Mars, What the hell is going on?

reply to post by ArMaP


Look go here

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

"On the CLIB form, under desired resolution select 1 pixel = 1 kilometer, under image size in pixels select 768x768, then in the Latitude box enter –35 and in the Longitude box enter 208, and click on the Use Lat/Long button to bring up the image. Be sure to leave the Sensor box at the default UVVIS and the Filter box at 415_nm."

You will see THIS image.




This is the official NASA footage from the NAVY site direct, the first image I showed you and its TAMPERED. Are you going to tell me it hasnt been tampered.

You yourself just posted a second image from another source which basically proves the point doesnt it? Those two pixel blurs are fudged images.

Look at the image you posted, the large rectangle rock isnt even visible in it (the one which is blurred in the NASA linked Photo) doesnt that tell you something?

The picture im showing is direct from the official site, so no other third party can be claimed to have touched it and its clearly got two large areas of pixel distortion over some terrain features.

Now you yourself have shown a second version of the picture (from a source you didnt stipulate) and you can clearly see that the two areas in the NASA blurred version are different, one is missing entirely and the other has key terrain completely missing which is in NASAs footage an totally different terrain edited in its place.

And you are telling me they arent tampering images?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Originally posted by D.E.M.
.....
Oh, and rocks would not break like that naturally. You would not see all other rocks in the area broken in regular if jagged lines, and then have a randomly perfect half-circle broken in only one spot. That isn't natural, and i challenge you to find me an example on Terra where a single half circle is located in a field of jagged straight lines.

petrified wood would have what you describe. A knot coming out of the tree.

Originally posted by wookiee

Originally posted by D.E.M.
.....
Oh, and rocks would not break like that naturally. You would not see all other rocks in the area broken in regular if jagged lines, and then have a randomly perfect half-circle broken in only one spot. That isn't natural, and i challenge you to find me an example on Terra where a single half circle is located in a field of jagged straight lines.

petrified wood would have what you describe. A knot coming out of the tree.

Wood is not the same as rock. There are no trees on Mars unless you know something I dont

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Look go here

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Did you actually try that link?
You need another source than Skipper.

reply to post by Phage




That should work. I fixed it, there no conspiracy it a link to where the official images are, thats all.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by silver6ix


OK, got it.


First you have to understand that these are composite images, made up of smaller images, using different filters. The composites are "made to order" when you make your selection. The image isn't there until you ask for it.

Now try this:
Get the image you are talking about
Go to the bottom of the page and select 415nm (that's a particular filter used, one of several)
Click the image on the "doctored" area. Pick a spot near the edge of the crater so you can recognize it.
You will see that there is no image in that wavelength for that area

Now go back to the "doctored" image
Select 750nm
Click on the same spot
This is the actually one of the single frames used to make up the composite
Do the same with the 950nm filter.

It seems what is happening is that the missing "layer" is causing programs for the image browser. This site and the site that ArMap linked are pulling data from the same images. It's just a difference in the way the two different programs handle the data.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


What youre describing wouldnt cause those artifacts. In many cases all three filters are present and the artifacts remain. Also its isolated to a few images and doesnt follow the pattern of distortion you would expect from any kind of data loss distortion which is normal on sat images.

For me its been airbrushed



Im cruious though about something else while we are talking about NASA, whats your take on Dr Edgar Mitchell.

Now ill state that I personally dont put too much faith in his particular revelations, however I have my reasons and they are logical ones.

What is your take on his statements. Im asking as you seem to trust NASA implicitly and since he was one of their more esteemed persons, im interested to know what you thought of his claims that NASA covered things up on the Moon?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by silver6ix


You missed the point. The images are either there and unmodified, or they are missing. You can see the original image "beneath" the "airbrushing". Nothing is being hidden.


I don't much stock in what Mitchell says. Among other things, his involvement with "fringe" topics hurts his credibility overall. He offers absolutely no evidence for what he claims. He has no personal experience. The dog ate all his homework.

Why should I have a problem believing NASA if I don't believe Mitchell? He did his job very well. He retired. He got deeply into all kinds of weirdness. Another former NASA employee claims to have seen a 9 foot alien in a space shuttle. I don't believe him either.

You make it sound as if I grovel at the feet of NASA, I don't. NASA is one of very few sources of data for one of the things that interests me, space exploration. NASA is not in the business of looking for ET intelligence, as much as you and others would like them to be. There isn't enough evidence to support that effort. Though looking for ET life is one of the things they do, they have many missions, all (except for some notable failures) are contributing to a growing collection of data. The more data there is, the more can be learned. If NASA is hiding anything, it is the incompetence of the buracracy that operates it, the failure of the administrators and managers. I don't believe that data, and the science being done with it, is being hidden. I don't see any reason why it would be.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Im just curious.It just seems to me if a NASA employee says theres no UFOs he believable, if he says there is hes lying. I think you look for reasons to deny things. Myself, im more open minded I believe I dont look for reasons to believe or deny, I just look at whats there.

I can see HOAX, CGI, explainable phenomenon but I can also accept the fact there are UFOs.

"I don't believe that data, and the science being done with it, is being hidden. I don't see any reason why it would be."

Its being with held from public view certainly. They have stacks of camera footage, rolling footage from missions which is not publically accessible.

Really since they are publically funded and theres no security issues that footage should be freely available on request to the public. NASA never used to be that way, they stopped live feeds and access to the recorded footage after the incident with a UFO seen fllowing the shuttle out of orbit.

I say UFO in the sense it was a moving object. It hit all the papers and news and was a nice little drama and since then NASA have become anal and kept everything except tid bits to themselves. I dont see any justifiable reason for it myself.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Originally posted by silver6ix
This is the official NASA footage from the NAVY site direct, the first image I showed you and its TAMPERED. Are you going to tell me it hasnt been tampered.

That is not NASA footage, those images are created with the data we provide (resolution, image size and location) when we click the button or the image. That is the only way of doing it to really show the place where the person clicks, the alternative would be a grid of fixed size images that would lead to a bigger image and so on, but in that way there may be some feature that is not seen in one image, having become divided in two when the images were separated.

This page explains how it is (or was) done.

You yourself just posted a second image from another source which basically proves the point doesnt it? Those two pixel blurs are fudged images.

No, the two images I posted are from the same source, the Naval Research Laboratory.

Look at the image you posted, the large rectangle rock isnt even visible in it (the one which is blurred in the NASA linked Photo) doesnt that tell you something?

If you are talking about the second image I posted then the blurry area on the bottom right is not there, and it tells me that probably they did not had the image for that area at the time that image on Skipper's site was made. Also, the general look of Skipper's image makes me think that it is from the previous (and unavailable now) version of the Clementine Image Browser, version 1.1, because of all the small blurry areas that are all over the place and that do not exist on the 1.5 version.

The picture im showing is direct from the official site, so no other third party can be claimed to have touched it and its clearly got two large areas of pixel distortion over some terrain features.

Yes, but so is the second image I posted.

Now you yourself have shown a second version of the picture (from a source you didnt stipulate) and you can clearly see that the two areas in the NASA blurred version are different, one is missing entirely and the other has key terrain completely missing which is in NASAs footage an totally different terrain edited in its place.

I posted the source of my image, why do you say that I did not "stipulate the source"?

The terrain that is missing is really missing, as it was on the first image, the difference, in my opinion, is in the software, that used the same algorithm to join two images even when one of the images did not existed, creating those blurs.

And you are telling me they arent tampering images?

No, I am telling you that those images are not tampered because they are not the real images.

The images used to create both versions of the Clementine browser (and the images on NASA's World Wind and Google Moon) are available to anyone interested enough to search for them on the PDS Imaging Node site, here.

Anyone can browse the images, and if you have the right (and free) software you can even see the same IMG files used by the scientists that work with the images.

This, for example, is part of that dark crater that I think was the one you said had signs of tampering.


Click the image to see it in its full size.

reply to post by GUNSINWAR


This is such a great thread I can't understand why it has gone dormant for so long. I did not see these black holes on Mars in any of the material but I admit I did not look on every link. I recently learned how to embed videos so lately I am an embedding fool.
This was interesting and I'd be curious to know what people here think of these unusul black holes. Maybe they are just like the "wormholes" on the moon.



Both of these links show different NASA images of the same anomaly on Mars.
sai.msu.su...

backreaction.blogspot.com...

reply to post by rusethorcain

It's not an "anomaly". It's probably a cave.
www.nasa.gov...



[edit on 2/21/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Well...thanks. At least it is not a cigarette burn in the original photo.

I see that it looks like a cave but you say probably and NASA says possibly. This is not definitive. If it IS a cave couldn't we say for certain with one of the rovers?
An anomaly is "an occurrence or object that is strange, unusual, or unique and a discrepancy or deviation from an established rule or trend." As caves go, you must admit, this is that especially since no one seems 100% sure it is even a cave.

I have googled "holes in the earth" on another occasion and none of our caves, tunnels or holes look like this from a satellite photo. I wonder why that is?

PS: Thanks for the link -It was very interesting and informative about what IS known about these caves- from there I linked to uanews.org... ...about possible oceans on Mars.





[edit on 22-2-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain

The word "anomaly" often tends to take on other connotations.

There are some similar holes on the Moon but the Moon, Mars, and Earth are all very different environments so one would expect to see some differences.

Instead of "holes in the Earth", try "lava tube skylights" or "sinkholes".







[edit on 2/22/2010 by Phage]

[edit on 2/22/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I see. These are the tubes expected to house a space camp on the moon first and maybe mars later- if it works out. I just hope it isn't like a gopher hole. What an imagination! Thanks again.

The "huge door" anomaly could definitely be natural however it's the most interesting thing I saw. To be "just a shadow" the outcropping to create it would be huge. I think it's more plausible that it's a huge opening. Natural or not an opening like that needs some investigation. Caves are a place where all level of life seek shelter. If we really want to search for life that's a great place to start!

[edit on 22-2-2010 by CaptSplatter]

reply to post by CaptSplatter


Absolutely - but would you want to be the first to venture inside one of those things? I am picturing the giant centipedes out of "Lost World" Yikes.