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.

 

Pareidolia and imagery anomalies on Mars: Case study#1 Bonestell Crater Part 1

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


Okay, here's one I found on the Moon, prepare yourself for.....



....Moon Mouse!




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


Does it help what?! I'm actually genuinely interested in what you might have to say, but I'm trying to understand what you're saying still. You aren't being very to the point. So you are then saying that pareidolia is stuff actually being shown to us? Actual signs?

Then where do you draw the line between what is a sign and what is obviously not? I can't help it. This coffee is so cute.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I always thought this one was crazy.

Seriously looks like an Indian.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


yes i saw the circled one, very much like a smiling one, but didnt you notice the one on the background? it's one of a huge mighty mouse...
his name is gerald...brits' full name for jerry

edit on 16-12-2010 by alphaMegas because: typo



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 





What we need are data to validate what we thought...that we are not alone in this vast universe...


How does this correlate with pareidolia?

Im not trying to be rude, but I'm just not picking up what your putting down



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by alphaMegas
 





How does this correlate with pareidolia?

quote]

There is no correlation with pareidolia. pareidolia is an excuse for images et al that our human brain cannot or is not capable of translating to us in human terms what we are looking at.
edit on 16-12-2010 by alphaMegas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by alphaMegas
 





How does this correlate with pareidolia?



There is no correlation with pareidolia at all.
Pareidolia is an excuse to explain images which are not supposed to be there but somehow gets in the picture.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


Ok, let me try and see if I'm getting it.

So what you're saying, is basically, when we see a random pattern in an image or landscape that reminds us of something we are familar with, it's not just coincidence, and in fact Aliens put it there?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceJ
 


am trying to google on your image too but i cant seem to streamline on the upper part of that dividing line.
yes your indian image is great. might as well call him "crazy horse"less neil young of course...


i'll get back to it... its 2 am in my part of this world. from where i come, there's more of these images...



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


Ok, let me try and see if I'm getting it.

So what you're saying, is basically, when we see a random pattern in an image or landscape that reminds us of something we are familar with, it's not just coincidence, and in fact Aliens put it there?


I will put in some more images that i think will somehow put some credence on your ideas.
edit on 16-12-2010 by alphaMegas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


You have my attention



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphaMegas
Pareidolia is an excuse to explain images which are not supposed to be there but somehow gets in the picture.
No, pareidolia is a known phenomenon.

It may be used too much by some people to explain things they do not see, but that doesn't mean that pareidolia is just an excuse.


The opposite (visual agnosia) also happens, when people cannot recognise something they know and are only able to see its elements.

PS: using Google Earth to look at Mars photos is not the best way of getting those images.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


For starters, I don't see the features that you're calling "The Young One" and "Old McDonald". They just look like heavily-pixated blobs to me. LiveForever8's examples were much more obvious.

Second, I went to the Google Mars coordinates, and still could not find the features to which you cropped after much scanning.

Thirdly What in Hell are you doing using Google Mars to look for anything substantive?!
I have explained elsewhere, in great detail why Google Earth/Moon/Mars/Sky are toys and not effective research tools.

If you were serious about examining this area, you should have gone looking for higher-resolution images. In fact, Google Maps provided a link to a HiRISE image with 30cm/pixel resolution. Searching HiRISE for keyword "Bonestell Crater" yields several more. You can also find lower-resolution but wider area images taken by the Mars Global Surveyor. I'll tell you, the MGS interface is old and not great. Maddeningly, the MGS site has the longitude counting-up from east-to-west, whereas HiRISE & Google Mars counts-up from west-to-east. Here is the MGS page for that area. Bonestell is the largish crater on the upper-right edge.

Sorry to be blunt, alphaMegas, but your images are useless for looking for signs of civilization.

ETA: I did get a kick out of your subject for study. Chesley Bonestell was a friend of the family, and I met him twice before he passed-on.
edit on 16-12-2010 by Saint Exupery because: I forgot to add the Chesley Bonestell link



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


You have my attention


Thanks ZJ.
Now i'll re-embed the image viewed from the south side ...



On this side of the crater, i was able to pick out at least 6 images...
2 images on the upper left corner, another 2 in the center , these would be the youngman's face and old macdonald and crossing the red line farther to the right are cacophony of images...
These images ranges from 300 to 500 meters in height or so it seems.
Taking more closer details on this crater wall, i'd like to call it a "mural", it stands to an average height of 1.5 kms.
keeping in mind that we are looking at a compressed image, from the highest point to the bottom elevation
it runs for about 4 to 5 kms. So it is not a steep crater wall at all as you will initially
think of.It has a vertical ratio of 1: 4. its like climbing up 4 meters before there is a change in elevation of 1 meter.
Old macdonald's face i would say is a typical "pareidolic" image.
but the young mans face merits a more scrutiny.


viewed from approximately 1km from above it shows more depth and unusally high concentration of heat or light emission.
Looking at it from the north looking down,approximately 600 meters (i term this "viewing distance")the main facial feature shows a well defined solid objects or structures.
also take note of the darker perimeter, which stands out in contrast to the overall hue of the area.

and i will leave you with these cacophony of images for the time being




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by alphaMegas
Pareidolia is an excuse to explain images which are not supposed to be there but somehow gets in the picture.
No, pareidolia is a known phenomenon.

It may be used too much by some people to explain things they do not see, but that doesn't mean that pareidolia is just an excuse.


PS: using Google Earth to look at Mars photos is not the best way of getting those images.


Yes, it is a known phenomenon, exactly the reason i started this thread.

I wrote "is an excuse" no "just" coz then that would undermine the message i want to get across.

btw, thanks for the applause.

though i observed that as a forum mod, you have a knack of starting your threads with"No"



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Yes, it is a known phenomenon, exactly the reason i started this thread.

I wrote "is an excuse" no "just" coz then that would undermine the message i want to get across.
So, does it mean that it's a known phenomenon that is used as an excuse, is that what you mean?

I sometimes have a little difficulty understanding what other people mean, specially in English.


though i observed that as a forum mod, you have a knack of starting your threads with"No"
When I agree with someone I (usually) don't have much to add, so I don't say anything.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


Thirdly i]
I have explained elsewhere, in great detail why Google Earth/Moon/Mars/Sky are toys and not effective research tools.

Sorry to be blunt, alphaMegas, but your images are useless for looking for signs of civilization.

ETA: I did get a kick out of your subject for study. Chesley Bonestell was a friend of the family, and I met him twice before he passed-on.
edit on 16-12-2010 by Saint Exupery because: I forgot to add the Chesley Bonestell link


Mars has a surface area of 145 million square kilometers. My picking Bonestell Crater was a random process.
its a 1 to 75 million of odd chance that I will hit this Crater for my case study. It was pure stroke of luck.
the main reason i stick to this crater, was that when i started zooming in and out of it, i caught a lot of amazing images that at first i thought of its crater walls as giant "murals"and could have been done only by "giant artists".
only when i read your reply and being a family friend of the late Mr. Bonestell that i did look him up in wikipedia and read the accolades. A great artist indeed. i think nasa is right crediting him a place in Mars.
A space age artist...and such a great connection with the images in his crater...

Now for the third issue" What in Hell are you doing using Google Mars to look for anything substantive?![/"

What can I say? So i decided to embed these images compliments by Google6 Apps...
and you can have a go for them..
The image below is a grand view of the crater from the inside.You can see the bluish streamline strip.
the thing about this crater is it really is a depression with another small mount inside the depression.



and in this small mount within this crater which is almost at the center of the crater itself you can find these "images":

taken from a viewing distance of 17 meters:


Taken from a viewing distance of 6 meters:


Taken from a viewing distance of 3 meters:


happy weekend viewing...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


Hey alpha,

Thanks for getting back and with the pics too


To be perfectly honest though, I cannot see the faces in the two images that you are seeing. To me, they seem very random, and with no particular order, but thats just me.

Maybe you can ask armap where you can find the actual hi-res images, which are much, much clearer than the ones provided by google mars?

Thanks



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieJesus
 


thats probably why they call such images "pareidolia"...sometimes not all who looks at it sees it...
and regarding the "hi-res" sources, i viewed the site, the crater is there alright.

you can +/- the image that's in there, no more no less.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphaMegas
and in this small mount within this crater which is almost at the center of the crater itself you can find these "images":

The following images are all the ones in which I could find that area you marked.

PSP_008733_2225

PSP_010012_2225

ESP_018372_2225


As the photos were not taken exactly from the same point over the crater, we can get an idea of how that area looks in 3D.



PS: that area you marked is something like 6x8 metres.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join