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

a reply to: wmd_2008

(I shall not stoop down to that level thank you very much)

How dare you call someone else deluded when in fact YOU are merely stating YOUR opinion and regardless of what the consensus of opinion is that is all it remain's OPINION until that is you go up there take a few personal photos of your own and prove your opinion with real FIRST HAND evidence.

NOW GET OFF your high horse and start acting in a more civil manner, you are NO ONE's Superior and your opinion I am sorry to have to tell you is also not superior to anyone's except in your own mind.

I have on occasion been wrong, So has mikesingh but I do remember how he was HOUNDED and also by whom on almost every thread he made during the time of My membership here.

There is such a thing as civil discourse which I truly believe more than one of you need to learn.

Now let me ask you something and I DO want a reply.

When someone whose opinion's you do not like disappears from the site do you then regard this as some kind of victory because I am sorry to tell you it is not.
OR
Do you believe in free speech - within moderation of course - and in fair and open debate, not the kack handed antic's of men and woman going through a second childhood and getting a buzz out of criticizing and making little of other people and there thought's - it is not what you say but how you go about it.

Personally I like strait talk but sometime's the diplomatic approach is more effective, horses for courses and the right tool for the job so to speak.

I Personally think you have the wrong tool's there pal.

originally posted by: andy06shake
I imagine the quality of the work would depend on the aptitude of the artist or whomever else is manipulating the image.

Yes, and one thing people that propose the idea of the images being altered, either manually or automatically, forget is that they would not accept the final result without passing the images through some kind of quality control, to be sure that images with things that shouldn't be visible weren't published. All that is hard, slow work (I know, I am doing just that at work with 130,000 scanned images), and it would be another source of possible leaks.

That's one of the reasons I think not publishing those photos would be much easier.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
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.

Pascal was my favourite language, but I loved the challenge of programming in assembly, I made a few (at home) for the ZX Spectrum, that used a Z80.

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.

The algorithm may be flawless, but it means nothing if the program that implements it is not, and the final result is affected by any flaws, either in the algorithm or in the implementation.

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.

The problem is not identification of a target to be altered, is altering it without leaving noticeable traces, that's what's hard.

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.

X86 processors?

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.

I don't believe that idea that military technology is X (X usually being some arbitrary value of years, the most used being something between 30 and 50) in advance of out is outside the military, as I have never seen any signs of their use of that supposed technology.

a reply to: LABTECH767

It gets to a point where all the hoax claims have been debunked so often on here you get fed up with the same BS being posted again and again. Yes I am a man married with kids I am old enough to have watched the Apollo missions live etc etc and man enough to take criticism like a MAN not like YOU!

The John Lear thread on here John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS is a classic example claims of bridges and roads quarries etc yet another DELUDED individual the LRO detsroyed all those claims but of course the invertebrates of the net then go to their handbook of cliches and claim edited pictures etc.

If they didn't want you to see it they wouldn't have posted it NEVER seen one image that backs the claim of editing to hide something on here or the net so grow a pair put up some real proof or learn to take things on the chin if YOU are really a man

a reply to: ArMaP

I can not argue your point's they are correct.

I always meant to get back into programming but just never got around to it.

Back when I first got interested there used to be a couple of electronic's retailers on the high street's over here in the UK such as Dixon's, Curry's and of course our version of Radio Shack called Tandy and they used to have early home computers running demo's in the shop window's so it was a favorite at lunch time when we got out of school for an hour to go and program them to say something, often naughty and leave them running there simple old basic program so that the shop would then be advertising something it never intended too.

Our school's used to use old Acorn's and BBC micro's which were pretty good for old 8 bit machines but the one's most of us had at home were either Commodore's ranging from the old Vic 20 to the later (and not there greatest) Plus 4 or Amstrad and Sinclair's (which were by far the most common in the UK in part due to the fact they were a good bit cheaper than a commodore).


Remember the home computing club's basically getting together in someone's house, back then we had all of three TV station's and while the BBC was indeed higher quality than it is today it was actually very boring while computers were exciting stuff, of course it was also the start of the anti social computer game age were kid's would need to be limited in how long there were allowed to use the TV to play there games.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
A few left here for the sanctuary of the Living Moon if you cant take the heat plenty of delusional people to hang around with there.

That's not a nice thing to say.

If you think someone is wrong you should try to show them that they are wrong and why, so they can correct their position (if they are really wrong) or, if you are the one that is wrong in some way, so you can understand their point of view and correct your position.
"Classifying" other people based on their opinion(s) about one or more topics is the best way of being wrong and unjust.

I don't know if you remember it, but (as far as I remember) I never agreed with Mikesingh, but that didn't make me call him deluded or something like that, I always tried to take the images he posted, understand them, and show him (and all other people reading the threads) that he was wrong and why.

And yes, Mikesingh still is a member of the Living Moon's forum, but has only a few posts there, the last one from 2017.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
YOU don't like my opinion well tough, you want people like me whom think for themselves to shut up and go along with the line YOU say is the absolute truth well sorry not going to happen - we will stick to the truth when we KNOW that it is the truth.

That's not a nice thing to say either, as it appears to imply that people with a different opinion do not think for themselves.

a reply to: wmd_2008

My right hand still aches from the four broken bone's after I decided NOT to hit someone decades ago, rage is our downfall and with age come's regret and of course I really should have hit the foul mouthed sod in his face since that would undoubtedly have cushioned my hand nicely, far more so than the concrete wall that took the brunt of my anger, knuckles are still scarred as well but that's the same for both hand's - I always laughed at prick's whom swung there punches like gimp's instead of tucking in there elbow and hitting with force inside there reach rather than at the extent of it.

BUT

It's not me CLAIMING it has been debunked, not me that is fearful of being wrong and certainly not me taking the knock here, that was a quick reply by yourself so I must have hit a sore point I imagine.

Oh by the way I have never claimed road's and bridges, I would not be at all surprised if there were since you know all those black triangles that are today put down to modern stealth program's, well you do know that report's of black triangles seen in the sky and of course transient phenomena apparently on or near to the moon have been happening for century's as are story's of cigar shaped craft such as the phantom air ship's of the late 1800's, ball's - I have two rather large one's thank you not the kind that fly though unless I am on a 747 or something - and all manner of other outlandish objects have been seen in the sky, not all report's are reliable however.

But you know what, they are probably more reliable than you would like to accept.

Swamp gas my itchy ring sting.

Anyway enough reciprocal idiocy from you.

a reply to: ArMaP

Perhaps or perhaps that is just how it is being interpreted but I did not launch into an attack upon ANYONE's character first, I never brought up other members - or ex members alive or deceased to attack them when they are not here to defend themselves and to me that smack's of hitting well below the belt, it is simply as we say NOT cricket.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Perhaps or perhaps that is just how it is being interpreted but I did not launch into an attack upon ANYONE's character first, I never brought up other members - or ex members alive or deceased to attack them when they are not here to defend themselves and to me that smack's of hitting well below the belt, it is simply as we say NOT cricket.

Interpretation is the only thing other people get from what we say/write, as they do not have access to what we are thinking and feeling (thankfully), that's why I always try to say/write things in a way that is clear to understand and reduces the probabilities of being misinterpreted.

In fact, interpretation is all we get, even from our own thoughts and senses, so when we look at a photo from Mars we are really interpreting the data our eyes send to the brain, and that's why some people see some things while other people see completely different things.

Well, I hope we get back on topic.

a reply to: ArMaP

Understanding is the way to peace is an old argument but in fact it is a false one, understanding merely show's the motivations in other's and could in fact spark war.

I bit back because I was bit simple as that, I tried to stay fair and impartial but hate anyone attacking my character especially when that someone has no idea of whom I really am or what I have seen and done in my life, things I would never disclose and would never share, could never share.

I am for one thing not a liar, I am not a deceiver and I too only want the truth so I am in no way wanting to spin a fantasy, I merely do not agree we are being given the truth, in fact the old saying come's to mind Knowledge is Power and those in power do not want the public to actually have that power or else they would have non themselves now would they.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
I bit back because I was bit simple as that, I tried to stay fair and impartial but hate anyone attacking my character especially when that someone has no idea of whom I really am or what I have seen and done in my life, things I would never disclose and would never share, could never share.

Sometimes, silence is the best answer. That's why I, sometimes, write long answers to posts, with all I'm thinking about the topic or the poster, but instead of posting it I just use my writing as a way to vent what I was feeling, and once I did that there's no need for anyone to know what I was thinking, so I do not post it.

I am for one thing not a liar, I am not a deceiver and I too only want the truth so I am in no way wanting to spin a fantasy, I merely do not agree we are being given the truth, in fact the old saying come's to mind Knowledge is Power and those in power do not want the public to actually have that power or else they would have non themselves now would they.

Not only that, information is power, that's why one Portuguese cardinal during the fascist regime that ended in 1974 used to say that common people should only know how to write their names, they should not be able to read a newspaper.

Returning to the topic (I'm trying ), if NASA doesn't want people to see those photos it would be much easier not to publish them, as we don't know how many photos they take, so it would be easy for them to take photos of points of interest (for them) that they would not publish and photos of common, natural features that they would publish for the whole public to see. It would be like you taking photos on your vacations and only showing the ones that, for example, didn't show any person.

a reply to: ArMaP

I did show an example from the living moon site their so called peekaboo class spaceship.

Many examples have been shown in the past on here as well.

Also on here as I pointed out the John Lear Moon Pictures all the claims made by the delusion when they zoom in on photographs thinking they can see things. The LRO showed what a load of bull that was.

The Living Moon is a mutal back slappers club

Many on here have no understanding on resolution or how images were processed on early missions or how they are done now.

We still get people on here when they find out a Mars mission has a 2 MP sensor and their iphone has 8+MP jumping to the conclusion that the phone would be better because they have no idea how the size of pixel sites on a sensor effects the amount of light collected and although only 2MP they are many times larger than the phone sensor and designed for lower light levels

Or the fact that you cant keep zooming in on images and reveal more detail I blame CSI on tv for that.

The truth hurts some just have to be nuged through the pain barrier.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
I did show an example from the living moon site their so called peekaboo class spaceship.

Many examples have been shown in the past on here as well.

Also on here as I pointed out the John Lear Moon Pictures all the claims made by the delusion when they zoom in on photographs thinking they can see things. The LRO showed what a load of bull that was.

I know that, but the fact (to me) that they are wrong doesn't mean they are delusional, it only means they are wrong. On several occasions, after showing them they were wrong they stopped proposing their theories as facts.

I think that, when we see someone is wrong, the best way is to show them why they are wrong, not just saying that they are wrong, and much less calling them delusional.

The Living Moon is a mutal back slappers club

Not as much as it was a few years ago, and I know what I'm talking about, as I am an admin on their forum.

Many on here have no understanding on resolution or how images were processed on early missions or how they are done now.

Exactly, that's why I always try to explain to them how things really work.

We still get people on here when they find out a Mars mission has a 2 MP sensor and their iphone has 8+MP jumping to the conclusion that the phone would be better because they have no idea how the size of pixel sites on a sensor effects the amount of light collected and although only 2MP they are many times larger than the phone sensor and designed for lower light levels

Most people don't even think that if Mars is further away from the Sun than the Earth then it must get less light, so the camera's configuration cannot be the same as on Earth.

Or the fact that you cant keep zooming in on images and reveal more detail I blame CSI on tv for that.

Once again, I think the best way is to show them how things work. I did that some years ago (I don't remember if it was here or on the Living Moon forum), showing how different zoom levels of a highly compressed JPEG image (another thing most people do not understand) will show different things according to the program that does the zoom, as different programs have different resample algorithms and give different results, only pixel resizing always gives the same results and shows what really is there.

The truth hurts some just have to be nuged through the pain barrier.

I don't think truth hurts, what hurts (to many people, on both sides) is admitting they are wrong, and attacking them instead of showing them why they are wrong only makes things worse, as it's harder to get people to accept your opinion when you attack or treat them with less respect than you do to people that share the same opinions as you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

I have no "device" in my pocket and I will poo. Loudly.

You are spouting nonsense. The early images could be as easily manipulated as the current images. They were just much lower resolution. Guess what happens when you overzoom low resolution images? The zooming algorithm invents stuff. It's called artifacts.

Here we go again. Give it a rest phage.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Here's an image with a different POV and lighting.

From this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Those aren't walls, they are actually depressions. I think. It's one of those things where your brain jumps between "It's a hill. No, it's a crater." I think Armap has some higher res images.

Do you ever get tierd of being so flipping logical? We are not the only life in the universe.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I am not fearful of being wrong I have seen your cliche ridden threads, you seem to get all your information from conspiracy sites and you do typical things that they do ie say they don't want you to see things - they wouldn't need to airbrush they could just never show an image like that. On some of your threads you make claims about Apollo Images and how they are recorded/catalogued which are false, you have also posted images with no link or original image number to check. If they did find something it would be in their interest to show it they would get better funding.

You like many before have a join the dots mentality when it comes to images you think you see something and join the dots to satisfy yourself.

a reply to: ArMaP



Well Armap you me and many others have done hundreds of post trying to explain the process of digital images and resolution

For example I give you this thread by LABTECH767

Ruins of Ancient industrial Base City or Spaceport near Newton Crater

In the OP he comes out with the usual BS airbrush/hiding things from us/false statements about how Apollo Images arerecorded etc. His premiss is destroyed within the first few replies with evidence given but of course that evidence is false according to him.

He makes a claim of photographic images from the past being better than digital images from the LRO etc he's that dumb he doesn't consider the fact that to get a photograph onto the net it's scanned and now a digital image.

As for delusional/deluded lets look at the meaning

Deluded -- believe something that is not true.
Delusional--characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument

I would say it's correct.