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.

 

A U.F.O. Factory on Mars?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RPeternell
 

LOL I love the name, just googled it and indeed, the happy face crater.


Galle is often known as the "happy face crater" because the illusion of a smiley is created by a curved mountain range in the southern part of the crater and two smaller mountain clusters further north. The formation was first photographed by Viking Orbiter 1.


However, we (ATS) would prefer a link to the photo you are using rather than "Go search ESA" as it makes it easier for people to "think along" with you or debunk it, as the case may be. This is also standard for ATS threads. Hope it helps.

Peace
edit on 14/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Looks like a pixelated image to me, with naturally created artifacts, I bet you I could come up with similar shapes, by lightening up a photo of earth's atmosphere, but I won't I'm too busy, I bet someone will have the time though.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RPeternell
reply to post by Pinke
 


Thats not true, I just don't have the Url. I will get it if deemed nessesary. The video is a question not a farse. I just wanted opinion. Thanks


Fair enough.

You probably will want the URL since each version of an image can be unique; especially if they've been touched up to look prettier or compressed. I also notice there is TIF and jpeg versions available on ESA, and the version you used will be important also. You will want everyone look at the same image for posterity etc ...

This is what I got from searching happy face on ESA: www.esa.int...

It doesn't appear to include the photo you used? I found it on google, but there's only the 1024 version there, which is a tad small and compressed.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Here is the link to the one I used. I remembered that I got the largest one I could.
upload.wikimedia.org...
Just use paint and brighten and then lower contrast. do this 3 times.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


upload.wikimedia.org...
Here is the link I got the photo from. Just use paint if you dont have photoshop. Brighten then lower contrast. do this 3 times.
upload.wikimedia.org...
edit on 14-3-2012 by RPeternell because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by RPeternell
 

LOL I love the name, just googled it and indeed, the happy face crater.


Galle is often known as the "happy face crater" because the illusion of a smiley is created by a curved mountain range in the southern part of the crater and two smaller mountain clusters further north. The formation was first photographed by Viking Orbiter 1.


However, we (ATS) would prefer a link to the photo you are using rather than "Go search ESA" as it makes it easier for people to "think along" with you or debunk it, as the case may be. This is also standard for ATS threads. Hope it helps.

Peace
edit on 14/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

Here is what happy face crater really looks like






posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RPeternell
 

I don't mean to be a bore, but wikipedia is not a good source to be working from. I think others with more expertise in this field might be able to comment better on it though. It's like 2nd hand pictures, but not to diminish the work you have done either.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RPeternell
 


Hate to be repetitive, but:


Here is what happy face crater really looks like


You ran another image through the same "process" as the image in the thread Opening Post (OP).

SO, the results? Not what it "really looks like"....in fact, it's what the image looks like after having been "adjusted" improperly.

Tell you what --- try the exact technique on satellite photos of the Earth, please. Then, would you be brave enough to post the results here?

Because, since it's here on Earth, just about any one could then run over to the location, and see for themselves whether the "lightening" process applied to a digital image really, truly makes it show what it "really looks like".

Maybe there will be another "U.F.O. Factory" found here on Earth, too?

Give it a try.....we could all be famous. (ATS would love you, for the publicity).


edit on Wed 14 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RPeternell
 


Wait, are you serious with this stuff? I thought this was a sarcastic joke and I starred your post.

Try running a picture of yourself through the same photoshop filters.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Well, Photoshop shuts down when I apply my photo! The video is more less a question. I do not understand it either.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
So... you still have no direct link to any space agency site which can provide the pic you have provided...?

No, well I'm pretty sure that the smiley face pic is unrelated to the picture used in the video (please correct me if I am wrong here. It's not the same picture... is it...?).

You really expect us to take this seriously when the primary data source is missing.... if you have the hyperlink to that original pic please let us know.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RPeternell
 

I couldn't see the second "lighter" video but I am very impressed with the main one. It is so obviously a developed site.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Not this guy again....aren't you the same one that saw giant alligators and mermaid men on the moon or mars or something? You have a very active imagination is what it boils down to. If these pics were of a base then do you think you would be able to see that much detail from that far away? I mean think of just how small a cantilever, as you suggest you see, would be. Not a chance.

Prior to doing these "analyses" on your photo's you may want to learn about digital photograph manipulation and pixelation a bit more so you can educate yourself on what to look for and when to rule something out. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, it is really a waste of time unless you are doing it correctly.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Hello Mr weather balloon. If I told you I work for Nasa in the Art&Design department and I am doing my job to give you bits and pieces of reality, You wouldn't believe that either. Just another lie. Good day.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Very neat, but I have a single question.

At about 4:50 in, when you zooom out, why is it they built this factory on an angle? It looks fine in the video, but if you think of the angle this is actually built on, maybe 35-45 degrees? ..I find that strange



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RPeternell
 


I've seen your videos before and I even scolded you then but what you're doing is injecting personal supposition.
"Windows"....."Cities"....."Crafts"........"Bridges"...."Alligators".....etc.

Why do you do that?
And how can you be expected to be taken seriously? Why not SHOW your findings.....infer what you 'think' it is....then, leave it at that? Throughout your Moon video with the animals, I had to stop watching because you weren't asking people what they thought instead you were telling people what you (think you) knew.

Stop doing that! It takes away from what could be some type of discovery but you're going about it wrong.

I didn't know you were a member here so I'll lighten up with you but seriously, bring it down a bit and try to stay objective especially during a presentation.
Hoagland is known for doing this and look how he's regarded in this field of paranormal! He totally ruined his own reputation. So try to learn from his blunders.

Thanks!
edit on 15-3-2012 by Human_Alien because: error



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RPeternell
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Hello Mr weather balloon. If I told you I work for Nasa in the Art&Design department and I am doing my job to give you bits and pieces of reality, You wouldn't believe that either. Just another lie. Good day.


No, actually I wouldn't. Especially based on a direct post from you on one of your videos on your youtube channel



RPeternell commented: @kvanessago IT was taken down by the government, because they said I copy-righted there photo! I had to delete it and re-do it with the place I got the photo. Idiots! I did not get it from a NASA site! It will be back up tomorrow. Check my channel. RPeternell


So you work for the government, and NASA in particular, yet your videos have been taken down due to copyright infringement even though you work directly for the Art & Design department doing your job? So, if this is your job then why are you being threatened with copyright issues? Again...laughable.

That and I guess NASA is just overlooking the fact that you happen to be releasing footage of alien bases in the universe yet they allow nobody else in the whole of the NASA organization to do so?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I put the same image through photoshop and yes, I got those jpeg artefacts too. I also tried a slightly better version of the same image ( smbhax.com... ) that also has jpeg artefacts to a lesser degree. That's the thing when you use jpegs, or any compressed image format. You get the same artefacts when you adjust the levels / curves / (insert photoshop plug-in or any adjustment criteria here) to more-or-less any image. Try it with hair. 72 dpi resolution jpegs of peoples hair can make all manner of "anomaly" when tinkered with. This is the problem with all these amateur image analysis experts with their cracked version of photoshop zooming into the lossiest of image and seeing what they want to see instead of what is really there. Noise.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
i watched it... ended up watching videos about jellyfish and then horror film makeup.

youtube is crazy. i had to quit before i wasted another hour lol



im gonna have to say its digital noise in the photo. but im still following the debate here



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. The term lossless is in contrast to lossy data compression, which only allows an approximation of the original data to be reconstructed, in exchange for better compression rates. I am a professional at what I do, but I understand your comment. R Peternell



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join