#1 Mars, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:21 PM by NavalFC

reply to post by Solo954

those photos are extremly low res, low quality..
furthermore ive been looking for oficial NASA photos of these but havent found them yet. i have no clue what I am "supposed" to be seeing"

and i find the point that the page you linked me to is trying to make laughable (it isnt just a "life on mars" cover up advocacy page, but much more)

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:21 PM by NavalFC

reply to post by Solo954

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:22 PM by BIONICLE ALEX

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX

alex, are you trying to say the photo is part of a cover up? get real. They release a hi res version of the face clearly disproving the face = artificial

proponents and now its just "a cover up"

Yes that's exactly what I am saying quip searching and prove me wrong about this. I'll be glad seriously. Some times I wish I didn't know so much crap from the government that is been hidden from us humans.

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:26 PM by NavalFC

reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX

oh yes, embrace any sensationlist piece that agrees with you, and simply accuse any hard data that does disprove you into the cover up bin and then challenge them to prove their isnt a cover up because proving a negative is difficult in essence propping yourself up with that one accusation. BS. BS. BS.
how about you prove there IS a cover up. Some sort of official NASA documentation ordering nasa employees to cover up alien related things would be a start/

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:33 PM by BIONICLE ALEX

I'm not here to convince you or any body of anything. That's your own job to do, do your own (SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH) you think what ever you want I did my job by telling you, either you buy it or not.

If you have a close mined thats your problem, solve it you got no choice.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by BIONICLE ALEX]

[edit on 9-12-2008 by BIONICLE ALEX]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:37 PM by NavalFC

reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX

ahh a common fallacy in the UFO field

"if you dont believe my nonsense, for which I have no real proof, your just close minded!"

Yes, god forbid some of us want actual evidence.

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:38 PM by BIONICLE ALEX

This is one of the original photos taken by NASA in the 70's. Explain to us why the new digital resolution is all fated out and not the film photo here? (compare this photo to the other one posted earlier on) look at the difference.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by BIONICLE ALEX]

[edit on 9-12-2008 by BIONICLE ALEX]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:55 PM by Solo954

reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX

Why weren't those pics released back in the 70's? Just out of curiosity

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 04:59 PM by BIONICLE ALEX

Originally posted by Solo954
reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX

Why weren't those pics released back in the 70's? Just out of curiosity

Some one blew the whistle on this photos. it was to late for them once it came out to the public so the only solution they had it was to filter the image you posted.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by BIONICLE ALEX]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:13 PM by RFBurns

Typically called the "catbox" image.

The first round from MGS were highly altered, flattned and streched images. Tho they do show more detail, the detail is irrelevant since the processing of the newer image makes what is in the image appear flat, or smashed.

Viking/MGS "catbox" comparison

Catbox..they all stink

Even the crater in the Viking image shows depth, and the crater in the first round of MGS released images is flat, like its just a drawing of a crater. The left image is from Viking. The middle and right images are from MOC. After Malin Space Science Systems released this junk, some were accusing NASA and the government of "nuking" the site prior to MOC aquireing this image. Sure looks like they dropped a nuke on it! But turns out it was just image manipulation.

Here is another image released by MGS in 2003, Dec 14.

Another FACE image

According to MSSS/NASA/JPL..the image in the above link is the "best" image of the face from the MGS/MOC camera.

The "best" face image has depth, you can see hight and dips in the formation. Unlike the first initial release from MSSS where the image clearly has been flattened and streched.

Here is the THEMIS VIS image from the ASU THEMIS website of the face on mars.

Odyssey THEMIS VIS image of the face

Even Odyssey's IR scan shows depth to the formation.

IR multiband strips from THEMIS

Enjoy!

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 9-12-2008 by RFBurns]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:16 PM by NavalFC

nonsense, nonsense and MORE nonsense.
First off as far as the fading,its called resolution. and the picture ou posted has had its brighness and contrast adjusted from the original Nice try.

But high resolution allows you to see more detail.

Thats how it works. the best way to demonstrate this is take a kick ass game, say crysis , run it at low res and look at the textures, then high res. get the point?

As to the person asking why the high res one wasnt released in the 70s..

BECAUSE THE HIGH RESOLUTION ONES WERENT TAKEN DURING THE 70S THATS WHY THEY DIDNT EXIST YET
is this really so hard? as instrumentation, satellite photography and such improve the quality of the images is going to change! from faded low res pics to high res detailed pics.
Its no "cover up" its no "filtering"

its called progression of my technology, and the length some of you cover up proponents will go to prop up your ludcrious views is just ridiculous, here in demonstrated again, the high res photo Does not agree with wat you had in mind so its automaticlly a conspiracy. This is ridiculous, the academic community left your kind behind long ago.

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:21 PM by NavalFC

reply to post by NavalFC

and some more:

www.csicop.org...

and RFburns, your pictures also show it is not a face, so your post seems to be grasping at straws/

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:31 PM by BIONICLE ALEX

Originally posted by NavalFC
nonsense, nonsense and MORE nonsense.
First off as far as the fading,its called resolution. and the picture ou posted has had its brighness and contrast adjusted from the original Nice try.

But high resolution allows you to see more detail.

Thats how it works. the best way to demonstrate this is take a kick ass game, say crysis , run it at low res and look at the textures, then high res. get the point?

As to the person asking why the high res one wasnt released in the 70s..

BECAUSE THE HIGH RESOLUTION ONES WERENT TAKEN DURING THE 70S THATS WHY THEY DIDNT EXIST YET
is this really so hard? as instrumentation, satellite photography and such improve the quality of the images is going to change! from faded low res pics to high res detailed pics.
Its no "cover up" its no "filtering"

its called progression of my technology, and the length some of you cover up proponents will go to prop up your ludcrious views is just ridiculous, here in demonstrated again, the high res photo Does not agree with wat you had in mind so its automaticlly a conspiracy. This is ridiculous, the academic community left your kind behind long ago.

Why should we listen to your childish comments? why have NAVAL/FC nic on this site? humm!! do you work for the government? thats why you get so pist off? go tell your superiors that the truth is coming out whether they like it or not! tough brake boba.

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:36 PM by NavalFC

reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX

HHAHAhahhahahahaah.. This is the 6th time I have been accused by someone on ATS of working for the government. How humurous

pissed off? what makes you think Im pissed? its just annoying really, the 2 fold strategy you employ.

if it agrees with you its gospel, if it doesnt, its part of the cover up.

Where as real science is self correcting, and always open to new ideas, provided they go through the harsh test of the scientific methid and peer review and hold up to scrutinty under investigation.

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:41 PM by RFBurns

The thing about broken records is that the sound continues to repeat and repeat and repeat the same sound until you remove the record from the turntable....ie..the ignore button. It works really well!!

Cheers!!!!

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:43 PM by RFBurns

Hey Naval...every single one of those images are from NASA, or ASU, or JPL.

Not a single one of them are from independant mars research websites!!!

So I guess your confirming alteration eh??

Good, we need the extreme skeptical confirmation to what we already know!!

Thanks man!!! We greatly appriciate it!!!

Cheers!!!!

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:48 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

and your proof?

Jeez, are you impatient? I told you i would be back later, after a job interview.

OK, so i will start with this. This is THE image that sealed it in my mind. It is from the Tsiolkovsky crater on the moon. Try as i might, i cannot come up with a good reason as to what this could be that is natural:

I asked the esteemed Jim Oberg for his explanation, and he suddenly quit participating in the thread (located here).

Now on to the evidence. Of course, you KNOW there is no proof. That is something that, if there was any, would be all over the news as we speak. But there is loads of evidence. I will produce some of that here.

First of all, here is how those images were treated:

Laid out on the floor, being walked over. Doesn't seem to be a way to produce high quality. Regardless...

You have seen this set of images, no?

and with the sickly, green glow:

what purpose does this massive model (being calibrated to exact specifications, per the lunar surface) have? With such an elaborate model, how can we even be sure that the Apollo images were of the moon? I suppose we could take THEIR word for it...but why, when they obviously spent so much more money making a scaled, exact replica?

I am not one of those "Apollo was faked" guys. I am one of the ones that believes we went there, but issued faked images covering up what really happened.

The questions have been asked, but no answers are forthcoming. Perhaps you have answers where others have failed.

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:51 PM by BIONICLE ALEX

Originally posted by RFBurns
Hey Naval...every single one of those images are from NASA, or ASU, or JPL.

Not a single one of them are from independant mars research websites!!!

So I guess your confirming alteration eh??

Good, we need the extreme skeptical confirmation to what we already know!!

Thanks man!!! We greatly appriciate it!!!

Cheers!!!!

NAVAL aboard our ship I promise you won't get lost

question? wore you in the Philadelphia experiment?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by BIONICLE ALEX]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 05:51 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

I will also add that, if you can believe Gary McKinnon (and i do), he has seen proof of airbrushing during his walks through the NASA and DoD system.

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 06:08 PM by NavalFC

reply to post by RFBurns

images are from NASA but people like hoagland like to mess with the color schemes.

Higher res photos disprove your mars claims as it is. Your purely grasping at straws now. youve been reduced from producing "photos" to screaming cover up