It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by ArMaP
I've just recently joined ATS in the hopes of getting some input on the "anomalies" I've found while viewing certain images (Moon landing, Mars Rover) on the nasa.gov website. These discoveries are really bothering me, and I need your help either corroborating that what I'm seeing is indeed real, or to let my know, in the kindest language possible please, that I'm off my rocker!
The reason I was looking at the Mars images in the first place is that I was hoping, like many of us here I'm sure, to discover some small relic, proof of a previous Martian civilization, that the airbrushers and photoshoppers over at the NSA....oops....um...I mean NASA overlooked.
However, to my chagrin, when poring over a recent image entitled: PIA17931: Martian Valley May Be Curiosity's Route photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
I seem to have stumbled upon evidence that the Curiosity Rover never made it to the red planet, and is, in fact, located somewhere here on Earth!! This is literally one of the last things I expected to come across in my exploration of the "Martian surface":
reply to post by Char-Lee
I've enlarged the image for you. Also, does anyone see a faint drawing on the light colored object?
reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa
This is a really big find. I'm thinking it is undeniable that those are carved, written language of someone's doing.. I wonder what people will say. I'll bet it might be entertaining..
Oh, I forgot to say welcome to the site! A few days late, but having as many eyes on these images has only made it better in my opinion..
great find with this image..
reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa
i can see the first concrete depression , but where's the other ?. could you point it out please?
sorry , im usually so good with seeing through others eyes ,this new pair from the mortuary are itching a bit
Just shows you how imaging artifacts can creep in.
Interesting "cap" layer, though.
Does anyone know the technical terms of why one object in a pic looks so much different than a sunlit close up of the same object? If it's because of the JPEG feature, where is the person who invented JPEG, for I have to give a good talking to him or her, wags of finger, raised voice, and the lot.
Is anyone else here going to "talk" to Jesse Ventura tomorrow? I've got one question thought over, not about Mars though.
Jesse Ventra is coming around for a day or two (he's selling a new book just about now, which has nothing to do with him coming here, nothing at all, says the elf on the shelf), and the site should be loaded with questions, so we have to get in early.
The black and white image is very different in shapes, the spokes and inner circle are quite distinct while on the close-up they are totally gone. Mars lies like a dog. And yes, the sand turning to stone on "top" (looks like the image is on the ground) is clear as all the grains of sand on all the beaches on all the worlds.
evidence of liquid Flow ArMaP ?
theres so much going on betwwen each picture I doubt theres a catchall,
ones black and white , contast is more stark , the colours photo is closer ,
but the features are more or less the same in both, you can see how the artefacts in the black and white are interpreted in the photo, they're still there , just a little blockier
the top of that rock is getting to me , why is the crack going all along and looks to be a crack in the rock , but then as it turn to the left it becomes highly irregular and chaotic,, as if it wasn't a crack at all, but is sand turning into rock .. so