Interesting photo comparison between Mars and Earth

This is the first thread I have started on ATS. So I hope that everyone can follow my stream of conscience explanation...

I came across a post on social media that I found to be quite thought provoking in the "conspiracy" that NASA photoshops, blurs and angles images in specific ways for their own specific ends. But these images made me think and really consider is it possible that some if the "raw" images from curiosity are angled a certain way as to through off the viewers perspective and as a result the subject of the image which now appears to be quite small and under a smaller flat stone that maybe be a couple feet in width. If it were the case if framing perspective and all that was taking place could this image really be of a cliff outcropping or a valley floor with Adobe or stone structures as are seen in the other two images from the good ole USofA.

Mesa verse and Canyon de Chelley were possible dwellings and markets and the like elevated from the valley floor l but protected over head by a large slab of stone more like a whole mountain...

but that's the point I'm getting at..

Isn't Curiosity currently climbing a mountain? And has been trudging through the foothills of that mountain since it landed and made it's way out of a huge crater? I mean the images of all the peaks that were between the rover and Mount Sharp was breath taking topography to be seeing and knowing someone is remotely driving a car safely around it.

Anyways I just thought it was an interesting change in my mental frame of reference and my it perception of this image and possibility of other being camera tricked into seeing a feature opposite of what It is really.

So then it makes me question Bennu's photos and 67p and Ryugu and the rest. Are they more intriguing that they are making public? With the navy change in investigation protocol for UFOs are they working a different mission than is being spoon fed what they want us to think to the world population by these government space agencies.

3 photos side by side just
made me go huh?





(I'm aware that these are most likely not ruins on Mars but this thread was about the possibility of editing to occur because we dont know what is fact and what is contrived truth when it comes to these types of objects.)

What is the scale of the Mars image? Looks like a zoom-in on a rock formation. to me. But, interesting.

EDIT: should of read your entire post since you mention it's a flat rock. Sorry!

a reply to: Txbuffalo

Look's very unnatural to me, straight line's reminiscent of decayed wall's, right angles and squares like the remains of room's or building's and even a possible window feature still intact.
It does indeed look very much like the Mesa dwelling's you have compared.
My favorite mars ruins site is actually marsruins.com...
And my favorite image - which I also feel is very tragic and show's that a huge loss of life may once have occurred there (and I believe is a smoking gun image proving a carpet bombardment and perhaps huge attack too place) is this one.
www.marsruins.com...
Followed very closely by this one.
www.marsruins.com...

On a small scale your image could however be explained as natural geology due to crystalline form, if it is large however then thing's become more interesting.
For example smaller mean's macro molecular structuring is more likely to create features we could mistake for artefact's while larger makes that less likely hence I have to agree with LogicalGraphitti's request for scale.

The Mars photo looks like fluid erosion under a rock. Like at the edge of a puddle or slow moving drainage.

Well now we know where the Anasazi went.

If there's a Martian civilisation there, it is very very tiny.

The image from Mars was taken on Sol 840 - here's a colour panorama, it's on the right:

www.gigapan.com...

Here's a photo of some of the rocks at the left hand edge featuring part of the rover itself:



The camera is angled down from a higher position, the rocks are very close to it.

e2a: The black and white image above is a navigation camera shot. The colour gigapan is derived from mastcam images:

mars.nasa.gov...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Right so we can discount that image, thank you, it would have been a bit of a stretch to imagine something like that on a larger scale could have lasted intact as it seemed to be this long anyway.

Does not mean there was never a civilization on mars though - perhaps even a human - or PREVIOUS and still very human civilization before we were supposed to exist - very long before in fact during the last mega glacial epoch of earth which is theorized to have occurred from a period about 2.2 to 2.3 billion years ago upto about 750 million though those dates may have been refined since I last read about the snow ball earth theory.

There were also several inter glacial period's likely to have occurred when the earth may have warmed up, life had a chance to return to the surface and even evolved complex ecosystems before being wiped out again, it was a period of colder solar activity from our younger sun as well and while mars may have had a much thicker atmosphere and even life back then as could indeed Venus have still had it's ocean's and been cool enough for some form of life there the earth was pretty much like planet Hoth from Star Wars the empire strikes back minus the two legged snow camel's and abominable snowmen with the surface believed to have gotten cold enough for the ocean's to have actually frozen right to the equator meaning that other than potentially some simple lichen and bacteria almost all life on earth would have been nestled around deep volcanic vent's and chemosynthesizing the chemicals they spew out to maintain it's metabolism so to all intent's and purposes the earth back then was pretty much uninhabitable.
snowballearth.org...

Given that most of our crust is recycled about every 650 million years and most that is on the surface is eroded completely away in it's recycling by erosion and other geological functions leaving very few old rock's and most of those having been buried for the majority of there existence it is no surprise therefore that the Cambrian explosion was believed to have begun 650 million years ago because of the paucity of older fossil's but some have since been found of simple multi cellular organism's that lived in the ocean's meaning that there may have been several Cambrian explosion type event's in the course of the earth's history prior to that, many of which may have been false start's and perhaps some actually were full ecological life explosion's but so long ago that there is little or no evidence to prove they ever happened, chemical analysis of formerly deep strata rock's now at the surface is actually a very poor method of analyzing our past surface atmosphere as well so the idea that our atmosphere could not support such complex life is actually very open to debate and also given past life chemosynthetic nature it is even possible that it metabolized a quite different atmosphere to today anyway.

I remain convinced that the Face on mars was hit by an attempt to cover up evidence using an air burst type device which caused part of it to landslide down and left a deep gash in the structure, I am also convinced it is an artifact and not a natural feature.
And if so it look's very human to me.

You may disagree with me but I have yet to see a true argument against this especially given that the official last released image of the face was processed three time's before release to the public obscuring detail and making it look far more flat than it is an act which is positively scandalous.

If you're looking for artifacts or ruins, the best place to look is on the Mars Gigapans. Just do a search. Without the panorama, the Mars images taken by the rover are very hard to understand in context. There was at some point in time a layer of material created that is much more rocky and filled with odd things that later got buried by more layers of sand. Some people believe that fragments of this layer indicate that there were possibly buildings and devices that have since nearly crumbled into nothing, but there are still out of place objects to be found that hint of something more artificial.

They're not obvious, and the way the images are presented doesn't help see them. But they're somewhat thought-provoking.

As for the OP's original image of the "Mars Ruins," that area is roughly two feet across and the little "buildings" are just more of that calcium stuff that seeped into cracks long ago. Not that there aren't things that look like artifacts to be found, but that's not one of them.

WOW the buildings on Mars crowd on here/the net will clutch at anything remember when this was claimed as a dome.





Same with the so called glass tubes many on here need glasses plain and simple.

a reply to: Txbuffalo

Mars does resemble earth what did Arthur know

originally posted by: Blue Shift

But they're somewhat thought-provoking.

As for the OP's original image of the "Mars Ruins," that area is roughly two feet across and the little "buildings" are just more of that calcium stuff that seeped into cracks long ago. Not that there aren't things that look like artifacts to be found, but that's not one of them.

This quote is basically my conclusion to my OP. I wasnt saying they were real ruins . I was saying its thought-provoking because of the possibility of processing and editing of images to obscure possible real artifacts and how easy it would be to propagate a certain narrative through processing or editing of images

a reply to: wmd_2008

Still a marvellous structure even if natural and this higher resolution image which I believe is untouched provides excellent data on how the wind patterns on mars have moved and lain down sand inside the crater and how the crater wall's and topography have interacted with the wind and dust to form what looks to me to be a raised dune desert area inside the crater with an elliptical shape covering at a guess about 60 percent of the crater floor, probably cantered around a buried central peak.

So we have to bow to this one.

Still you have no idea how many golfing boasts this upset.

Still there is also a lot of linearity still in that image, which may be due to prevailing Martian wind pattern's or ancient flood scouring, notice from the bottom left and right of the image the almost straight terrain alignment's which are ALMOST straight but seem to bend as if sweeping around the raised crater wall's on the outside of it - the deposit of dust and sand which form's that small dune sea inside the crater would also seem to align perfectly with those striation's as it show's more complex structure on the side were the wind would be eddying as it passed over the crater rim and deposited a short ways inside it the dust it was carrying and more traditional dune like formations of dust deposit were the wind would have passed over those eddies and dropped it's dust further in, that dark patch to the lower part of the crater directly below the complex dune area could be an area which has been scoured free of dust by the wind action.
Also the other smaller craters have a similar substance within them, possible water or carbon dioxide ice? or merely the wind scouring those parts.

Over all that is a stunning shot and still one of my favourite and seeing something we can be sure of like that even if it destroys a cherished belief of some - I never ascribed to the dome myself but it was interesting if only that while I do ascribe to the face being an artefact and have argued and shall continue to argue that.

a reply to: LABTECH767

LABTECH767 it was the same with the so called glass tubes not good enough resolution in early shots and when seen in close up.



Enough said.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Agreed on this features, still you do know that glass is mostly silicate right haha.