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.

 

ESA: no mars face!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM
However, the geological features such as "the face" and the "pyramids" were all out of the water, unfortunately. They were basically coastal hills close to the sea. The beach deposits create bench like structures, with one deposit on top of another....... there had been several highstands and lowstands in the sea level in the area over time.


That's odd, because it looks to me like the shoreline would have been a little to the left of the "face", with the bench features tapering off as the seabed rises. I'll try to post an image to illustrate what I mean.



apc

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
They set a nuke off above the face as was witnessed by many astronomers. You can clearly see the blast pattern moving away on all sides from the center.


They must of had something against a lot of other mountains then. Judging by the many "blast patterns" ... that's a lot of nukes.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc

Originally posted by Xeros
They set a nuke off above the face as was witnessed by many astronomers. You can clearly see the blast pattern moving away on all sides from the center.


They must of had something against a lot of other mountains then. Judging by the many "blast patterns" ... that's a lot of nukes.


They blew up nukes over all the other mountains so that it would make the face look like "normal" weathering.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Nasa's MGS/MOC images of this area were taken at a resolution of 1.5 meters per pixel, versus these ESA images at 13.7 meters per pixel.

yeah...we've allready established this...



And believe it or not, some of us average people do understand what a JPEG is and can actually appreciate the difference between an original image and one that's suffered over 80% compression.

Well that guy didn't...so I tried to clear things up.
nuff said.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join