Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New discovery: Strange structures on Mars - June 7, 2011

page: 8
104
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I totally agree. Like I said, WE (both sides of the fence) need solid, clear and almost undeniable evidence. And this can only be done if the technology permits it. I believe were all tired of seeing this threads, Mars building here, Mars face there, Mars structure over there. If they keep posting pictures of utterly SHODDY quality, then their argument is therefore, also shoddy.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Are "artifacts", "pixel errors", "resolution issues", "computer glitches", etc., the "swamp gas" of the digital age?

No doubt, in some cases.

There is something wrong when NASA takes a very cautious line in revealing information while, on the other hand, at least one private researcher has a website comparing what appear to be fossils appearing in images from Mars with fossils on earth.

When is NASA going to have its "get real" moment?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Can you post a link for that website? Sounds like an interesting read.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Well ats this is def off topic but i cant post an add because im new. I really think Someone should def check out cryptome.org... because idk if its fake or not but if itss real then its pretty amazing feel free to move.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Thisbseth
 


You're not wrong when you say 'off topic'. That's like drinking beer and eating bananas together!



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Another UBO (Unidentified Blurred Object)
obviously it is blurred on purpose. I don't have any respect for these people behind the space agencies in the world because if they truly cared about exploration they wouldn't cover up the truth.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 


Agree, more like exploitation than exploration no one wanna share, everything is a big secret

didn't the tax payers pay for this huge "camera" floating in space?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Not so sure about those six equally spaced objects being track marks.

Because...

a) The angle from which the picture is taken, we should have been able to see the second row of track "markings" (like in the rover tracks picture you posted)... but instead, there is just one.

b) Also, the rover tracks in the picture you posted shows a clear "trail" of displaced soil between the larger patches... but in the first pic I posted, the soil between those objects (or whatever it is) remains undisturbed. Its just as if 6 objects or craters are just placed/made there all within an equal distance.

Also, regarding the co-ordinates of the second... check the blog I got it from...

logicbible.blogspot.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 

Not sure where you are coming from either. You win my award for being the most annoying contributor i've seen on ATS yet. Well done. Oh and really interesting thread btw.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by malardevil
reply to post by RUSSO
 

Not sure where you are coming from either. You win my award for being the most annoying contributor i've seen on ATS yet. Well done. Oh and really interesting thread btw.


Oh, sorry if I hurt your feelings


Anyway, thanks for your great contribution to this thread. I am sure everyone here found out the truth because of your contribution.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


LOL wrong dates, I was thinking of the "face" on Mars but the same pic I mentioned earlier is a favorite from Spirit. We did discuss a lot of Mars pics that day. Sorry I was a little tipsy last night while responding to this, should have thought more clearly.


Yeah either way I think Mars is a pretty interesting place and whether there is proof of an ancient civilization there or not I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Personally I believe that it did but that is me, I have a strange thought process with Mars
it's always been my favorite planet and I have been drawn to it since I was little. One day I hope to work on future Mars programs, maybe I will finally see for myself what i have always wanted to see, 100% absolute proof.


edit on 6/9/2011 by mblahnikluver because: spell check



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thisbseth
I really think Someone should def check out cryptome.org... because idk if its fake or not but if itss real then its pretty amazing feel free to move.



Its not that amazing. Its just about a cloud seeding program "from 1967 to 1972" that had (in their own words) "certainly limited and unverifiable" results.
Cloud seeding is like that. It sometimes works a bit, with the right clouds.
wiki



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

The image I posted was just to demonstrate what the tracks look like. They are not the tracks seen in the image you linked.

You are looking at a cropped version of the original image. There are more than 6 bumps.
areo.info... It was taken on sol 1070. The view is across the Bay of Toil.

This is the Bay of Toil from the other side (Sol 1064), where the tracks are.



What was opportunity doing 4 sols before? Laying down marks to be used for distance measuring.


Sol 1064: Opportunity drove 4.21 meters (13.8 feet) around the Bay of Toil toward Cape Desire. The drive included a test to allow the rover to make unique track patterns for better determination of its position. The drive test had two legs: one in which the rover dragged the right front wheel for 5 centimeters (2 inches) and then drove on all 6 wheels for 55 centimeters (1.8 feet), and a second in which the rover drove 60 centimeters (24 inches) and then spun both front wheels 23 degrees, or approximately 5 centimeters (2 inches).

Sol 1066: Opportunity drove 25.38 meters (83.27 feet) away from the rim of Victoria Crater to continue testing and determining the best method for visual odometry -- determining the precise position by imaging the rover's tracks. The rover did a series of 5 tests, each covering 5 centimeters (2 inches) and each designed to produce a different pattern in the tracks. All of the driving was backward. During the first test, the rover created scuffs with both front wheels. During the second test, the rover wiggled the left wheel and scuffed with the right wheel. The third test was a "drunken sailor" test in which the rover drove in small curves. During the fourth test, the rover turned in place 10 degrees at specific intervals, or "steps." The fifth test was a combination of the previous four tests. www.jpl.nasa.gov...




edit on 6/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)




This next image is near 86.8°S, 341.3°W

logicbible.blogspot.com...
Useless information. Here's what the original source says>

The exact location is unknown, but somewhere near 86.8°S, 341.3°W . This is an area termed ‘Anomaly 502’.

www.thelivingmoon.com...
edit on 6/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
93 flags for image stitching so far.
Why do people completely refuse to use their common sense here. Verifiable information with links to the original images is provided over and over in these threads, yet the absolute devotion to the belief in "alien structures" has become a religion. It just baffles me... I am both amused at and feel sorry for some of you. I mean, I believe (with zero proof) that there is likely "alien" life of some sort out there somewhere, but it is such an arrogant stretch to believe that "they" must be visiting us. Our solar system is a tiny little insignificant speck in the universe. Even if "aliens" somehow were able to develop faster than light travel, it would be pure dumb luck to stumble across humanity.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What I find funny is that only the structure can be made out but the rest of the images are a blurr.....

I know we all want to find "something" but I don't see a thing.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I found the original source picture. Below is a side by side comparison between Google Mars and the original. I added contrast to the original crop to bring out features. The blue lines are reference points.



I don't see anything in the original, shame.

Full source image here: viewer.mars.asu.edu...

edit on 9-6-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: adjusted reference points



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


Well, seems the resolution of the original pic is worst than the image on google mars (strange). I downloaded all the formats and still cant see a thing.

ps. Thanks for your effort.
edit on 9-6-2011 by RUSSO because: to thank your effort



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Yeah, the area in question is in the lower right part of the original source. It is pretty faded, that's why I adjusted the contrast in my pic to bring out more features.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1
93 flags for image stitching so far.
Why do people completely refuse to use their common sense here. Verifiable information with links to the original images is provided over and over in these threads, yet the absolute devotion to the belief in "alien structures" has become a religion. It just baffles me... I am both amused at and feel sorry for some of you. I mean, I believe (with zero proof) that there is likely "alien" life of some sort out there somewhere, but it is such an arrogant stretch to believe that "they" must be visiting us. Our solar system is a tiny little insignificant speck in the universe. Even if "aliens" somehow were able to develop faster than light travel, it would be pure dumb luck to stumble across humanity.


I agree on how people jump to "it must be aliens" pretty fast.

I don't really believe many of these threads, including this one.

But who knows anything is possible, however unlikely it is

I like to think that maybe it is a show of military superiority just purposely blurred out because it is an obvious landmark.

I'm not sure if it has been debunked, but the pictures of the hearts on mars are very interesting to me because that cannot be natural.
edit on 9-6-2011 by Jrocbaby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jrocbaby
 





I'm not sure if it has been debunked, but the pictures of the hearts on mars are very interesting to me because that cannot be natural.


Hearts on mars?


I would like to see this.





new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join