It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proof: Station on MARS

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:14 PM

I used the online viewer to check those images. They don't seem to be useful.
But since the pixels are lined up horizontally in the frame it pretty much sews it up as an artifact.

I'd have to agree, but still, it is an interesting "what if", is it not?

Somehow, I think that if we had a secret base on Mars, the last thing we'd do is have it a color that stands out so much. It'd be the same color as the surroundings, at least.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by Yukitup

The image I used is the source image which Google used.
From ESA's Mars Express orbiter, using the high resolution stereo camera.
Image ID: H5620_0000_ND2

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:24 PM
I am going to fire up the jetpack and go see what it is.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:45 PM
You know what! It's the passing of an alien space trout in front of the satellite for all I know and in fact I'm sticking to my guns on that one out of pure principal alone.

I just wanted to say that after reading almost every single post in this thread, I am appalled by the lack of investigative integrity of the skeptics here. From what I've seen there is a bunch of conclusion jumping and trollesque insult throwing on both sides.

People if you are going to give an "Explanation" of something in order to prove or disprove it, please instead of trolling actually put your back into your ideas!

How many here that claimed this is an image artifact actually posted relevant findings to suggest it is so?

How many people here throwing insults actually used their powers of investigation and put forth something of substance to back up their claims?

In all reality you have no freaking clue what this is.. Sometimes if it walks like an ant and acts like an ant it's a spider.....

And to those who stated "you all are just a bunch of crazies" and "where is the logical thought process" I have two things to say to you..

1. What about the idea of something being on mars is so crazy? Nothing can possibly have ever happened beyond the scope of humanity on mars right?

2. Perhaps you should take a nice long look in the mirror.

P.S. Thanks to Phage for actually providing something to back his debunks... All of you skeptics could learn a lot from him.. Phage doesn't say anything without providing something of substance to go along with it!
edit on 2-6-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:47 PM
I'm a subscriber of this YT channel and these videos are made over NASA MOC (Mars Orbital Camera) photos. I strongly suggest everybody to check the info box for original links. Definitely there's something in Mars and I really doubt that earthlings have anything to do with it:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:51 PM
More odd structures and anomalies in Mars:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FadeProof

It also just happens to lie on the stitching line between two images.
It's an artifact of the mosaic.

edit on 6/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Armap did an excellent job on my thread Martian colony?,
and seemingly your description fits into it. But what if????
what if it was or were intended to "pixelate" things to divert/ cover things we humans shouldnt know of?

farfetched? who knows?
Any way here's my pick on it:
1 - is a 53 meters high facility, what it is for? dunno.
2 - a 202 meters long structure.

P.S. please dont forget those peripheral structures on the background.looking from the north due south.And how they look in relation to the general area , perspective point of view.

if these are "imagery artifacts" so be it, but if not, then whose are they?

edit on 2-6-2011 by alphaMegas because: typo

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:10 PM
Here is an original screenshot I took, followed by the same images slightly edited in photoshop. I only edited the brightness, contrast, curves and levels.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:10 PM
Don't know if it has been mentioned earlier in the thread but there is a huge field of similar objects about 20 miles to the east. Interestingly it is in another image slice, which may have a higher resolution. The proximity to the north pole may suggest some sort of natural ice structure. The video uploader doesn't seem to want to entertain the idea of a natural construct. How he can say it looks "well maintained" when each pixel is probably about 30 feet square is beyond me!

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by NumbNuts

You have coordinates mate ?

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by Phage

Where did you get the full resolution image?

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by Yukitup

You're the kind of person who would own an iphone.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by smartbuddy

Whatever this is, it's no longer on google mars. Also, you are insane. This is by no means proof whatsoever. There are plenty of white spots on google mars, and this picture is not good enough quality to say it isn't natural.

It's about time someone teaches the users of this website the definition of "proof."

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link have hi def pics....mars express
edit on 2-6-2011 by mwcoc because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by Swim2themoon

Was there 5 mins ago.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:47 PM
Looks like the crankshaft from a '52 Buick.

A REALLY big Buick.

Fascinating how fuzzy pic threads develop....

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:52 PM
Six pages into comments, and I became impatient, so pardon me if others have posted these:

1. I do not know if the measure tool on Google Earth is calibrated for planet viewing, but the object measures right around 200 meters in length using that tool.
2. Backing off (note how Google Earth altitude is obviously not calibrated for Mars view) gives a better view. The algorithm used to calculate altitude most certainly effects the measurement tool.
3. Other sources have been posted showing the same object as it appears in Google Earth, so we can cease the debate about a Google hoax.
4. We do not have the technology to send men to Mars. If we did, we would not be wasting huge amounts of money on ISS and STS missions, would we?
5. Concerning if we could be looking at a rocket stage which impacted there after delivering a orbital or lander payload (if anyone may have thought of that): any such man-made object would be far too small to show up except perhaps as a bright dot of light.
6. A brief post by some user stated that the same image appears on earth at the same coordinates. No. Neither does that series of pixels show up on the Lunar view. Besides, see item 3, above.
7. A database I found indicating locations of man-made debris on Mars does not show anything near this position. See: Mars debris and lander sites

Size estimate: As I hinted at in the first two items, the altitude provided by Google Earth allows you to zoom in to about a MINUS 17,000 feet-- the apparent "surface" level. No matter what altitude one uses, the object measures right around 200 meters. That suggests to me that the displayed altitude for whatever zoom level one chooses is not a number used to calculate measurement when using the ruler tool.

Google Earth Measurement of object = 200 meters
Mars diameter/radius: 6790/3395 kilometers
Earth diameter/radius: 12670/6335 kilometers

If the algorithm used to calculate measurement is based, not upon altitude, but from arc seconds-- essential calculating from the center of the planet-- then correcting the algorithm (if any is required) may cause us to suspect that the measurement tool is over-estimating the size, because the shortest distance between two lines making up an angle gets greater the farther from the intersection one measures.

So, If Google Earth calculates measurement between two points on Mars based upon degree of separation but, erroneously using Earth's diameter, then it is calculating the distance between two points on an angle about 2940 kilometers beyond the actual (the difference between surface level of earth and of Mars if those imaginary surfaces were calculated from the same central point). The actual length of object can be determined by cross multiplication as: 200/6335 = x/3395; thus x = ~107 meters.

Conclusion (unless someone has more data): We are not looking at anything man-made. I do not believe we have sent even a booster of near that length. 100 meters would be typical of a booster needed to escape earth's gravity, but a trans-Mars stage would not be so large, would it?

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:00 PM
Minor apologies for slight diversion.

Great post and the straight lines - make this more convincing than any set of random rocks where our minds are tuned in to making in to making images of e.g faces.

Breadmaker 99 image from Google Earth [see page 5] is absolutely stunning, the straight lines and the shadows make this an ideal candidate for another set of buildings

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:09 PM
Its gone now i tryed looking for it

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Griffo
There are a million other possibilities (ok, maybe not a million) that this object could be. Why is it that the first thing people think of is an alien or human base? What happened to using Occam's razor?

It was used in excess, the blade got dull.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in