Alien City On Mars? Check This Out! , page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 100 times

reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:25 PM by internos

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
GREAT work, ArMaP..

Your excellent research really speaks loudly for a lesson to which we all should take heed:

These computer-generated landscapes are NOT real and should not be treated as such. Stick to the source material not virtual realities created by a computer program.

ArMap made a great work (as Mike did) and, sadly, is right about the reliability of this kind of 3d generated images (btw, is not only a matter of software, imho, but even of PEOPLE who works on it) : IMHO, is always better to start with a original image for many reasons: anyway, of course is not Mike's fault if the 3D cg generated images does not match the original ones: he's found an interesting (to say the least) thing on a (originary) ESA image, and shared it here... the source of the images is ESA... i mean, how the heck they pick an ordinary hill and then transform it in a mayan temple ?

Is normal that whoever sees such a shape is at least intrigued...

If what we see in the far left side is false, because it should show more or less an ordinary hill, why should we consider reliable the rest of the image, i mean the other reliefs i arrowed?
This means that this image is USELESS, except for fun. Since i don't think they are being paid to entertain the people, all the people who works at this 3D rendering project from ESA should be FIRED since these images are USELESS IMHO.

[edit on 10/11/2007 by internos]

reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:27 PM by wierdalienshiznit

reply to post by internos

theres no way that tri angle can form naturally on the moon,this is interesting.

is it an indentation on the film or something of that ilk?.

on the improved mars pictures shown by orion437,the "dark" patches show definite signs of geometrical topology.

reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:32 PM by internos

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
reply to post by internos

theres no way that tri angle can form naturally on the moon,this is interesting.

is it an indentation on the film or something of that ilk?.

on the improved mars pictures shown by orion437,the "dark" patches show definite signs of geometrical topology.

No, the last pic i posted is from Mars!

And is an original/unedited one
www.msss.com...
www.msss.com...

That's really odd, IMHO

[edit on 10/11/2007 by internos]

reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 10:56 PM by NGC2736

internos, if we don't trust the manipulation of the images into 3D, then where does that leave the question of the Face on Mars? I mean 3D was what was used to explained it as being an optical illusion.

If the 3D renderings are of no value here, then how can they be of value there?

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 02:23 AM by Equinox99

reply to post by mikesingh

Sorry I have not had the time to reply. I was referring to the opener, it seems
like a bunch of pixels zoomed in big time.

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 06:17 AM by internos

reply to post by NGC2736

Originally posted by NGC2736
internos, if we don't trust the manipulation of the images into 3D, then where does that leave the question of the Face on Mars? I mean 3D was what was used to explained it as being an optical illusion.

If the 3D renderings are of no value here, then how can they be of value there?

This IS really a good question (star for you), to which should answer who used the 3d CG images in order to "debunk" the face of Mars: of course, this someone is not ArMap

( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) who well knows the limitations of the reliability of this kind of "representations" (i personally think that the "face" is a rare case of "auto-debunking" artifact

).
My answer is that NO, 3D cg reconstruction of Mars, are NEVER value, neither in order to support a "find", nor in order to "debunk" it.
Many people makes comparisons between the 3d reconstruction of Mars and the "terrestrial" ones: that's WRONG. There are many technologies which can be used here on Earth that aren't, of course, available on Mars.
What you can do on Mars is, basically, to cross some orbiter images with some others, than build a 3d model and "wear" it with the images (unavoidabily "stretching" them): i'd call them 3d representations, which sounds much better: or better again, RANDOM representation, close to the Andy Wahrol's works...

To better show what happens while "rebuilding" in 3d CG a relief, take a look at this cropped-non enhanced-non resized image:

Description
This Mars picture (perspective view) was taken by High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) onboard ESA’s Mars Express orbiter, in colour and 3D, in orbit 18 on 14 January 2004, from a height of 275 km. The location is in Valles Marineris at 5° North and 323° East. The area is 50 km across. The image has a resolution of 12 m per pixel, and shows mesas and cliffs as well as flow features which indicate erosion by the action of flowing water. The landscape is seen in a perspective view, with north at bottom.

www.esa.int...

notice the lines i arrowed: they forms angles variable from 130 to 160 degrees approx (and already almost perfectly straight lines).
Now, if this relief was higher than actually is, these angle will reduce
they degrees till the moment in which they would form 90° angle; this is what most likely, if not for sure, happened to the "temple" noticed by our mate Mike.

Besides, there are of course the natural evolutions of the Planet (this is another matter) and the different resolutions/altitude of the orbiters:
take a look to this comparison between 2 mariner9 mosaics, a mariner9 map and a Viking mosaic, same scale, same area (Valles Marineris): it seems that we're talking about two different planets, come on.

img84.imageshack.us...

Of course, all these are my opinions...

[edit on 11/11/2007 by internos]

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 06:21 AM by mikesingh

Originally posted by internos

If what we see in the far left side is false, because it should show more or less an ordinary hill, why should we consider reliable the rest of the image, i mean the other reliefs i arrowed?
This means that this image is USELESS, except for fun. Since i don't think they are being paid to entertain the people, all the people who works at this 3D rendering project from ESA should be FIRED since these images are USELESS IMHO.

That's the point internos! That means the ESA images are all mud! Make-believe stuff based on some 3D imaging software! So what are NASA and ESA up to? Billion dollar probes with million dollar cameras on board just to see shoddy pics generated by some 3D software? Is this what our great scientists base their analyses on? Was this the way imagery was planned to be got from those probes and processed as false CGIs?

I can't believe this. Are these images dished out on the web in neat looking photo albums by NASA and ESA only meant for us suckers? Then where are the real ones?

And ArMaP, great work!

As usual, of course! OK, one thing I would like to repeat again. Can these pics be reproduced by anyone here? We've all said its artifact compression, pixelation and so on. But NO ONE here has been able to produce a similar pic with this type of compression on a Mars image thus far, complete with squares, diamonds, pentagons, parallel steps, and triangles.

The bottom line is, how were these images (shown in the opener), done? I think I'll email JPS and ask him how the devil he managed to make them!

Cheers!

[edit on 11-11-2007 by mikesingh]

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 06:57 AM by internos

reply to post by mikesingh

I honestly still haven't fully understand the steps made in order to decrease the color depht, but as you will see, it doesn't matter:

Step #1: crop

Step # 2: bicubic resample with resize 400 %

Step # 3: reduced brightness -85 %, increased contrast + 42 %

Now, i'll try to make appear something from nowhere, ok?

Step #1: crop

Step # 2: bicubic resample with resize 400 %

Step # 3: reduced brightness -93 %, increased contrast + 45 %

[edit on 11/11/2007 by internos]

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 07:01 AM by Skyfloating

Again,

since years I am seeing pictures published by NASA and ESA showing straight lines that nature cannot make. You can twist them and turn them, focus and de-focus, darken and lighten, but straight lines ARE straight lines, perfect circles are perfect circles, perfect triangles are perfect triangles.

I dont think its premature to ask: "Are there artificual structures on Mars?"

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 07:05 AM by internos

reply to post by Skyfloating

Skyfloating, you have an example in this page: take a look to the triangle i posted and try to explain it: that is an original image, these other ones we are debating, AREN'T images but 3d generated reconstructions.
HOW is possible that there is a temple....in a FLAT surface?
The perspective "magically" appears only after MANUPULATING the images, PERIOD. Straight lines are straight lines: true, but there are actual ones and computer generated ones: on Mars we can find both: it depends by the pic which we are looking at. This time, they were computer generated ones, sad but TRUE.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by internos]

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 07:36 AM by mikesingh

reply to post by internos

Nice rendering, internos!

The perspective magically appears only after MANUPULATING the images, PERIOD.

But, hey, I can clearly see a 3D effect (light and shade) even BEFORE maupulation!!

Now the question - Is there really something down there?? Looks like it is so!!

OK. Seriously, lets climb out of the Hale Crater briefly. Can one find similar effects in another area, say, in Cydonia? That would be interesting! And put to rest a lot of anomalous questions!

Cheers!

[edit on 11-11-2007 by mikesingh]

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 07:40 AM by Darkweave

Nice job internos, keep up the good work!

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 07:41 AM by internos

reply to post by mikesingh

Mike, i post this one just in order to clear further doubts:

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 07:59 AM by mikesingh

reply to post by internos

Ah, thanks, internos! Got it! But why do only certain areas have this effect when the parameters are the same for the entire terrain? Are these glitches only in some areas? If so, why?

If it's a universal phenomenon, then we could try and get the Cydonia terrain to throw up something like this. There's an IR image of the area which shows similar stuff....

On the right is the IR image with false color enhancement in the Cydonia area.
Courtesy: Lunaranomalies.com
Decorrelation by Keith Laney

What do you make of this?

Cheers!

www.lunaranomalies.com...

[edit on 11-11-2007 by mikesingh]

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 08:12 AM by ArMaP

reply to post by undo

The 15MB image is a 5176x7872 crop of the original nadir image without any processing.

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 09:11 AM by undo

Originally posted by mikesingh

On the right is the IR image with false color enhancement in the Cydonia area.
Courtesy: Lunaranomalies.com
Decorrelation by Keith Laney

www.lunaranomalies.com...

Another interesting image. Is this an IR of the model or an IR of the area, sans model? It wouldn't make any sense to do an IR of the model. lol

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 09:31 AM by mikesingh

reply to post by undo

Beth, here's an extract from the site...

One of the major reasons we have been so confident that Keith’s work and the leaked ASU image are legitimate is that we have been able to correlate various features in the IR enhancements (which the critics have universally derided as “enhancement artifacts”) with shallow, subtle surface features in the visible light images. We have also shown that another type of analysis, fractal analysis, predicted what the IR would find many years ago.

Obviously, if an object visible in detail in the ground penetrating IR can be correlated in this way, then it follows without question that the IR data is revealing “real” details of “real” objects, and not just some enhancement artifacts.
www.lunaranomalies.com...

Cheers!

[edit on 11-11-2007 by mikesingh]

reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 09:50 AM by mikesingh

Hey guys, what about this ‘platform-like’ feature which is about 152 pixels long by 88 pixels wide which translates to 425m x 245m or 1396 x 808 feet. Natural formation? If not, then……? Notice the raised edges.