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.
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by uberarcanist
I don't think there's evidence of CURRENT habitation of Mars, but I think the Cydonia site is good evidence of some kind of settlement in the distant past.
I did not saw the video, is this image the one you want?
Originally posted by Lunica
hmmzz, how come I cant get the high resolution photo of this image anymore from the usgs site ? (like the vid is showing us at the end)
How do you know, rocks can have any shape.
Originally posted by Lunica
This is not "a rock".
No, it's not clearly a building, it may look like a building in the same way that it may look like a Lego brick.
This is clearly a building. Ok, its a little scary to know there are buildings on mars. Well, to bad.
That is because the pixels are square and the image was resized, that's all.
If this was the only picture of mars with such a "rock" on it I understand a lot of people state it's a rock. But this "rock" has on first sight 5 squares in it and parallel edges. There for this "rock" is a BUILDING. It also looks like a building.
Originally posted by ArMaP
How do you know, rocks can have any shape.
Originally posted by Lunica
This is not "a rock".
No, it's not clearly a building, it may look like a building in the same way that it may look like a Lego brick.
This is clearly a building. Ok, its a little scary to know there are buildings on mars. Well, to bad.
And no, even if there are buildings on Mars that is not a bit scary, why should it be?
That is because the pixels are square and the image was resized, that's all.
If this was the only picture of mars with such a "rock" on it I understand a lot of people state it's a rock. But this "rock" has on first sight 5 squares in it and parallel edges. There for this "rock" is a BUILDING. It also looks like a building.
It is useless to try to create detail in a picture that does not have that much detail, it's as easy as that..
Yes, it's easy to say it, but I didn't said it was a coincidence, I may have not said it clearly but what I wanted to say is that the squares, not the parallel lines, are square because that is the shape of the pixels.
Originally posted by Lunica
Its too easy to say its a pixel coincidence. All the parallel lines are not a coincidence.
The image is resized and there are extra pixels, that is why what originally was a 1x1 square now is a 3x3 square.
The image is not resized as if they have put some extra pixels in it.
But because of the lack of detail the sharp edges may not be sharp edges at all, that is what I was trying to say.
Sharp edges are only created when zoomed in, when there are actually sharp edges...
If the detail exists then it is not created.
Its NOT useless to create detail where detail excists.
Originally posted by Lunica
To get a better conclusion IMO you have to look at the whole picture. In this example the whole picture would be the sum of all the coincidences in this picture. If almost everything in this picture can be explaned in the way they are explaned, buildings, a wall, etc... its very amazing.
Not just amazing. Its almost impossible to find such an example elsewhere. It's to much to be just an imagination.
The chances (scientifically) to find such a picture (out of 1000?) and see so many coincidently build up shapes...?
Because its receized, and I know thats the case here, I cant reject them just as a pixel coincidence. It makes it even a greater coincidence..