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.

 

MARTIAN-MADE structures,paths,statues...please POST

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
How about this one? I think I see some kind of ruined temple or something on the right side of the cliff. Or something like that. It's ruined, after all, so you have to use your imagination. And that straight path leading down is nothing you'd see in nature, so it's probably artificial.








posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 


Basing whole theories on highly resized bad copies of images is not the best way of getting nearer to the truth (I suppose that is what you want), so I suggest that you spend a little more time to get the best possible images available.

First, go to this page and download NASAView (you have to provide your e-mail, send me a U2U if you have any problem with that).

That program can open (and save as GIF or JPEG) the IMG files available in many places, like this one.

Choose the image you want, download it to your computer (or if you have your browser configured in that way, you can open the image directly from the browser) and see the image as close to the original as it gets.

This is what that "humanoid" looks like on one of the 11 images in which it appears.


And this is after a level adjustment with a little loss of data.


You can see the difference between this image and the highly resized images from JPEGs files you used. Also, using colour images introduces a different problem, as the photos are not taken at the same time, when they are put together they create an "aura" around all objects because of the slightly different shadows and light direction.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I don't mind when folks see a statue or a figure. I don't think they are anything personally, I'm waiting for much more clear evidence. But I am slightly baffled at those who look at the face of a cliff, and circle anything that has any sort of a shape to it. What are you expecting, a completely smooth cliff face? Not everything that has a a bend, a straight line, a semi-circle, or other "shape" to it is an alien artifact. Some of those ARE rocks you know.


And I still am not certain even if there was an alien multiplex, that we'd get to view it. Either NASA (and therefore our government) wants us to see this, or they do not. This would seem like a strange way to disclose things, since half the other threads are about their covering up UFO activity. Which is it?

And I do not buy that they "don't notice" it, or have some program do it, with no human interaction at all. Those are some of the finest scientific minds out there. And they miss stuff that we find? I find that difficult to believe.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Before I reply to at least one person, here are some photos that puzzle me and so many other people.

After that if there is no Martian-made structure on Mars well it will be pieces of jigsaws that the Nasa left there after the rover played with them, or it will be Chinese New Year, or my home-town by satellite.







~~~~~
~~~~~
EQUALLY for these following I have no link or location, I think they are from this "city", the place dubbed "The Inka City on Mars". Help appreciated. Wherever they are from on Mars it's certainly not nature-made:














posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Call me crazy but I don't think there is a need to clutter the board up with these pictures again and again. please learn to use the search function and comment in the treads that the picture you are interested in is posted. You can use the quote button to include the picture so that everyone knows what you are talking about.




alien city on mars? check this out.

Structures on Mars???
Believe it or not. ....structures on mars (Mike Singh)

[edit on 9/4/08 by stikkinikki]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
How about this one? I think I see some kind of ruined temple or something on the right side of the cliff. Or something like that. It's ruined, after all, so you have to use your imagination. And that straight path leading down is nothing you'd see in nature, so it's probably artificial.






Hi Nohup and thank you.

It certain does look very interesting and plenty to study there.

Is the colour enhanced, I suppose?

I think I see where you mean. It could well be this.
However, I could look where you don't mean, so would you be able to circle it or mark it in some way? (u2u me if you need tips)

LaTER i Will look at it in different ways as I have saved it.

As you say, let's not forget we look at ruins, possibly, at times. Even natural erosion is much worth studying, as we do on Earth, so I would stop at any little suspicion to try and get enhancing views. I am CERTAIN NASA does it. They have PAID searching-TEAMS of SCIENTIST to do so. They have the top tech equipment, powerful photo-processing computers to do so for YEARS to come!!!

Of course they look at everything. That "humanoid statue", these "giant .s", all we see and find, they do too! JUST they do NOT tell us what they find!!!

xxSee you later! ;-]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Please stick to the topic at hand, and refrain from attacking other members.




[edit on 9/4/2008 by maria_stardust]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 


Basing whole theories on highly resized bad copies of images is not the best way of getting nearer to the truth (I suppose that is what you want), so I suggest that you spend a little more time to get the best possible images available.

First, go to this page and download NASAView (you have to provide your e-mail, send me a U2U if you have any problem with that).

That program can open (and save as GIF or JPEG) the IMG files available in many places, like this one.

Choose the image you want, download it to your computer (or if you have your browser configured in that way, you can open the image directly from the browser) and see the image as close to the original as it gets.

This is what that "humanoid" looks like on one of the 11 images in which it appears.


And this is after a level adjustment with a little loss of data.


You can see the difference between this image and the highly resized images from JPEGs files you used. Also, using colour images introduces a different problem, as the photos are not taken at the same time, when they are put together they create an "aura" around all objects because of the slightly different shadows and light direction.

Hi I'm not sure if I have any room left in PC to download anything big anymore.
I'll have a look at links when I have more time. Thanx.
I try to gather ALL the spotted structures in the broad meaning of the term, as long as it could be some, as for example the finding of Ms Amanda REILLY started of looking for something else ( Iam aMonkey was looking for skulls when she found the Statue at St Vincent, Victoria Crater) and has given plenty others a wonderful encouragement.
It's very rewarding for her having now a well-deserved place on The Living Moon site.

What I aim to achieve is a place where we can browse to easily look at a wide variety of photos and make our own minds about these shapes, to estimate for ourselves whether they are Martian-Being made structures, possibly be, or perhaps not.

Looking at photos, DIRECT, saves a lot of time compared to going on links, that sometimes open very slowly, then get back to discuss something we don't see.


~~~~~~~~

Anyway about the "humanoid statue", you show 2 very small photos, in black-&-white, so it would be like comparing 2 same maps, one big in colours, and one very tiny in grey, let's compare what's comparable. Beside I still see the same shape that looks like a statue from Earth or in "earthian" art style.
I still see this triangle mark or pyramidal shape underneath it.
You photo fades the pedestal which is very obvious on the original photo & edits I posted. But they are NOT ADDED by it, simply ENHANCED by it.
I still see this curly shape which is very geometrical and artistic like. Not a simple rock, especially in the whole context! It's also seen on the "city" extract.
I don't see the HEART ornemental inscription which appears with highlights of photo processing--and again, NOT added, DEFINITELY THERE.

If the editing ever adds anything to a photo, we can see it, but where it reveals things we can see it too. Up to us to compare with originals. If we don't highlight we can't see anything or very little, as these photos are VERY dark and for many, not of a good quality due to distance, conditions, etc, well the rover+cam aren't human so let's understand that too!

Justice for the Rover.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 



Why are you getting all mad, the guy is right. If you took 5 seconds to look, all these same exact rocks have been posted before.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   


Original photo from NASA.
Link & location needed.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 



Why are you getting all mad, the guy is right. If you took 5 seconds to look, all these same exact rocks have been posted before.

With a screen-name like this, you don't leave a lot of chances to discussions in possibilities!
Yeah, rocks are rocks, and cities are cities, statues are statues, clouds are clouds, forums are forums, denial is all, happy happy.

Guess that this is "just rocks" too?:






posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
Anyway about the "humanoid statue", you show 2 very small photos, in black-&-white, so it would be like comparing 2 same maps, one big in colours, and one very tiny in grey, let's compare what's comparable.
The images I posted are not small, they are the original size, all other images were resized from this original size.

Also, as the rovers do not take colour photos, all the false colour images available are made from "black & white" images.


You photo fades the pedestal which is very obvious on the original photo & edits I posted.
"My" photo fades nothing, these are original images, any other images were made from these (and the other 10 photos that show this "feature") or from images made from these.


I don't see the HEART ornemental inscription which appears with highlights of photo processing--and again, NOT added, DEFINITELY THERE.
That I don't understand, you don't see it but you say it's there and was not added? Could you please explain it better? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
After that if there is no Martian-made structure on Mars well it will be pieces of jigsaws that the Nasa left there after the rover played with them, or it will be Chinese New Year, or my home-town by satellite.
Or maybe they are just the result of using an image with a low number of shades of grey as the texture for a computer generated 3D model based on a stereographic photo and big changes of brightness and contrast...


EQUALLY for these following I have no link or location, I think they are from this "city", the place dubbed "The Inka City on Mars". Help appreciated. Wherever they are from on Mars it's certainly not nature-made:
No, they are man made, as I said above and in the threads to which stikkinikki pointed you.

And that has nothing to do with the so called "Inca City", I suggest you study a little more before posting more photos.

But as I am feeling in a good mood I am going to tell you about it.


Those highly altered images came from Mars Anomaly Research site, in what J. P. Skipper called Hale Crater Civilization Evidence.

They are taken from a computer generated 3D image of Hale crater, with a texture made from other photos applied over the 3D image.

Some of the images used to create the colour images have less shades of grey than they should, and when stretched over the 3D model it becomes more noticeable.

You can see the original ESA images here.

"Inca city" was the name given by NASA to some features near the South Pole, and they are completly different and in a completely different place, as you can see here.

And risking the fury of your "Ignore" button, I will suggest you search a little on ATS before your posts and your threads. The mods ask us not to repeat threads, so it is always nice to try to see if there is anything about something before creating a thread.

Having said that, I think that the mods may consider your thread different (although with the same general subject) from the other threads that were specific about some feature(s), while your thread is about anything in particular.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 


Hmmm, is this going to turn into a "find the reference for me" thread?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP, you problem is that you are doing such an excellent job at finding images and links that you have spoiled us here at ATS! Whenever a photo turns up, it is only a matter of time before you have located the source, the image ID and the best available version.

And that is also the reason that we have such respect for you.


But I agree with you, it would be nice if the OP hade done a little bit of research before he/she started the thread... And what is the point of starting new threads about images that have been discussed before here at ATS? I doesn't seem like the OP has anything new to add to the discussion, either.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 



Welcome to a year ago. That thread has been done to DEATH here, and yeah, those are rocks and photographic anomolies. No one can provide evidence of anything else, unless of course you think (lol) that those are cities on Mars.

I mean it makes sense right. Let's spend billions sending probes up there to look for water the whole time knowing there are "cities" we already photographed.

Think about it.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
To ArMaP:

About the heart, I mean that I cannot see in the photos you supplied because of the size of the photo, it's simply not possible to spot it. It's only thanks to edition and enlargements, colour filters that we can see it, but we can clearly see it after processing.
These processes do not add a heart.
They change the colours, lights, contrasts, I agree that other edition processes can add something ( edit. options such as solarization etc) but a comparison to originals is always available. I don't come here to do sci-fi art, nor do I pretend I know everything about everything.

Can't you see a heart shape there, on the pyramidal shape?



What do you think it is?
Has it been spotted before? (since you guys know all about all the threads that have been posted on the subject)
Can you see other hearts?
Can you see other sorts of "inscriptions"?
What can they be? Or,what can they read, how could they be interpreted? Why does NASA say it's just rocks? Why didn't the heart-shape make the news?
Can you see a curvy shape which is very geometrical for "an old rock" and artistic looking, at the bottom of the 'pedestal'?
Can you see the similar shape on the other photo with "structures"? (the one you say is not from the "inca city"--by the way I was only asking the "experts")
Can you see lines?
Can you see a sort of pyramidal shape underneath the statue?
Have you ever seen similar shape on Mars?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
It's justified for me to post the link of where I found the "Humanoid Statue" photo I worked on,:

www.thelivingmoon.com...

So I take it ArMaP doesn't consider the material published on The Living Moon site worth studying.

NOTE: the different angle of the "statue" on the different photos.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
About the heart, I mean that I cannot see in the photos you supplied because of the size of the photo, it's simply not possible to spot it. It's only thanks to edition and enlargements, colour filters that we can see it, but we can clearly see it after processing.
If it's not possible to spot it in the original images how did it appear?

Most of those smaller "objects" on the image are just artifacts amplified by the large resizing of JPEG images.


These processes do not add a heart.

Maybe they do, when you do a resample instead of a common resize (and that is what everyone does, just resizing the pixels is almost useless) your software will take two pixels (probably not two, but that is irrelevant for now) and it will put them apart by the amount of resizing you asked it to do. Then it will have to put something between those pixels, and here is where the trouble begins; the software has to "guess" what values the pixels would have if they were there on the original, but it's just that, a guess.

Saving the result as a JPEG will create artifacts, one of the most common JPEG artifacts in colour images is a line of the opposite colour around an object of some colour, so a green box will have a magenta line around it.

Now take this JPEG and resize it again and the software will do it all again, taking the pixels apart and guessing what would be in the middle, but in this case (and using my example of the green box) it will try to guess what was between the green box and the magenta line.

The problem is that there was no magenta line on the original, it was created by the JPEG algorithm, so, from now on, the image as lots of information that does not exist on the original.


They change the colours, lights, contrasts, I agree that other edition processes can add something ( edit. options such as solarization etc) but a comparison to originals is always available.
Changing colours, lightness and contrast does not create anything, but it may destroy some detail (except changing the colours, that maintains all the information, it just shifts the colours).


Can't you see a heart shape there, on the pyramidal shape?
No, I see only three pixels with an aura around, like in the example of the green box I gave above.


What do you think it is?
A resample of a JPEG artifact.


Has it been spotted before? (since you guys know all about all the threads that have been posted on the subject)
Probably not, and nobody said that he/she knew all about all the threads, we just pointed to you that there are ways of doing things to avoid redundant data.


Can you see other hearts?
I can't see any heart.


Can you see other sorts of "inscriptions"?
No.


What can they be? Or,what can they read, how could they be interpreted?
Resampled JPEG artifacts.


Why does NASA say it's just rocks? Why didn't the heart-shape make the news?
I don't know if NASA says that it's just rocks, but I do know that I think that they are just rocks.


Can you see a curvy shape which is very geometrical for "an old rock" and artistic looking, at the bottom of the 'pedestal'?
I can see a curvy shape that is not more geometrical than any other rock, and the artistic look is everywhere in Nature, just look around.


Can you see the similar shape on the other photo with "structures"? (the one you say is not from the "inca city"--by the way I was only asking the "experts")
No.


Can you see lines?
Yes.


Can you see a sort of pyramidal shape underneath the statue?
No.


Have you ever seen similar shape on Mars?
Similar to which shape, the "statue" or the "pyramidal shape"?

If you are talking about the "statue" then yes, I have seen similar shapes on photos from the rovers.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   


There's a biiig heart there!


Well ArMaP I understand now, after reading your last post, why you don't like edits. I start disliking them myself, but not so much in the way they can enhance a lot of elements, and that we know they are edits, if we can respond to how it has been edited, and in most cases it's self-visible if we do a bit of this ourselves, we know straight away the difference between solarized, sharpened, highlighted...

I still can see a pyramidal shape on the grey and small photo you provided. I still can see a "humanoid figure" or statue, or being. I vote for statue, given the context, pedestal, inscriptions, artistic constructions around it -in my view- and of course, the fact that it's the only "rock" of this "dark" colour in the local area, and its shape... but perhaps it moved from one photo to another, see my other post about the different angles between the photo I gave and the one you gave.

I'm always honest about edits and since it's a public place I do take care of mentioning that they are edits. To be frank I didn't know that my initial photo was an edit, since I got it from The Living Moon, perhaps I missed the "edited" word?
I have seen so many pics of Mars that I didn't know that all the pics are, as you say, in Black & White? I'm sooo puzzled about that!
How about the true colours of Mars? (oh and before I get the stones thrown at, yes I know, there's a thread about it, but threads are long reading with real info hard to find sometimes, and I've done quite a lot of work recently, and outside the PC too.)

Is there NO PHOTO showing the true colours, without filters A, B, C or D? (way to talk, I read that the other night but I forget how they are numbered/ listed now)

How about the sky, the clouds? Is this not the real colours?

Do you mean that ALL the photos of Mars, even recent, are in Black & White, otherwise it means they have been edited?

Do you think nothing is Martian-made on Mars?
--------------------------------------------------------
Page one I give a link showing Mike Singh's interest in a row of things on ice (I resume it's ice ground)(seeming to spit fire or whatever they can spit) , 3 of them being exactly at 800 feet away from one-another, looking identical. A lot more we can count on the fuller pic. I've sharpened this photo-crop from original, + highlighted.

I will post it tomorrow, well, later today.

~~~

Do you think the "paths" I also show on page 1, St Vincent, Victoria Crater, are nature-made?
"The egytian Statue on Mars?", nature-made? I don't buy this. These are propaganda-*artifacts*, hidden truths, immediate lies that NASA want you to believe or export.
Why do you think they put the "humanoid figure" on TV, as big news, and immediately add, that these are rocks, in that spiteful way, as well? Because it's a quick,easy lie. Just like when parents quickly invent a story when the kids ask about ...Santa (or truth that they are too young to understand, should I choose as better example).

Why don't they show everything else that many of us have found, or found from others? They have found the same though, they can crop, fairly edit, have powerful computerised photo-processors and well-paid professionals who do this all year-long, all the time. But why are they silent? or systematically deny the things they put in the national news?



[edit on 5-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join