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.

 

Strange Structure with Pillars, porthole and dome on the top In Hellas Basin.

page: 11
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


You have to admit the moon imagery from the US is pretty cheezy, especially when the military/NASA have the capacity to produce images of excellent resolution and quality.


25cm resolution is not "cheezy", that's the best LROC provides. 50cm is not "cheezy" either. This is an image from GeoEye at 50cm. Not really that "cheezy".


What is it you want or expect to see? Rocks the size of a hand? That's what you'll get with 5cm. What's the point?

In any case, all of the LROC images are available for our examination.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


OK, That's not bad imaging at the LROC site. It seems highly suspect however that so many images are uploaded to ATS that are of extremely poor resolution of the moon when these much better images are available. Must be a troll thing LOL. I'll have to go over the LROC site in more detail, I hope to find they have an entire set for the moon. Good link!

Cheers - Dave




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


It seems highly suspect however that so many images are uploaded to ATS that are of extremely poor resolution of the moon when these much better images are available.


It's just that people really think of Google Moon/Mars as a "tool" instead of a toy. It works fine for locating an area of interest but once you start overzooming it's not so good, certainly not better than the source images. Not understanding how the zooming algorithm works leads to a lot of false "positives".

Try this:
target.lroc.asu.edu...

edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Google Maps is as bad to use as Wikipedia as a source. For a forum Wiki may be find but everybody will laugh at you if you do dissertation and you quote Wiki lol. So with Google maps look NORTH of Japan and you may see caves or artificial holes deep in the Mariana Trench. Well - so strange artifacts can Google make that ewww 'source'.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Would it be fair to say people see what they want to see?
You see a structure with a glass dome and porthole.
I see a baseball hat........or a trick of light, highly likely considering this pictures location.

On that note bare in mind people see faces, sometimes holy images in rocks etc........did they? We're these images real? Could it be tricks of light highlighting unusual objects? One mans rubbish is another mans gold.







edit on 1-6-2012 by tigercat1971 because: No reason



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


It seems highly suspect however that so many images are uploaded to ATS that are of extremely poor resolution of the moon when these much better images are available.


It's just that people really think of Google Moon/Mars as a "tool" instead of a toy. It works fine for locating an area of interest but once you start overzooming it's not so good, certainly not better than the source images. Not understanding how the zooming algorithm works leads to a lot of false "positives".

Try this:
target.lroc.asu.edu...

edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


It seems like google is trying to be all things to all people, I think we all know how that's going to work out. I would certainly not use google earth, moon or mars to do any real research if I was so inclined. There are far too many artifacts, you can see them quite plainly in google earth. The LROC site is a good one, I just wonder if they have every "piece" of the moon's surface rendered? Personally, I can't imagine staring at those pics however for hours on end, I see there are 45 pages of 9 images and they are huge. I think I would get lazy and write some kind of pattern recognition system in Visual Prolog with an adjustable pattern search and sensitivity filters to find objects of interest.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 6/1.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I just wonder if they have every "piece" of the moon's surface rendered

Not yet. At 25cm there is a lot of ground to cover.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I just wonder if they have every "piece" of the moon's surface rendered

Not yet. At 25cm there is a lot of ground to cover.


And to cover and hide...



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I just wonder if they have every "piece" of the moon's surface rendered

Not yet. At 25cm there is a lot of ground to cover.


And to cover and hide...



NO we will see detail and not peoples imagination



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
to me its nothing more then a rock formation wich haw been mignified to a maximum until we haw better pictures its nothing more then that .



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Thx for your opinion.





The other people, more smart and skilled than me, like, Zorgon, Mikesingh, Easynow, RUSSO, Exuberant1, watchZEITGEISTnow, Internos, and many other, are banned or they have abandoned ATS deliberately.

They have left the foxes guarding the henhouse...

"And Then There Were None..."

Very strange things on ATS, lately.


edit on 31-5-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)


thats because we have found somewhere else to go, somewhere better without all the shills.... suprised i havnt seen you there yet!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
maybe the transparent dome is a kind of greenhouse type structure, for growing there own vegetation and stuff.....



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Looks like NASA has cataracts. Can't they spend another hundred dollars on a better camera? Their salaries are so high that they have to buy inferior equipment.

With the zooming it's hard to tell. How big is it? six inches wide and twelve inches long?
edit on 4-6-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sol23
Cool image. You can see the shape of the structure and as for the broken "svastika" why not. If there was intelligent life there at one point then such a simple symbol could have been used in some form or another.


A lot of people on here seemed to have forgot that before the swastika was a symbol for nazi propoganda it was an occult symbol first, just throwing that in there, if real, it might have some siginificance, i.e. ancient astronauts and whatnot...
edit on 4-6-2012 by DARREN1976 because: spelling..



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
After studying mars images for quite a while, you see lots of vague imagery techniques.

1. The .gif technique. That is use it when there is an obvious civilian (at one time) area that they want to partly cover. Gifs are less pixillation and make imagery less clear. They do it all the time when in artifact areas.
2. Blurring Hand Trick, When you want to make things not so obvious but do want to leak, but very slowly only. Decades upon decades until Richard Hoagland's hair turns black to grey and he is in a wheel chair.
3.Ink Blot Trick, that is when you have things that are so obvious even a monkey would suspect somethings up.
The Ink Blot Trick can and does cover up LARGE areas bigtime !!!
4. Send It Down Through The Ranks, known as "SIDTTR". This is were the lower rung (college kids etc) just don't have a clue what is going on. Only the images that have no real artifacts, just martian nature, rocks, dirt etc.
5. Mr. Bigshot, a mars photo pro, that leaks out photos much superior than his constituents!
6. The Catbox, photos such as the mars face that when people like Hoagland, Bara,Tom Van Flandern (RIP) etc. get to close to the truth they make it look like cat litter.
7. Brookings Institute Scare Tactics, known as BIST: Helps them feel better to hold back images to the common folk for the purpose of more time to reverse engineer while the Chinese and Russians loose interest in knowing what is going on. The report says that people would freak out and go- bananas if they know what is going on.
8. For Our Own Good. F.O.O.G, After teaming up with them since 1962 (US and Martians) and realizing that martians are short on water (maybe 2000 years left of water on their planet. They are cozying up to us and want to be friends. So they contact our leaders Eisenhower, Truman etc. Our selected leaders (nasa) go for trips to mars for tours in their flying crafts.

Our selected leaders become enamored with their technology but they realize that they are telepathic and have knowledge thousands of years ahead of us. Martians think of us as having the intelligence of their mutated ants,( an ancient scientific experiment on Mars thousands of years ago).

So Nasa and company are worried that A.B.W.G.s that will ruin it for them. A.B.W.G means American Bullies With Guns also the (C.T.T.A.D) = Christians Think They Are Demons. So they (Nasa etc) tries desperately to keep the lid on the whole thing. And even after studying the OBVIOUS thousands of artifact imagery for years, I can hardly say I blame the powers- that -be in the US for delaying the coming out of the closet. Because the superior intelligence that the martians must have and the jealousies that could rage amongst the uninformed and undisciplined in all countries etc. No wonder there is such severe torturously slow photo leaks that would turn Richard Hoagland's hair from black to grey


edit on 4-6-2012 by thetiler because: spelling



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Looks like NASA has cataracts. Can't they spend another hundred dollars on a better camera? Their salaries are so high that they have to buy inferior equipment.

With the zooming it's hard to tell. How big is it? six inches wide and twelve inches long?
edit on 4-6-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


The bluring is because of Arken NOT NASA here is his OP pic



Here is the same location if you looked for the better image



Arken zooms in to much so you loose detail that way he can connect his dots and colour in what he wants to see


As for telling how big objects are the NASA HIRISE & LRO sites give you the image resolution so if you have either Photoshop or the free photosoftware called G.I.M.P they have measuring tools, so you can work out the approx size of an object.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


I however see something entirely different, but very positive. Mars has been visited by humans. They were veggie eating, tree hugging environmentalists. Yaaay!!! Not too happy they littered though.



edit on 4-6-2012 by suarez1 because: photo



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

It's neat how someone can blur a picture and make it look totally different. Wizards Ploy is usually a government or advertising/Media thing.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

It's neat how someone can blur a picture and make it look totally different. Wizards Ploy is usually a government or advertising/Media thing.



On here it is something different it's people who want to see things so much they go past the point of detail and end up with an image they can claim is anything!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by rickymouse
Looks like NASA has cataracts. Can't they spend another hundred dollars on a better camera? Their salaries are so high that they have to buy inferior equipment.

With the zooming it's hard to tell. How big is it? six inches wide and twelve inches long?
edit on 4-6-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


The bluring is because of Arken NOT NASA here is his OP pic



Here is the same location if you looked for the better image



Arken zooms in to much so you loose detail that way he can connect his dots and colour in what he wants to see


As for telling how big objects are the NASA HIRISE & LRO sites give you the image resolution so if you have either Photoshop or the free photosoftware called G.I.M.P they have measuring tools, so you can work out the approx size of an object.



I think the problem is that your picture is so clear and full of details that the actual object disapears. For instance, where is the portal now? you can't tell, can you? However if you zoom in really really close, you can start to see the alien detail again! So your technique of obfuscation by showing high quality detailed imagry does nothing more than slow down the folks who are looking for really cool alien like things.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yeah, but their pictures are more interesting
When you get a clear picture there is no mysticism or anything else to contemplate and argue about. Sometimes truth is so boring




top topics



 
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join