AREA 51 - uknown device shown and discussed

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by tauristercus

 

I work all day with images blown up to that size and what you have there is blurred pixelation of a bush / grassy area and the surrounding rocks. With a bit of imagination you can blow up any part of that image and find something that looks like a face or an object, its cause by the compression routines of the image.

I fully understand where you're coming from but have to say that even though I may not be a professional image/graphics designer, I can certainly tell the difference between pixellation, a bunch of rocks, vegetation and what has obvious symmetry, artificiality and colouring that is completely out of context to the background or it's immediate surroundings. Can you recall the last time you came across a cylindrical yellow "rock or shrub" on top of a flat wedge shaped green "rock or shrub" ?

That location has NO other piles of rocks anywhere .. it has NO trees or bushes or vegetation to speak of ... the place is just totally desolate. That's why the device is so anomalous and why it originally attracted my attention.

Why don't you try the following ....

Bring up one of the images where I've removed all the background on to your screen ... now get out of your chair and move a few metres away from your screen ... now look at the image for a minute and then tell me you're looking at "rocks" and not something artificial.

reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator


Now that episode brought back "fond memories" of my early "trekkie" years so long ago ... thanks for that

But you've just proved my point ...

If I had seen those "rock creatures" in a GE image, I would definitely have assumed they were just some peculiar rock/stone formation or outcrop and not have wasted a minute on them.

But what I'm showing is nothing whatsoever like your example images while my images are just so patently artificial and constructed that I'm having the hardest time understanding why everyone is having so much difficulty with this.

Anyway, I can't force anyone to see something they can't see ... just too bad as they're being shown a device of such sophistication and advanced technology and not realizing that they're so casually dismissing something of the utmost importance.

reply to post by tauristercus


If it was a solid object the shadows would be longer and would show a consistent outline of the object connecting to the point that the object touch's the ground as the sun is coming in low from about 90 degrees from the right. Im very sure its just a patch of green on a lump of earth or a large bush distorted by jpg artifacts. You can see faults all over the image at that resolution. The image has been rotated slightly to , about 5-10 degrees to the left. Did you do that ?

You spent some time on the analysis but i really think your wasting your time trying to find anything hidden at that resolution.


[edit on 1-12-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Ok after doing some more analysis of the picture, here are a few tidbits that are being overlooked on the picture.

1. This is a picture taken from a general overhead view with a deflection of a few degrees at most. Since this is overhead, it means this droid or whatever walks on its back, looking up wards at the sky. Maybe it fell over

2. What kind of camo pattern is that? If it is a test object, it would have markings making it easy to observe, and if it was a tactical vehicle it would have a camo pattern that would not be a series of different colored "parts".

3. Based off of the size of the objects near it in the OP picture, and using data from GE now of that area, the objects stands roughly 110 feet tall, which would be approx. 11 stories tall.

4. What purpose would the glowing ring serve. All it would do is alert whoever is in the area that a 110 foot tall, duck droid is staring at you. If I was going to shoot at it, that would be my aiming point.

It is a series of rocks, shrubs, sand, and shaddows. Good work though

this is crazy XD

But due to your efforts for all your work star and flag but yeh just looks like some trees.

It was 9 degrees of counter clockwise rotation..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/236528dfd1a1.png[/atsimg]


[edit on 2-12-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply to post by tauristercus


Im in! I have been looking at your research at the moment! iam new and iam interested in all these things people are doing!
Iam sum reason convinced of what you are doing!
but people say its shrub it can because of the colour but the picture shows that the area changes quit alot. on the left its rocky plane creamy colour and then sudenly changes to dark and shruby rocky area, maybe its been put there for a reason to hide or to convince people its just rock and shrub but its not a natrual form its been done by sumone. but keep rsearching what ou are doing and email me or PM!

reply to post by tauristercus


My apologies, but I see what appears to be bushes, trees mixed with perhaps some rocks.

I spend perhaps 30 to 40 hours per week in Photoshop and have for many years. Filters do not reveal information but in fact distort what original information is in the photo. In particular if you increase the size. When you do that the software, via an algorithm, adds pixels to the image changing its shape and characteristics. The only good source is the unaltered original. Anything not present in the original that shows up in altered versions was added to it, it was never there to begin with.

I'm not saying or implying there has not been some strange goings on at Area 51 or that part of Nevada in general, but in this case I think you are trying to create evidence to fit the theory through the improper use of image manipulation software.

If it looks like bushes and rocks, it is likely bushes and rocks.



[edit on 12/14/2009 by Blaine91555]

Am I the only one who cant see any pictures in the original post ?

Add me to the group that thinks that this is nothing but natural material (rocks, shrubs, whatever).

For me, the biggest problem with your photo is that GE's pictures look from the top down. Your little robot guy looks like it was taken at an angle closer to earth, or the guy has fallen over and is laying on his back (but you don't imply that that is the case). So, just the fact that the photo it being shot from above and not at an angle (if it was at an angle, it would have a shadow) seems to discount all the admittedly involved work that you put into extracting what you believe is an artificial object.

If it IS an artificial object, though, my money is on Johnny 5.

But Tauristercus, don't take it so personally when people disagree with you.

DOES NOBODY SEE WHAT I SEE!!!!!???



Sorry, but in all seriousness, its IS just rocks/bushes. The different colors mean nothing, you do realize you have zoomed much too far in onto a highly compressed image? What about the hillside above your "device", they are all colored blue? Its not blue vegetation its just discoloration of the image. Nothing more.

Also, I don't see haw photoshop's artistic filters in any way enhance this image! I say you did a very good job in taking the piss out of some people.

Sorry, I can't seem to get that image to show in the post! I can't upload any images to ATS either, despite having enough posts.


[edit on 19-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by tauristercus

 

I work all day with images blown up to that size and what you have there is blurred pixelation of a bush / grassy area and the surrounding rocks. With a bit of imagination you can blow up any part of that image and find something that looks like a face or an object, its cause by the compression routines of the image.

...even though I may not be a professional image/graphics designer, I can certainly tell the difference between pixellation, a bunch of rocks, vegetation and what has obvious symmetry, artificiality and colouring that is completely out of context to the background or it's immediate surroundings.

Clearly you can't!

That location has NO other piles of rocks anywhere .. it has NO trees or bushes or vegetation to speak of ... the place is just totally desolate. That's why the device is so anomalous and why it originally attracted my attention.

What are you talking about, there are rocks and shrubs everywhere in that small area you have cropped, its just down from a rocky cliff face and there are rocks all around the area just above your "device".

Nice troll attempt all the same.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

OH MY GOD YOU FOUND BARNEY THE DINOSAUR IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE! Proof that aliens exist.

Originally posted by couchesfeeltasty
OH MY GOD YOU FOUND BARNEY THE DINOSAUR IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE! Proof that aliens exist.

couchesfeeltasty ... honestly, if you have nothing intelligent or worthwhile to contribute to this thread, then I suggest you go elsewhere where your 'sense of humour' may be more appreciated by other like minded individuals.

Damnit man, its all shrubs man.

Seriously though I think google earth alrady took out all the good stuff, if there was any to being with
!

next time I think about going on google earth to find something I'm going to remember this thread and why I shouldn't use it only to give directions...thank you OP for opening my eyes

So, OP, if this were a perfect world where everything were as you would have it, what would you believe this object to be?

Do you think it's some kind of robot? Based on the description in your post you seem to be ascribing traits like a head and legs to the thing. Are you suggesting that the military built some wonkity-ass asymmetrical Mech out of lumpy blue and green rocks, and left it sitting out in the sun? Why would they do that? Maybe they'd at least throw a tarp over it or something?

And, if their intention was to hide it, do you really think they would have contented themselves with blurring it a little bit? The degradation you mention/point out was probably the result of a new satellite photo taken under less favorable atmospheric conditions. If there was a big lumpy robot sitting unattended out in the Nevada desert, and the public had access to a satellite photo of it, the powers that be would respond by having the image removed from all public servers, or replacing it with a doctored image that omitted the desertbot entirely, instead of blurring it out ever so slightly.

This entire argument over what the thing looks like is pretty much invalidated by the sheer unlikelihood of there actually being a poorly constructed, lumpy, asymmetrical robot sitting alone out in the desert. The military doesn't even leave a jeep parked in the Desert unattended, much less a multimillion-dollar top-secret experimental war toy like the one you seem to believe that you see in the pictures you posted.

"Oops, f**k, I left the Mech parked out in the badlands... better go get it before it ends up on Google Earth. Oh, crap, too late! I'd better email Google a slightly distorted version of the same image and tell them to replace it right away!"

Who the hell is drawing a paycheck at Area 51 that makes decisions like that?

My guess is: not anybody.







Edit:

Looking at the images in the OP again, I notice that the midsection of your robot there, the large green rock in the middle, makes the thing look morbidly obese. It is extremely obvious that the thing is not the result of artificial construction. No engineer would ever build a bipedal, multi-story-tall robot with a giant gut that overhung the machine's spindly little legs by a good ten feet on every side. Just look at the edges of the thing-- they're lumpy. Metal things aren't lumpy. It looks more like a badly discolored Donald Duck than a piece of secret military technology. Come on, man.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by The Parallelogram]

Looks like Toad has caught a ride on Yoshis back! Why he is standing instead of riding seated i have no clue!

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
So, OP, if this were a perfect world where everything were as you would have it, what would you believe this object to be?

Do you think it's some kind of robot? Based on the description in your post you seem to be ascribing traits like a head and legs to the thing.

Most certainly I'm ascribing artificial features and structures to the object ... and therefore am also most definitively stating that technology was involved in it's design and construction.
Examining the object carefully (which means taking the time to REALLY examine it) and NOT jumping to the immediate (and erroneous) conclusion that it is nothing more than a haphazard collection of coloured rocks, definitive structure can be readily discerned and most importantly, such structure DOES appear to be comprised of, or compartmentalized into, 3 distinct areas ... namely, an upper 'head' section; a central 'body section'; and a lower 'ambulatory section'.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/893041f58dd0.jpg[/atsimg]

Are you suggesting that the military built some wonkity-ass asymmetrical Mech out of lumpy blue and green rocks, and left it sitting out in the sun? Why would they do that? Maybe they'd at least throw a tarp over it or something?

No, I am NOT suggesting that the military "built some wonkity-ass asymmetrical Mech out of lumpy blue and green rocks, and left it sitting out in the sun."
I am however suggesting that the military HAS developed technology that makes such constructs a distinct possibility. And instead of it having been "sitting out in the sun, perhaps they were engaged in active, real time trials of such technology in the Papoose Mountain range when it was unintentionally imaged during a satellite fly-over.

The following image is of an actual Japanese designed and built mech prototype:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/506ca244cb28.jpg[/atsimg]

And, if their intention was to hide it, do you really think they would have contented themselves with blurring it a little bit? The degradation you mention/point out was probably the result of a new satellite photo taken under less favorable atmospheric conditions.

Considering that the original Google Earth image that I presented was less than ideal ... obviously if it was a perfect image, then we wouldn't be having this discussion ... but it's still more than good enough to indicate the presence of some kind of unusual and advanced technology and thereby allow suspicions to be raised and questions to be asked.
Having presented these images and my analysis here on ATS (and other online locations), I believe that to discourage further discussions, analysis and observations by others using Google Earth, that the simplest solution would be to degrade the image even further and reduce considerably the amount of useful and analyzable info that could be obtained through GE viewing.
Obviously if GE had erased or blanked out or photoshopped the image, then questions would be immediately asked as to why such an action has been taken immediately after the original image had been displayed and discussed ... and would strongly suggest that there really must have been something of importance at that location that had been unintentionally displayed on GE.
Far simpler to leave the original image in place but degrade it to such an extent that most of the original detail would no longer be visible.

As for the 'degraded' image being a different image taken at a later time, careful examination of both images using the time/date function within GE, clearly shows that both images are in fact the SAME image taken at the SAME time ... but that the subsequent image (after I had published my hypothesis on line) had been intentionally and severely degraded in quality.
I have clearly shown the degree of degradation that was used when I displayed a 'before' and 'after' image of the device. The degradation is a fact.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05db8fc26148.jpg[/atsimg]

If there was a big lumpy robot sitting unattended out in the Nevada desert, and the public had access to a satellite photo of it, the powers that be would respond by having the image removed from all public servers, or replacing it with a doctored image that omitted the desertbot entirely, instead of blurring it out ever so slightly.

See my response above.

This entire argument over what the thing looks like is pretty much invalidated by the sheer unlikelihood of there actually being a poorly constructed, lumpy, asymmetrical robot sitting alone out in the desert. The military doesn't even leave a jeep parked in the Desert unattended, much less a multimillion-dollar top-secret experimental war toy like the one you seem to believe that you see in the pictures you posted.

Without a close up and detailed look at the device, you have insufficient evidence to label it as "being a poorly constructed, lumpy, asymmetrical robot". The original image taken at a height of approx. 1500m is sufficient to indicate that the object is NOT simply a pile of coloured rocks placed ontop of one another or a bush or vegetation but rather provides suficient detail to suggest an artificially constructed structure.

reply to post by tauristercus


I've seen a video of the 'mech' in these pictures in action. It doesn't walk; it shuffles at a geriatric pace. A true mech's usefulness would lie in its ability to navigate variable terrain with human-like locomotion. The Japanese prototype is not evidence for anything the US Military is doing, and it's certainly not evidence for any kind of advanced technology at all.

The thing in the original post just doesn't look mechanical. At all. The rotund midsection, stalk-like neck, bizarre protrusions and jointless legs just don't point to a rational, efficient design. The lumpy surfaces don't point to inorganic construction. The garish colors don't resemble any military technology I've ever seen. The isolation and exposure of the subject reflect that the Military doesn't care whether or not we see it.

All you have is a picture and your insistence that it looks artificial. There's no supporting evidence, no context, nothing but a vague resemblance to a cartoonish mechanical construct which only you yourself, and one or two other posters, see. I do not understand why you are so unwilling to at least consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. This thread, and the one before it on the same subject, has gone on for so long, with so many posters informing you that they, too, see no evidence for artificiality in the image, that I am genuinely baffled as to why you cannot at least briefly entertain the idea that your imagination has gotten the better of you.