10,000 years ago, although the BBC program Horizon thought otherwise. They claimed that Hancock had fiddled with the locations of some of the temples to fit in with his own theories, and had even ignored the texts carved on the temples themselves, which explained quite clearly why and when they had been built. Hancock cried foul to the Broadcasting Standards Commission, who politely told him to sod off.

Tesla made some genius inventions as a young man and I respect him for that. However, as he aged he began to refuse to accept scientific discovery and became more and more withdrawn and disconnected from reality. I think the final straw was when he built Wardenclyffe Tower, and the video implied he needed more funding. But he actually built the tower and it just didn't work as his definitely wrong theory expected it to work, so in that particular case Tesla was just wrong, wrong, wrong, so stop believing all these sources who tell you otherwise, unless you too want to look like a crackpot. On this too there's virtually no disagreement among the mainstream that Tesla's theory about how Wardenclyffe tower would work is definitely wrong and there's tons of evidence for that. Read the details here if you really want to know:

Tesla’s folly – why Wardenclyffe didn’t work

Tesla’s life is a story of a meteoric rise to international prestige followed by an equally dramatic retreat into public shame, depression and loneliness. The turning point seems to have occurred during Tesla’s time in Colorado Springs (May 1899 – January 1900). It was during this point that he failed to properly confront reality. Denial of his failures led to further failure and further denial – a downward spiral which eventually led Tesla to a mental breakdown. This essay explores where Tesla went wrong.

Unfortunately after Tesla found his Wardenclyffe tower didn't work as he expected, it was too much for him to bear and he had a breakdown. But the crazy videos like the one you posted never admit that, and try to say if he just had more funding we would all have free energy today, that's a complete lie. Again there is virtually no debate in the mainstream that Tesla's "non-Hertzian" waves don't exist in free air (maybe you can create them in a special waveguide as an artifact of the waveguide, but that isn't what Tesla was trying to do). The truth about Tesla's later years is much sadder than the crazy and ill-informed conspiracy theories, but we can still respect and admire the accomplishments Tesla made as a young man.