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 Magic Kingdom on Mars !

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



did you come up with that one all by yourself ? pun intended


ok we can all go home now thanks for your expert analysis




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   


strange that only that area looks the way it does...the rest of the photo does not show objects like these.

it's a city face it...
:



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Sorry mate, I don't go for Mars/Moon bases as a rule, and images like this are why.

I'm not saying there isn't a base on Mars or the Moon, there very well may be, but there's no evidence of it here. And I can't see a picture of the base getting on the web.

Open to debate of course, I am not fixed in that belief.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sendran
 


ok we differ on opinion but that's cool, thanks for checkin it out



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Another classic easynow post! I love it.

Sorry Easykins. I just don't see what you see. Not saying there isn't life there, though.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
is this a prank thread?

could have at least photoshopped cinderellas castle or a ferris wheel into the pics...

maybe a toothless 'carnie' or two?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
strange that only that area looks the way it does...the rest of the photo does not show objects like these.


That's simply not true. The full image, found on the Malin site, shows that this is just a small rippled area that is flanked on either side by other rippled areas that look a lot like this one. Here's the context of your "city," and rotated so that it's north side up:



How is it that your little blurry spot is somehow a city ("A"), while "B" and "C" are not? Come on, man. Get real.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by feydrautha
 


What makes it a prank guy?

If you don't see anything in the pictures then you don't see anything...the OP went out of their way to explain in detail, to include pictures and many colorful arrows, what they see in those.

So due diligence was done, whether you agree or not...pictures are the most likely evidence we will uncover for now....

Tone it down man...or I might go get Paul to stick another dagger through your mandible...




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
sorry folks there is nothing to see here, move along.

Again heres another set of pics that dont show anything other than blurry incongruous "somethings". In this latest easynow extravaganza I dont see a single object that looks like it is a structure of ANY kind. I am beginning to think that easynows imagination is getting the better of him/her ( Im not sure as of the wrinting of this post and dont really care either way). So again..blurry images of so called Martian landscapes= B O G U S!



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by chapter29
reply to post by feydrautha
 


What makes it a prank guy?

If you don't see anything in the pictures then you don't see anything...the OP went out of their way to explain in detail, to include pictures and many colorful arrows, what they see in those.

So due diligence was done, whether you agree or not...pictures are the most likely evidence we will uncover for now....

Tone it down man...or I might go get Paul to stick another dagger through your mandible...




Thanks


this picture has been researched by many others and the fact that it is on Marsanomaly web page shows it's not a prank.


how many people here throwing their "nothing to see here " comments have actually downloaded the Nasa image and looked at it from their own perspective before passing judgement ? not many is my guess.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dreadphil
 





sorry folks there is nothing to see here, move along.

Again heres another set of pics that dont show anything other than blurry incongruous "somethings". In this latest easynow extravaganza I dont see a single object that looks like it is a structure of ANY kind. I am beginning to think that easynows imagination is getting the better of him/her ( Im not sure as of the wrinting of this post and dont really care either way). So again..blurry images of so called Martian landscapes= B O G U S!


sorry folks just another skeptic with too little wit, move along.

Again here is another individual who prefers to criticize rather than debate analytically. In this latest attempt by another needy skeptic to shoot down 'possible' evidence, I did not see ANY comment or input of value. I am beginning to think that most skeptics' lack of imagination are preventing them from rationally addressing these pictures. (I am not sure if we are right or you are, but I do know that your grammar and writing ability sucks a$$ and not caring seems to be an oxymoron in your case..'cause if you really didn't, we wouldn't be having this convo). So again..skeptics unwilling to open their mind before commenting = C H U M P!





[edit on 9/10/2008 by chapter29]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by easynow
strange that only that area looks the way it does...the rest of the photo does not show objects like these.


That's simply not true. The full image, found on the Malin site, shows that this is just a small rippled area that is flanked on either side by other rippled areas that look a lot like this one. Here's the context of your "city," and rotated so that it's north side up:



How is it that your little blurry spot is somehow a city ("A"), while "B" and "C" are not? Come on, man. Get real.



Nohup you missed the point i was trying to make...

the area around the city looks different...




see what i mean now ?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
Nohup you missed the point i was trying to make...
the area around the city looks different...
[...]
see what i mean now ?


I know what you're saying, although I fail to see the point you're trying to make. The land is flatter around the feature than on it? Well, duh. That's what makes it stand out as a feature.

And I'm asking you, how is it any different than the equivalent eroded land around any of the other rippled areas in the larger context photo? It's the same stuff. Yet somehow, yours is a city, while the others are not. I believe it has to do with some very selective perception on your part and stubbornness in not wanting to simply admit that the feature is mundane and ordinary in the context of the larger landscape.

Additionally, if you figure in the pixel width determinations of the size of the feature you're interested in, it's not that much bigger than a football field. Hardly the size of a city.

It just doesn't add up, no matter how much you would want it to. Let it go.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Usually these king of posts blow me away but in this case I can't see anything of interest. Appreciate you bringing to our attention though. Guess the search goes on for that elusive evidence.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
You have to be kidding me. LOL some people are paranoid.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I'm seeing a good amount of symmetrical, Ziggurat-like structures, accompanied by many smaller, also anomalous looking structures.


I wouldn't trust the opinion on anything except their age of anyone who says they can't see a single structure resembling artificial edification.


Just my 2 cents...


Peace, love and light.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Agreed. Much of this can be explained away by tricks of shadow and sand drifts.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sllapur
I wouldn't trust the opinion on anything except their age of anyone who says they can't see a single structure resembling artificial edification.


As I have said before, though, geometrical doesn't equal artificial. Craters are very round, and erosion from all different kinds of processes create straight lines, angles, and so on. The challenge will always be to prove that they were created by some kind of intelligent folks, and not by Mother or Father Nature. And, "It's obvious!" is not really a good argument for that.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by sllapur
I wouldn't trust the opinion on anything except their age of anyone who says they can't see a single structure resembling artificial edification.


As I have said before, though, geometrical doesn't equal artificial. Craters are very round, and erosion from all different kinds of processes create straight lines, angles, and so on. The challenge will always be to prove that they were created by some kind of intelligent folks, and not by Mother or Father Nature. And, "It's obvious!" is not really a good argument for that.



you can't prove that there is nothing there.

just because you think it cannot be anything does not make it so.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join