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

page: 9
104
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by suidideadboi
the problem is that camra pixelation has excatly the same effect at zoom.. so we are left without proof :/


Yeh, this is the main problem.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 









Hearts on Mars



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 




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.

The online viewer does not show full resolution. For full resolution you need to download the source image.
pds-geosciences.wustl.edu...
But be warned, it's 3.2 GB.

To view it (in full resolution) you can use this:
pds.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Not sure whether anyone has posted this here yet, but these Mars images have to be the best I've seen, indicating possible structures on the planet!




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for the links Phage, I will try download this tonight.sfy

edit on 9-6-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jrocbaby
reply to post by RUSSO
 





Hearts on Mars


, This gave me an idea to make a card to my wife.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


This is what the original looks like.


You can see that it was at 100% zoom, but the photo is not that good.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Yep, that's what I saw too. But you would still be able to see large artificial square structures if they were there. What you do see is typical martian terrain...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceJockey1
 


The oldest thread that I know with that photo is from 2006, it has been posted many times.

And I don't think it shows anything artificial, it's just the way people interpret the image that makes them see "a nozzle" and a "pipeline", when I look at it I see a brighter area, probably where there was some liquid flow or something like a land slide, and an narrow space between two hills.


This is what that place looks like in a MRO Context Camera photo, photo P17_007599_1833_XN_03N019W


As the photo above is not map projected we have to rotate it to make if point in the same direction as the photo from that video.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
its just really funny how mars id over 3/4 blurred



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Velvecorp
 


It looks blurred because the resolution is lower but the photos are stretched to fill up the space.

The original photos are not blurred.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Chinese ballon must have landed there...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I found this


Notice how straight the edges are in the triangular object. Not far from this site is there what I perceive to be dried up river beds. This is near the equator, the most likely place the last inhabitants would have survived as the planet began to cool.
edit on 12-6-2011 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Yes,the once flowing rivers were common on Mars,The planet was always very tribal so I have read online in many sites.

To find life we must throw off the shackles of guilt.Revelation is the last stone to drop.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


What if there really was civilization on mars. Wow



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


So is this a waste of time? Forgive me if this has been done already, but perhaps YOU could check the original source? You seem to know how to do it. I'm not being facetious, I'm just interested in seeing the original pics.
Thanks!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I highly doubt those are structures. Buildings and such would degrade over 50-100 years after being left unattended, and you wouldnt find any trace that there were ever buildings there without them being maintained unless it were a zero atmosphere planetoid like our moon/ The red color on mars is the oxidation of the soil which likely has iron properties in the soil. In other words IF theere ever was a civilization on mars and their buildings were made out of iron compounds or alloys, they wouldve degraded long ago.

However if those buildings were made out of stone like the pyramids and tombs of ancient egypt, they MIGHT survive, since mars is a world without rains. Either way, those "structures" just look like a few smeared pixels. All this conspiracy stuff will drive you insane if you keep believing in it. Im not saying E.T. civilizations cannot exist, im saying they arent on mars. Dont spew that Sitchin stuff at me, ive read his books and theres no proof that the cylinder seals he supposedly "translated" say anything about Anunnaki having a base on mars because Sumerian is a dead language and there are no sumerian to english translation texts found in the great library of Ur. By the time the babylonians came around, Sumer had been abandoned for 2-3 thousand years.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Velvecorp
 


JPL apparently likes to air brush over what they dont want the public to see. Thats the one thing i dont get, all these sophisticated probes and satellites we have and all we can get is pixilated fluff with alot of airbrushed features. It seems kind of shady to me.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


In a higher resolution photo, those edges look more natural.





posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
JPL apparently likes to air brush over what they dont want the public to see.
That's funny, I have seen hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of photos in these last seven years, and for all the "airbrushed" (or otherwise altered) photos that I have seen, I have also seen the unaltered images, that are also, usually, higher resolution versions of the altered images.


Thats the one thing i dont get, all these sophisticated probes and satellites we have and all we can get is pixilated fluff with alot of airbrushed features. It seems kind of shady to me.
The photos only look "pixilated" when zoom too much ot when they have an exaggerated contrast, like some photos from Google Mars/Moon, the original images are usually good or very good.





top topics
 
104
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join