Very cool.

Do you have larger images or a direct pic link?

it seems to me that this would probably be a product of two possibilities.

1) the method of imaging used by nasa. if you think about it, they probably did sweeps or spot measurements and pieced it together. that would give you the mosaic tiling look.

2) compression artefacting.

Originally posted by an0maly33
it seems to me that this would probably be a product of two possibilities.

1) the method of imaging used by nasa. if you think about it, they probably did sweeps or spot measurements and pieced it together. that would give you the mosaic tiling look.

2) compression artefacting.

So the nasa use bad/cheap equipment? Highly improbable well actually it's probable but i don't believe in this explanation


For the non trained people like myself what we should look in the picture are squared surfaces or triangular ...any shape that's a bit too "mathematical" for mother nature am i wrong?

So the nasa use bad/cheap equipment? Highly improbable well actually it's probable but i don't believe in this explanation


For the non trained people like myself what we should look in the picture are squared surfaces or triangular ...any shape that's a bit too "mathematical" for mother nature am i wrong?

no, i'm saying the method they used to construct the image may have caused it. it's not a flaw, it's a product of the process. to get high resolution surface scans they have to zoom way in and take thousands of snapshots. obviously it can take more than one orbit to get a large area this way. the result is an image that has brightness fluctuations in chunks - very similar to what you see here. taken at different times of the "day" the snapshot it took could be slightly brighter or darker than the last. unless you took the time to painstakingly correct EVERY SINGLE SNAPSHOT, you would get this type of image. even the edges of the image in the original post are jagged - suggesting that this is not just a single picture.

the compression artefacting probably wouldn't be that bad directly from nasa, but who knows how many times it was resized and resaved etc since then.

Am i the only one who gets exceedingly tired of these researchers, (however much good they ARE doing for the base of knowledge), giving things REDICULOUS names that have no basis? "Temple of Isis" WTF? What does that feature even have to DO with Isis? Because it is a pyramid shape? So?

Hmmm....

The pictures do look intriguing. It is hard to say though. After being buried for so many years though, would building still throw off an identifiable heat signature?

I tend to think Hoagland is a man with a very vivid imagination. I've heard him rant about the face, and Cydonia before on C2C, including the time he called in while John Lear was on and told John that his moon theory was bs, because Richard thought his was the only way to go, and that he had proof, of which was nothing more than pictures. Personally, I think both of them are spending too much time with the highlighter markers. And Mr. Lear, I'm sure you'll come across this at some point, I'm not trying to make a personal attack toward either of you, I just think that if the pictures can't be clearly read, that it is in no way proof of anything.

I for one would love to see you guys be able to prove your theories. Prove to me that there is a city on Mars, prove to me that there is life on every planet in the solar system. Give me clear pictures of these that can be analyzed by the best photoanalyists on the planet, and I'd feel better.

these pictures are really interesting as the shapes do seem a bit artificial

Originally posted by D.E.M.
Am i the only one who gets exceedingly tired of these researchers, (however much good they ARE doing for the base of knowledge), giving things REDICULOUS names that have no basis? "Temple of Isis" WTF? What does that feature even have to DO with Isis? Because it is a pyramid shape? So?

These folks just like to play like they're intrepid researchers, hot on the trail of some stunning discovery that has somehow eluded the thousand other trained, professional analysts and researchers who have already studied these images in detail. Somehow, maybe as a consequence of their superior superhuman eyesight, they are able to see what the experts have missed, allowing them the privilege of getting to name their (often literally) monumental discoveries as they choose. Then, years from now when Martian archeologists enter the tombs and cities they discovered, they will finally be vindicated and celebrated as the true discoverers they are and their names will live in history alongside all the other great discoverers who were ignored or scoffed at by so-called "mainstream" science.

This is their sad, pitiful hope for glory. Sifting through over-pixilated images for traces of Martian swimming pools and dog food factories.