Do you accept that this NASA photo shows buildings on Mars? Video.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: klassless

Hate to be a buzzkill but it looks like pixelation to me.

THIS is pixelation! Over but still hides details. The photo in the video is clear and you can see recognizable shapes. Someone should pixelate the photo in the video for comparison. I'm not a computer techie so I don't know how to do it.

originally posted by: WeSbO
This would be the original image (highly enhanced) used for the pics in the OP : esamultimedia.esa.int...

Also note that this is not a photo, per say, it's I believe "photo" put on a computer generated terrain.

fixed the link: esamultimedia.esa.int...

if it was a photo affected by pixelization, overlayed on a computer generated terrain that acted as a height map, that would explain the irregularities in angles.

originally posted by: WeSbO
This would be the original image (highly enhanced) used for the pics in the OP : esamultimedia.esa.int...

Also note that this is not a photo, per say, it's I believe "photo" put on a computer generated terrain.

Thanks for the effort but your link does not exist as far as providing the image.

Let's change photo to image.

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: WeSbO
This would be the original image (highly enhanced) used for the pics in the OP : esamultimedia.esa.int...

Also note that this is not a photo, per say, it's I believe "photo" put on a computer generated terrain.

Thanks for the effort but your link does not exist as far as providing the image.

Let's change photo to image.

remove the dot at the end of the url.

also, you may wish to censor your screenshot next time, Edward.

originally posted by: klassless
Jeff Rense placed this video on YouTube today, Aug. 22 (2016). The video features a NASA photo showing what looks almost clearly a "community" of buildings. Visible are shapes we can recognize: windows/doors, steps. I know nature can construct recognizable shapes such as pyramids, but the scene looks manufactured. It could also be due to pareidolia, making sense out of chaos. Anyways, there is no narration but if you watch the whole video you may appreciate the music.

Perhaps the more knowleldgeable members can do some research to verify the photo a NASA product and can sharper copies be available. I don't know how to read NASA's notations for photo numbers or missions. But calling day "sol" sound like phooey to me. Day is day. We don't call our days sol.

Take a look and voice your opinions.

"Clear Evidence of Buildings on Mars - not Pixelization" - Jeff Rense - Published on Aug 22, 2016

Ah, the hale crater civilisation image is back, has been haunting the internet for a decade now. LOL

The "buildings" are compression artifacts. They are not horizontal/vertical because the image was mapped onto a 3d terrain mesh and thus perspectively distorted.

This is the original source I think (invert the colors a zoom in): esamultimedia.esa.int...

a reply to: Mianeye

I see an entire colony of houses in the left bottom corner. I also see an election being held in the middle... looks like the gray party is winning.

Oh and don't forget the futuristic ... or should i say prehistoric cars in the upper right hand corner. Ooooh i see a museum!

I am sorry but that photograph of mars? Its nothing but static. I like how everyone relies on nasa to get their new photos of new planets instead of... i dunno... buying and or building your own telescope to look at mars? And maybe once and for all prove that they have been hiding the grays now for a little ovef a century?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

Oh damn thanks, the dot -_-

Ah, a "blast from the past", as they say.

I remember that well. The effect we see is not really pixelization, as it's the result of having too few shades of grey in the original photo, something that anyone that remembers the time when GIFs were the most common image type on the Internet should remember.

This is what it looks like when we have an image that looks more like a bad photocopy used as a texture overlaid on a computer generated relief, as the original image gets stretched and compressed in different places.

PS: there's no need to close this thread, as there's nothing wrong about posting something that was already posted a lng time ago, specially when there's someone presenting it (almost?) as new again.

The OP has once again lived up to it's nickname with this thread.

originally posted by: ArMaP
PS: there's no need to close this thread, as there's nothing wrong about posting something that was already posted a lng time ago, specially when there's someone presenting it (almost?) as new again.

I agree that making a new thread to discuss something from a long time ago isn't a problem, it's only a problem when recent threads are duplicated.

But isn't it a problem to call it a "photo" in the thread title when it's computer generated imagery and not a photo?

This is what it looks like when we have an image that looks more like a bad photocopy used as a texture overlaid on a computer generated relief, as the original image gets stretched and compressed in different places.

So, you're saying this is not a photo, it's computer generated imagery which used a photo as part of the process of creating the computer generated imagery.

"Do you accept that this NASA photo shows buildings on Mars?" is a hoax title, because it's not a NASA photo.

Just to show how this technique can alter more familiar objects, here's a CGI rendering of a photo superimposed on the terrain of the Golden Gate Bridge, which shows it's very distorted. (Not the same kind of artifacts as in the OP photo but the fact is it's not a reliable source of imagery).

weather.com...

The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. (Clement Valla/Google Earth)

In contrast, here is a photo of the same bridge:

thumbs.dreamstime.com...


So the photo looks a lot different than the CGI rendering, doesn't it? So would the photo of the area mentioned in the OP look different than the CGI rendering.

So let's see the actual photo, or stop calling it a photo if it's not a photo, ok? Somebody should fix the thread title or move this thread to the hoax bin, or the LOL forum if it's not changed, because calling it a photo is a Ludicrous Online Lie.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
The OP has once again lived up to it's nickname with this thread.

At least he's not going by "SkepticalEd" anymore, which is good since he never seemed very skeptical, though maybe it would be a good thing to be more skeptical when encountering claims of buildings on Mars.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

i would say Klassless more describes your post buddy. how ironic eh!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But isn't it a problem to call it a "photo" in the thread title when it's computer generated imagery and not a photo?

I don't think it's a problem either, as it only shows that, at the time, that was what the OP thought.

"Do you accept that this NASA photo shows buildings on Mars?" is a hoax title, because it's not a NASA photo.

Personally, I don't see that as a hoax title, only as a title that reflected the ignorance of the OP about the subject.

Oh man I'm really trying to not get too hyped over this, but it certainly LOOKS like the remnants of some type of intelligent community.

Perhaps there is a more reasonable explanation, I can't wait to read all the thoughts!

-Alee

originally posted by: seaswine

Thought provoking nonetheless!

Not really.
The day I believe anything that charlatan Rense has to say is the day you can
put me down .

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
a reply to: klassless

I have never seen that many straight lines and right angles produced by nature before

Really?

Got a link for context?

I could certainly be wrong, and would love for you to prove me it...

But that looks sculpted and refined in certain areas.

a reply to: DigitalVigilante420

An image search for "pyrite" will show you many examples, just click here.

a reply to: klassless

I'm going with digital artifacts and nothing more. I find it disappointing that our cameras mess up like this, but I have done enough work with digital images in my lifetime to know that this is quite possible because of an image coding error or something similar.

I need extraordinary evidence to convince me of extraordinary claims, and this is not it, sadly. I still remain hopeful, though, that one day...

a reply to: DigitalVigilante420

That's the funny thing about sculpture--for the most part, artists are mimicking nature.

I'll just leave this here.

There's one thing I don't understand with that image.
When you look at the R, G and B channels of this RGB image separately, you wouldn't find any pixelation/artifacts/whatever in the red channel.
Any ideas why?