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.

 

Mars Infrared Images Of The Buried ‘City’ Of Cydonia.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I’m not really a fan of Richard Hoagland but one’s got to admit that he does bring out some intriguing stuff sometimes. And these color composite IR/Vis light images have been done by Keith Laney and enhanced by Mike Bara, who I think are credible sources of info.

So here are a couple of NASA IR images of the Cydonia area of Mars . It apparently looks like an ancient buried city to me. May not be buried under ice as Hoagland contends, but probably under Martian dust.


Courtesy: Enterprise Mission
Keith Laney and Mike Bara


www.goroadachi.com...

I have increased the saturation and enhanced this NASA IR image of a small part of Cydonia, to bring out the relief further…


Image courtesy: NASA

What do you think of this? Are these natural geological formations? Check out the straight lines/edges. Is it due to pixellation?


[edit on 6-8-2007 by mikesingh]




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Very cool.

Do you have larger images or a direct pic link?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Very cool.

Do you have larger images or a direct pic link?


Yeah! here it is!



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:42 AM
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.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Very cool.

Do you have larger images or a direct pic link?


Try this:

www.enterprisemission.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by themaster1
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?


Ah yes, but Mother Nature has a an odd sense of balance and proportion....please see the logarithmic spiral



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by themaster1

Originally posted by an0maly33
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?


But 'Mother nature' herself makes many mathematical creations

www.nationaltrust.org.uk...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
these pictures are really interesting as the shapes do seem a bit artificial



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The Mars face/city story isn't still going on is it??

After examining
www.msss.com...

and
themis.asu.edu...

and
www.badastronomy.com...

do you still contend that Hoagland isn't a crack pot?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
the problem is that each of the shapes in the photo of the Martian surface is smaller than each of the photo "tiles" NASA used to mosaic the whole thing together; if the edges are any indication of the size of each tile used in much larger image.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join