Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

page: 3
102
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
OF COURSE that was a close up. I'm showing you the JPEG TILING on that picture. It doesn't matter WHAT is on the picture. That is not a city, but you can continue to ignore the facts and keep on posting if you want to.

Did YOU not post a closeup???

[edit on 8-11-2007 by rocksarerocks]




posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 

I try to explane:

1) That's a closeup and the jpeg artifact HAS BEEN REMOVED ALMOST TOTALLY, so isn't a valid example

2) If you post a picture OUT of its origional contest, and you add "Alien cities on Mars" you make the people think that someone claimed it, and that someone, of course, isn't me, since the anomaly in question, as you can see, is an apparent geyser, so totally different argument

3) Since you're quoting a picture posted by ME, i don't see why you don't post at least the link to the original post:

These are the only reason of my post. A closeup out of contest is meningless, the caption was deceiving by himself, and there is NOT jpeg artifact in that pic: there is blur, of course, but that's another question. Absolutely no offence intended, but a necessary clarification.


By the way, since i don't know about you, i don't blame you to ignore the facts.
Since i NEVER ignore the facts, it would be appreciated if you'd refrain from blaming the people randomly.
Thank you.

Anyway,
top= jpeg artifact almost absent
bottom = jpeg artifacts




[edit on 8/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
oh my God...these pictures arent supposed to be published before 2017. I hate it when someone at ESA leaks stuff.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
It doesn't quite look like compression artifacts to me, but more like stitching artifacts.

www.luminous-landscape.com...

Remember, these orbiters more very quickly. Often, they take many photographs that are later pieced together.

Try scanning a photograph at a high resolution and moving the picture in a single direction while the scan head is still capturing. Characteristic types of geometric repetitions will appear in the scanned image.

Open your scanned image in PhotoShop and try to recreate the original image, correcting for having moved the photo while it was being scanned. Then think about what sorts of corrections a computer might try to make if it didn't have access to the original image.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Another great find Mike!

However, mucho kudos to the original guy as well, j.p. skipper.
Here's his website, but don't know what page the above are from www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Joseph Skipper has spent countless hours on nasa and esa files and has tons of things to look at over there.
However, some of the things he points out are open to intrepetation.
He does give a little synopsis after each of the more interesting photos, which is nice.
You could say it's pixelation on the first pic, but when you look more closely, there is a definite 3D effect there that would tend to rule pixelation in my view.
Thanks Mike!



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
When compared to the original that some one posted a link to (thanks...)
The zoomed in portions that were posted can be identified in the larger picture.

If you look at the original it is very apparent that we are seeing normal pixelation. The zoomed in versions posted here have been modified by shadowing added to give the impression of depth (or geometric form).

In the original it is very clear that these structures (patterns really) are flat and are no more than color grids that get rendered when photos are processed digitaly.

We still don't have pictures of any "cities on Mars"....IMO



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Dude. Please, that top picture still has TONS of JPG artifacting in it. You cannot REMOVE original JPG artifacts. JPG is a LOSSY compression. Once data is gone, it's gone, end of story.

Just because you have 10 people who don't know anything about compression artifacts from LOSSY compression doesn't make this an "alien city on mars.".

This is just another typical thread with a COMPLETELY fabricated title. One of about 50 of them in this forum that all belong in skunkworks.



[edit on 8-11-2007 by rocksarerocks]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
reply to post by internos
 


Dude. Please, that top picture still has TONS of JPG artifacting in it. You cannot REMOVE original JPG artifacts. JPG is a LOSSY compression. Once data is gone, it's gone, end of story.


This is the point: you can (partially) remove the jpeg artifact, but you can't recover the original quality. In other words, you can remove the pixelation effect, almost totally, by reducing the pixelation scale and preserving the original shapes, but the quality remains bad of course: compression is not reversible and many details will disappear.
And yes, the original pic, from the area, has jpeg artifacts in, i can confirm it


The original pic has already pixelation due to jpeg compression, this is more than sure:

personally, i think that:
- they cropped an area
- they decraeased the brightness, at least 70%
- they increased the contrast, at least 15 %
- *maybe* they reduced the color depht, not sure
- they cropped a part of the pic
- they resized the pic, at least 250 %

done.


[edit on 8/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
Mike, a star and a flag for you.
What i see here looks really interesting.Now i'll try to get some original pics from somewhere.

Edit to add:
this should be the original pic:
esamultimedia.esa.int...

[edit on 8/11/2007 by internos]


That is not an original picture of Mars. That is a computer-generated rendering with Mars images projected on to 3D terrain data.

You can not use this image as a basis for any "anomaly" hunt since the process of generating the scene and presenting the results on the Web can introduce artifacts not present in the original data.

Find the original photos used to create the rendering.

Also...

"All images reproduced and enhanced with the permission of JP Skipper.
Mars Anomaly Research. "...

Not filling me with confidence here.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

That is not an original picture of Mars. That is a computer-generated rendering with Mars images projected on to 3D terrain data.

You can not use this image as a basis for any "anomaly" hunt since the process of generating the scene and presenting the results on the Web can introduce artifacts not present in the original data.

Find the original photos used to create the rendering.

Also...

"All images reproduced and enhanced with the permission of JP Skipper.
Mars Anomaly Research. "...

Not filling me with confidence here.

Wait. I've only found the pic from which THEY started, "original" is meant in this sense and is clear to everyone that it's a 3d rendering.
I've never used this kind of pics: check my threads and you will see.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
...Just makes me wonder what happened to Mars and will it happen here on earth? Was there intelligent life on Mars at one time and then something horrible happened to that planet to make it what it is today...


Well,

If we go over board on geothermal energy and suck enough heat out of our planet, we will lose our "Solar Wind Shield (magnetic field)" just like Mars.

Since we are closee to Sol than Mars is, it will take less time for the solar wind to erode our atmosphere to the point where our planet can no longer support life.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos

Wait. I've only found the pic from which THEY started, "original" is meant in this sense and is clear to everyone that it's a 3d rendering.
I've never used this kind of pics: check my threads and you will see.


Understood.
Nothing personal towards you.

I just wanted to point-out that the pic you posted and being picked-apart by the "anomaly" hunters is useless for their purpose and their results can only be regarded as suspect in this case.

The original images used to make that image were...

* Processed to prepare them for use by the rendering program...

* These images were then processed by the rendering program to generate the scene...

* The rendered output was processed for Web presentation...

* The Web picture was "enhanced" by the hunters...

We are four generations away from the original data. Too many for my liking.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
You know what that really looks like, the birds eye view of that neiborhood that you see in the start of the matrix, before the films started



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Here is a comparison of the "original" photo (from link by internos) to what was posted...

Original (from link by internos- zoomed in close to level of posted version)




posted (appears modified - shadowing added to emulate depth/geometry)




Seems apparent to me (Pixelation - not a city)...

[edit on 8-11-2007 by defuntion]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The original photo also shows a terrace-like structure. This is just beautiful and amazing.

Notice the lack of debunkers and hoax-callers on this thread.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Yeah.


Notice the post right above yours to see how you're being fooled by doctored images.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by defuntion
 


Good, excellent point imho.
And don't forgive that there have been all the passages that IattackPeople indicated before

Imho, as said:
- they cropped an area
- they decraeased the brightness, at least 70%
- they increased the contrast, at least 15 %
- *maybe* they reduced the color depht, not sure
- they cropped a part of the pic
- they resized the pic, at least 250 %

almost sure that they reduced even the color depht.
Following these steps on a random area i obtained almost the same result.
But even you, following another way, are there.
This means that marsanomalies has "forced" a bit the final result, and "used" the compression artifacts, that's sure. If we come accross an original msss/moc pic which by himself shows what we see in the final result, that would be the find of the century to say the least!




[edit on 8/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
It really disgusts me that people dismiss this out-of-hand as JPEG artifacting. There is no doubt that there are JPEG artifiacts present but there are clearly defined structures present within the images. The JPEG artifacts are present within the context of the structures but are not the CAUSE of the structures. Here are some real examples of JPEG artifacting.

This is from 299KM above earth (approximately the same distance though at lower resolution due to the differences between the camera orbiting Mars and Earth) looking down on southern california. This is what REAL JPEG artifacts look like:

These images are representative of populated areas in southern california; areas that are full of structures. The similiarity of these photos with the original Mars photos should be apparant






The images that were originally posted clearly show structures that are not part of JPEG compression artifacts. Just as in these images you can see the natural and artificial terrain in spite of the artifacting.


Additionally, there are possibly thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years of dirt, dust and erosion that have occured on the surface of mars to further obscure the symmetrical structures (grid) of any city on that planet.
-Euclid


[edit on 8-11-2007 by euclid]

[edit on 8-11-2007 by euclid]

[edit on 8-11-2007 by euclid]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 
Fantastic pics, you are getting so close.

You are getting so close!!!
I imagine skeptics would say that the polar pic is also a natural phenomenon
I know that you will keep us posted with new and reliable photos.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Oh, no.

Not another one of these...


"An anomaly in every image."


[edit on 8-11-2007 by Nohup]





new topics
top topics
 
102
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join