It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is this significant? Mars Related

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:08 PM

Or is this not? I'm interested in people's opinions before I make an issue of this on other forums.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:17 PM
'They' are chopping me to pieces on this one, Shi...

So, be prepared for mass-insults and 'expert debunking.' It is not a declarative statement of 'proof' - but people aren't reading that. Just looking at the images - and crying 'foul!' But then... they will go and post something equally as subjective - but more 'en vougue.'

As researchers - we are allowed trial and error. But I fear - not here. So, get ready to see a lot of 'laughing smily faces' following your post.


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:17 PM
Interesting . As, if its artifacts from compression why does it not go higher? Im no expert . But it shure looks like a castle or something with towers . Good find.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:27 PM
Pretty girl!!

I tried, you guys ( and dolls ) - isn't not about anything other than finding interesting patterns. And maybe - some out there will be inspired to look closer - and for themselves. I have faith - that someday - someone really will find something that isn't so easily shredded. And then - we become a stone on the path. That is good enough for me.


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:33 PM
No its not significant. In fact, its retarded. No offense, but always question artifacts on a low res jpg. The eyes plays tricks, as does the compression algorithm. A clear giveaway is the single color sky: only heavy compression can cause this.

Here's an original from NASA:

Here is the part of the photo in the link, 100% cropped, embossed and sharpened:

Do you still see the city?

[edit on 28-1-2008 by merka]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:53 PM

Thanks for the example.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:02 PM
"Its retarded. No Offense."

No... really. Surely no offense was intended. That is obvious.

I think rehashing 'Roswell' ad nauseum is pretty ridiculous too. Everyone has their opinion.

I think the 'resemblances' story is more interesting if read from the beginning.

More water than we thought...

'Single color sky'??? The original photo is.... 'black and white'??? So is a 'emboss / sharpen' filter. Well... the original pages were intended to show 'abundant water' and 'airbrushing' in NASA / JPL photos. In this country - NASA is well-known to be in alliance with the military.

Merka - you should always trust your government - and the military. They have nothing but your best interests in mind.


It is ALL .. about thought provoking. Say what you will... but I have achieved at least that.


p.s. - someone Please come up with a new insult. These just look like 'cut-and-paste' from 2000 other like minds.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by merka
No its not significant. In fact, its retarded.

In spite of the classy way the OP handled that statement I have to say that is was very rude, childish and dismissive. Make your point without being lame will you?

I'll look more into this, it seems very interesting. I would like to try and emulate the same technique used to reveal these images but at first glance of course they seem oddly out of place. It could be a result of the image itself though.

Since the image anomalies seem very faded and obscure they would not readily be picked up with an emboss so it doesn't prove anything that they were not.

Thanks for the thread.

- Lee

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:43 PM
In that blowup from the OPs link Is that a blue Isuzu Aztek? How did that get up there? Gas must be expensive.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:53 PM
I think it was a '76 Gremlin hatchback.
Gasoline is relatively cheap there... but the import taxes will kill ya.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by lee anoma

I wasnt refering to the OP himself, I was talking about the link he provided.

I dont think the link is significant and I think photo analysis of jpeg artifacts is retarded, especially when you do some heavy zooming too.

In case anyone missed it, I did not take a random NASA photo and made an example. The picture I posted IS the so-called "city".

[edit on 28-1-2008 by merka]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:59 PM
Have one 'last-ditch effort' for ya. Take a look at the last 2 images on the following URL... - and tell me whether or not it looks like image tampering ( no sharpens/embosses/enlargements were done on this one. )

Is this JPL 'cut-and-paste' job??

If not... I hope you were at least mildly entertained. And be sure to pick up your 'free drink' coupon on your way out of this thread.

Thats... entertainment.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:58 PM
I think the site is very interesting, in the “City” pictures it’s clear that something is there, it even goes to point out that it’s not just how the picture looks because some areas have the “city” and some don’t.

The creepy one though has to be the detail of the “face” on the Mars figure/statue thing.

Good work Johnbro, You got anymore?


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:10 PM
I think we're all capable of discussing these things civilly.

Needless baiting and insults from both sides of the fence don't help.




top topics


log in