It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Alien ‘Township’ Built In Martian Rock? Found On MOC Image!

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Here are some pretty strange formations I found on Mars MOC narrow-angle image M20-00092. They look like artificial constructions like an Alien city resembling a honey comb built into the rock! Most likely these are natural geographical formations. But could they be something more? Like remnants of a Martian city, for example?

We always seem to be making the mistake of looking for tell tale signs of a civilization on Mars keeping our own templates in mind. Martian thinking could be far removed from our concepts per se. Do we know what the Martians concepts and methodologies for habitable constructions were? They may not have followed our engineering models of constructing tall high rise steel structures, but instead made use of natural resources like building into rock or even underground.


What I’ve mentioned above is based on a premise that an ancient Martian civilization probably did exist in the distant past. In any case, we don’t know for sure either way.

I’ve cropped the areas, resized and colorized them and added various filters including brightness/contrast, ‘unsharp mask’, noise reduction, hue/saturation etc, so that the structures are easily visible. Unlike my other thread Alien City On Mars? Check This Out! where there has been a lot of discussion whether the image is pixilated or ‘dressed up’ after 3D overlays or lack of colors that produce the strange effects of a ‘cityscape’, this MOC image does not travel that path as this is taken from the full-size non colorized image, processed but NOT map-projected (lossless GIF, and of the best quality) and as per the ancillary data with the type of compression being MOC-PRED-X-5.

It is exactly as shown and there doesn’t seem to be any pixilation glitches. The image is too large, so I’ve cut it up into various sectors. Look carefully and you may be surprised by what you see! Here they are:






Check out the structure in the crater. Notice the shadow under the object
toward its right. Seems that part of the structure is above ground - like an overhang!


Cheers!


Disclaimer: I do not for a moment contend unequivocally and unambiguously that Mars is or was inhabited by an alien civilization, but consider it a possibility that cannot be brushed under the carpet as being pure fantasy.

Original image courtesy MSSS

www.msss.com...
www.msss.com...




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
More strange formations in the same MOC strip. Resembles a hydro power station with a lot of parallel water pipes going into a stream that probably once had flowing water!

And what is that resting or 'constructed' on top of the right most 'pipe'?




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Yes I agree some pictures look like some of the geological formations have been unnaturally altered.I see this on many photo's.Ive been looking at some from Selene lunar space craft from Japanese space agency and in some it looks like some of the structures on the moon were made by something other than just natural phenomenon.I look at the picture and think what if once there was a whole planet there like the earth.And these are leftover parts of structures.



[edit on 2-7-2008 by Being_From_Earth]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Being_From_Earth]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


And exactly how did you come to that conclusion? seems me theres a bit of matrixing going on...my dolla fiddy

Good Day
Skept!cal



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
what does nasa say it is?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CommanderSinclair
what does nasa say it is?


What does NASA say?? Never A Straight Answer!! I guess they haven't chanced upon this quadrant of the MOC image. And if they do, there's that stock reply they always have: Just rocks!

Cheers!



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


mikesingh!
This one is awesome!! This pic...? So organized and "purposey"...
Like I've said, I have no idea what's going on other than these features are too regular, complex, angular, symmetrical and organized to be simple physical processes or wholly non-volitional "chance" formations.
Good one.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CommanderSinclair
what does nasa say it is?


what does nasa say it is. something like this would be TOP SECRET and that being the case anything they tell you would be BS!



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
I’ve cropped the areas, resized and colorized them and added various filters including brightness/contrast, ‘unsharp mask’, noise reduction, hue/saturation etc, so that the structures are easily visible.
Unfortunately, I think the "structures" are more visible because they are created (mostly) by your resizing.

I have seen on previous ocasions that the images you resize look resized in a way that tries to create detail when the image gets bigger (I think that is the way the image viewer from Windows works, "creating" the image when it is resized to bigger sizes).


It is exactly as shown and there doesn’t seem to be any pixilation glitches.
Not really, that is why I like to use the IMG files instead of the GIFs, one thing that it lets me do is adjust the light levels for smaller parts of the photo instead of a global adjustment that will enhance some areas but will destroy other areas.

As I could not find the other areas you posted (why don't you post an image with the smaller areas marked? It would be easier for those that don't accept it blindly to look for themselves on the original image
) I will just post the last image, directly from the IMG file, cropped, level adjusted and resized, but resized just by resizing the pixels, there was no interpolation used to avoid being affected by the interpolation algorithm.




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I wonder what some areas of the earth would look like when photographed from a satellite and run through photo programs as above?

Kinda hard to find areas in deserts that are free of roads and the like, but the Sahara and Gobi deserts may make good candidates for similar photos.

Regardless, cool post Mike.
I always find your stuff interesting....



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Unfortunately, I think the "structures" are more visible because they are created (mostly) by your resizing.


Ok. Here's that 'Hydro plant' that is not resized and NO filters have been used. It is just as it is and therefore there is no affect of the interpolation algorithm.



Check out this area about 1/3rd down the strip.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Doesn't it look better without all that re-sampling?


As you can see, some of the lines do not have the same shape as the lines on the re-sampled version. What software do you use? It looks like it has a tendency to make squares and right angles.

And although I think that the photo really shows some strange markings, seeing the whole area gives a different idea of the 'Hydro plant', it shows that it is not an isolated feature but part of a longer feature, something that looks like a channel.



That is why I like to see the whole picture.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
It just ain't a good weekend without a new mikesingh "Civilization on Mars" thread


Great thread Mike


I think the other photos are more interesting then the "hydro" plant one....what do the other photos look like with no resizing etc?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   
OOooops! Sorry! Double post!! See below:


[edit on 5-7-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I have seen on previous ocasions that the images you resize look resized in a way that tries to create detail when the image gets bigger (I think that is the way the image viewer from Windows works, "creating" the image when it is resized to bigger sizes).


Take a look at the three pics below. The first is the original satellite pic of the ruins of an ancient city on Earth, without applying any filters and resizing:



The pic below shows this city zoomed/enlarged without applying any filters, like the image in your post above (note the pixels):



And this is after applying filters, sharpness mask, B/C, and resizing. Do you find any loss of detail in this pic compared to the first one?



So what you contend that resizing produces stuff and creates detail that isn't there may not be quite correct! The first and third images are exactly alike, with no tricks by the resize algorithms! Or can you show any additional 'details' that have showed up in the third image that are not there in the first?

I'll wait for your answer!


Cheers!



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
The pic below shows this city zoomed/enlarged without applying any filters, like the image in your post above (note the pixels):
The way you posted this image forces it to be resampled by the browser, so it may look different in different browsers.

As you can see, all the browsers I have show the image in a different way, so if you want to post a resized image you should do the resize yourself using something like the "pixel resize" in Paint Shop Pro 6
or the "none" interpolation in The Gimp.

Opera 9.50


Firefox 3.0


Internet Explorer 7.0


Safari 3.1



Do you find any loss of detail in this pic compared to the first one?
I don't see any noticeable loss of detail or creation of detail, but I wasn't talking about this photo, this is something that has to be considered for each case.


So what you contend that resizing produces stuff and creates detail that isn't there may not be quite correct! The first and third images are exactly alike, with no tricks by the resize algorithms! Or can you show any additional 'details' that have showed up in the third image that are not there in the first?
As I said above, in this photo it looks like the resizing did not create anything, but on the images from the opening post it looks like the images had some detail added by the processes used on them.

PS: you still haven't said what software you use, is it a secret?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Forgetting for now the possible effect of the resizing on the images, I have found an image of the same area of Hellas basin.

It's from THEMIS, image V18470005.

And this is a crop of the "hydro power station" area.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
More weirdness!!
I started another thread, but here's the meat of it.
See the other thread for details…



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by djerwulfe
 


Although I appreciate your work (even if I do not agree with what you think about the images), the cross posting you do is getting a little annoying, many of the threads I visit have your posts just advertising your other threads.

I think you should avoid doing it.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
It's from THEMIS, image V18470005.

And this is a crop of the "hydro power station" area.


Darn! The resolution of this Themis image you posted SUCKS!
The MSSS one is far better! Can you check out if this strip is available on the IAS Viewer?

Cheers!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join