The point is:

I dont mind anything being debunked.

What I do mind is when biased people ("Life on Mars doesnt exist and never will...EVER!!!!!!") attempt to debunk, because thats an agenda that will render ANY evidence useless.

so then (im going to argue both sides) if it is pixelated it pixelated the SAME EXACT WAY in every picture? that would be similair to a drop of water splattering the exact same way two times in a row. to me it does look like a city but we wont know until the gooberment decides to let us know...or their maybe nothing to know. but from the red picture the area seems to be much brighter than the rest of the area which could easily be of course rocks or other things but judging by the luminosity of it im going to go with it is some kind of metal. of course thats not to say this isnt a metal deposit brought to the surface by years of erosion. also alot of those shapes DO NOT naturally occur i would have to get a better look but a diamond is two triangle a perfect triangle doesnt occur in nature or atleast not on earth.also squares can occur but its not likely. now on to the skeptics. this could all be explained as some sort of pixelation or file compression but it does seem that that is used as the explanation for alot of things. the site like alot of mars anomaly sies propably isnt that credible nasa has a fairly good reputation of not leaking stuff. (however in a press conference they had a picture of mars in the background with a blue atmosphere) any ways this is my two cents on it great find though. i generally hope its real but like i said since its available on the internet it propably isnt real.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Take a look at these images of the Hale Crate on Mars taken by Mars Express and sourced from ESA.

If you look carefully, you would probably notice the clear geometric shapes. Squares, rectangles, circles and diamond shaped structures. Can these be the result of natural geological formations, manifestations of volcanic activity, adverse pixilation effects on the images or are they artificial constructs? The resolution of these images is quite poor, and thus difficult to identify. But I think it looks suspiciously like the image of a Martian city!

Anyway, what do you suppose these geometric shapes could be?

137-021104-0533-6-3d2-01-HaleCrater.
All images reproduced and enhanced with the permission of JP Skipper.
Mars Anomaly Research.

Cheers!



[edit on 8-11-2007 by mikesingh]

._.

Those pics looks like they were ripped from some movie. One of them looks like it was ripped off from Godzilla.

Nice try fooling anyone, (if you even managed) but you can't fool me.

mars' core died 4 billion years ago, leaving it with no gravitational field to protect it's surface from cosmic rays, and no atmosphere.

sure, it's possible a civilization could have been there 4 billion years ago, but then you also have to figure the tempuratures there make it unlikely a higher form of life could evolve whle they may have had an atmosphere

I just think it's a lousy place to colonize for an advanced life form looking for a home, and a near statistical impossibility there was ever life there that began there

Doesn't look like cities- looks like farm lands to me....take a look at google maps or google earth and go over a farm-land part of any state- you'll see what looks just like these pictures obviously except green. But the fact that its in some sort of line-up of shapes aligned perfectly means that something, someone whatever it may be....is either on there still or left there...Mars is decieving to look at because all we can do is compare it to our planet...We dont really know enough about it to make assumptions...but this can be presented as clear evidence that mars has been tampered with in some form.

Thats awsome. Clear sign we're not alone in the universe- Duh!

I find it hilarious people call it "pixelation errors". In 10 years of using computers and messing with a lot of digital images, I've never seen errors like that before.

Also, just because some are saying it's farmland, they don't mean that life is on there right now. That could be from years and years ago.

How about some of you actually read what people say before bringing your debunking theories in here? I know that's a long shot though so why do I even bother?

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
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!

You're welcome Alexander!
Bingo! You're spot on! It does give a 3D effect. I wish we had a higher res pic of the area. But then anomalies such as these would probably be airbrushed/tampered with before publication!

Cheers!

Originally posted by nightmare_david
I find it hilarious people call it "pixelation errors". In 10 years of using computers and messing with a lot of digital images, I've never seen errors like that before.

Hah! Too hilarious!
Guess where this is.

The original image was taken from a high altitude with compression artifacts clearly visible. On top of that, according to ESA, the ground resolution for that image is 40 meters per pixel, or 131 feet per pixel, whatever your preferred unit of measure. With all that said, how is it then possible to attain the apparent detail depicted in those manipulated images? A 737 jetliner would equate to 1 pixel at that resolution, no?

I've spent countless hours working with computer graphics, but I'm certainly no expert, so I was wondering.

Not sure if I see that as a city, possibly just pixelation. Very interesting none-the-less. Clearer images would make better proof of course, if possible.