Ancient Mars

I've enjoyed the youtube links - some images that I hadn't seen before. Back in the early 2000s, I downloaded an ebook about Cydonia, that was available in the public domain. It disappeared off the web, and I somehow lost my copy. Anyone have such an item? I've had a look from time to time, in archive.org etc. I think it was mostly one person's compilations and theories. I remember one part where it was looking at the relationships between the pyramids and the distances between the two moons. I believe it postulated that one moon was as low as was possible without crashing into Mars (seriously decayed orbit) and the other is as far out as possible without flying off. The writer was asserting that this made the moons likely to be artificial - and were perhaps to assist spaceflight to/from the planet. If anyone has this book, I'd appreciate a copy, thanks.

I keep an open mind on this stuff. I find the pyramid images especially interesting - and the number off odd structures that have Earth analogues. I do think some of the images are a little contrived - and some a little deceiving. But then again, I believe in the existence of the Nephilim - and Chuck Missler has voiced interesting theories about Earth and Mars once having had orbital resonance - historically linking the two planets with near - flybys.

Same Devices in different locations on MARS....

First





Second

Found this one whilst perusing JP Skippers forum with my bro - some of you might find it interesting:

See more here:
Spirit Metallic Sphere - Alien Anomalies

reply to post by Skyfloating


S+F !

I'm a firm believer, that Mars, ties closely in with our past. It's only a matter of time, before the lid, is blown off the can.

I like the pictures of moving objects on Mars, really interesting stuff.

reply to post by Tayesin


When looking at Mars I always got the impression or first "hunch" of it looking somehow torched or destroyed.
Hunches and Intuition dont make for Science, but a lot of people seem to have similar ideas.

reply to post by Exuberant1


thoe gifs are very funky man!

no one does scale though! pessers me orf that does!

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Hey, you know what they say....


...you get what you pay for.

*But you are right, it is nice to have some scale. As for this shiny thing, It doesn't seem to be very big.

(I'm gonna wing it and guess it is anywhere between a golf ball and basketball in size)

Does anyone know how quickly the images from the rovers are relayed to the ground crew controlling them?

The reason I ask is because I had a thought of using an electric helicopter that could be launched from the rover, in conditions where the wind would be not too much to overcome the small craft.

There are issues with such a thing as to how big you could make it and still be able to be carried by the rover, because the smaller the helicopter the more susceptible to the slightest breeze it would be. Also you would need it to have an easy recharge pod to land in, something like those newer charging stations for the i-pod where all you have to do is lay the device on the mat. There would also be the need for as close to instant visual as you could get, because on second could make the difference between a crash and a recovery.

If all of these things could be compensated for, and maybe a few others I may have not taken into consideration, a small helicopter craft might make a good addition to a rover, it could scout ahead of the rover to help avoid obstacles that might get the rover into trouble, It might also help in finding more interesting areas for the rover to examine. I know we use satellites to help, but there really needs to be something more close up that can hover and fly around an area to help the rover out IMHO.

You might able to use the wind from the main rotor to blow away sand from an interesting object to see it a little better as well. With this little bit of added help to the rover, it might be possible to distinguish between tricks of light and actual objects a bit better as well, to help us find, even before we can get a manned mission there, possible ancient Mars civilization sites.

I was going to make a separate thread for this but it seemed to fit well within this thread.

Can any of your firm believers in a NASA "cover-up" who keep making such claims please explain one thing?

IF any such "cover-up" is underway at NASA, then why are so many people "finding" things, as offered and postulated and displayed here, examples in this thread (and other places).

Just reviewing the last few pages, immediately prior to this post.

I mean, most incredibly, zorgon posted an image that, well to put it charitbly, seemed to have been punking this thread....since it was obviously NOT a "photo", but more of a painting or artist's impression.

Is this the sort of thing that should be tolerated?? Trying to say, isn't a real search for understanding better if it relies on science, and not rampant imagination and speculations?

:::Sidebar:::Any references to "marsanomalyresearch" should always be considered in the "fringe" category of just plain 'nutty' --- because the majority that is posted there is questionable. Seems the site owner just wants to get attention, and has no morals about intentionally putting out garbage, just to get that attention.

EG, the "moving" objects? Photo image anomalies, errors in the transmission. So, at least, I guess you could say he's not deceiving....when he calls them "anomalies"....because they ARE, but have very prosaic and scientific explanations.

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks Zorgon!!

I have been looking at Mars pics all day and night and this morning I found all the raw images on the site. I always had a hard time locating pictures.

I don't know why they have to colorize them and make them look fake. I think the raw original images show up better.

Those dunes are pretty neat! Mars definitely has a pretty interesting landscape in some parts. I sure would love to know what it use to look like before something happened to it.

Thanks again..

reply to post by AlienCarnage


A quick answer, from off the top of my head:

The images are scanned in a very sloooooooooow manner, line-by-line. There are others here who know more about it (I got my understandings just from reading their posts on it).

The data is sent to JPL in Pasadena, and stored in their memory systems for re-assembling in the computers there, before being viewable and coherent images.

I think you have to consider a lot of things, when thinking about the limitations of this sort of technology. It isn't like sending an NTSC video camera!

There is, firstly, the MAJOR roadblock for any spacecraft --- WEIGHT! All engineering has to be a bit of compromise, with weight always a problem. Workarounds in designs can get very creative for this reason.

Given that issue, the equipment on-board has limited power abilities, and bandwidths, etc. This just a brief run-down, I can surely find more info, from sources, on the Web.

As to "helicopter"? Not very practical, the air is way too thin. Something that "floats", like lighter-than-air craft here on Earth might be better.

Anyway, the time lag, due to speed of light, would make it impractical/impossible to directly control anything in real time, remotely. If I remember correctly, at its closest there is still a ~21 minute time delay, each way. At opposite ends of our orbits, I think it's over 45 minutes each.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

well, as usual Wiki comes up as the quickest and easiest resource...even not very in-depth descriptions. It's a start....

Opportunity's onboard computer uses a 20 MHz RAD6000 CPU with 128 MB of DRAM, 3 MB of EEPROM, and 256 MB of flash memory.

(SKIP)

Communications depends on an omnidirectional low-gain antenna communicating at a low data rate and a steerable high-gain antenna, both in direct contact with Earth. A low gain antenna is also used to relay data to spacecraft orbiting Mars.

Fixed science instruments include:

Panoramic Camera (Pancam) - examines the texture, color, mineralogy, and structure of the local terrain.
Navigation Camera (Navcam) - monochrome with a higher field of view but lower resolution, for navigation and driving.
Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES) - identifies promising rocks and soils for closer examination, and determines the processes that formed them.

(SKIP)

The cameras produce 1024-pixel by 1024-pixel images, the data is compressed with ICER, stored, and transmitted later.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, you got me going...I have to go learn what "ICER" is!!

reply to post by Exuberant1


Wow that is cool! I haven't seen that before. What is that??

Thanks for sharing. I also like how you made the pics move. How do you do that?!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes I was wondering about the delay, which is what I had thought. Still a preprogrammed flight path would be possible and to locate the rover would not be difficult to program in either, as signal gets stronger, the closer to the rover, now landing in a specific spot on the rover might be a little harder, though my father was able to have robotic (this is not the actual term for them but what I referred to them as a child and only thing that popped into my mind) helicopters do it when he was in the NAVY back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Avoiding objects would be as simple as the toy cars that children play with that know when a wall is near and turn.

A small electrical remote control helicopter weighs practically nothing, and can be recharged via a couple AA cells tied together. So I am not sure how much more the weight would be a problem, though just a few ounces might make a whole heck of a difference.

As far as thin air goes, that might be the consideration that I had not thought of, I have never flown a remote controlled helicopter in thin air areas on earth, but it would be an interesting experiment to see how the craft was affected.

So if the weight was not a factor and if we could do something about the thin air factor, if indeed it is a factor, The only real use would be to scout areas ahead of the rover, analyze the images when they come in and take the rover on a course that might be less likely to get the rover stuck. Looking closer at a particular site may not be possible, but if in the helicopters scouting it is possible that an area the rover was looking at might get another angle from the helicopter when the images are reviewed.

As far as the lighter than air craft, that might be an interesting angle as well, but we would need to also know how it would be effected by the air on mars as well, it could shoot straight up way to fast, or it might not budge at all, could be an interesting experiment for them to try on one of the missions though.

______________________________________________

I just saw the wiki link after I posted.

I had a basic Idea of it from what I have read previously and what I had pulled up prior to posting, was not sure if there was newer technology being used that fed a more direct sending of video that I had not stumbled upon, thank you for the clarification.

reply to post by Red_xi


Yes I always wondered about the moving objects on Mars AND on Earth



Question for you picture pros.

When you are looking at a picture and it's really pixelated in one area does that mean it's been altered? I have been looking at some pics that in some areas when I zoom in, there are white little pixels like when you zoom in to edit a pic and you can edit one little pixel. It just looks like a really bad edit in the middle of the sky or on the ground. These are pics from the 70s mostly. I am still self teaching myself this stuff so I just want to check with some of you about this.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Thanks for sharing. I also like how you made the pics move. How do you do that?!

The animation was done by the guys on skippers forums.

I think they did it by using a gif animator and two images of the object.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Can any of your firm believers in a NASA "cover-up" who keep making such claims please explain one thing?

IF any such "cover-up" is underway at NASA, then why are so many people "finding" things, as offered and postulated and displayed here, examples in this thread (and other places).

Just reviewing the last few pages, immediately prior to this post.

Well in my opinion you can try and cover things up all you want but when it gets to a certain point, things will slip out. People get lazy and technology catches up with what they cover up...as in pictures that have been airbrushed. I currently do NOT like the news pics that are all in color and look like painting or cartoons. Those are silly, Mars isnt purple and pink! If it is then well that explains a lot about me

I mean, most incredibly, zorgon posted an image that, well to put it charitbly, seemed to have been punking this thread....since it was obviously NOT a "photo", but more of a painting or artist's impression.

If you are talking about the ones with the colored dunes, I agree. I don't like those pics. He did post the raw image though which is better but still looks weird. I think the pics from the 70s are the best. Now technology makes it a lot easier for them to make whatever they want.

Is this the sort of thing that should be tolerated?? Trying to say, isn't a real search for understanding better if it relies on science, and not rampant imagination and speculations?

Science can be wrong and has been proven wrong many times. Science is our own based on Earth not other planets. IMO science can mean nothing on another planet, it could be the complete opposite and the life forms could adapt to that environment. I love science but I don't think it's absolute with everything.

:::Sidebar:::Any references to "marsanomalyresearch" should always be considered in the "fringe" category of just plain 'nutty' --- because the majority that is posted there is questionable. Seems the site owner just wants to get attention, and has no morals about intentionally putting out garbage, just to get that attention.

I disagree. That is a good site and yes some things i don't see but I haven't seen anyone else really take the time to do research on pics like that site has. I love the stuff I have found on there. You have to be able to filter out the "garbage" as you call it. I think the site has some really interesting posts and threads...as well as pictures.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Sorry, forgot about the source.

At 60 centimetres per pixel, that feature would be some 42 metres long.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/232c6c2b40383b2e.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Found this one whilst perusing JP Skippers forum with my bro - some of you might find it interesting:

See more here:
Spirit Metallic Sphere - Alien Anomalies

The bottom links not working mate...

Cheers.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Tayesin
But since having Internet again these past two years I haven't found any pictures of them... maybe looking in the wrong places?

As time passes old data gets lost, the old timers die off and soon what was once fact becomes rumors... and no one left alive to verify any of it

They are too busy with 2012 now... old Mars and Moon images don't hold the charm anymore, and the latest missions from NASA and others leave some to be desired

The Martian Tubes
www.thelivingmoon.com...

The Martian Tubes Part 2
www.thelivingmoon.com...

In the end... ENTROPY will get me too

I believe that there is something on Mars but I am very unsure on these glass tunnels.

Take a look at the images i put on page 9 (close to the bottom of the page)

Regards

Rutters

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Thanks for sharing. I also like how you made the pics move. How do you do that?!

The animation was done by the guys on skippers forums.

I think they did it by using a gif animator and two images of the object.

Ahh ok, thanks. Well that is way above my photoshop skills