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 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
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.
You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
edit on 2-6-2011 by FadeProof because: (no reason given)
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:
If you want to download the full image you can get it here:
It is large, 355 MB. You will need a viewer to decode the image. You can get that here:
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)
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)
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 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.
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.
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 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?
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)
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...
Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
This has already been confirmed back in the 90's by Alex Collier.
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?