Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

reply to post by euclid


euclid, that's what I thought. For those who think it's nothing but pixelation and compression, I would like to ask them what they think of this pic...



Another 'city' on Mars? Let see them explain this!

Cheers!


[edit on 9-11-2007 by mikesingh]

No offense mike I do enjoy your posts but these look nothing like cities on mars, they look like something you zoom in about 400% in and posted it up.

reply to post by tyranny22


Tyranny22, the area shown in your pic is just about 350 sq km. So what's the big deal here? Sitka, Alaska is 4000 square km!

Cheers!

Originally posted by Equinox99
No offense mike I do enjoy your posts but these look nothing like cities on mars, they look like something you zoom in about 400% in and posted it up.

Equinox, which is the pic you're referring to? The one above your post? Or the ones in the opener?

I would like to clarify some points: first, let's distiguish what mike does and what marsanomaliesresearch does:

when mike finds something of interest, as many times happened,
he post it here, since someone else will do the same soon or later, also better to hurry up in order to not be scooped: here we can do all the analysis that we want, but no one should blame mike if the compressions artifacting could be deceiving or if the pictures are possibly manipulated: this thread is based upon this partucular work of M.A.R., which has been quoted at its start: mike is sharing them with us and we can discuss about them

the jpeg artifacting is visible in all the 3d CG image, NOT only in the area of interest, hope this is clear:

the 3D CG image hasn't been left in its original state, but reduced in color depht, increased in contrast, reduced in brightness, resized, enhanced and many other passages, still not clear in every part:

we still the haven't made a comparison between the "final result" and what actually appears on the original pics: before that moment, every conclusive statement is premature: ESA/DLR/FU outputs already compressed images and yes, the one posted by ArMap should be one of the images used in the 3d generated image: what we need to find now (IMHO) are original msss/moc images in order to make all the comparisons that we want


finally, please:

if someone supports the "genuine" theory shouldn't be blamed to be deceiving the people

if someone notices that there are clear effects of jpeg compression or manipulation, shouldn't be blamed to be a "debunker"

we are here to discuss it peacefully and in a civil manner, it doesn't matter what will be the final result.

Edit to add:
some measurements of the area of interest (approximately the circled one)


[edit on 9/11/2007 by internos]

I think its probably a current civilization or traces from a former civilization. There is also traces from earlier civilizations here on Earth (under water).

History as we have been told is a big lie in my opinion. People have been here before us, there is no doubt about it. And they most likely reached our level of technology and even beyond as well.

So I think they were visiting other planets and built civilizations there as well, and we are seeing the traces from that now.

Or it could be alien structures, thats also a possibility.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by Copernicus]

OK, so for those who always seem to head for ‘compression and pixelation’ explanations, which I undoubtedly agree upto a certain point, I wonder if they can reproduce a similar pixilated image from any other area on Mars so these can be compared with the pics at the beginning of this thread. Yes complete with squares, circles, diamond shapes and oblique ‘steps’.

I don’t for a minute say that these pics are proof of alien civilization! But you’d agree they do give raise to suspicion of artificial anomalies. The idea is to get at the truth!

Having said that, have a look at the images below. To me it looks like the ruins of a civilization long gone.. But then again, is this due to image ‘compression’?




Images Courtesy: ESA

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


Hey Mike,

Been loving your posts for a while. Just a clarification though - the borough of Sitka is roughly 4800 sq. miles. Out of that, roughly 4798 sq. miles is forest and untouched land (AK pride can't let that go Having said that, while I do think that there's plenty of evidence for a Mars completely different than the NASA line, I don't think that this image is it. Keep up the great work though!

-S

I enjoy these threads just as much as the next enthusiast, but I don't see much of anything here. I just don't think any of the pics are close or detailed enough to be considered evidence of anything.

Originally posted by mikesingh

I don’t for a minute say that these pics are proof of alien civilization!

You don't say it, but you certainly do imply it.

But you’d agree they do give raise to suspicion of artificial anomalies. The idea is to get at the truth!

I agree, but we can do better than this and you know it.

whatever may be, its probably important to remember that we are talking about a civilization that used to be there a long time ago and who`s ruins are covered in sand. Either that or the cities are underground. I think if there were an active civ. above ground, we`d have seen more of it by now.

I have yet to see anyone reproduce the "pixelation artifacts." A few tried, but the pics looked nothing like what Mike posted. The OP's pictures look 3 dimensional to me, and too random in size, shape, and position, to convince me that its simply pixelation. We'll see.

Doesn't look like a pixelation anomaly to me. Either it's fake and taken over planet Earth or there's something going on on Mars that they aren't telling us.

reply to post by mikesingh


Well, ya gotta admit one thing; that Lunar tour was breathtaking. I was mesmerized from the time we took off until we almost landed. We're still moving along, allbeit at a slower pace now than before.

Anyway, as for the images posted here go, I'm sorry, but they appear to be nothing but pixel artifacts created as a result of the over-zooming done to the image. Anyone can artificially manufacture similar images with any image. All they have to do is zoom until you see distortion, and there will be something that looks anomalous in it.

Remember, as always, these are just my opinions on this topic, and should be taken as such.

TheBorg

IMHO there is no way these formations are "natural". They are just too precise.

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike, the last cropped image (from a 3D CG image) you posted is showing what actually is there:
absolutely nothing which can be dismissed as pixelation/jpeg artifacting:

in this "cleaner" cropped image of the same area, the shape of the object
that you labeled "Artificial Construction?" is clearly visible, and the image has been taken "as is", without increasing contrast, etcetera.
We can discuss about WHAT it could be, but of course not about the fact that is actually there

No matter what angle you take that from, it actually shows a sort of temple covered by red desert. The lines (stairs) leading up to it are FAR TO STRAIGHT AND SYMMETRIC to be artificial.

Could someone measure the distance between each of the stair-edges? Of each step has the same size we have an even better case.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
No matter what angle you take that from, it actually shows a sort of temple covered by red desert. The lines (stairs) leading up to it are FAR TO STRAIGHT AND SYMMETRIC to be artificial.

Could someone measure the distance between each of the stair-edges? Of each step has the same size we have an even better case.

Then you have a copule of thousand temples in the grand canyon IMO

reply to post by Skyfloating
Let's say that we are MANY steps forward in comparison with the first pictures posted: now it would be much interesting to find the original images of the area (probably we'll find something top-view) in order to back it up: IMHO, THIS find is much more interesting, despite the shape of the "construction" does not appears as elaborate as the first pictures' ones: this image has't been manipulated in any way (after all the 3d generating-related processes).
Great Mike as always

Originally posted by TheBorg
Anyway, as for the images posted here go, I'm sorry, but they appear to be nothing but pixel artifacts created as a result of the over-zooming done to the image. Anyone can artificially manufacture similar images with any image. All they have to do is zoom until you see distortion, and there will be something that looks anomalous in it.

Hi Borg! Where the devil have you been hidin'? Long time, no see! Welcome back!

Ok, as per your contention they are all pixelated images and a result of excessive zooming. Can you produce a similar pic from any place on Mars? All areas should look alike if they are similarly 'distorted' due to the reasons you and some others have given.

But no one has as yet produced a similar pic so far. Theory is fine, but doing it is the tough part. As they say, it's easier said than done!

So let's have it! And remember, we'd like to see similar geometric shapes - triangles, diamonds, squares, rectangles etc.

Wow! Millions of dollars worth of photographic equipment, and this is what we get - badly pixelated images from a billion dollar Mars probe!! Screwing around with tax payer's dough? So then the question arises - are these images tampered with so that we don't get to see the real picture? And that what we're getting to see is just about 10% of the actuals? There could be much more there, than meets the eye!

Cheers!





[edit on 9-11-2007 by mikesingh]

Mike, the last cropped image (from a 3D CG image) you posted is showing what actually is there.....
We can discuss about WHAT it could be, but of course not about the fact that is actually there

Man, you got to hand it to Internos for being able to do what some of us only wish we could or had the means to do ....good work Internos! and excellent post again Mike! . Keep them coming!