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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
So, it's a heart shape? Again, these DO occur quite naturally. You can now go to many google earth sites, and see things just as amazing as this, and many more. Native American head, lips, heck, even Tom Sawyer's head. And they are all natural. I don't see anyone claiming the terran features are man-made. I suggest you check this out, to see how common it can be for these sorts of features to form.

As far as a heart shape: Why would an ancient civilization make a heart? A heart is a weird shape. It is not the ACTUAL shape of a heart, it's something we invented. Are you suggesting another civilization managed to come up with the same shape that isn't linked to anything?




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Mmmh, very interesting and enriching contributions to the thread, Fleabit, I'm in culture-shock right now. Profound...



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I did searches on this "photo":



It comes from HALE crater, Argyre.

From a related video on You Tube as they are many, I found interesting comments, such as, 'it can be photoshopped by NASA', or this one which caught my attention:

"Note that the 'image' in this video is not a photo, but a 3D visualisation using a heightmap textured with a lossy compressed version of a much larger photograph. The camera was then placed so that the camera would be loooking west, hence the artifacts look like straight lines, but at an angle.

>2) ALL photos show EXACT geometric forms and
>all at different angles

Because they are based on the same 3D model, textured with the same texture, but with the camera at different angles."

Many comments reach the same finding of the same patterns spotted on many parts of this crater. So, taken in consideration with many other suggestions, I now doubt that these patterns (that look like electric components to me, except perhaps the one I circled) could be real on the Martian ground.

As someone else relevantly points out too, they also don't seem to match the terrain at all, which was my first reaction when I saw them.

Where does the apparent mistake comes from?, I've no idea as they are clearly visible by reducing lightness and increasing contrast, all in slight measure as it shows on the "Mars civilization:Evidence by European Agency" video, online shown work by the OP.
As the provided photo is from ESA , and as these shapes and patterns cannot be added by edition (otherwise we'd get some sorts of patterns forever the same on every enlargement and lighting-up etc), the mystery remains as to where they come from.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
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!
The photos from the rovers, Phoenix, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Express, etc. are all in shades of grey.

The reason for that is that it is easier to see specific things through specific filters. The images from MARCI (Mars Color Imager, one of the cameras on board Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter), has five visible light filters and two ultraviolet filters. Those filters were chosen because of what they want to see with the camera, clouds and dust storms.

When they want to make a colour image they just had the images for red, green and blue.


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)
That is harder to know, seeing that nobody (as far as I know) was on Mars to tell us if what can be seen is what we see on the photos.

Colour photos from the rovers are very common, I posted one on the Coin left behind on Mars? thread.

Most colour images from the rovers that we can find on the Internet are like this one, made by using the images from the red, green and blue channels as each colour channel in a RGB image.



Most images from NASA show a reddish image, like this.



These images are made with the same photos but the photos are "adjusted" to compensate the difference in light from the different channels and other camera specific things.

I don't know if these are closer to the true colours on Mars, so I use those images without the extra information to make images like this one.



I think (without any real data to back it up, this is just speculation from my part) that the first image shows the colours of the objects as they are, the second the colours as we would see them on Mars, because of the dust in the air it would be like being inside a sand storm, so I keep on using "my" version of the images, made with the best quality images available but less red than those from NASA.


How about the sky, the clouds? Is this not the real colours?
I don't know about the clouds, most photos are from the navigation camera (that has only one filter) and the ones from several filters are not the best filters to make a colour image, but the sky looks like this.

The "normal" version, made with the photos available on the Rovers' site.


The NASA version, made with the radiometrically corrected images and using the radiometric correction data.


And the "ArMaP" version, made with the radiometrically corrected images but without using the radiometric correction data.



Do you mean that ALL the photos of Mars, even recent, are in Black & White, otherwise it means they have been edited?
Not really edited, just created from the different filters.


Do you think nothing is Martian-made on Mars?
As in "artificially created"? No, I have never seen a thing that I did not thought as looking natural.


Do you think the "paths" I also show on page 1, St Vincent, Victoria Crater, are nature-made?
Yes.


"The egytian Statue on Mars?", nature-made? I don't buy this.
Yes, as I said in the appropriate thread (and that is why making generalist threads like this is an organisational nightmare for those that want to post answers), I think that all those things are natural, and I have said why I think that.


These are propaganda-*artifacts*, hidden truths, immediate lies that NASA want you to believe or export.
Why?

[edit on 6/9/2008 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
I did searches on this "photo":



It comes from HALE crater, Argyre.
Yes, I said it on this post, didn't you saw it?


"Note that the 'image' in this video is not a photo, but a 3D visualisation using a heightmap textured with a lossy compressed version of a much larger photograph. The camera was then placed so that the camera would be loooking west, hence the artifacts look like straight lines, but at an angle.

>2) ALL photos show EXACT geometric forms and
>all at different angles

Because they are based on the same 3D model, textured with the same texture, but with the camera at different angles."
Yes, more or less what I said on the post I linked above.


Where does the apparent mistake comes from?, I've no idea as they are clearly visible by reducing lightness and increasing contrast, all in slight measure as it shows on the "Mars civilization:Evidence by European Agency" video, online shown work by the OP.
I think you should read my posts (it would be better to read all the thread, but it may be too much just to see my point of view) about it on the "Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!" thread, just click here.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
"Do you think nothing is Martian-made on Mars?
As in "artificially created"? No, I have never seen a thing that I did not thought as looking natural.


Do you think the "paths" I also show on page 1, St Vincent, Victoria Crater, are nature-made?
Yes.


"The Egyptian Statue on Mars?", nature-made? I don't buy this.
Yes, as I said in the appropriate thread (and that is why making generalist threads like this is an organisational nightmare for those that want to post answers), I think that all those things are natural, and I have said why I think that.


These are propaganda-*artifacts*, hidden truths, immediate lies that NASA want you to believe or export.
Why?

"

Well ArMaP, thank you. It 's very late now for me in this part of the Earthian World.

I do thank you for your answers and I might PM or U2U you for further quests, as you suggested... may I?
I'm on the same line as you. I don't want to take everything I see as granted.
This should make you & me equal in our quests to study the Universe.
I fell into, or, ah-ah, onto, or above, Space when I was just past being a Baby and Toddler. Beside Space I'm involved in Child Protection. I will never let this get past me. I'm a young Aunty or Cousin (or Granny before my age!). I'm a mum, anyway. I cannot stand any injustice, it's just in my genes--or Mums Demands!!! I suppose.

I want the truth on Mars as I want it for Earth. You don't see me much on other topics perhaps but I'm here.

I'm glad I've met you on the net because I don't want to post any 'imaginative novel', well I would but not here. I love "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George ORWELL. This book is always on my bedside table. "BIG BROTHER WATCHING YOU" is from THIS BOOK! Originally.

Again I am very pleased to e-meet you and I hope I will come across your path soon.

TC,

Mag.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
One video I particularly like, except for I don't agree with its title, is this one from MTCTTS as the area around the "Statue" is examined too:

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 8-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 


I hate videos.


They make us loose lots of time just to look at something that we already knew, but we only know that after loosing the time, so I only watch them when I have any idea of what they show and I find it worth it.

That was not the case.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarsFanMag
Mmmh, very interesting and enriching contributions to the thread, Fleabit, I'm in culture-shock right now. Profound...



I am inclined to agree more with fleabit than you. Those lines you draw detract from anything remotely sensible and it all looks like a game of smoke and mirrors and reinforces, to me, that there is an awful lot of scientific ignorance around.

As humans, we like to play the pattern recognition game. I have yet to see any valid evidence for the existence (past or present) of other life forms on Mars. The only 'aliens' that have something on Mars are us, as we are alien to that planet.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ChChKiwi
 


About aliens, if we don't search, we won't find. Already we send that quite big and heavy Rover there not knowing what it destroys. I'm sure we can be more intelligent than that.

About my lines, sorry I already replied to this.
I give the originals or links when I can. We then can compare.

MARS West Valley is the location.

Free to anyone to go to 'NASA photo-journal' and compare, it's easy to google. Beside ArMaP gave an/other original photo--with different angle.

I only surround the heart because it's there. It shows without enlarging the photo that is on The Living Moon site. I don't think it's enlarged to add enough pixels that would decide to re-arrange themselves to make a heart Tomorrow I will post ANOTHER video that will make ArMaP turn green, and you will be able to call me even less scientific!

Those who can't see a pedestal and a statue --or, perhaps not a statue, perhaps a being-- note my choice of words-- are in questioning and it's a healthy attitude, which I respect but if we don't dig, it won't knock at our door with the answer. Therefore I ask members to equally respect other members ' opinions and efforts, attempts, in return of attitude.

It's not rocks-natural organisation.
It's rocks intelligent and artificial organisation, in my opinion.

This is what this thread is about, for members who think they see artificial structures to post. And hang on, cause it's only the beginning.

For the god-all-mighty crucial question: is it natural? is it artificial? Nobody can answer this yet. We 're not 100% sure of what it is. The main thing is for this thread to collect and show what we think could be artificial.

No-one can play god as to whether it is or not, sorry.

= one original, please note, NOT the one I initially posted, notice the DIFFERENT ANGLE to other photo! it would be interesting to study if the DIFFERENT POSITIONS of the "statue" are logical and due to these angles, or not

From this photo:
-----------------------







posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Here's a video from MarsRocks999, MARS: Complex artistic design, ancient human civilization"
I've no idea whether it could have been human or not, it's based on the Lybia Montes Region, and can reveal a few big structures as artistic work there:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 


mods i would say close this thread or add it to the already exsiting threads..as Armap pointed out threads like these do nothing but make ATS an organzational nightmare...*shakes his head and walks away*

Skept!cal



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by skept!cal
 


BIG THANK YOU SKEPT!CAL!!! Hooray! Very constructive post that adds a lot to this thread...



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsFanMag
 


and yours did wonders pal

Skept!cal



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Well, I certainly can say with 100% authority that the last two pictures that you posted are artificial...it looks like you've just discovered geometry and you enjoy making ovals and circles and lines in all sorts of colours...but I HAVE NO IDEA what you are trying to show, beyond your prowess at geometry.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChChKiwi
Well, I certainly can say with 100% authority that the last two pictures that you posted are artificial...it looks like you've just discovered geometry and you enjoy making ovals and circles and lines in all sorts of colours...but I HAVE NO IDEA what you are trying to show, beyond your prowess at geometry.

Mmmh...another pleasant person I see, it's heart-warming. And what a brainy deduction: you're 100% right, these are edits, obviously. To ENHANCE what there IS there, nothing less or more.

Here's more geometry:



May I introduce you all for the first time to Martian symbols ? No idea if been seen before.

It immediately made me go to Greek alphabet, modern and ancient but apart from the X or perhaps also the O-mega (upper-case) I haven't found any equivalent.

Edit: 2 other examples where I haven't written on the extracts:




One sign reminds me of the Earth'ian symbol for female, woman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would totally fit with the FEMALE statue I see.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
PIA09085 NASA that can be easily googled to go straight onto it.

A very puzzling photo, as for the flat "flagging" (not of bl0ody threads, but of ROCKS!) that we can see there, very SMOOTH and kind of made in "jigsaw-puzzle" on the slope, inclined ground, compared to the (kept) chaotic terrain there. ST MARY, MARS.



As you can see, all the references are here on the photo.

Any thought?

Does it look one bit natural?

No it doesn't, to me.

If it does then, PROVE IT. I can easily prove it's not natural.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by MarsFanMag]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
It does look entirely natural to me.
It is not for me to 'prove' it because I am not the one making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not the other way round.
I, for one, would love for you to EASILY prove that it is not natural.

I would like to introduce you to Mr Ockham and his Razor.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
to ch ch Kiwi above:
~~~

This is how how prove it:
Of course, you are going to say that it proves nothing, so predictably,
.

~~~


Saint-Mary, Mars, flat ground adjacent to high rocks-site, shown by myself on screen-capture photograph in post above:


Composition:

Flat rocks.

Way the flat rocks complete each other like a jigsaw, versus chaos which is usually the case for such a ground.

Extreme SMOOTHNESS of these flat rocks.

Rarity of loose soil between each flag-shaped rock. Omnipresence of smooth & flat rocks, even, monopole.


Comparisons:

with other grounds in similar circumstances, example: St Vincent, this one is really particular. I do not know whether there can be such natural grounds on Earth or on Mars or elsewhere but its shape makes it really peculiar, perhaps unique? This I do not know, to check.
Comparison to other similar sites on Mars do show at least particularity of St Mary's flat rocks there.
Possible uniqueness of this ground.


Explanations= lack of:

I cannot think of a natural phenomena that could make this ground this way.

Natural erosion does not flatten rocks in this way. Of course it CAN flatten and smooth, like rocks under a cascade, but NOT this way.

Other natural phenomenas do not create such a particularity.


Confirmations

Other elements at St Mary site may well confirm this. Unnatural look of other combined rocks on the higher rock-site.

Other elements of structures already found on Mars support this.


(As referred above (other post), the full photo from NASA is available as PIA09085. It can be directly found via Google search facility. You Tube also provides videos of more detailed searches, see following post.)


Conclusion:

From all my elements quickly and roughly exposed above, my deduction is that, these rocks have been MADE this way, NOT by nature, but smoothed down for FLAGGING effect, for a purpose, by beings.


_______________________________



Discussion- no snippet please

Of course unless someone decides to prove the opposite to me, I'm open to it,
Please do not repeat just snippets of my demonstration as it has to be read/quoted in its whole combination. One element does not prove it all, it's the conjuncture of the elements that does prove it. If snippets are posted , quoted with my name to try and pass me for an idiot I will repeat this last part.

Mag



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Same St-Mary site:




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join