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.

 

Proof: Station on MARS

page: 15
267
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Regarding the 'straight lines' impossible in nature.
I don't believe this - there are many 'impossibly' straight lines in nature from various types of erosion and rock formation. Onion skin/Freeze-thaw weathering is one possibility.

Anyway, here is why I believe this is so 'straight'. When images are taken at such high-altitudes above the surface of a planet, small features (such as the white one you found) get quantized into pixels on an image sensor in the camera. These pixels are of a square nature, and thus when zoomed-in or 'upscaled' to a higher resolution, will appear blocky or pixelated. Of course, this means that everything will fall into squares and thus can appear to have many straight lines.

To me, it looks like these images have been upscaled using some kind of bilinear filtering to keep things 'smooth' looking. This would allow the image to appear relatively smooth, but still preserve straight lines.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Yukitup
 


Science 101: it's not the disbelievers burden to prove something doesn't exist. After all, you can't prove a negative. It is the claimants responsibility to prove their assertion.

I understand the OP didn't make any definitive claims, other than the artifact (meaning image artifact) is unusual. However, considering neither he, nor I, or anyone else (so far) is a subject matter expert in planetary photography, it's as likely this is a defect/anomaly/pixel oddity as it is a construct of some kind.

Demanding that skeptics do a better job answering your own questions is much akin to what goes on in the 9-11 sub forum. There, claimants say all kinds of wild things. If I, as a skeptic, don't answer - to their (CT-minded) satisfaction, why that PROVES their assertion! Wrong, wrong, wrong.

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



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

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


I think Carl Sagan summed up what you're saying when he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
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...



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Homedawg
 


I do believe there is something in the picture. I believe it's probably ice or a weird rock formation. I'm not debating that 'something' is there. It is.

But no parallel lines? We're not looking at nature directly here remember. You are looking at a quantized image made of pixels which have been upsampled. I know for a fact that google earth and google mars don't have very high-res texture-maps. This looks to me like bilinear filtering in action...really...if I have enough time I will try making a similar image later with a few grains of salt on my desk or something. The principal would be the same: small object gets quantized, upscaled image reveals straight lines (artifacts of quantization).



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

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...


None? None at all? Not on earth, not on Mars or in all creation?

Full stop.

Before we go any further, are you asserting this fact or, your opinion? If it's your opinion, that's 125% okay with me. Just state it as so. If your claiming that's fact, then your going to have to explain how your assertion is fact.

I'm not trying to throw cold water on the whole discussion: it's an interesting, unexplained phenomena. If you can't, won't or refuse to explain the 'no straight lines' assertion, well then this is just wild ass speculation by amateurs.


P.S. Absolutely nothing wrong with wild ass speculation for fun! Nothing at all! Just don't call unfounded speculation as fact. It'll keep you honest with yourself.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SecretSky
 


Word.

Second line



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SpookyFox
 


The chances of finding a recently constructed but hidden-from-the-taxpayers Mars habitat seems a more reasonable endeavor than looking for signs of an ancient Martian civilization.

The number of responses to this thread might reflect the natural feeling that we are being fed propaganda designed to conceal "something" found in the solar system. ACC's 2001 may be a little closer to the truth than we think.

I do remember participating in the massive campaign to name the first shuttle "Enterprise". Other elderly fans of Star Trek may remember that as well. And then almost nothing for decades? We should be on the Moon. We should be on Mars. But we're not. And it has been proven time and time again that establishing such settlements is achievable with 1970s technology.

People are beginning to notice the, eh, noticeable delays in our achievement of these milestones of an civilization advancing beyond the home world. And they naturally worry.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Well, I don't know about the rest of you all... but I'm a little saddened that you've brought into focus this Gap Store & Food Court on Mars.

I fear nowhere is safe.



seriously - S & F beautiful find



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
All that is missing is the "US Government property,No cameras, No photography, trespassers will be held accoutable to the full extent of the law, use of deadly force is authorized." floating in the image.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

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.


Where did you come from


Looks like the penny may have dropped with you too. Anyone else want to make their presence felt?

All of which begs the question: If they haven't why? If they have, why so secret?
edit on 2/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I would also like to add a few thoughts:

The US decides to end the space shuttle program and outsource its missions to space. Now why would they do such a thing when other countries are still exploring space and the competition is still there?

My answer: The US has had the tech to get far into space for decades, does it not seem strange that we have been using the same old shuttles for the last 30 years? This would be like using a race car from 1950 to run the Indy 500 in 2011. The space shuttle program was most likley a front and as budget cuts are getting nessecery they decided to end a program that really was money in the toilet.

Why have we not known about this?
My answer: Unfortunately as with most things in the technology industry the Military has control of the best and it would be kept secret that we posess this technology, as it would be used as a weapon or for war first.

Why Mars?
My answer: The moon is inhabited by ET's and they have claimed the moon as there own.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


They may have found something. The true objective of the space program was concealed behind the massive popular support. As public support waned and operating costs soared the necessity to hide the ever increasing presence in space seeking out the "something" makes sense.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

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.


(sigh)

The turnip truck off of which I feel, retired before you were born. What possible use are such comments?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by trusername
 


Nah this is a pic of a Dunkin Donuts with a space port, i wonder how the coffee is on Mars?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMur
 

reply to post by mike_trivisonno
 

I think - as you both appear to - that they found a big fat something.

This is getting interesting and a bit off topic. If one of you starts a thread on this then we could continue this discussion there What you saying?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


So true, Sounds like a plan!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I swear my first thought was that it looked like a picture of a warehouse with a loading dock taken from the air.
I have to admit it does look weird.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

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)


that last line, is that sarcasm ? I'm not blaming it on a hoax, just saying it is blurry. it reminds me of utah actually, all of the mesa formations. and all of the square boxes around it seem like obvious pixel issues to me


edit on 2-6-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
267
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join