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: 18
267
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AYEforeignEYE
I haven't read to the end, so if this has already been linked, forgive me.

Nasa did ask for volunteers to go on a one way trip to Mars. Wouldn't they have to have some kind of structure for the volunteers to live in?
Nasa asks for volunteers

AYE

I would have volunteered after reading Red/Blue/Green/Mars

sounds awesome!




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FadeProof
The problem with the World is that its full of people like you who have no imagination. Who gives a crap if it might be a smudge or an overlay, you don't know that, no one on here does. I didn't know that you were a Google Earth expert.We are just taking a guess, with what we see with our own two eyes. It could be a smudge deliberately put there to hide us from the truth. We don't know, and neither do you. Why the hell can't people just wonder & imagine what could really be out there?

Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein

You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
Mark Twain

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


I like the way you think friend



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
what about adding color to the blank pixels? that's what they are right?

since they are white due to no info, can someone add info?

does the 3d program add 3d to blank info?

just thinking.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Has anyone actually considered that the anomaly isn't even on the Mars surface and appears so in a photo?

What if it was a piece of spaceship/orbiter debris or similar that got caught between the craft and the surface being photographed?

It could show up as just a few brightly lit pixels with no real contours or colour due to high reflection and it could also have the motion blur that seems to be present too due to a moving spacecraft.

There.....PROOF it isn't a space station. (snigggers).
edit on 3/6/2011 by nerbot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Ok just my two cents worth,

It seems that Hoaxing is the order of the day in just about everything to do with Paranormal or UFO type investigations, take crop circles for instance, my personal opinion 100% hoaxing.

But this Google thing, Ok call me cynical if you like, but i would put good money that some so and so at Google has put this anomaly in to start just what is going on now at this site.

Him and his mates are watching their prank unfold on this site and laughing their butts off.

Nasa giving Google maps of their base on Mars to show the world, yea right,

edit on 3-6-2011 by 10987654321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
For those who seem to have not bothered (it helps to follow the thread).

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

You can find it here:
HRSC viewer

If you want to download the full image you can get it here:
psa.esac.esa.int...
It is large, 355 MB. You will need a viewer to decode the image. You can get that here:
pds.nasa.gov...

This is what it looks like at full native resolution:

This is what it looks like zoomed 300%


It is obviously an image artifact in the source image. Note the one pixel spacing. Note that the pixels are in a horizontal line across the image.
edit on 6/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

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

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


Very good.

And I'll add, using this screen capture from Google Earth:



I placed two white lines paralleling a rectangle where the pixels seem to be of a different resolution-- the lines are offset from the resolution change so that the eye can pick them out. As you zoom in, you weaken the resolution of the rectangle to that of the surrounding image, so that the distinction disappears, but you can recreate this yourselves.

Also note that altitude is -10544; use similar altitude to recreate so as to see the resolution difference in the image.

I searched the moon images on Google Earth at the precise locations for any hint of the S-IVB (ess-four-bee[i/]) 3rd stage boosters which had carried the Lunar Modules for the Apollo program. The resolution in each case is too low to indicate either booster or the resulting craters. I mention this, because a booster which had carried an orbiter or lander package would be the largest (and thus most visible) man-made object which could possibly be on the surface of either Mars or the Moon.
edit on 3-6-2011 by Frira because: left out a phrase, "of the recatngle to that of" The rectangle seems to be of a higher resolution.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:48 AM
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)


Actually the fact that it is a "straight line" only supports that it is in fact an imaging artifact and not a artificial construction of some kind. Unless the imaging satellite was perfectly inline with the artifact, this would not happen. I'm betting on imaging artifact.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
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 imagine that a few quality skeptics here might be rolling their collective eyes at that statement, but thank you for enlightening me. Skeptics, looks like there is nothing here at ATS for you anymore...



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.


Thank you for clarifying this for me. So it is my understanding that you are saying: OP presents something unusual regarding a topic that no one is an expert on so it could be an artifact or it could be something else. All clear now!



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.


There was no demand made, but shame on those poor souls that say all kinds of wild things in the 9-11 sub forum -- I am sorry if they have offended you. However, if you'll look at the top of this page, it clearly states: "HIGHLY SPECULATIVE CONSPIRACY TOPICS" -- not 9-11 Sub Forum.

I don't really believe that anyone with a grounding in logical thinking and a modicum of understanding of fallacious reasoning takes a premise as proven true through lack of a "satisfactory" response from a skeptic. Therefore, I will not further address this blatant yet confusing non sequitur.

As most that know me will attest, I have great respect for the skeptics here that utilize their reason, logic, research and knowledge to add to the discussions at this site. Perhaps you are content to have one or two line responses from "skeptics" positing, without any attempt to add support, that the artifact is a piece of lint (seriously?) or insulting anyone who doesn't immediately agree that there is nothing here to analyze.

For your review, here is my post:


Originally posted by Yukitup:
Gotta agree here -- I am sorely disappointed in the quality of responses to this interesting find, it deserves better and more in depth analysis.

Skeptics, you can do better than this -- your collective dismissals of this anomaly have been laughable so far.

Believers, focus on the geometry and symmetry of the "cylinders" and what surrounds it/them -- in addition to the standard evaluations for photographic manipulations.

S&F OP -- I appreciate your find and posting.


I think the OP brought us something very interesting, and one that (at that early point in this thread) deserved deeper analysis from both sides of the fence. Where did the need for you to defend skeptics come from?



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


Hence my call for the believers to dig a little deeper and focus on potential areas that might ultimately provide some evidence that it is an artifact and not a pixel issue... But thanks for your contributions to this thread!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
what about adding color to the blank pixels? that's what they are right?

since they are white due to no info, can someone add info?

does the 3d program add 3d to blank info?

just thinking.




Both your last posts, echo my thoughts too.

There is something so very different between the "obvious" artifact source pics provided by Phage, and the pics initially posted from google Mars, that have that 3D effect.

I have no idea how the images were processed, but there is a distinct difference between the images, and your suggestions should make people think about exactly what the process involves.

Not that this is my area of great knowledge, but I do tend to believe there is often more than meets the eye. To some extent, even if we think there is a conspiracy, we generally need to first allow for the easiest explanations. After that, if there remains any doubt, we can begin systematically dismantling various explanations that don't quite fit.

To be truly "open-minded", we should at least consider the possibility that there is "something" there, that has been intentionally hidden. Only by considering the possibility would we perhaps notice certain tell-tale signs of intentional manipulation. This has been the case with various moon photos, from info I have seen in many other places.

SO, perhaps this is an imaging "artifact". But is it something more? It appears to be an artifact, but do we have enough evidence yet to conclude that it is merely that?

JR



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 

Google does a lot of "stuff" to the images it uses.

The source images are not full color, they are greyscale images. Google pretties them up.
Google does its own stiching together of images to make the global mosaic. This introduces artifacts.
Google lays the image over a digital elevation model, bending a flat image over an uneven "surface". This creates artifacts. Add the tendency of people to overzoom and you end up with a real mess.

The results are not a reliable representation of reality. For example:


As I said, Google is great for "scanning" but when it gets to the point of closely examining something you must go to the source image. In this case the source shows that the "station" is not on the surface. It is an artifact of either the sensor or the transmission of the data to Earth.


edit on 6/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Nice catch - seems the most logical explanation to me. Damn google's algorithm for getting our hopes up.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
"As I said, Google is great for "scanning" but when it gets to the point of closely examining something you must go to the source image. In this case the source shows that the "station" is not on the surface. It is an artifact of either the sensor or the transmission of the data to Earth."


You just posted "Proof" that Arizona has a racetrack going through it that looks like a highway... Good find! Star and Flag for you!

edit on 3-6-2011 by grahag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Is it just me or does almost every single thread that has "Proof" in the title turn out to be anything but.

Granted, Its a cool video and very interesting to say the least, but not proof of anything,

I wish people would realize that they immediately discredit any information that they are presenting by claiming its "Proof" of something when it never is.

Just present the information for what it is and let the evidence stand on its own merit.

After scrutiny of the evidence it may indeed turn out to be proof.
edit on 3-6-2011 by skull_bones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by skull_bones
Is it just me or does almost every single thread that has "Proof" in the title turn out to be anything but.
Granted, Its a cool video and very interesting to say the least, but not proof of anything,
I wish people would realize that they immediately discredit any information that they are presenting by claiming its "Proof" of something when it never is.
Just present the information for what it is and let the evidence stand on its own merit.
After scrutiny of the evidence it may indeed turn out to be proof.
edit on 3-6-2011 by skull_bones because: (no reason given)


It also damages their credibility for future posts as well. When you post sensational subjects that tend to not pan out, people remember that. It's wise to take your time and make sure that it IS what it IS. Evidence, but not proof.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
This is possibly the biggest ATS fail I have ever seen.

Why are you all talking about proof because it has straight lines in it??

You know what else has straight lines.....pixels!

I could take a photo of a circle with that resolution and it would have straight lines in it. Its just the imaging that gives it that appearance.

There are also sooo many image artifacts on google earth/mars that a blurry pixelated image holds no weight.

Just look at a desert in google earth and you will find a hundred of such "structures" in the parts where the resolution is also so low.

Come on ATS you are supposed to be denying ignorance, but claiming "proof" in this context is just encouraging it.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yukitup
Hence my call for the believers to dig a little deeper and focus on potential areas that might ultimately provide some evidence that it is an artifact and not a pixel issue...


And yet, Phage and several others have done a fine job of digging and then sharing, but responses to those have been few, and in some case there has been none.

It appears to be easier to respond to the distracting, personally provoking, or out-right silly posts (and I have been guilty of that, once, and probably counting!) than to further the discussion by responding to those which have added substance.

Phage nailed it (see his post on page 16)-- I believe that post indicating the obvious lost bits in the original image is conclusive-- literally concludes the discussion.

My previous post (on page 18) is a mere recap and added supporting evidence of that work which Phage presented-- how the Google image indicates a rectangle of different resolution just where the object appears. It looks to me as if the software attempts to average-out the location of the bits where missing pixels were encountered from the original.

By the way, I think "artifact" in some cases within this thread refers to an image aberration after being processed by software rather than referring to an object on the surface of Mars-- or so I have taken the meaning of the word in the context of the "straight line" portion of the discussion.

Cheers.


edit on 3-6-2011 by Frira because: a image/an image and minor grammer edit



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
This has already been confirmed back in the 90's by Alex Collier.

www.exopolitics.org...



this doesn't seem too far fetched to me, I mean look at the way the whole world is run, if you watch the whole lecture series it seems like they pushed back the date of there extraction of their slaves to some time soon...
everything from Chemtrails, HAARP, Swine flu vaxination and the micro devices they inject us with, the war on terror, the war on drugs, etc etc... I have a feeling that theres allot more to all of this then first looked at... heres a link to a nasa vid i found about radiation and there partical cannons, including missions to Mars etc... don't get me wrong, watch the vid and he knows more then hes letting onto.


www.nasa.gov...
edit on 3-6-2011 by rbzilla because: video didnt add




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Has any one seen these at 72 degrees North 27 degrees West
it's full of the same kind of images. go to elevation 5000

better still go to 72 North and 23 West. if i did not know better i would say the look like herds of elephants..Or...
There are thousens of them looks to be migrating


71 N, 1 W circles with in a circles
I will stop now, obviously it's the first time i go and look.
every where i look i see strange and alien things
I'm off to explore again god speed



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Im sure this has been said, but i wanted to throw in some spare change.

This 'base' you speak of appears to be situated in the Northern Polar region which experiences a fluctuating, seasonal polar ice cap. I believe the Northern pole is mostly water ice and is rather large, which it appears this 'base' is sitting right in one of the "tails" of the ice cap (the caps receed and grow over the seasons). The southern pole on the other hand, is mostly CO2.

if it is indeed a base, the fact that it is situated to draw and mine water in the form of ice or liquid directly is something to keep in mind.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
lol.... so some blurry white pixels on google mars is proof of a man made structure? I can't believe how many of you are actually thinking that it IS actually something.

Where is logical thought/ critical thinking in most of the members?


You might have a different perspective if you watch the video vs. just looking at a photo. The video gives you more sense of depth and what is around the structure.



new topics

top topics



 
267
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join