Mars Rover Image w City and Large River. NASA/JPL Image Restored

Never A Straight Answer (NASA).
SnF

a reply to: Arnie123

well as far as know i'm allowed to state my opinion.
I read the title and watched the vid. when he got to that point and said there's a city in that valley,
when there is obviously no city, that's when the credibility was lost.
Meaning i gave him a chance and he blew it.

it was nothing other then a rock strewn landscape.

believe me i'd love it if someone came up with a picture of a real city.

if this tells ya anything... i followed Hoagland for a number of years. found what he had and said interesting.
didn't believe some of it and some of it i thought had merit. Then other stuff i thought he just pulled out his ass.

i'm still leaning toward ruins on mars. id like actual proof though.

I have to agree.

Slick presentation, well put together, but really all this is is "it looks like" and "I don't believe them". Other than that there is nothing there but pareidolia wrapped up in a pretty ribbon.

The suspicion about science and NASA's motives is more pleasantly put than usual, but it's still there and it underpins the while thing: 'they' are hiding something from me and it's not fair, boohoo".

Fundamentally, you cannot take an image and reverse changes you claim have have been done to reveal details - you've been watching too much CSI. You can't fix an image you think has been blurred by sharpening it again - this is not how it works. All you end up doing is messing with the details even more, allowing you to misinterpret the image even more.

The part that looks like a river? And a city? There is no river - it quite obviously isn't one, and there are plenty of high res overhead shots of the area to show that it is not one, and that there is no city. The Phobos 2 image that 'looks like' a city is just image artifacts and poor resolution - the infra red camera's maximum resolution for the Martian surface was 7km and went up to 25km. Note that it was an infra-red camera.

Clearly lots of people here are buying this. I'm not.

e2a: Some more on those Phobos 2 images here:

forgetomori.com...

including information from ATS!

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I am one whom does believe in structure's, ruin's and artifact's on Mars as well as the moon but to me most of those in that video were too much of a stretch and most could be explained away as jpeg compression artifact's etc, he makes some excellent point's though about the reason's for the obscuration of some potential artifact's such as the triple filter applied to the high resolution face on mars and used to try to dismiss it but overall I think his video stand's the potential to cause more harm then good to the subject.

There are site's that I have no doubt are real.
The theory about the destruction caused by a huge nuclear detonation is a genuine and pertinent one.
The idea of a link to egypt is too much for me however as I believe this destruction to have been much further back in time.

Still worth watching but with your own interpretation's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

The application of different filters to images is done to reveal detail, not mask it.

The theory about nuclear destruction is a genuine theory, but that doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense or is supported by any evidence at all.

I've seen the vids pics before.

I'm sure everyone has seen JP Skipper's site?

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Plenty of his pics there to look at.

Here is that bone.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

a reply to: Another_Nut

That was one long and intriguing read.

So from it, we can say that information from Mars is being sent back to earth using quantum tech, and when it arrives, it is ultimately corrupted if it includes important details, so the regular guys only see the usual corrupted images, but there are some people who get the full imagery behind the scenes.

It read like science fiction, but too much was accurate enough from my limited understanding to dismiss it.

It does not surprise me. given the way things are with the world. there would be no reason to engage in this if things were as we know, but as the blog says, there is no reason to keep a secret, if no one knows you have one to keep.. the official data is what the official guys get. and what is hidden from us, is hidden to them.

fascinating read... if nothing else, intriguing.

aliens "we will let you play, but hide us, or else"

idk, but if there is any truth in it, it just leaves so many questions. if there is not, it was still a great read.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Another_Nut

Hmmm, so down the rabbit hole we go? Oh what a ride this is going to be. I've always been interested in Mars, in my opinion its littered with things from a previous time when life thrived. It truly is a dead world.

Don't forget, we dont see it all. not close. and we continually find life in the most extreme places here. not saying I'm concluding basic life either, but who knows what is what.

we dont know... Mars was once earth like. nothing to say advanced life didn't exist there, and 5 million years later, all we see are remnants that now resemble rocks. Ruins here are found after a millennia of exposure rendering them as nothing. And if that were to happen on earth, some cataclysm but with a slightly more advanced species that us right now, what can we say. we already enter space. how long before we live the dream of sending people to planets to start colonies, with the tech to one day return... we already have plans to send people to Mars.

Might be the next invasion..

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Arnie123

So, it only looks like a river because he changed it to look like one?

NASA themselves tell us they do not have originals of correct colour or contrast.

They have even edited images to reveal the true nature of the environment for added effect.

Not compelling in my opinion, can't say it's ok for them to, and someone else not to.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Is this in regards to what he speculates about the, "top was ripped off, exposing inner walls..."?

I really like this video, the YouTuber is pretty humble, even alludes to lighting or other explainable phenomena, ultimately leaving it up to you.

Most folks doing this just try to thrust it all on you and claim FACT.

you and me both. It is rare to see a video, even youtube, that is this way.

has piqued my interest once more.. no more "This is a rat on mars" stuff...

originally posted by: ishum
i stopped watching when he says there's a city in that valley. BS
lost any credibility at that point. so, i wasn't going to waste time with the rest of the vid.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to ruins, hence no cars and people selling hot dogs..

who knows..

might just be an unfortunate array of random rocks and straight lines...

originally posted by: Violater1
Never A Straight Answer (NASA).
SnF

Read the blog posted in the first page.

explains why.

originally posted by: ishum
a reply to: Arnie123

well as far as know i'm allowed to state my opinion.
I read the title and watched the vid. when he got to that point and said there's a city in that valley,
when there is obviously no city, that's when the credibility was lost.
Meaning i gave him a chance and he blew it.

it was nothing other then a rock strewn landscape.

believe me i'd love it if someone came up with a picture of a real city.

if this tells ya anything... i followed Hoagland for a number of years. found what he had and said interesting.
didn't believe some of it and some of it i thought had merit. Then other stuff i thought he just pulled out his ass.

i'm still leaning toward ruins on mars. id like actual proof though.

a city doesnt need sky scrapers and starbucks.

the ancient city of UR.

imagine this from a low quality, side angle view at close range. you'd see nothing but rocks...

and also, take into account, our atmosphere is a lot less harsh..

originally posted by: Arnie123
Call me crazy, ignorant and missinformed, but I've long had suspicions about Mars (an moon) images and what gets released. In an unrelated issue, if the DSM was caught being BIASED and with an agenda, what does that say about other institutions? It maybe nothing.

What is the DSM?

He simply changed color contrast and tried to bring out more detail.

Increasing contrast reduces the number of colours in the photo, so it removes small details to make the bigger ones more visible, it doesn't make a better image. Also, the image on the video looks blurred when compared to the image taken from the mosaic, which helps give the "river" that smooth look. It may be a result of too much compression in the video (one of the reasons I hate photo analysis done in videos), or the original he used had a smaller resolution than the original.

Speaking of which, how are you determining scale? Or is this a guess? Much like my guessing, hench speculation.

I said that the scale is wrong because I think he says something like "we were peering over a mountain peak" but Curiosity didn't land on a mountain peak, the only mountain peak on Gale Crater is Aeolis Mons, and Curiosity hasn't reached it yet. There aren't any "mountains" behind the "river" on the image, although the crater rim is visible in the panorama, so he could be talking about that.

So yes, my opinion that the scale is wrong is just a guess.

You see blurry images, I see what looks like a river. However I also pointed out in my post that it could just be a smooth martian soil, which looks like a river.

Do you see a river also in the image I posted, taken directly from the panorama?

PS: The panorama is available here.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

it's not NASA. It's some other unknown party involved with it, who are keeping things from the actual people presenting us information.

I start to believe this more and more now, and I was a staunch NASA is not hiding things. used to annoy me no end.

There are so many levels.. infiltration, and disinformation.. some things are put out to discredit, some things to deny.

but those in control, know....

Seen that so much with the whitehouse lately.

a reply to: ArMaP

I hope he doesnt mean the Diagnostic and Statistics manual..

because that manual is constantly being revised.

originally posted by: savemebarry
NASA themselves tell us they do not have originals of correct colour or contrast.

Do they really say that?

They have even edited images to reveal the true nature of the environment for added effect.

That has always to be done when you could not adjust the white level when taking the photo, ask any photographer.

originally posted by: savemebarry
a city doesnt need sky scrapers and starbucks.

the ancient city of UR.

imagine this from a low quality, side angle view at close range. you'd see nothing but rocks...

and also, take into account, our atmosphere is a lot less harsh..

That's part of the problem of saying that's a city, we have satellite photos of that area with a resolution of 25 cm per pixel that would show any city remains better than the photo taken by the rover at that (supposed) distance.

originally posted by: KawRider9
Don't play coy, you know all about the *Mars Masonic Metropolis...

Oh, you busted me. I knew it would not stay hidden forever.