Forest on Mars !?!?, page 20
Pages: <<  17    18    19    20    21    22    23  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times


reply posted on 18-5-2007 @ 03:15 PM by blue bird
Love this one lol!






*Skipper always have links and you can see what he does to image ( usually just colored for contrast)


reply posted on 18-5-2007 @ 04:15 PM by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by blue bird
Love this one lol!






*Skipper always have links and you can see what he does to image ( usually just colored for contrast)


I have a 15 year old skeptic living at home with me, along with the most naive 9 year old.

My 15 year old looks at this picture and says "in pictures of rocks, you are bound to eventually find something symmetrical enough to look like a face." When i point out that this is a perfect rendition of a bald human head (you can even see the ears on the side of the head) he replies, "yeah, but how far away is it? If you zoom in 3000 feet, and move a few hundred feet to the south, does it still look the same?" I couldn't respond.

I hate having a 15 year old that seems smarter than me. And his tennis backhand is like a canon, so i am doubly admiring him.

But, seriously, this brings up an interesting point: how can we possibly discern between anomoly and construct? The second face you posted looks more like coincidence...but the one above seems SOOOOOO real....

All by itself, it has convinced me that someone, as some time in the past (and that looked just like us) lived on mars and formed the land into such items. Reality is not what we think it is.


reply posted on 18-5-2007 @ 04:55 PM by blue bird
While we're on the subject of tampering, you should know that any and all suggestion of these colossal monuments has been completely blotted out in the decades old Viking imaging (as evidenced in my fifth image below in this report) of this same area. Tellingly, that is the case even though these same monuments are clearly visible (remember that 12 miles across head size) in numerous more WIDE-ANGLE imaging strips as listed and linked below. In other words, now you see a 12-mile across massive object and now you don't. Even the most die hard loyal fan of official positioning should be able to recognize that there is something seriously wrong with such things happening in official science data.
M02-01454 ..... M03-00325 ..... M03-01568 ..... M03-06818 ..... M07-05293
M08-01075 ..... M09-01756 ..... M11-01039 ..... M15-01271 ..... M22-02033
All of the above listed wide-angle image strips plus the M02-0164 strip used here clearly demonstrates in multiple camera imaging events the presence of these anomalies. So their being missing from and being removed from the older Viking data tells us that someone knew about this massive monumental civilization evidence all the way back in at least the 1970's. Further, the now obscuring of this same evidence with gradually increased image tampering in the most recent "Extended" series of MOC imaging tells us that someone didn't like the idea of this being left out of the tampering and is gradually trying to increasingly obscure it and minimize it back into obscurity while at the same time trying to keep your attention via misdirection focussed on debates over more ambiguous and less resolvable material like the "Face" that conveniently never lead anywhere.



source







Spacecraft altitude: 393.77 km
Scaled image width: 120.36 km
Scaled image height: 118.03 km


MSSS


[edit on 18-5-2007 by blue bird]


reply posted on 18-5-2007 @ 07:16 PM by blue bird


...same region ( I enlarge it from same strip done by MSSS):




*sharper image:






[edit on 18-5-2007 by blue bird]
Pages: <<  17    18    19    20    21    22    23  >>    ^^TOP^^