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.

 

Artificial Megalithic structures found on MARS

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by His Doodness
To Phage and the others who are posting pictures of rocks from Earth:

I realize that normally all you have to do to debunk something like this is do a quick google images search and post what you find. But are you serious with these photos? So far, NONE of the earth-rock photos have been anywhere close to looking like these rocks on Mars.

No, I don't think these are buildings or structures of any kind, but I certainly think they deserve some attention.

You are all so quick to call BS on someone who creates a post like this. Well I am calling BS on you! Saying that the photos you found prove or disprove anything about these supposed megalithic structures is absolute absurdity. Come on, you have to try harder than that.

That said, you may be correct, but your photos do not properly support your argument. Find better photos, and this thread will die, thus you succeed.

At the same time, to the OP:

I think you should try explaining in detail what parts of these rocks specifically led you to believe these are not natural. Randomly placed arrows are not sufficient. Try telling us your story, for example: "at first I thought it was nothing, but then I noticed _____ and that led me to notice _____, which made me wonder if they are structures of some kind."

Something like that might get some people to give it a second look.


Oh, and Im not interested in any pointless ego-boosting bickering, so any attacks on me personally will be indiscriminately ignored.


edit: added 4th paragraph
edit again: mono- mega-, ahh whatever.


[edit on 12/4/2009 by His Doodness]

[edit on 12/4/2009 by His Doodness]



You keep needing proof on earth to disprove things on Mars. They had very different pasts and Mars has things on it alot larger than earth, mountains, canyons, crators....etc




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 308
To answer your next question, you're right I'm no geologist so I have pitched your highlighted area on Mars to a few geological forums to see if I can attract the attention of an actual expert in the field. I'll keep you posted then link to the threads to stop any tampering by outside influences.


Thanks and sorry for my words... I do the same.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

Do you know anything about geology?

I'm not a geologist, but I had geology classes in school, and considering that Hellas Basin is a huge impact crater, it's only natural that it has some areas where the melted materials made some uncommon shapes when they turned solid, like the columnar basalt.

Also, and once more, if you want to do anything useful with Mars images do not use Google images, use the originals instead.

The images used by Google are made to be downloaded faster, not made to show the best quality.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Now Google Mars is no more usable!

But fortunately I have many images with good resolution saved during these months and others that are delivered to me some months ago.

If you check carefully some images posted here, you can see some details absolutely unnatural.

Please, Armap, if you can, contact someone whit skills in Geology and ask about that structures in Hellas Basin.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

Google Earth was never good for that.

Compare your images with the image I posted at 100% zoom and you will see that you were zooming too much on Google Earth. If you do the same with some known Earth location you will see what I mean.

Hellas Basin is also thought as having been full of water, and in some places it has some strange marks that the scientists studying it do not really know what they are but think they were made by ice slabs hitting the bottom of what was then a disappearing sea.

Edit:
If those are buildings, why do they become smaller and smaller in the following image?
(click for full size)

I know that there are building with different sizes, but in this case it's almost as if they were made in a smaller and smaller scale.

Buildings like that do not make sense, geological features do.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Your image has a very low resolution but however...

Surely you know that the exact perspective of the Hellas Basin is South-South-East.
Then I've rotate your image counter clockwise and it is on East.

I have understood which zone the image it refers and I show you the difference between that which I have taken, some month ago, and yours.

The "A"red box


And the same place posted by me (page 2)


The "B" red box is another anomaly whith strange spirals.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by Imagir]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
Your image has a very low resolution but however...
That image has the original resolution, 25 cm per pixel. Zooming in on any image does not make it better, only worse, because what you are seeing is the resulting interpolation used by the program where you did the zooming in.


Surely you know that the exact perspective of the Hellas Basin is South-South-East.
There's no such thing as "exact perspective", things just exist, in this case on Mars, regardless of how we look at them.

Don't you see how the quality of the image I posted was reduced by your resizing? If you want to see things as they really are do not resize the images, that only creates a new image, more or less like the original, but you don't have any control over what happens.

And how do you explain the fact that those features get smaller and smaller, like all natural things? Do you think that those are small-scale buildings?

PS: I hope you understand that this photo was taken almost from the vertical over that place and what we are seeing is almost as a map.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


I am a geologist, at least I will be in a couple of semesters. And having seen not only these pictures but also pictures of the exact same process that occurs on Earth and there is only one likely scenario

It's a natural formation. Not aliens.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
This is almost as bad as the "umbrella ufo" thread.

These are CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY natural formations. Why do you persist in this nonsense? When it's this blatantly stupid, even though I rarely believe this is an active force at this time, disinformation comes to mind. I can't fathom someone being this honestly dim about something.

And I *do* believe in UFOs. And this is bunk. Utter rubbish.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Here's hoping people learned something from the umbrella thread. So far, the question is answered, and the poster is still delusional, so it's looking like no.

Guys, you answered the questions and likely have convinced any logical visitor to this thread, stop feeding the OP's delusional ego by responding more.

They're rocks, and Google Earth is wrong for analyzing strange structures. It's the same exact thing as "It's an umbrella, and you are resizing your pictures wrong and deleting all the real detail." Let's move on to more worthwhile images and videos?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by fleabit
 


Here's hoping people learned something from the umbrella thread. So far, the question is answered, and the poster is still delusional, so it's looking like no.

Guys, you answered the questions and likely have convinced any logical visitor to this thread, stop feeding the OP's delusional ego by responding more.

They're rocks, and Google Earth is wrong for analyzing strange structures. It's the same exact thing as "It's an umbrella, and you are resizing your pictures wrong and deleting all the real detail." Let's move on to more worthwhile images and videos?


Yah I'm calling troll on this one now.

Either that or my faith in humanity is pretty much gone



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


If these are buildings where are the doors, walls, windows, entrances, or exits?

What purpose do these buildings serve? They sure don't look like homes...

In fact they look nothing like buildings at all, in any of the photos. There are no statues in these photos either.

I mean I have a pretty active imagination, and I guess if I REALLY stretched I could see them as buildings built into natural rock disguised as a perfectly natural formation...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Comparing the same place between the two images.
Something is change in the image...

The "B" Anomaly.


Where is it?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
Where is it?


Where is what? What is your point?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

All the features are there, the difference is in the way Google resizes the image, it looks like it uses a common trick, sharpening the image a little before resizing to make it look less blurred by the resizing.

What that does is to change the image in two different ways, so while it looks better it looks less like the original.

And I see you haven't yet provided an explanation for the different sized "buildings", what do you say about that?

PS: judging by the looks of the red line on the first image, the program you are using compresses too much the images, so, if possible, save the images as PNG instead of JPG, PNG does not destroy image data as JPG does.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
OK, my two cents worth... I am posting one image from this same area. There are some compelling shapes in this image... IMO. I think that this entire area is natural (and unique) in it's formation. There seems to be plenty of lava flow everywhere. That said... I am of the thinking that some of this area, not all, has been constructed as dwellings, 'carved out' perhaps, making use of the natural shapes and formations. I cannot find a different source image to compare with, maybe someone else can. For the image that I have posted, (coordinates at bottom) using my imagination, I can see windows, doors, other openings, architecture, etc. If there is artificiality/construction here, it is extremely ancient and is covered in ruins and perhaps lava flow. My two cents.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dennisdvx
 


Could you mark those things you see on the image?

You have to remember that even those people that say that they see the same thing do not have any way of knowing what you are seeing, so it would be better if you could show us exactly what you mean.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I hope this is ok. What I am referring to is inside the red box.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dennisdvx
 


I see it and i agree. I too think (if you have seen my topic), that this whole city area is ancient and very old, thus covered and surrounded by rocks, which makes it hard to see clearly.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Cybernet
 

Yes, I have seen your topic. I know these images are blurry but there are some very interesting shapes to be seen. I don't think this entire area has been 'built', just selected areas for construction. The large square rocks are just that and the small square rocks are just that also. It looks like, to me anyway, that someone came along and just carved and excavated certain rocks and areas to suit their own needs.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join