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: 19
267
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I think that picture you found is very interesting but do not think that as your header suggest that it is proof of bases on my.
I understand that you probably went to great effort in finding this photo in the sat images but cannot exept that this is proof of a base on mars sorry




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pryde87
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.


Do removed pixels also cast shadows?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by amcdermott20

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.


Why is most of the terrain tan colored but around the structure (or absent pixels) there are darker shadow areas around the structure (or pixels). Does absent pixels also cast shadows?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheReturnisNear
 

Shadows on two sides of an object? How does that happen? Two Suns?

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



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i think you will find we have a binary star
its just that earth is the only planet that cant see the other sun



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I cannot understand attention going to this... All I can see is blur, distortion, and lack of resolution. Please provide other sources in picture form if possible. I do realize the OP cannot provide everything, but can someone else help out with some evidence? I do like this post... however i so no proof of anything...



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Very nice find. I wouldn't call it a base right off the bat but this really needs investigation. Too bad the likes of nasa would probably ignore it entirely.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
wow that is crazy, I wonder what this really is?????



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by SpookyFox
 


Please be respectful towards your fellow members. We're all here to get to the truth of things.




How is that? Wasting time discussing a DIGITAL IMAGE ARTIFACT? The truth is that it's an IMAGE ARTIFACT - missing pixel data.

Is that "truth" unsatisfactory? Would some of you rather arrive at a different "truth"?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by smartbuddy
 



it could be some mistake due to pixels..

but great find nyways


S and F



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Well...I...

news.ninemsn.com.au...

Speechless...


edit on 5/6/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Great find. Photos or videos will never be "proof," but can be offered as evidence until debunked. Skeptics are a funny bunch. Either pic/vids are "too blurry," "too far away," or "too good and obviously hoaxed" (even if it's not obvious).

If this is what it's claimed to be, I'd say someone just hit pay-dirt. If not, well, c'mon skeptics, if it's not a man-made structure, what the heck is it? If it's a hoax, prove it. If not, give credit where it's due. If this is a poor resolution capture of a man-made structure, it would look just like this.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by smartbuddy
 


This has just made it on to MSN in Australia.news.ninemsn.com.au...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by smartbuddy
 


The government knows the whole story, everything, but they won't tell us.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
There isn't enough data in the image to discern that the 'anomaly' is unnatural.

So even if it was an alien structure we would have now way of knowing without a better image.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheReturnisNear
 

Shadows on two sides of an object? How does that happen? Two Suns?


It is hovering.....

A martian UFO! Good Eye!



new topics

top topics



 
267
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join