I must say, all these photos are a bit better than the usual garbage that passes as an alien structure around here, but with compelling reason to not dismiss photo pixelation, distortion and/or enhancment(s), I'll have to chalk this up to just another rather intresting anomaly..

Thanks for sharing though!!

that is'nt just pixelation. No way, no how.

Originally posted by defuntion
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]

jainatorres,

In pictures such as these we are not seeing the original color.
Color grids have been rendered over the picture to give it depth. This is normal pixelation that occurs when color is added/modified ditigaly.
I agree that (on close up) the patterns are interesting, but look at the picture as a whole (see posted link from internos). You will notice that the pixelation is constant throughout the entire photo.

I think people are again seeing what they want to see?

IMHO, of course...

I have the same city on my rear end. I hope they don't drill for water.

I agree with you jainatorres

Those objects are way to detailed to be compression artifacts, you can even make out some kind of antenna or beacon on top of some of those guys. The question is are those alien structures or ours?

Originally posted by defuntion
jainatorres,

In pictures such as these we are not seeing the original color.
Color grids have been rendered over the picture to give it depth. This is normal pixelation that occurs when color is added/modified ditigaly.

Erm, no, I don't think this is correct. Color addition/subtraction does not create pixellation. You're thinking about splitting the RGB layers or decreasing the amount of colors available to render the image, which degrades the the color count. Degrading the amount of colors, creates fewer colors in the closest available shade to the original image. The more color is degraded, the more the areas that have lost color will be the same color as the ones next to them. Adding color doesn't create a matrix, only if the saturation is turned up incredibly high, which in this case, would make the picture a glowing orange-red, white and black.



[edit on 8-11-2007 by undo]

Looks like compression to me.

Here's another crop from that same pic:



Unless these cities cover thousands of square miles, I'd say it's just compression j-peg artifacts.

Mike I have seen these photos before.

At one point here on ATS I was telling BYRD about them saying I thought I could show some REAL pics of cities on Mars but then I could NOT find the photos again being they were on an older computer I had that had gone kapoot.
I also had the ones of the weird looking 'so called glass tubes'...........

So ~ BYRD ~ if you read this thread and see these pics these are the very ones I was talking to you about that I could not find back in 04 I think it was...

So I was 'told' that these pics are the proof that we humans here on Earth USED to live on Mars.........and that we came to planet Earth after destroying the planet. AND........... (yes there is MORE).........That the peoples that did NOT leave Mars had to move underground in order to survive and the glass tubes pics were proof of this underground civilization. I am NOT saying this is all true because I can't proove or disprove it.....but it does not sound all that far fetched to me either, as I like to consider myself open minded.
....and that is what I was told by a bonnefied Scientist with a Doctorate degree who does nothing else but study Mars pics to try and prove this theory. However I think that if it was true they would not be forced to have to TRY SO HARD to prove its real...and they only told me about all the scientist doctorate stuff I never saw such credentials with my own eyes.









[edit on 8-11-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

I won't bore anyone with what has already been pointed out. There is nothing of interest in that photo without purposeful manipulation. The origin is from a con man plain and simple. Another hoax. I too work with photo's daily and have for years. The people creating these on their websites know what they really are.

Undo,

Erm, OK. I'll concede, but I was thinking more of a color over-lay.

The "original" photo is meant to present a topographic view of that scape. Surface detail was not meant to be the focus of that image...

All I am saying is that (by what means - I can't say exactly, but will try to find another example), the photo is not a natural photo. It has been either merged (radio-image with RGB color bands overlayed) or some other method.

The point of the picture was to emphasize the surface topography. Whoever produced the "original" picture probably did not count on a bunch of people studying it pixel by pixel.

What this thread is doing amounts to looking at a contour map of a mountain range and then expecting to find lines all over the mountain when you get there...

This photo is being used out of context. It's some man-made photographic anomaly. IMO...

Apparently we can no longer see images in the post preview or I would have posted this sooner. New feature I missed.

The above image is the same area at the real size. I removed as much noise as I could with a combination of Photoshop and Forensics Filters. I then got rid of the color to unconfuse the situation so you can see the shadows as they really are.

I would not buy a bridge from that website. My opinion of course.

[edit on 11/8/2007 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 11/8/2007 by Blaine91555]

if there a multiple shots of this location,from different angles and times,and they still show the same "effect",it cannot be a result of jpeg compression.

It is pixalized, I work with photos all day long
Zoom out a little then pan around you'll see
an almost uniform checkerboard of pixals
notice how there are no gentle curves only
squares. That is one of the problems of the
digital era. If this was film you wouldn't see
squares.

Skyfloating,

I don't think anyone here is trying to crash the 'Mars coming out' party. For all I know there is some type of life up there.

All we're discussing here is if the pictures presented are proof, and under any scutiny they don't hold up.

Maybe the next ones will.

Or, maybe I'm being too critical? In either case every one has their own threshold for belief. You can call me a skeptic, but this is not close enough for me.

Regards.