Proof: Station on MARS

page: 23
267
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


Obviously you just can't fly the satellite willy-nilly around Mars taking photos of whatever you want. We got the choice of specific areas based on the current orbit path of the satellite etc. There is some latitude of choice with these imaging satellites, but do you seriously think they would re-prioritize the mission to re-image an area based on what is clearly an imaging artifact?




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by youallcrazy

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

Originally posted by 001ggg100
reply to post by blupblup
 


Thats because most people are to lazy to read the entire thread and/or to entrenched in their own beliefs that faced with any semblence of hard facts, they refuse to accept they may be misinformed....


Misinformation = Telling people its "pixels", when regardless of what these "debunkers" say, don't line up...at all. The pixels above are blocks. Clear as day. Whereas the original photo is not. The pixels are a block line. The original photo contains more than one set of 'blocks' or whatever you want to call them. They are two totally different things. Anyone who doesn't see that, and is willing to accept that they are pixels, isn't contributing anything but misinformation. Funny how these so called pixels show up just in that area. Did this happen anywhere else? Show some more photos of these pixels elsewhere. That's what is called "hard facts." So far there have been no "hard facts" presented in this thread.
edit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: typo
edit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: typo


The picture above and the missing "blocks" is the original photo.
What you are calling the "original" photo is a screenshot from Google Mars, this program takes the original photo and makes it 3D, and obviously adds information to the true original photo and it's missing pixels to create 3D image
edit on 7-6-2011 by youallcrazy because: (no reason given)


3d or not the pixels do not line up. Period. A 3d rendering isn't going to break apart the image like that. Not into groups of small and bigger formations. Also no one seems to care about the fact that there are shadows, which cast several feet away from the object. Do pixels make shadows? No.
edit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: add



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by youallcrazy
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


Obviously you just can't fly the satellite willy-nilly around Mars taking photos of whatever you want. We got the choice of specific areas based on the current orbit path of the satellite etc. There is some latitude of choice with these imaging satellites, but do you seriously think they would re-prioritize the mission to re-image an area based on what is clearly an imaging artifact?


Again if it's "clearly an image artifact" then prove it. Show more images that depict these so-called pixels. If this is happening here, its happening everywhere. This is isolated so far. One area. Show more then sure...its an "image artifact." And sure they can point a camera at it and take another picture. It may take time but it's definitely doable.
edit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: add



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


the point is Google Mars does something to the images to incorporate it into the program whether 3D or not. Look at the original photo. That is the source of everything that google uses. If you want to argue that NASA is covering something up by deleting pixels, a different story...but from the original photo, clear that it is missing pixels. If you somehow think that the Google Mars data is somehow more correct than the original then you are fooling yourself.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by youallcrazy
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


the point is Google Mars does something to the images to incorporate it into the program whether 3D or not. Look at the original photo. That is the source of everything that google uses. If you want to argue that NASA is covering something up by deleting pixels, a different story...but from the original photo, clear that it is missing pixels. If you somehow think that the Google Mars data is somehow more correct than the original then you are fooling yourself.


What is clear? Do explain because nothing in these images is clear. You claim it's pixels well then where else is this happening? Where are more pictures of this so called pixelation? And if there are no other images elsewhere on Mars of this pixelation, why? Why only in this single spot? Until more images surface of said pixelation then the pixel theory is dead in the water.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


I am not entirely convinced it is a pixelation issue, but Fox is reporting that the "artifact" has been debunked -- that it was caused by a "cosmic ray":


As a cosmic ray passes through a camera's image sensor, it deposits a large amount of its electric charge in the pixels that it penetrates. If the particle passes through at a shallow angle to the plane of the camera, it affects several pixels along its path. The result is a bright streak on the image. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


Article



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yukitup
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


I am not entirely convinced it is a pixelation issue, but Fox is reporting that the "artifact" has been debunked -- that it was caused by a "cosmic ray":


As a cosmic ray passes through a camera's image sensor, it deposits a large amount of its electric charge in the pixels that it penetrates. If the particle passes through at a shallow angle to the plane of the camera, it affects several pixels along its path. The result is a bright streak on the image. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


Article


I am not convinced its a habitat or what not either, or pixels. But if it happened on that spot on Mars it happened elsewhere. I am not going to believe for a second that this happened in this one spot on all of Mars. And so far no one has come up with other images depicting this so called pixelation or "cosmic rays."
Sorry i cannot help but laugh at that excuse. They may as well call it swamp gas.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.stsci.edu...

not of Mars images but recognized phenomenon

just picked one random Mars Express Photo...HRSC: H1276_0000_ND3
http://
viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/hrsc#/planetview/inst/hrsc/H1276_0000_ND3

about a 1/3 of the way up, long linear feature running across the photo, not the same king of artifact but same BS

either you believe a photographic artifact or a kilometers long alien artifact running across surface of mars.

57deg 39min 33 sec N, 146 deg W on Google Mars

those dark areas must be shadows too?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by youallcrazy
 


lol really now? Where do you get that the image we are discussing is even remotely close to a straight line? The image you provided, yes a "cosmic ray." but as you said yourself "kilometers" long. The image in discussion is not kilometers long and appears on one single area on the image. Not several areas. It's not a line and not in block form. Can I have some more please, and how about from Mars? Anyone?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

Please see this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

Please see this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Why can't any of you even point this out in other places on Mars or even provide other photo evidence? I mean if you want to debunk something, then do it properly. Is it really that hard to provide more photos of this artifact situation on Mars? I said it before and will say it again: If this happened in this spot, it happened elsewhere on the planet. This isn't an isolated incident. So my question is: where has it happened before on Mars? If there is a photo of it in this area, there must be more artifacts exactly the same as what we are discussing. It's only logical. It's not possible for this to be the absolute only spot on mars to have such an artifact.
edit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

Sure. I'm gonna scan the entire surface of Mars looking for things a couple of hundred yards long.
Tell you what....no.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

Sure. I'm gonna scan the entire surface of Mars looking for things a couple of hundred yards long.
Tell you what....no.


And you guys call yourselves debunkers?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

No. You call us that.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
if you combine the OBVIOUS pixels in the picture Phage provides along with the Fox article claiming its a "glitch" (in the matrix :::giggle::
- then odds are you'd not only have to search the entire planet of mars but again and again and again (or just move 200 feet to the left and wait and wait) until the same cosmic force causes the camera to make another booboo

how is it NOT obvious to you that they're a straight line of white pixels? if you like I can take your avatar and recreate it for you?

As stated above by someone who's name I forget atm - the only argument you have is that those pixels were deliberately deleted out.

good luck with that ♥


youallcrazy
If you want to argue that NASA is covering something up by deleting pixels, a different story
edit on 7-6-2011 by Forevever because: credit where credit is due



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
If any of you were actually concerned that this was just "cosmic rays" then those who care enough would look for it. Instead you sit here and try to tell everyone this is the case, without backing up such claims by providing photographic evidence elsewhere on Mars. Until that happens, then this isn't debunked. One photo isn't enough to say it must be rays. And anyone who believes that this is the only spot this happens on Mars is gullible. If BP can photoshop out their images, I don't see why NASA can't remove items from images either. So good luck with trying to convince everyone NASA is just so perfect.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

Please see this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Why can't any of you even point this out in other places on Mars or even provide other photo evidence? I mean if you want to debunk something, then do it properly. Is it really that hard to provide more photos of this artifact situation on Mars? I said it before and will say it again: If this happened in this spot, it happened elsewhere on the planet. This isn't an isolated incident. So my question is: where has it happened before on Mars? If there is a photo of it in this area, there must be more artifacts exactly the same as what we are discussing. It's only logical. It's not possible for this to be the absolute only spot on mars to have such an artifact.
edit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify


Why is it so hard for you to accept it's not a base and that it is just pixelation, he did debunk it properly. Did you not look at the link he provided? There are plenty of pics like this all you have to do is look. They appear on Earth and the Moon esp with the whole google moon and google Earth. I don't have GE right now, god I wish I did so I could show you but it happens. Do you know how they make the pics for GE/GM? I am not a pro at it but i have a basic understanding of it and this happens. It's nothing more...I wish it were, there are much more interesting pics from Mars where it looks like things are edited out. Look up Spirit Rovers pics..look at Gusev Crater, Husband Hill. THOSE have some interesting pics.

Im all for believing something is on Mars heck I believe Mars had a civilization thousands if not millions of years ago and something happened to the atmosphere, which we know happened thus destroying it. I also think it could be possible they came here...to Earth to recolonize. It's a a possibility.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


I never said it was a base...nor a habitat or whatever the OP claims. I just simply do not believe the pixel theory, nor the cosmic ray theory. I have looked at the links. I have read the thread. I have seen what some say it is or believe it is and what it's not. I am not convinced. So far, no one has provided any evidence that has anything remotely close to what the OP was showing. Some example have been provided yes, but still nothing in regard to Mars. This isn't about the moon or whatever other planet you want to think of. My problem is the fact that no one has provided, and so far will not provide other photographic evidence of this happening elsewhere on Mars. I am willing to go with any theory discussed, when there is enough photographic evidence (in terms of Mars) that clearly shows the same thing happening.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

and as I understand it if you punch in those coordinates today, it no longer exists

ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!! cause thats the most logical answer


anyway this is just futile - no matter what we say or show you - you're going to believe whatever you want to believe - if we pull up 20 pictures with those same marks - you'll say we doctored them - cause I can, and I considered it


now what?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Forevever
 

It's still there.
As far as Google's concerned it's great publicity.





new topics
top topics
 
267
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join