I don't think that those rectangles are the result of JPEG compression or anything like that, I think that they are the result of mapping a 2D photo over a computer generated 3D model of that area.

Mapping a 2D image over a 3D model creates a new kind of artifact, the stretching of the original image.

Imagining that we have a 3D representation of a tennis court. Mapping a photo taken from the vertical of that court would make a perfect representation of the real court because there isn't any real relief on a tennis court.

But if we had a photo good enough to show the net between the two halves of the court, what would that look like when mapped over its 3D model, with a sharp (probably vertical, but that would vary with the precision of the height measurements) increase in height?

The only visible part of the net, when viewed from the top, would be the top canvas strip, and that would be what the mapping of the image over the 3D model would use, making a vertical wall with the thin canvas strip stretched 2 times (one for each side) over the full height of the net.

What would that thin strip of canvas would look if it originally was only 3 or 4 pixels wide? Those pixels would be repeated (or probably interpolated, if there was any difference in colour between them) until they had the needed size.

That is what I think we are viewing in these photos, and if that is what is really happening, then all of those 3D models with the photos mapped over them will show signs of that stretching of the texture that is mapped over the 3D data, specially in places where there is a sharp difference in colour or in height.

Originally posted by GrimTroll

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
Here's some more "alien cities on mars". Notice the same tiling?

Hahahaha!
is this serious?

Hey there GT, respectfully, could you elaborate what you meant by your comment?

Mike great pics as always my friend, This is definatly getting under the skin of the powers that be. I have noticed that most of the debunkers on this thread just opened accounts to specifically debunk these pics. Disinfo IMO working hard to make this discussion thread go away. Pixilation, Jpeg artifacts, WTF? I dont prefess to know anything about imaging, but what we see for sure looks like intelligent construction. Why is it so hard for some to believe that intelligent life couldnt exsist anywhere else but earth. Pretty short sited and just doesnt make sense IMO.

Keep it up Mike dont stop and to be honest I have been feeling like we are about to know what the deal is or isnt!!!!


S&F

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think that those rectangles are the result of JPEG compression or anything like that, I think that they are the result of mapping a 2D photo over a computer generated 3D model of that area.

Mapping a 2D image over a 3D model creates a new kind of artifact, the stretching of the original image.

Imagining that we have a 3D representation of a tennis court. Mapping a photo taken from the vertical of that court would make a perfect representation of the real court because there isn't any real relief on a tennis court.

But if we had a photo good enough to show the net between the two halves of the court, what would that look like when mapped over its 3D model, with a sharp (probably vertical, but that would vary with the precision of the height measurements) increase in height?

The only visible part of the net, when viewed from the top, would be the top canvas strip, and that would be what the mapping of the image over the 3D model would use, making a vertical wall with the thin canvas strip stretched 2 times (one for each side) over the full height of the net.

What would that thin strip of canvas would look if it originally was only 3 or 4 pixels wide? Those pixels would be repeated (or probably interpolated, if there was any difference in colour between them) until they had the needed size.

That is what I think we are viewing in these photos, and if that is what is really happening, then all of those 3D models with the photos mapped over them will show signs of that stretching of the texture that is mapped over the 3D data, specially in places where there is a sharp difference in colour or in height.

so perhaps if there is a 2D picture with same anomaly you could discover whether this is indeed the correct explanation or not?

maybe John Lear was saying the truth after all about mars....

[edit on 093030p://am3009 by andre18]

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]

This post should have ended it. Plain as day, the deliberate and disingenuous manipulation of the source material to create the impression of something that isn't there can be seen.

Folks are always complaining about how "the powers that be" are manipulating the data to hide the truth yet y'all don't seem to care about the obvious doctoring in this case. Why?

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
I'm not really interested in playing "Mars Anomaly Whack-A-Mole" right now.

"Mars Anomaly Whack-A-Mole"!!!!

ROTFLMAO

Now THAT's funny!

Hoot!

It does look like the Chinese rice fields. I'm definitley interested to find out too if it's just natural reason's or what. Maybe it's a grand canyon type of thing?