Mars Anomaly Looks Like A Square Structure Or Foundation Of Some Kind

a reply to: Phage

Ah it was the Mars Observer 92, like I say I may be mixing this up with a different mission that had an isotope generator on board and that may not even have been a mars mission but still it is plausible that if they had wanted to they could have swapped out enough room for a mission critical device of there own and then taken control once it was in place to use it as a delivery system which would have been the point at which the civilian control lost contact with the probe.
And you are correct the Observer had a large solar array.
en.wikipedia.org...
But like I say the system's could have been stripped back and rigged so that they fed back the information that the civilian operators wanted to read then the feed cut before it's true mission to destroy the face and deliver it's rather more deadly payload was activated, it lost contact before it's final orbital maneuver and could instead have been re tasked to deliver the payload being itself destroyed in the process.

Also remember we may not be the only one's with a potential group whom may have an agenda since the Soviet phobos probe actually detected what is widely regarded to have been a UFO of sort's shadowing it then it was destroyed or rather they too lost contact with there mission.



But of course if you believe this guy these Alien's could be very human indeed and Yes I know that alternative 3 was fiction but as he argues was it ALL fiction?.
www.themarsrecords.com...
For example my nation Britain went from being the most academically talented country in the world at the start of the real brain drain to a dumbed down nation with a dumbed down education system today.

a reply to: LABTECH767
But:

a NASA orbiter which was supposed to take a closer look at it and which lost contact with control just before it's final entry turn

Yeah. They coulda done this, they coulda done that. Why not just say they sent a secret mission with a nuke on it?

Keep working on that belief system. Anything but pareidolia. Anything.

a reply to: Phage

Well phage, if you were a guy tasked with doing something of that order, for a clandestine group and to remove something that would be problematic to the world view that this group had engineered how would you go about it, yes there are and have always been military delivery systems fully capable of doing this and easily outpacing NASA mission with there huge black budget reservoir's of cash.
But why kill two bird's with two stone's potentially having the problem of the Observers planned view of the face to ruin your day if your mission failed when you can kill two birds with by hijacking the observer mission to do the job itself.

Common sense say's that IF there was a reason to do so then that would be the easiest and most straight forward option, perhaps even swapping the entire observer itself for a duplicate built to do your job while the real observer was then whisked away to be either destroyed or locked in a warehouse somewhere raiders of the lost ark style.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Anything but pareidolia. Anything.

a reply to: Phage

I Really can't see it that way.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: amazing

Here's another view. Weird, huh?

Click here

The subject is in the lower left corner of the full image.

And I see that and not really sure I see anything worth looking at. My question is where would an actual archeaologist draw the line, if he were looking for a lost city in the desert of the Sahara. Interesting enough for a closer look or definitely nothing?

I see your square and raise you the "Inca city":





Mars is full of weird landscape and funky shapes like that.

originally posted by: Phage
I think Armap has some higher res images.

No, unfortunately. And the other photos appear to have been taken from similar positions and with similar light conditions, so there's not much to be gained by looking at other photos of that area.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Perfect comment, if this was in Egypt, perhaps the Gobi Desert, the western deserts of south america or indeed almost any local on earth someone would have dug the site or at least thought about it to see what it really was, to my mind it is a nice square regardless of whether it is formed of depressions in the terrain like a moat or indeed wall's of some kind now buried with martian dust leaving a depression by them as it blew dust over them.

I don't think so, as it doesn't have any signs of being artificial:

- the width is not constant;
- there are no signs of any remains of possible missing sections of the "wall";
- the "wall" doesn't show any signs of being made in parts;
- the "wall" looks the same as the other features on the whole area.

Yes, isn't it amazing how natural rock formations can resemble different things..

a reply to: LABTECH767

They were sent electronically even in the days of the voyager but those older system's were analogue electronic, also the computers of the day were rather huge if you remember as I do and not even as powerful as the device you have in your pocket for telephony so please don't try to poo poo this one.

Dates back even further to Mariner 4 in 1960's - tv camera would snap picture, be scanned and converted into digital
number from 0-63 (indicating different shades of light/dark) , digital number would be sent back to earth at 8 bits a
second, Took some 2 dozen photo of Mars

on earth the digital number sent to photo processor to be turned into hard copy

a reply to: Phage

The Climate Orbiter was in 1998. Unless you can refresh your own (questionable) memory and tell me which failed mission used a radioisotope power supply, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Some of the rovers use a ALPHA SCATTERING experiment where an alpha source (Curium 244) is used to bombard a sample
The energy levels of the alpha particles which are reflected back and protons and x rays created by interaction of the alpha particles with the atomic nucleus are used to determine chemical makeup of the sample.

Maybe its a prototype of Trumps wall ?

Btw, this thread rocks!

originally posted by: amazing
My question is where would an actual archeaologist draw the line, if he were looking for a lost city in the desert of the Sahara.

I think there are other considerations archaeologists use to determine whether a site has promise. One of them is likely, is this thing out in the middle of nowhere, or could it have possibly been by a river or trade route or something that would indicate that there was perhaps a social as well as archaeological context to the thing?

Human beings have a tendency to build towns and villages near rivers or some other source of fresh water. And volcanoes. We like to build cities at the foot of volcanoes for some reason. The free hot water, probably.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Remember this about later images, it is far easier now to obfuscate evidence using simply digital algorithm's than it ever was in the day's of the old air brush monkey's as they were called whom TOUCHED up NASA images in the pre-digital imaging age and this mean's newer images are not always more accurate images for our purposes.

I am a programmer and I wouldn't trust an algorithm to do that kind of work.

Besides that, it would be much easier not to publish those photos.

PS: altering photos, in some cases, is easier with the traditional method, the digital versions of the tools used traditionally are not as good as the original.

a reply to: ArMaP

Most images are of the digital variety these days though, are they not?

I imagine the quality of the work would depend on the aptitude of the artist or whomever else is manipulating the image.

a reply to: ArMaP

Oh I don't know, I have not programmed for a long time and back then it was just 6502 and Z80 as well as a bit of structured HL mainly Pascal, tiny bit of C.
I have needless to say more or less totally forgotten most of these old skill's and have not kept abreast of newer languages.

But though it is possible to view and entire program as an algorithmic structure of course an algorithm is usually just the base of subroutine called by the main program or at least by the interface program as you know and most program's are a tree like branching structure - we view as a linear composition since it is how WE program them but also as you know these day's linear is the old way and many newer program's as well as taking advantage of multi threading to allow simultaneous processing of separate subroutines are also built in a more parallel or even fractal manner especially those trying to create or to simulate A.I.

I would also not trust a PROGRAM but the algorithm's that the program is built around are most often flawless works of mathematics and I would actually assume it was not just a singular algorithm since a single could not ever process that data for as you know image recognition is an extremely complicated program to develop and it indeed requires multiple algorithmic processes.

But of course we are talking military software here, if it was not possible then for a matter of obvious fact the likes of the terrain identification and navigation software in non GPS based cruise missiles would never have worked and it did work almost flawlessly - after a very arduous development phase.

Remember when we were using 133 Mhz processors based on old intel 8086 architecture - or at least stymied by the need to remain compatible with that archaic standard which is STILL the basis of our PCs today the US military already had over 1 Ghz processor based system's.

So I would neither underestimate there true non public technological potential nor there computer specialists whom are often the very brightest in the world, god only know's what they are sitting on today.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

I remember it from the News, there were protesters with placards

Not for any failed Mars mission. Pretty sure.

I think that the MSL (Curiosity) is the only mission to use an RTG. You can look it up if you want. You might find out that they don't carry enough material for a chain reaction though.

You might have to abandon that particular belief.

I agree. The gov has done some wonky things and definitely destroyed some evidence along the way but there is no need to nuke the face - an object or visual none of us will ever be able to confirm or deny exists.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I whish I got a £/$ everytime thats been shown on here or the internet I would be more than happy.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Yeah Mike who claimed shadows on the Moon where towers because he could't work out what way sunlight was hitting them if only he looked at the nearby craters.

You are truly delded LABTECH767