Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

reply to post by Allred5923

No, that's not a hoax: the area in question is Syrtis Major Planum,


and you can see that formation in the very top-right of this image, PIA00173, from Viking
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

The "anomaly" is known as Star City, and there are some articles about it:

THE SEARCH FOR THE SEVEN CITIES OF MARS


THE MOST PERPLEXING ANOMALIES OF MARS




[edit on 3/2/2008 by internos]

Thanks for the reply internos, and great pages for explanation.
Have you heard about ther fly by of Mercury from NASA?
Apparently they have found a "Spider" effect that the scientists say has not happened any whetre in our solar system before?

The photos, released on Wednesday, include a feature the scientists informally call "the Spider," which appears to be an impact crater surrounded by more than 50 cracks in the surface radiating from its center.

Now, if scientists are stating that these kind of anomalies are created by "Happen Chance" and that they have no recolection of this having taken place in the "Explored" areas of our solar system, what gives for the explanation of all the hub-bub over all these articulated and impressive photo's of such anomalies?
I mean, "they seem to be mistaken for the facts at hand."

If you watch the vid from the website, they discuss there findings in a 3 to 4 min interview with the NASA scientist that gives an explanation of rarity and conclusiveness.

Just wondering why this explanation wouldn't apply to other "So-to-be" structures elsewhere in our adventures to other planets.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Quick question! Why does NASA insist on sending out probes worth hundreds of millions of pounds with the crapiest cameras out there, sure they have to be able to operate in space, but come on like, my phone could do a better job!

reply to post by Allred5923

Yes, they are very surprised by definately unexpected data, and not only by the "spider":
www.nasa.gov...

it happened even in the past with other planets and with many celestial bodies: many things are still a mystery for the scientist, and NASA scientists have never claimed to know all about everything: they learn too, every single day. And they make mistakes too, because the're human beings.
About your question, IMHO the answer is yes, it applies, it MUST be so, IMHO
The problem about this specifical thread (i mean the OP) was that when you work on a Computer Generated Image, you never know what of what you are looking at is actually there: only raw data shows what has actually been caught by the camera.
And the only way to assest the validity of a CGI is a comparison between the RAW image (or at least a non processed one) and the CGI one: if something that appears in the CGI does not appear in the RAW image, then we are looking at an artifact which has been generated somewhere during the image processing. After a simple resampling, an image is alrerady a CGI. But when there's a formation like the one that you have posted, we can discuss about what it could be, but of course not about the fact that it's actually there
Tis is the main difference between basing studies on original images and processed ones, imho...

Originally posted by Pro-genetic
Quick question! Why does NASA insist on sending out probes worth hundreds of millions of pounds with the crapiest cameras out there, sure they have to be able to operate in space, but come on like, my phone could do a better job!

I don't think that your phone is a cheap one, if it has a better resolution than the one of High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HIRISE), that is presently flying onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Launched in August of 2005, the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) is flying onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) mission. HiRISE will investigate deposits and landforms resulting from geologic and climatic processes and assist in the evaluation of candidate landing sites. By combining very high resolution and signal-to-noise ratio with a large swath width, it is possible to image on a variety of scales down to 1 meter, a scale currently afforded only in glimpses by landers. HiRISE will offer such views over any selected region of Mars, providing a bridge between orbital remote sensing and landed missions. Stereo image pairs will be acquired over the highest-priority locations with a vertical precision of better than 25 cm per pixel.

marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov...
But if you are talking about the last images posted, they come from Viking



[edit on 3/2/2008 by internos]

Originally posted by Pro-genetic
Quick question! Why does NASA insist on sending out probes worth hundreds of millions of pounds with the crapiest cameras out there, sure they have to be able to operate in space, but come on like, my phone could do a better job!

Actually they have very good cameras... they just have issues with tax payers seeing the top quality images

Originally posted by internos

The problem about this specifical thread (i mean the OP) was that when you work on a Computer Generated Image, you never know what of what you are looking at is actually there: only raw data shows what has actually been caught by the camera.
And the only way to assest the validity of a CGI is a comparison between the RAW image (or at least a non processed one) and the CGI one: if something that appears in the CGI does not appear in the RAW image, then we are looking at an artifact which has been generated somewhere during the image processing.

Agreed! But here's a conspiracy theory....

What if the raw image is airbrushed before conversion?? After all, these images are hauled through photo imaging labs and scrutinized with a tooth comb before release. Would we expect NASA/JPL/ESA/DLR etc to release images with 'anomalies' in them?

So it is also possible that some images were airbrushed in a sloppy manner due to time constraints etc, and released. There are a number of anomalous images that were released and yanked off the net after a few days, after they probably discovered that the tampering wasn't good enough!

Just a thought! But do we know what really goes on in those labs?

Don’t believe it? Ok, here’s an image that has been tampered with. Check it out!




Courtesy: xenotechresearch

What the heck’s going on? What does NASA want to hide? Why are they tampering with images?

Cheers!

xenotechresearch.com...





[edit on 4-2-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


Mmmmm.....
Now only who works there could be able to provide an explanation.
Anyway, those are Opportunity shots, made on day (SOL) 168 by the Panoramic camera: frankly i have no idea how may happen that the whole upper part of the rock face is gone, heck!
The whole Panoramic Camera series can be found here:

All i can say, but is NOT an explanation at all, is that the sun was interacting strongly with the shots, because in the Navigation Camera six shots over eight are gone: .
see here.
But as said, this doesn't seem to be a valid explanation. Maybe some employed who had nothing better to do started playing with photoshop ?

reply to post by internos

Well whatever it is, its clearly not a "coverup"... Its WAY too obvious. In the 4 shots that have the whiteout, the height of it is different everytime, let alone considering the right shots showing it all. A photoshop artist trying to cover something up would never make such a stupid mistake, unless NASA hired a 10 year old only experienced with the Nintendo to do it.

Originally posted by merka
reply to post by internos

 

Well whatever it is, its clearly not a "coverup"... Its WAY too obvious. In the 4 shots that have the whiteout, the height of it is different everytime, let alone considering the right shots showing it all. A photoshop artist trying to cover something up would never make such a stupid mistake, unless NASA hired a 10 year old only experienced with the Nintendo to do it.

I agree. It's proven by the fact that there's nothing to hide. And still the sun factor has not been ruled out: i've seen other pics from rovers in which were visible only details below a certaing degree of darkness: pheraps this is the case, but i'm not sure. Anyway, it does not make much sense to delete details from a photo and to leave them clearly visible in the next one

i can't tell you how many times i've come across the colors seemingly being inverted before the image is released.


any thoughts as to why??

from earth orbit





and on mars

nasa actually posted it as "inca city"

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

[edit on 4-2-2008 by sunspot0]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by sunspot0]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by sunspot0]

reply to post by sunspot0


Hi, sunspot0

"Inca City" is the informal name given by Mariner 9 scientists in 1972 to a set of intersecting, rectilinear ridges that are located among the layered materials of the south polar region of Mars. Their origin has never been understood; most investigators thought they might be sand dunes, either modern dunes or, more likely, dunes that were buried, hardened, then exhumed. Others considered them to be dikes formed by injection of molten rock (magma) or soft sediment into subsurface cracks that subsequently hardened and then were exposed at the surface by wind erosion.

More infos (and better pics) here:
www.msss.com...

reply to post by internos


Interesting how some people forget our own sources



INCA CITY STUDY

reply to post by mikesingh


The dark areas look like large lakes or very deep holes.
very interesting.

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by internos


Interesting how some people forget our own sources

INCA CITY STUDY

Ron, that's the shortest source i've found. Come on, i think that we have other issues just NOW.

reply to post by mikesingh


Those are amazing pictures!
I looked at the pictures very carefully and it looks like trees or some kind of vehicles similar to a parking lot on earth.


[edit on 4-2-2008 by MagicaRose]

Originally posted by internos
Ron, that's the shortest source i've found. Come on, i think that we have other issues just NOW.

Yup seems we do...

Not to worry... it will leave me more time to work on the website

A note would have been nice though as to why...

I shall lurk for awhile until I see what's going on

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by internos
Ron, that's the shortest source i've found. Come on, i think that we have other issues just NOW.

Yup seems we do...

Not to worry... it will leave me more time to work on the website

A note would have been nice though as to why...

I shall lurk for awhile until I see what's going on

Ron, a note why? Inca city is old news, ya know it better than me. 1972, ? I really didn't know that there was an ongoing so-detailed-article about it on Pegasus, pheraps i've seen it thousand times but still i don't remember it. Let's concentrate on our issues.
Anyway

reply to post by zorgon


That is not source is not really a source, it's just "bottled" information.

It is organised, but it should be updated with the most recent images from that area.

Here you have 12 (at the moment) images from that are, taken between 28 January 2007 and 3 July 2007.

If you use the IAS Viewer or download the JP2 files (you need a program capable of reading JPEG2000 files, like Photoshop) you can see them with the maximum resolution of 25 or 50 cm per pixel, depending on the image.

As an example, this is 50 cm per pixel image at 1.6%


And this is the same image at 100%


They also have some false colour images.

Originally posted by internos
Ron, a note why?

Sorry you misunderstood.... the 'note' was in regards to the 'other' issues you mentioned I thought we were on the same page... I will answer ofline

To ArMaP

Yup your right just 'bottled info' Obviously serves no purpose... just like the info collected and 'bottled up' in libraries... But those are called books... few remember what those are

Now the BIG question is why Inca city does NASA know something about Ancient Astronauts they are not sharing?