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.

 

I give you Mimas; Broken Domes and a Hook

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 


Well at least you have the right attitude towards it most on here if you point out errors in what they think they see call you a dis info agent etc then claim NASA hides the good stuff etc.

I would really love to see REAL evidence appear the trouble is to many on here SEE what they WANT and NOT what they SEE!

Look at the living moon site or mars anomoly site or pegasus research site they all rely on this type of tactic take a picture and make it worse.

This is the one I like I call it the pink sperm spaceship on the living moon site


www.thelivingmoon.com...

That I think gives you an IDEA of the MENTALITY of some people on that site


[edit on 7-5-2010 by wmd_2008]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yikes! At least, the objects I point to are not in shadows... Many of these images could be interpreted in any way.
Beside the blue ship, I saw the God of N. He was lying on his side, probably sleeping an eternal sleep... Sheesh. I understand how this can be perceived when presented with such... I don't know...

I try to ponder all the possibilities before coming to a conclusion. ( That can't be final for evident reasons ) I know some of my pics may seem wild, but I try to remember that if we are dealing with either ET or Ancient Humans techno, the designs might not be what we expect it to be. Hence a picture like the " Wheeled bone-like structure ".
IMO, the last pics I posted of it, where you can see a rip and bend on the "bone", where the "wheel" fits only reinforce the idea that it is artificial.
Plus the seemingly aligned plates... I would like to receive some info concerning members for the "screw", also... I find that one VERY hard to think it is a natural rock.
It could be, but what's the statistic on this one? I bet its on an "impossible" scale... And yet, no words on it.

Enough crying! I thank you very much for your comments and appreciation of my little work. As I said previously somewhere, I like to go to bed knowing more stuff than when I woke in the morning. This explains my attitude. I also know there is a significant chance I'm wrong on everything or only part of it; that's why I waited 18 months before posting them.


PS Woups! I thought I was on my other thread about Mars... Really sorry, should have slept last night... Ahh vacation time... ( I mean I'm on vacation presently
) The pics I was referring to are on the Mars thread...

But the statistical chances for an object like "The Hook" must be... astronomical!
See you after sleep, dang!


[edit on 7-5-2010 by Aresh Troxit]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Again, you are wrong about the ridge of the rim. If you look a the 3D images. linked in the OP, you will see it better than the one in black and white a with a slight angle.
The ridge goes under the "hook" at mid-point, making a part of it to be suspended.
I hope you have red and blue glasses!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
This is great stuff, thanks OP. I have been a bit obsessed with the Cydonia anomalies and Mars in general recently.

The mathematical relationships between the "objects" are too clean; the chances of an arrangement like that occuring naturally are miniscule. The objects line up with the topography of Mars...the area signals its own coordinates with its placement relative to the equator and the poles. Then the objects themselves...the larger pyramids all exhibit a massive degree of artificiality; no known weathering phenomenon can produce such sharp-edged pentagonal pyramaids.

Mars has undergone some brutally violent surface condition changes due to asteroid and/or comet strikes over the course of its history. (Also, consider the great possible age of the objects) Even if the objects are too blasted to seem artificial up close, their placement relative to each other is too uncanny to be a coincidence, I believe. I think there are people in deep denial about this; I don't pretend to have the answers but the facts shout for themselves on a very basic level.


[edit on 5/7/10 by silent thunder]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Well, thank YOU for putting into words what I seemed to lack the ability to do... LOL I feel exactly as you, many thanks!


Aresh



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
Again, you are wrong about the ridge of the rim.
Maybe.



If you look a the 3D images. linked in the OP, you will see it better than the one in black and white a with a slight angle.
3D images lose detail, and I don't think it shows what you say it shows.

And I have blue-red glasses, I have made some anaglyphs myself.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Victory!!! I got a maybe! LOL
Take a look anyway! You will see it for yourself!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 

I am a programmer, I am used to be wrong.


I did look at anaglyph with red-blue glasses, but it looks more like two photos taken at different times than a stereo photo, so the result is not as it could be from a real stereo photo.

Now that I have more time I will look for more photos of that area.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I have a wife and three kids. I'm never right either.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
I have a wife and three kids. I'm never right either.

I didn't said that I am never right, only that I am used to be wrong, it's not exactly the same thing.


Now, on topic, here is a different photo from that area. Unfortunately, it's smaller than the other photo, so there's less detail.

And here is a false colour image (made with images from the infra-red, green and ultra-violet filters), as an added bonus.





posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Well, even with less details, we can make out the hook! Seriously, why did you pick one of lesser resolution?


Could you do the same with the one I provided in th OP?

It would be nice to see it, even in false colors...



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
Well, even with less details, we can make out the hook! Seriously, why did you pick one of lesser resolution?
The infra-red and ultra-violet images are smaller, so I had to reduce the clear filter image (the larger image, that I used as green filter) to fit the other two.


Could you do the same with the one I provided in th OP?
I cannot, I don't have other filter photos.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you for the clarifications.
Any idea what material represents the spot of colors, just below the middle right of your picture?

To leave the hook, for a while, here are a few bigger close ups of the Broken Domes, and what I believe is a hint to its artificiality.

First crop is from the picture you provided in the link.



Next is from the one I provided in the OP.



The same, but with the first hint at the artificiality of the place.



In orange, you see the shadow of the remaining dome shape, and in blue, the remains themselves. Notice in the unedited version above this one how the shadow is seen THROUGH the structure.

Next is the same as the unedited but with contrast changed.



Next is the second hint of artificiality, in a close up of the Broken Dome.



Again, edited to show the X structure, in orange, and the shadow it casts in blue.



Notice in the second pic of this post how many "squared" crater there are.
And I did not address the other dome, just above the Broken Dome and which also shows "boxes" and "beams".

Now, everyone can tell me it's rock...



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
Any idea what material represents the spot of colors, just below the middle right of your picture?

That's something that changes position in each photo for each channel, so it appears in different colours in each position.

I don't have any explanation for that.



The same, but with the first hint at the artificiality of the place.



In orange, you see the shadow of the remaining dome shape, and in blue, the remains themselves. Notice in the unedited version above this one how the shadow is seen THROUGH the structure.

It may be just a darker area or a shadow of a slight elevation, that's the problem of having just one image.


Next is the second hint of artificiality, in a close up of the Broken Dome.



Again, edited to show the X structure, in orange, and the shadow it casts in blue.

Shouldn't the light be coming from the opposite direction to cast a shadow that way?


Notice in the second pic of this post how many "squared" crater there are.

From what I have seen, craters then to look square when the photos are taken too low.


Now, everyone can tell me it's rock...

No, they are craters.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you for the clarifications.
Any idea what material represents the spot of colors, just below the middle right of your picture?

To leave the hook, for a while, here are a few bigger close ups of the Broken Domes, and what I believe is a hint to its artificiality.

First crop is from the picture you provided in the link.



Next is from the one I provided in the OP.



The same, but with the first hint at the artificiality of the place.



In orange, you see the shadow of the remaining dome shape, and in blue, the remains themselves. Notice in the unedited version above this one how the shadow is seen THROUGH the structure.

Next is the same as the unedited but with contrast changed.



Next is the second hint of artificiality, in a close up of the Broken Dome.



Again, edited to show the X structure, in orange, and the shadow it casts in blue.



Notice in the second pic of this post how many "squared" crater there are.
And I did not address the other dome, just above the Broken Dome and which also shows "boxes" and "beams".

Now, everyone can tell me it's rock...



WHY do you think they are domes, looks like craters to me do you want to indicate what makes it a broken dome!



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You will have to go back at the beginning of the thread. And ( unless I've only shared this on U2U?!?... ), I've said that Mimas seems to have been hit when in some kind of limp state. If you look at craters, you will notice what I point out to. If they are natural, and they have been broken over time, is it not a novelty in astronomy?

And since I'm open minded, I'm asking myself ( and now all of you ), if they are natural, with the shape of the debris in the craters, could it have been used and retooled at some point in the past? Or is it downright artificial?
We have heard of Domes before, and not only as vestiges, but also as something we could build, so... Just asking.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hello ArMaP,


On the question of the lighting, it is good. Do not forget that in the original, you can see the light coming in almost horizontally from the left, and I've rotated the crops, as said in a previous post. The shadow falls in the right direction. Look...



And when a circle is seen from an angle, it tends to look oval, so how can a round crater look "squared" at an angle, hmm?


Edited because I forgot!

In the mid-rez pic you provided, you can see the shadow of the remaining structure go under it, just like in the hi-rez I provided.


[edit on 9-5-2010 by Aresh Troxit]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
The shadow falls in the right direction. Look...



Then what is casting the shadow that you marked in this image?




And when a circle is seen from an angle, it tends to look oval, so how can a round crater look "squared" at an angle, hmm?
I know, I had descriptive geometry and technical drawing at school.


I don't have an explanation, but I have seen several times photos of craters that look square (or, more correctly, like a lozenge), but in photos taken closer to the perpendicular look round.

PS: by looking at the crater's rims I think you have the light direction slightly wrong.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


LOL I guess I will have to say only the blue bottom part?... ( I'm thinking what more could I say to make it to second line... )



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 


Does it make sense as a shadow of that blue bottom part? What shape should that blue bottom part have to make a shadow like that with the light coming from where it comes?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join