It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's not a well known fact, it's a well known theory.
Originally posted by judge360
Hi all new here, its a well known fact that nasa doctor photos before they are released to the general public. However you might find this very interesting.
They are only convincing if you don't study them, if you do you will notice that those things look nothing like trees (for example, they do not project a shadow), and if you rotate the image 180º you can see that the "trees" look much more like landslides.
No disrespect to op but i think these pics are much much more convincing enjoy
Here's the link:
No, those are not doctored, those images were created on-the-fly, made from several smaller images, and to me, a programmer, they look like the result of a bad algorithm.
Originally posted by judge360
I dont agree with you at all so your saying that these pics arnt doctured?
You probably didn't look as good as you should.
These are just a few there's loads more but i can no longer find them on NASA'S site seems strange? As they were there! Ive had to get them of MarsAnomalyResearch site.
No, there is nothing that looks like shadows of something like trees, and I am not talking about the images on that site, I am talking about the original images posted on the HiRISE site.
And yes i have studied the Mars pics and i have to Disagree with you on that. If you look down the page youl see what appear to be shadows on some of the pics.
Look for some pictures of landslides on Earth dunes and you will see what I mean.
And if you look closer youl also notice that the sand dunes go in one direction and the apparent trees or whatever they are go in another. If they werte landslides as you say the soil/sand would have been blown in the same direction and there would be some indication that a landslide had happened ie: the sand dunes would be disformed But they arnt!
That's a stupid question and you know it.
What about thes pics
Are these also landslides?
No, I wouldn't say that because they don't look like trees to me, and I have passed that test more than once, you're not the first person with that idea.
If these were satelite pics of earth youd say they were tree's/ forests correct me if im wrong
Are you talking about the difference between two photos from different cameras? The fact that one photo from one camera doesn't show exactly the same things as a different photo from a different camera doesn't mean that one (or both) of the photos were doctored.
And what about these pics of mars which have been doctored
No, once more, flat features, whatever they may be.
No problem, I also think you totally wrong.
I could go on but wont no disrespect but i think your totaly wrong
I know that site, and it's one of the worst that I know, J. P. Skipper is only interested in getting the site known, not in the research. Someone who says that the research was done with low resolution JPEG images because most people wouldn't go to the trouble of downloading a Java program to see the high-resolution, lossless compressed, JPEG2000 images, needs to do much more to earn my respect.
Theres something there to see have a good look round that site and youl see for yourself theres loads of stuff! All of which HAS been Researched!
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, please.
If you think for 1 min that Nasa DOESNT! Doctor pics or Hide Stuff from us then i think your very narrow mineded!
Originally posted by Magnus47
That looks to me like one of the polar caps.
No, that model is not used on Mars.
Originally posted by Maka213
It's a weather balloon
Yes, it's called vision, you may have seen it before.
play of light and shadow
No, camera artefact, it's never a defect. At most, it's an "undocumented feature"
No, you should never use the word "anomaly", at most it's the result of some unusual weather phenomena, captured at the right moment.