Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I hope we are talking about the same picture though. I was referring to the TOP picture in your response-post on PAGE 7 of this thread. This picture has apparently not been doctored (unless I am mistaken).

Yes, that is a small portion of the picture I want you to examine. Did you? What's your opinion?

If you did as I suggested, you saw that this image used in the 3d rendering (and touted by Skippy) is covered, 100%, side-to-side, end-to-end, wall-to-wall with the same image compression garbage.

Internos laid it all out quite nicely, again, on the previous page by comparing the original image to the processed 3d rendering with the supposed signs of civilization. I can't add much to that.



[edit on 14-11-2007 by IAttackPeople]

I have a question regarding all the anomalies that you post, why is it that all pictures with anomalies are all shady looking and un pixalated compared to teh actual pics posted on the website

Originally posted by s_barrett
Yep, sure fooled Harry Truman and thousands of eyewitnesses, and somehow triggered airport radar sensors too.
Here is another trick, generated by your heros at NASA?:
www.ufoevidence.org...

Oh, I never said that there weren't UFO reports. It was a pretty big flap in 1952. But using that long-debunked Capitol Building photo as some kind of sure-fire, gee-whiz evidence is just plain silly.

If you did as I suggested, you saw that this image used in the 3d rendering (and touted by Skippy) is covered, 100%, side-to-side, end-to-end, wall-to-wall with the same image compression garbage.

It does indeed look that way, but keep looking. Look at it objectively. Check the progress of the pixellation layer, as it goes over mountain ranges and down into valleys and plains. Just keep looking. Adjust the gamma correction/contrast on your desktop (under control panel/display) if necessary, so you can see where the layer ends and begins. Once your eyes get adjusted , you'll be able to pick the anomalies out from behind painted layers, false textures, and other "artifacts."

When finished, try an image search on the moons Titan, Europa, and Ganymede. Get the oldest as well as newest images. Do a Mariner 4 search for Mars. Check out the differences between Percival Lowell and Scharperilli's Mars maps vs. the full Mars images, such as this one:
apod.nasa.gov...
What is missing? What are the differences? Look closely, objectively.

reply to post by IAttackPeople


yeah, I actually followed your instructions and get your point.
I guess we`ll have to come up with something better to convince people.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by IAttackPeople

 

yeah, I actually followed your instructions and get your point.
I guess we`ll have to come up with something better to convince people.

Erm, this is a confusing statement.
Care to elaborate?

Did you read my post above? Did you click the link to the Mars images vs. Lowell map of Mars?

reply to post by undo


Oh, undo, I am beyond needing to be convinced that there are artificial structures on mars. Im a true believer by intuition.

But in order to convince sceptics (which is a worthwhile goal), I guess we will have to come up with other stuff.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Did you click the link to the Mars images vs. Lowell map of Mars?
And I'm serious when I say you should study the pixellation layer.
There's an arsenal of ways to modify the images. For example,
check the link I posted to the Lowell map and investigate the actual
photo of mars next to it. What's missing? Do you see one big blob
of orange that has been sloppily painted over a huge expanse of the
area below the equator, center field, that nearly extends to the bottom
of the planet? Where are Scharperilli's and Lowell's "canals"? Surely
if they could see them from Earth via primitive telescopes, modern
cameras could pick them up when only a few hundred miles from the
surface. In short, what is wrong with the picture?

reply to post by undo


Ive been looking at the pictures. Are you suggesting that the canals have been covered-up?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by undo

 

Ive been looking at the pictures. Are you suggesting that the canals have been covered-up?

Not sure they are canals but why else would they be missing from the images, but are in both maps provided by Lowell and Schaperilli? Where'd they go?

reply to post by mikesingh


OK, once we agree on that, can we agree that HiRISE's 25cm/pixel images are better than 60cm/pixel images from QuickBird?

Small cut-out at 100% zoom from an original HiRISE photo.

Image from QuickBird

reply to post by undo


Mars canals were never there, as far as we know.

Only when seen through smaller telescopes did the astronomers (and not all of them) saw the canali. Bigger telescopes did not showed any canals.

Edit to ask: if the canals exist why do the photos from the amateur astronomers do not show them?

[edit on 14/11/2007 by ArMaP]

If it's a worthwhile goal, why is it so unproductive?

I've yet to see a single convert for the anomalie side. Not sure why, either, there are so many bizarre examples, many of which could never be seriously called pixellizations/artifacts/3-d misrepresentations. I could bury this thread in anomalies. But all it'd do is use up my bandwidth.

Originally posted by undo

Check out the differences between Percival Lowell and Scharperilli's Mars maps vs. the full Mars images, such as this one:
apod.nasa.gov...
What is missing? What are the differences? Look closely, objectively.

Lowell was wrong. That's all there is to it. He wasn't the only person looking at Mars at the time, you know. Other contemporary astronomers did not see these canals. Others, like Eugène Michel Antoniadi, subscribed to the canal theory but abandoned it after better observations were made.

Other than the imaginary canals, Lowell deserves credit for his accurate observations of Mars, given the relatively primitive conditions at the time.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Edit to ask: if the canals exist why do the photos from the amateur astronomers do not show them?

I have no clue, Armap. But if the maps were good enough to tell where the darker areas and lighter areas separated, and where the land varied in orange-red saturation, the extent of Olympus Mons and the greenish hues of the lower lying areas, why do they have these starkly drawn "Canals" connecting craters to each other, all over the place that are not there? It makes no sense. There's got to be an explanation, and I'm not so quick to assume they were simply wrong.

reply to post by undo


well....you have a point there. Maybe its not a worthwhile goal afterall.

Here`s my personal take on it: Each and every person will filter his perception to fit to how he sees the world and would like to see it. And all we will get back is re-confirmations of what we believed in the first place. This has nothing to do with evidence or facts, its a perception thing. Ive come to think that some people will never ever see anomalies, no matter what you present. And others will see anomalies in anything.

In the way the world currently thinks, measuring matter and data counts for everything and intuition doesnt count for anything. Expect that to change in the next 500 years.

A lot of things that I INTUITED in my life, later turned out to be factual. I am not saying this is always the case, but often. But I wont expect any of these hardcore materialists to consider "feeling what is on mars"

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

Other than the imaginary canals, Lowell deserves credit for his accurate observations of Mars, given the relatively primitive conditions at the time.

Lowell wasn't the only one. Schaperilli (spelling?) drew a similar map before Lowell did. And if Lowell deserves credit for his "accurate" observations, why are the canali the only things that aren't accurate and such obvious inaccuracies, no less? I mean, those lines are extremely obvious.

So, you are probably on to the same thing because you "sense" something there on Mars.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So, you are probably on to the same thing because you "sense" something there on Mars.

Sense as in "see"? Or sense as in intuit? It's less of intuition and more of observation in this instance. If you examine the pixellation layer on the original image, you can see where it starts and ends. It isn't "pixellation", everywhere the pixellation is visible. In other words, some pixellization is indeed pixellization and some appears to be something else. I'd be more inclined to believe the "mapped over 3-d" excuse than the pixellization reasoning for that particular area. Problem I'm having with the pixellization rationale is that it is used constantly, for pretty much every anomalie.
It's a wonder the guys who take the images can discern a thing about them if the details are all pixellizations.

reply to post by undo


Undo, i post the links to the maps you're talking about
(so it will be asier to browse for the other users )

Mars then and now
apod.nasa.gov...

Explanation: Does Mars have canals? A hot debate topic of the late 1800s, several prominent astronomers including Percival Lowell not only claimed to see an extensive system of long straight canals on Mars, but used them to indicate that intelligent life exists there. The relatively close opposition of 1894 was used to make drawings like the one digitally re-scaled on the above left. The above map was originally prepared by Eugene Antoniadi and redrawn by Lowell Hess for the book Exploring Mars, by Roy A. Gallant. In more modern times, the latest Mars opposition has allowed the Hubble Space Telescope to capture a picture of similar orientation. Comparison of the two images shows that large features were impressively recorded, but that an extensive system of long and straight canals just does not exist. Satellites orbiting Mars have now shown conclusively that the red planet does indeed have surface features similar to canals, but that these are usually smaller, curved, and less extensive than that previously claimed. Real canyon systems like Noctis Labyrinthus are most likely cracks caused by surface stress.

Lowell
www.tarzan.org...

Schiaparelli
www.bo.astro.it...