Mars: First color image from HI-RISE camera

Originally posted by ArMaP
One of the things that makes me doubt that those are ruins is the fact that they look like holes in the ground and not like the remainings of some buildings.

Then what have you been looking at? I just don't understand how we can look at the same things with you seeing holes in the ground and me seeing strait lines all over the place. Did you read trough the two pages i posted earlier and if so HOW can you see what you claim to be seeing? I just have a hard time understanding how two brains ( and the hardware is the same really) can see such different things looking at exactly the same picture! Did you see the comparisons to ruins on Earth? Did you look at the marsanomaly web page and clicked on the links to check the MOC images the pictures are taken from? I have a hard time believing a honest investigation can yield the conclusions you seem to be arriving at and a peak at the mental processes your employing might help me understand this all a little bit better; please indulge me.

Another thing is the fact that those things appear on almost all of those "bubble" like formations.

Which would obviously point out to he massive scale of the footprint of this civilization?

Stellar

Wow, very cool, I've been waiting for color pictures like this.

I never realised just how many craters Mars truly has, but
just the amount in that picture, it must eb a whole heck of
alot.

Originally posted by StellarX
Then what have you been looking at? I just don't understand how we can look at the same things with you seeing holes in the ground and me seeing strait lines all over the place. Did you read trough the two pages i posted earlier and if so HOW can you see what you claim to be seeing? I just have a hard time understanding how two brains ( and the hardware is the same really) can see such different things looking at exactly the same picture!

Have you ever heard of a Rorschach test? We see things more with our brain than with our eyes, and our brains do not work in exactly the same way.

The way we interpret the images we see is a result of many circumstances that happen through our lives, that was the reason I said before that I usually see geological features when I look at a landscape, I am used to interpret the landscape image in a "geological way" because I like geology, but that does not mean that I am seeing all there is to be seen.

Did you see the comparisons to ruins on Earth?

Yes.

Did you look at the marsanomaly web page and clicked on the links to check the MOC images the pictures are taken from?

Yes, I looked at those pages, and I already knew the pictures used there.

I have a hard time believing a honest investigation can yield the conclusions you seem to be arriving at and a peak at the mental processes your employing might help me understand this all a little bit better; please indulge me.

I am not arriving at any conclusion, I only said "it looks like", I am only stating what I find when I look at those pictures.

The first thing we must know to better understand those pictures is the direction of the Sun's light, if the light comes from one side that means that we are looking at a crater, if the light comes from the opposite direction then we are looking at a dome-like feature.

The direction of the light is very important to the way we understand an image, as is what we are expecting to see.

An excellent example is the following picture (please click it to see the original size).

Some people look to that picture and see black camels, and only when someone else points to the fact that the "black camels" are only the shadows of the lighter camels, seen from above, do those people understand what they were looking at.

Both were looking at the same picture, but one was seeing one thing, the other was seeing a different thing (I saw this happening with this picture of the camels).


Another thing, I do not see any "rectilinear geometries" on those Mars pictures, only almost rectilinear structures.

Another thing is the fact that those things appear on almost all of those "bubble" like formations.

Which would obviously point out to he massive scale of the footprint of this civilization?

Or the fact that they are only a common, natural phenomenon.

OK, the light source problem is solved, in this page they say:

The image was taken at a local Mars time of 07:33 and the scene is illuminated from the upper right with a solar incidence angle of 78 degrees, thus the sun was 12 degrees above the horizon. At an Ls of 29 degrees (with Ls an indicator of Mars' position in its orbit around the sun), the season on Mars is southern autumn.

For some reason, I can not see that image as having a light source from the upper right, so I rotated the image 180º and I understood better what you (StellarX) were seeing.

I still not see it as an artificial structure, but I can see that it really looks simmilar to that photo of the Iranian ruins.

As I said, it was a case of a faulty perception, and in this case I was the one uncapable of seeing things as they are.

As a curiosity, I post bellow the original and the rotated image.

Original

Rotated image (so I could understand it)

Originally posted by ArMaP
Have you ever heard of a Rorschach test? We see things more with our brain than with our eyes, and our brains do not work in exactly the same way.

I do not believe in the 'science' ( it is not a science by any stretch of the imagination) that employs this test and i most certainly do not believe that the test reveals anything of objective use. Our brains do work differently but not because it must but because of conditioning and conditioning can, and must, be changed if one's intent is to discover the truth.

The way we interpret the images we see is a result of many circumstances that happen through our lives, that was the reason I said before that I usually see geological features when I look at a landscape, I am used to interpret the landscape image in a "geological way" because I like geology, but that does not mean that I am seeing all there is to be seen.

If you focus on one aspect this sort of thing may happen but once again it's no imo a reason to think that i have been conditioned to recognize structures from orbit ( i have not) so i find it hard to understand how this can serve as some kind of excuse. Neither of us as any biological or psychological conditioning that demands of our brains seeing buildings on other planets! Recognizing the shape of a tiger or lion in the bushes or long grass is one thing but to use that biological obviousness to suggest that we are not seeing what we think we are on another planet? Well i just don't buy it and i don't think you are either.

Yes, I looked at those pages, and I already knew the pictures used there.

There is a great many pictures so i was just wondering and hoping that you looked at some of his previous work as well as the work of J.P Skipper.... When combined and looked at in totality i think it's hard to escape the realization that we are not getting the truth from the people who spent so much time tampering with the science data to obscure what they thought needed such treatment.

I am not arriving at any conclusion, I only said "it looks like", I am only stating what I find when I look at those pictures.

Just seemed to me that you were but I'll take your word for it.

The first thing we must know to better understand those pictures is the direction of the Sun's light, if the light comes from one side that means that we are looking at a crater, if the light comes from the opposite direction then we are looking at a dome-like feature.
The direction of the light is very important to the way we understand an image, as is what we are expecting to see.

While the light's angle might fool a casual observer when he is looking at man made structures or weird geological formations that might be so but do we have any reason to suspect domes on Mars? If we see one we obviously need to figure out why as it's unlikely to be natural and so perfectly round and probably just a crater...

An excellent example is the following picture (please click it to see the original size).

Some people look to that picture and see black camels, and only when someone else points to the fact that the "black camels" are only the shadows of the lighter camels, seen from above, do those people understand what they were looking at.

This really is a great example but how long will the average investigator look at it intently before discovering what is in fact going on? A casual eye might be moving to the next picture before it discovers the truth but are we really that average and can we consider Hoagland, Skipper and so many others 'average'? In the end we get to see the raw data they worked from and alterations should become obvious.

Both were looking at the same picture, but one was seeing one thing, the other was seeing a different thing (I saw this happening with this picture of the camels).
Another thing, I do not see any "rectilinear geometries" on those Mars pictures, only almost rectilinear structures.

At least your looking and that's really the best i can demand.

Or the fact that they are only a common, natural phenomenon.

I don't understand what's natural about dome like structures on Mars.

Originally posted by ArMaP
OK, the light source problem is solved, in this page they say:

The image was taken at a local Mars time of 07:33 and the scene is illuminated from the upper right with a solar incidence angle of 78 degrees, thus the sun was 12 degrees above the horizon. At an Ls of 29 degrees (with Ls an indicator of Mars' position in its orbit around the sun), the season on Mars is southern autumn.

For some reason, I can not see that image as having a light source from the upper right, so I rotated the image 180º and I understood better what you (StellarX) were seeing.

YOU can, but your mind probably didn't want to.

I still not see it as an artificial structure, but I can see that it really looks simmilar to that photo of the Iranian ruins.
As I said, it was a case of a faulty perception, and in this case I was the one uncapable of seeing things as they are.

As i said we should all try accept that our minds are working in their own interest and not ours. The real war has always been against our conditioning ( even if not specific then against the 'impossible'; change) and if one is not aware the struggle is so much harder...

As a curiosity, I post bellow the original and the rotated image.
Original

Rotated image (so I could understand it)

We should all do what we must to discover what is frequently hidden in plain sight.... I think you can do this on your own from now on so i will do my best to leave you alone.

Stellar

Originally posted by ArMaP
OK, the light source problem is solved, in this page they say:

The image was taken at a local Mars time of 07:33 and the scene is illuminated from the upper right with a solar incidence angle of 78 degrees, thus the sun was 12 degrees above the horizon. At an Ls of 29 degrees (with Ls an indicator of Mars' position in its orbit around the sun), the season on Mars is southern autumn.

For some reason, I can not see that image as having a light source from the upper right, so I rotated the image 180º and I understood better what you (StellarX) were seeing.

I still not see it as an artificial structure, but I can see that it really looks simmilar to that photo of the Iranian ruins.

Well, in doing this (rotating 180 degrees and still assuming the light comming from the upper right corner) the crater appears to be a dome-like structure...but the problem is that ALL the craters in the image appear now dome-like. And ALL the high lands appear as holes in the ground.

Originally posted by Apass
Well, in doing this (rotating 180 degrees and still assuming the light comming from the upper right corner) the crater appears to be a dome-like structure...but the problem is that ALL the craters in the image appear now dome-like. And ALL the high lands appear as holes in the ground.

Yes, that is why I said that the first thing we needed to know was from where the light was coming.

If the light comes from the top right then that is a crater, if the light comes from the bottom right and that geological feature has the left bottom area illuminated then it is a dome, but only if that area is the lighted area.

I think my explanation only made things worse, just look at the pictures...

Originally posted by ArMaP
Yes, that is why I said that the first thing we needed to know was from where the light was coming.

Oh, but I was just continuing your reasoning. All that I said was for the clarification of your point.

Oh, OK.

I guess my understanding also suffered a 180 degrees turn for some moments.

Why is there no new information or pictures from NASA's MRO?

It has been weeks since they released images...what is up with that?

Last I heard it was looking for Beagle 2 and Mars Polar Lander and nothing after that.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Xeven]

The sun was in the way for most of that time.
The Earth, and Mars were incommunicado between October 18, through the 29th, due to this solar conjunction..

I suspect there are quite a few housekeeping functions to finish up, then we'll start seeing images again.

An additional reason might be that Mars Global Surveyor is having problems, and Nasa might be using antenna time to troubleshoot, though I am not positive on that.!

Hang in there!