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.

 

Unexplained Mysteries On The Moon And Mars! An Alien Connection?

page: 18
150
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Great stuff, Mike.

We put together a somewhat similar thread - about a year ago - and nearly got our head handed to us. Check it... you may recall...

'Mars is strange' link

'Intellectuals' - will always have a pat response - that they 'borrowed' from whomever is their 'hero of science.' Frankly, I have not heard a new or original 'de-bun-cation' in nearly a decade. But can folks really look at the mass of photos and other evidences - and continually, always say; 'Nothing out of the ordinary'?? I mean, truly?? When they are all alone in their little dungeons - is this actually their mindset??

Many believe that scientists and academia, not un-like the government; 'would never lie, nor withhold.' But I assure all of you reading this, when reputation and finances become involved - it happens every single day. In order to never have to admit a mis-step or lack of total knowledge; those with the most-impressive desk plaques will perpetually respond; 'All else is wrong.'

If one more mental giant quotes Occam's Razor to me; I am gonna puke. There are strange things out in the universe - and that we are not fully-informed about. To believe otherwise just makes us to be the moral equivalent of sheep. ( Not to insult the herd, mind you. )

I applaud your further pursuit of this. And I, as a person; as a human being - appologize for some of the insulting & moronic rebuttals that you will undoubtably receive - as a result of your posting this thread.

Keep up the good work.

jb




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I keep on forgetting to post this image, for those that like domes on Mars.

There really are domes on Mars, but do not mix them with craters, please.




Mars is indeed a strange planet.


Hmmm...Probably an optical illusion! Ok, what's next?



Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


That's an interesting area, but I would only build inside a crater if I had a good way of getting out, climbing those crater walls is not for me.



You needn't take the effort of 'climbing' out of those craters! Haven't you heard of those anti grav machines??
You just float in and you just float out!


Cheers!




[edit on 14-5-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by booda

Originally posted by cosmokatt7
...Well. you may think I am "touched"..But, I really think we should start
treating the subject of Mars as if it is an extention of Earth... !

well, if its an extension of Earth - surely there will be some Indians living there...



Huh! You didn't know? When Armstrong touched down on the Lunar soil for the first time, he was met by an Indian, a Punjabi Dhaba (restaurant) owner who had already opened a fast food joint there and invited him to partake of a free first meal of Moon cheese and curd with special 'chapattis' made out of dough brought from the far side of the Moon!


Cheers!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 


Speaking of 'off-topic'???

Nice pics of Mars....but what do they have to do with the title of the OP?

It is about 'unexplained mysteries on the moon and mars'.

Actually, given time, and without any scale reference, I'd wager that just about anyone could find a spot to focus on, on the Earth, and call it an "unexpained anomoly". Check that....let's, instead, call it an "unexplained mystery".

Well, really....something is only a 'mystery' until it is investigated.

Perhaps I'm being too literal.

Every time we see a pretty picture of some 'mystery' on Mars, or the Moon, we are usually not afforded a scale to go along. It would be most helpful, in the fullness of comprehension, to be able to ascertain what we are looking at compared to a recognizable and uniformly acceptable size indicator.

A scale bar even...whether in metres or feet, or both....ANYTHING to help people realize the perspective.

Because, when looking at a vista, whether Terrestrial or Alien, without a frame of reference there is much to intrepret, and usually the intrepretations are way off......



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Johnbro
 


Every time we see a pretty picture of some 'mystery' on Mars, or the Moon, we are usually not afforded a scale to go along. It would be most helpful, in the fullness of comprehension, to be able to ascertain what we are looking at compared to a recognizable and uniformly acceptable size indicator.

A scale bar even...whether in metres or feet, or both....ANYTHING to help people realize the perspective.


You should tell that to NASA.


Often one must use the reference data that comes with the images to find the scale - this requires some research on your end. (as NASA does tend to scatter information about and not be as concise as they should be for the money we give them).

Regardless, I certainly don't expect ATS members to do what NASA cannot.

*You should start a thread on the size/scale of the anomalies we find here if you are interested. I'd contribute to that one for sure.



Edit: I can tell you one surefire way to get the sort of scale data you want, and it works most of the time. U2U me for more info.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
A few links of NATURAL rocks but if these were photgraphed on MARS!

WOULD they be according to you guys!

www.rense.com...
Straight cant be natural?

www.ngsprints.co.uk...
so well balanced man made!

www.microsoft.com...
whats this wavy stone?

farm1.static.flickr.com...

caves? one with an almost straight edge



davidwallphoto.com...
wavy rocks no way that cant happen can it!

upload.wikimedia.org...

would this be reptile skin if seenon Mars from space?bet it would!

cache.daylife.com...

straight line right angles and NATURAL!!!

Some things for you guys to chew on. Lets look at some of the livingmoon pics next eh! LOW contrast low res pictures which when given the CSI treatment by you guys results in artifacts from to much zoom etc. Then some buffon colours in things his distorted view thinks is there and its suddenly a building a tower a bridge etc
will download a few for my next post.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


If there is a copy of an image in the PDS archives in IMG (or CUB) format then we probably can know the size if we have ISIS installed (I have
).

It was that way that I got the space between the objects in this image.


For other photos I do not know about any "surefire way" of knowing the scale of a photo without any extra data.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*This image is also available for purchase from JPL and is different than some the versions you can locate on the NASA proper website, in which the tower has been removed.

The tower cannot be attributed to a flaw in the emulsion, or a joining error.
However, the removal of the tower in subsequent images is suspicious, especially when it remains on the version available at JPL....

The tower can be attributed to something on the photo, like a flaw in the emulsion but not to a joining error.

Considering that the photo with the tower is the original and other photos without the tower are copies with the tower removed do not explain why other photos have marks like that in other places.

The way this image (the one with the tower) looks, it looks like it was subjected to a cleaning of the marks that can be seen on other versions in the sky (an almost perfect black sky).

Also, more than one copy could be made from the original photos sent by Lunar Orbiter, and in some cases the photos were retransmitted by Lunar Orbiter, creating two images with different separations between framelets.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Considering that the photo with the tower is the original and other photos without the tower are copies with the tower removed do not explain why other photos have marks like that in other places.


We are not talking about other places


We are talking about one object in one place, and the properties of that object - which I refer to as anomalous.

While your 'photographic flaw' theory may explain some image anomalies, it does not account for this one and is predicated upon a bias, as apparent from your proclivities here.

Nevertheless, I am glad to see you admit that NASA alters their images to fit the proffered descriptions of the environs:


"... it looks like it was subjected to a cleaning of the marks that can be seen on other versions in the sky (an almost perfect black sky)."

Subjected to cleaning... Indeed


[edit on 14-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


some of those are pretty interesting. If you could provide any further info other than just a picture it would be most appreciated. I would like to look at these formations in context to better understand the forces that caused them.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Some of these images are weird like the one that has the city-like city on mars and the objects hovering over the ocean. If Martians existed, they may be green -- with envy of Earth. From space, Earth is a blue-white gem on black velvet, with abundant liquid water. Closer inspection of this gem finds it bursting with life, much of it microbial!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


First its not a emulsion error this photo was digitized from start to finish no emulsion. What you are seeing is several photos stuck together to create the scene using software were it cannot exactly put the pieces together the program will extrapolate from surrounding pixels. This isnt just 1 photo and if you zoom it you can see where the pictures just didn't quite match all over the thing. This is nothing more than a computer trying to stitch together a large mosaic as best as it can. If you zoom out from the picture and not in the individual photos become easier to see that is why you see squares all over the picture.

All though i will say you have a great eye. If you take the time to look at it further you'll notice the tower goes up from the picture but then a line extends from it clear across the horizon.This is where 2 rows of pictures meet.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

This is nothing more than a computer trying to stitch together a large mosaic as best as it can.


Really...

So you also agree that Armap is wrong in his assessment that the tower anomaly could not be attributed to a 'joining error'?

Armap must really be wrong this time.




Originally posted by ArMaP
The tower can be attributed to something on the photo, like a flaw in the emulsion but not to a joining error.




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Here's another very strange and interesting group of structures at the Eos Chasma on Mars, as seen through the IAS Viewer:



Cheers!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I see there's another with a thread started on this, asking if it might be a 'crashed saucer'. At least, his picture is also from Eos Chasma.

Pulling back from your close-up, mike, aren't there other rocks and debris of approximately the same color? The bluish/grey?

Still, tantalyzingly symmetrical...(how's that for a tongue-twister, eh?)



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikesingh
 

I see there's another with a thread started on this, asking if it might be a 'crashed saucer'. At least, his picture is also from Eos Chasma.
Still, tantalyzingly symmetrical...(how's that for a tongue-twister, eh?)


Is it the same object? Doesn't look like it!


Tongue twister? Hmmm...But you screwed up the spelling of 'tantalizing' real bad!!! And that's what got my tongue twisted if nothing else!!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I know, yours is a better image! Any idea as to its size??

As to spelling...well....I was "tantalyzed" at Tantalus Colony by the evil Dr. Van Gelder. Brane not so gud no moore....



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by mikesingh

Yep! But how big are they? Considering it is in the lab, they could not be more than a couple of inches at the most. What we're seeing on Mars is hundreds of feet in diameter!


An average bolt of positive lightning carries a current of up to 300 kA (kiloamperes) and has a potential difference up to 1 gigavolt (one billion volts). For an electric discharge to have produced those huge features on Mars, it would have to be in the range of trillions of volts!! Possible? I don't think so!

Cheers!


you are not thinking big


electricity is a very strong force (mistakenly ignored by mainstream scientists) and these kind of lightnings, for example this one that made this crater on Mars was probably a smaller one



I can imagine older Solar system like a thick cloud of dust filled with electric discharges on a huge scale

can you?


cheers



Yes, you could be right. Perhaps the early solar system did have the conditions and huge electric bolts zapping the protoplanets.

The only problem is that weathering (either weathering by natural earth type weather, or by heat/cold, micro meteorite impact, volcanism etc etc) on all of the planets (atmosphere or not) would have eroded any evidence of such strikes long, long ago. Even here on earth, we are hard pressed to find conclusive evidence for meteor impacts just a few hundreds of millions of years old.

Finding these structures on Mars and possibly elsewhere, in as good a condition as they appear to be in, precludes the possibility that these were made by huge electrical discharges from an early solar system billions of years ago.
Hundreds of thousands, or even a few millions of years ago maybe, but certainly not billions of years ago. Whatever surface features may have been carved and chiselled due to discharges or impacts or pretty much anything really during or soon after the formation of the planets in our system, would have been obliterated long ago. (IMO) Unless of course, the feature of whatever description, was or is astronomically huge and very massive.





[edit on 14/5/2009 by spikey]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikesingh
 

As to spelling...well....I was "tantalyzed" at Tantalus Colony by the evil Dr. Van Gelder. Brane not so gud no moore....


Jeeez! Man, it's gettin' real bad!! A Budweiser too many, what?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
And here's another structure which I spotted near one of the projected Mars landing sites, and enhanced by none other than my friend ArMaP who also mentioned that this image having a 26.7 cm/pixel resolution, the feature is some 24 meters long by 8 meters wide.

The full sized IRB version:



Cheers!



hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join