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.

 

Yet Another Martian Anomaly

page: 16
85
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
well,
I think there is probably an optical illusion at work here with the rocks, but, that white 'rock' sure as hell looks spooooky; it definitely looks like a humanoid skull. In the first B&W of it, to its right as you look at it, there appears to be two other 'skulls' covered in dirt...

Eyes can start to play tricks on you, but, Hoagland made a strong case with the computer analysis of the "face on Mars", as it maintained that illusion through 180 degrees, which does not happen in nature, up to 10 degrees or so would usually be the maximum a cliff, for instance, would still look like a face.

I suggest sending this photo to Hoagland, at his Enterprise site, and see what he thinks?

cheers
fog




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well I would much rather see the ones that AREN'T public


That would challenge our beliefs and we can't have that now, can we? Lets stop the space program and quit looking up.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by fog mountain
well,
I think there is probably an optical illusion at work here with the rocks, but, that white 'rock' sure as hell looks spooooky; it definitely looks like a humanoid skull. In the first B&W of it, to its right as you look at it, there appears to be two other 'skulls' covered in dirt...


Ah yes... was wondering if anyone would catch that


Gigas on another board spotted that...



Zorgon, look upon thy image and see what ye has done to our mind. Why, that looks just like a fallen bi-pedal creature with its helmet at its side.




SPOOKY is right



edit on 15-9-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Hi Zorgon long time eh!
Have not read past page 2 so far but looking at these pics you posted is all about perspective.
I have highlighted 2 rocks in the foreground look how the position changes in each picture no moving rocks
moving camera!

1) red line around 2 rocks in foreground



2) same two rocks your suspected moving rock is now behind rock with blue line.



3) same rocks marked with red again your rock pops back into view.




Lets see what you think!

(edit for spelling)


edit on 15-9-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




edit on 15-9-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Plase refer KAGUYA_product_list_public (PDF file) to confirm the kind of KAGUYA data.

Did you look at that list? It's illegible, instead of letters it shows only dots.



Well I would much rather see the ones that AREN'T public

Maybe they don't have any.



Seems little point in looking over preselected images from so long ago

I thought you liked rocks.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Did you look at that list? It's illegible, instead of letters it shows only dots.




I can read it just fine but most of the data they offer...

Gamma-ray Spectrometer(GRS)
Lunar Imager/SpectroMeter(LISM)
Laser ALTimeter(LALT) etc

...Is of little use for hunting coins



I thought you liked rocks.


I DO... but would I get any stars is I posted "Here is the latest rock on Mars?"



Hmmm I wonder....



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
I DO... but would I get any stars is I posted "Here is the latest rock on Mars?"



Hmmm I wonder....


Yeah, but getting stars from a "Mars Anomaly" topic is like shooting mutant Martian fish in a barrel. Grab practically any Mars image, draw a few lines on it, and ta-da! Instant lost civilization.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   





posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue ShiftGrab practically any Mars image, draw a few lines on it, and ta-da! Instant lost civilization.


Well today is your lucky day... just because you asked so nicely
and I won't draw any lines on it, just add a little Blue Shift...



Just plain clip... no additives..



original source image
Malin Space Systems
www.msss.com...

Enjoy




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I think I have already posted some new photos from that area.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

But why not use the higher quality images?
Here you go. Courtesy of remymartin:

This is without zoom


This is full zoom

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for that, I remembered posting a photo but I didn't remember what photo it was and that I was just posting a bigger version of what already been posted by remymartin.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I might be brainwashed but there is definitely something wrong with our best archeologists taking hundred of years to find ancient ruins on earth but a handful of NASA scientists can find Martian ruins within 10 years on another planet.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
 

But why not use the higher quality images?
Here you go. Courtesy of remymartin:

This is without zoom


This is full zoom

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Wow! Where in Christ's name did it go??
NASA, JPL or whoever seem to have airbrushed that Martian hanger! Damn! This sucks!



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I'm new to this forum and could not help but register in order to respond to this post...

Does anyone get the feeling that NASA is keeping the ultra-high resolution pictures and only posting the lower resolution versions to prevent detailed zooming? Zooming in on low-res pictures causes pixelation that obscures details. Technically, NASA is not doing anything wrong. They must post all pics of their missions but there is nothing in the books that says they have to be in raw form. I'm not a lawyer but take this to court and NASA will come out clean. It's a clear case of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.

From what I understand, NASA uses the razor's edge of technology, at the time of design, to provide the absolute highest resolution pictures technologically possible within the design constraints of the probe. From what I can tell, the "helmet" picture, as I call it, looks to be ~3-5 megapixel resolution. I downloaded the "raw" file and analyzed it using Photoshop CS5 Extended for metadata. Unless someone can direct me to the raw file.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


If an alien race were to take pics of Europe and they come across Italy, they would freak out too, don't you think?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by brohiki. They must post all pics of their missions but there is nothing in the books that says they have to be in raw form.


Recently I found a picture of a black triangle in Earth orbit... it is available in low res on the net... so I wrote to NASA and had them pull that negative...

Interesting process... the lady at the archives pulls the requested negative... takes it next door (literally) to Bay Area Imaging, Houston, Tx and they scan the negative and print it in any media you wish. Bay Area is the only authorized PRIVATE business that can print from NASA negatives...

Well I got my 11x14 print and a 600 DPI scan on disc... took about a week and cost me $110.00

Soooo.... anyone wanna buy a poster? I gotz Ferrets to feed



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by brohiki
Does anyone get the feeling that NASA is keeping the ultra-high resolution pictures and only posting the lower resolution versions to prevent detailed zooming?

No, I think they just do not publish the photos they think they should not publish, if any.


Everybody has access to photos with good resolution, and that resolution doesn't look bad for the purposes NASA announced.


From what I understand, NASA uses the razor's edge of technology, at the time of design, to provide the absolute highest resolution pictures technologically possible within the design constraints of the probe.

That's right, as far as I know, although they sometimes try new things, like they did with Clementine.


From what I can tell, the "helmet" picture, as I call it, looks to be ~3-5 megapixel resolution. I downloaded the "raw" file and analyzed it using Photoshop CS5 Extended for metadata. Unless someone can direct me to the raw file.

There are no real "raw" images, the raw data is transmitted in data packets via radio and converted into the format NASA uses, "img", a format that also includes metadata.

You can get those "img" files from here, for example, and you can download NASAview from here (it's free, but you have to register, send me a message if you don't want to register
).

The photos from the panoramic cameras are 1024x1024, the size of the sensor array.

The site that I posted above and from you can get the "img" files is not updated, but you can get the images (and lots of information) here.


edit on 18/9/2010 by ArMaP because: I didn't looked at the site I posted.




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

From what I understand, NASA uses the razor's edge of technology, at the time of design, to provide the absolute highest resolution pictures technologically possible within the design constraints of the probe.

That's right, as far as I know, although they sometimes try new things, like they did with Clementine.


Clementine was a NAVY space craft not NASA... NAsa only provided mission control





edit on 18-9-2010 by zorgon because: because Phage told me too



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join