It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
It's not up to skeptics to disprove someone's extraordinary claim. It's up to the claimant to prove theirs.edit on 2-6-2011 by SlightlyAbovePar because: Grammar, etc
Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by SecretSky
The correct phrase is"there are no paralell lines in nature"...do with it what you want....something is in the pictures...
Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
The Space Shuttle Enterprise made its test flights when I was in 5th grade. They are still throwing those bricks into low earth orbit nearly 40 years latter.
Did the USA simply stop doing manned missions or developing manned space systems in 1977 or did the majority of advancements occur in secret?
It has already been proven that deploying bases to the Moon and Mars and maintaining a nonstop supply chain is not only possible but affordable. Scientists and engineers have provided many different options that demonstrate the feasibility of manned settlements and astronauts routinely endure long duration missions.
Between 1977 and 2011 we have seen precious little public advancement in the establishment of permanent settlements on the Moon or Mars and yet technology speeds to dizzying heights? It seems a bit fishy.
Permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars can be constructed, manned, and maintained. The OP shows what may be a small permanent settlement. It seems a reasonable claim. Indeed, more reasonable than many of the claims made in these forums.
Originally posted by alphaMegas
reply to post by Frira
part of my real job aside from a "laptop martian explorer" is to calibrate things. scales and all sorts of things relating to measurements, temperatures ,dial gauges,displacements, distances and calibrations. And yes, google terrestial linear and out of this world measurements are accurate. Sags, curvatures and the likes are taken into account.
Originally posted by rstregooski
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
how is a blurry image proof of a station ?
Wrong argument. The origin should be the question, not the image...
Only an idiot can deny a straight-line depiction here..
All you can do now is blame google on a hoax.. I haven't verified the coordinates but it seems many here already have.. Oh, and my bad for not recognizing that natural formations ever tend to have large straight-line patterns like this.. Oopsie.
edit on 1-6-2011 by rstregooski because: (no reason given)