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.

 

Project Redstar Movie

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Has anyone seen the movie Project Redstar? There are many interesting points, it's about a possible civilization on mars. There are many anomolies in the photos that are shown. What do you guys think of this?


Google Video Link

video.google.com...




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Sweet video, I had not seen that one
Nor had I ever heard of "Tithonia" so thanks for sharing this



Follow up question....

Any new photos of this Tithonia area?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Thanks a lot for posting this!
. I too had not heard of Tithonia or this video.
I'd like to see the original pics in full size too, its damn interesting.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I first saw this video a couple of years ago, it ranks as a favourite but I think a lot is random shapes and suggestion, also the shapes arent quite as defined in the originals even though in the video they claim that no alteration is made.
Still, a fun video and well presented and I hope for the follow up video they promised.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
First, a little rant.

There is a song called "Video killed the radio star" and apparently, in the Internet, there should be a version called "Video killed the written material".

What happened to the good old web pages where we can read and see the pictures at our leisure and only limited by the time we take to read it?

Why should we have to download lengthy video pieces to see if this is something that is really interesting?

Videos are useful in some situations but are only a time waster in other situations.

Rant over, sorry, but I had to say it.


 


I have not seen this video, but if this is another of those cases where some people see cities where other people only see the common terrain then I will pass.

While looking for alternatives to the 2 hours video I found this thread. Is this video related in any way to John Lear? If it is you can ask him directly what he thinks



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Complete boredom, another video of low resolution mars, i couldn't watch this past he first hour to be honest, near the beginning he was going on about domes' roads and ruins on mars while showing you an image that you could make little sense of, too much specualtion for me i think.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:50 AM
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 don't think they are implying that there is currently a civilization there. I think they believe they are looking at ruins, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I think this area has a lot more to look at than Cydonia does.

I know this video is kind of boring but there are still many interesting anomolies in it, it's worth the watch.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
This is not "a rock". This is clearly a building. Ok, its a little scary to know there are buildings on mars. Well, to bad.

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.




Its not that hard to see, to understand, to believe, or better, to KNOW.

great vid btw



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I also ordered the DVD a couple of years ago. It was pretty mind-blowing IMHO. There is definitely something non-geological in formation in some of those areas. Again, more fuel to the fire that NASA is covering things up to the Nth degree IMO.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
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)

Only the low pictures are available now...

Weird? Or maybe I am blind and someone can tell me how to get them?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

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)
I did not saw the video, is this image the one you want?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lunica
This is not "a rock".
How do you know, rocks can have any shape.


This is clearly a building. Ok, its a little scary to know there are buildings on mars. Well, to bad.
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.

And no, even if there are buildings on Mars that is not a bit scary, why should it be?


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.
That is because the pixels are square and the image was resized, that's all.

It is useless to try to create detail in a picture that does not have that much detail, it's as easy as that..



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Lunica
This is not "a rock".
How do you know, rocks can have any shape.


This is clearly a building. Ok, its a little scary to know there are buildings on mars. Well, to bad.
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.

And no, even if there are buildings on Mars that is not a bit scary, why should it be?


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.
That is because the pixels are square and the image was resized, that's all.

It is useless to try to create detail in a picture that does not have that much detail, it's as easy as that..



How I know this is not a rock. Its Easy. When you look at it you see its not a rock. Because its a building.
Its too easy to say its a pixel coincidence. All the parallel lines are not a coincidence. The image is not resized as if they have put some extra pixels in it. Sharp edges are only created when zoomed in, when there are actually sharp edges...
Its NOT useless to create detail where detail excists.

Its that easy


For many people (not you) its scary to have buildings on Mars. That's why a lot of people dont want to see anything that does not fit with their lives, the "scientifically earth we know", the bible, the koran or whatever other reason they have. But I understand it of course. People need to have ground under their feet. And this information does take that ground away.

Greetings Lunica



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lunica
Its too easy to say its a pixel coincidence. All the parallel lines are not a coincidence.
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.

The square in the middle of the "building" face is only a pixel, what shape can it be except square?

Also, the parallel lines, although their parallelism is not an effect of the resizing or the shape of the pixels, may look like they have a different shape because of the lack of detail. If we have a picture with a two pixel wide line, that line can have a rectangular section or a round section, it can be a tube or the top of a wall.


The image is not resized as if they have put some extra pixels in it.
The image is resized and there are extra pixels, that is why what originally was a 1x1 square now is a 3x3 square.

This is the image in its original size, I only changed a little the brightness and rotated the image so its position is the same as that as the photos I have seen (I have not seen the video).




Sharp edges are only created when zoomed in, when there are actually sharp edges...
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.

I will try to find some photos to explain what I want to say.


Its NOT useless to create detail where detail excists.
If the detail exists then it is not created.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I agree in your explanation. When going to pixels, one pixel can only be a square.
Of course the whole arguement about pixels, based on pure science, would lead us to a conclusion that it is a building or just a brick. No definite answer.

However, to get a conclusion about the origin of what we see, I state its to simple to just stick to pure science. Pure science will let out a lot of possibilities because those possibilities cant be measured etc...

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...

They have added names to the buildings... well thats imagination

Could be wrong or not. For me thats a step to far.

Also counting in a lot of other examples of clear artificial shapes, structures on photos on mars (and thats really a lot). The same sum of coincidences can be made. Conclusion:
Its TO much to reject.
And its not that weird there are cities or ancient life on an other planet. Why couldn't it be? And when agreeing in this. Why would this not be the thing we are looking for?

After saying this:
If there would be a balance to weigh the possibilities. The heavier part of that balance would let me to the conclusion we are looking at a little city.


Maybe this is a little different aproach. But IMO its definitaly significant when looking at stuff like this.

Lunica


ps: Its a building



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Can someone take the time to put up a picture from google earth of any natural earth landmass so we can outline all the "artificial ancient settlements" we see in them just to prove a point? People see what they want to see, period.

Better yet, I am going outside to take a picture of the clouds and outline scooby doo, thelma, and a schmoo.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
good video it is far to blurry I can draw houses on shadows to doesnt make ema mining plant or a statue

this video sucks



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

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..


Thats how I think of it. If you actually sit and watch the whole thing, (which I'm sure a few haven't done) it's very hard to just call this all a coincidence. Not everything discussed was square anyway, there were a few structures with dome shapes or rounded shapes as well.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join