Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

reply to post by amfirst


The photos are as real as any digital photo, but the 3D images are not photos, they are 3D renderings of the height data gathered by the stereo cameras aboard Mars Express.

reply to post by zorgon


That was a good post, but I don't see the left image of Koy-Krylgan-kala as a natural feature, it has too much signs of artificiality, much more than any of the photos of Mars or the Moon that I have seen, and when I say photos I mean photos, not exaggerated resizing of the original images by programs that create their own detail where there isn't any.

reply to post by zorgon

Nice. And I spent a good bit of time doing this... comparing and examining knowns . . .

But, the Moon!!
I'm not even looking at it yet... much. It's too easy to prove big disinfo...
No, it's just that it overwhelms me.

There's always this....
Is it Soviet or US?
Many people say it isn't. Either way, it isn't supposed to be there.

Clementine Lunar Data...www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil... 2FLong&sensor=UVVIS&filter=415_nm
Clementine Home:
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

I started another thread, but here's the meat of it.
See the other thread for details..

Originally posted by djerwulfe
There's always this....
Is it Soviet or US?
Many people say it isn't. Either way, it isn't supposed to be there.

That thing does not exist, it exists only on the Clementine Image Browser version 1.5.

That version was made obsolete by the Clementine Lunar Map 2.0 (Beta), and apparently it created those odd looking shapes when it couldn't find an image.

You can see the images (but without the help of a complete clickable map, the maps available show only the area on that CD-ROM volume) here. The image you posted is from volume CL_4013, for which you can see the clickable map here. The images used by the Clementine Browser are the third and fourth of the first row, and as you can see there is nothing like that on the photos.

The Dome

Here's an Image from image strip PSP_008189_2080. Check out the dome I've marked with an arrow which is at the end of a long structure. Also the geometric shapes don't look too natural to me!



Cheers!

Originally posted by ArMaP
and as you can see there is nothing like that on the photos.

Only one problem with that reasoning ArMaP

IF they spotted something in V1.5 that they didn't want you to see and it slipped past them then does it not make sense that they would 'correct' this problem in version 2?

If the whole premise is "NASA is editing images..." then it only follows that if something got by them they would make SURE it wasn't in the next version and then their disinfo dudes could run around and say... "Oh it was a glitch on the first version... we 'corrected' that..."

Of course since NASA had nothing to do with the Clementine ship (they only ran mission control) you would have to question Naval Intelligence... and since Clementine was a "Starwars' project for the Ballistic Missile boys... there is of course NO WAY these guys would hide anything from us...



[edit on 7-7-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by ArMaP
That was a good post, but I don't see the left image of Koy-Krylgan-kala as a natural feature, it has too much signs of artificiality, much more than any of the photos of Mars or the Moon that I have seen, and when I say photos I mean photos, not exaggerated resizing of the original images by programs that create their own detail where there isn't any.

Well there are a few other considerations... Koy-Krylgan-kala is more recent history... the Gobekli Tepe would be better as its older..

The point is if an ancient city is buried we need to be sure we would know what to look for... and 3D imaging and other enhancement tools would help in that search which is probably why they are developing such tools in the first place

And some clues of buried stuff show up better looking at it from a distance. I would show an example on the Mars image from earlier but my server is having issues again so it will have to wait till later

reply to post by mikesingh


Could you please post an image with the location of that area?

HiRISE images are too big to look for features as small (I suppose, by the looks of it) as this, and I like to see the original images before I comment the "processed" images.

Thanks.

reply to post by zorgon


I have said it at least once, those browsers do not show the images as separate files, they create an image by getting the images available for that area, and the problem was with the software, not the images, there was no need of changing the images.

But this is only my opinion as a software developer that was not involved in the making of those image browsers, based on what I know about that type of software and the type of use (through the Internet), I have no real way of knowing how it was really done.

Originally posted by zorgon
The point is if an ancient city is buried we need to be sure we would know what to look for... and 3D imaging and other enhancement tools would help in that search which is probably why they are developing such tools in the first place

I know, but I think "they" are not much interested in image processing when they have ground penetrating radar.

We are the ones who need the image processing techniques, but unfortunately that is a complex area in which I would like to work but, as it is not needed at my work, I have to do it on my free time (that and the image search engine I have been thinking about).

Kudos to Armap for doing all this work, helping us to differentiate the potentially interesting (very little) from the overwhelming heap of Pixellated Blur (TM) pushed by others.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
and as you can see there is nothing like that on the photos.

Only one problem with that reasoning ArMaP

IF they spotted something in V1.5 that they didn't want you to see and it slipped past them then does it not make sense that they would 'correct' this problem in version 2?

If the whole premise is "NASA is editing images..." then it only follows that if something got by them they would make SURE it wasn't in the next version and then their disinfo dudes could run around and say... "Oh it was a glitch on the first version... we 'corrected' that..."

You hit the proverbial nail on the head! This is the exact question I had asked in an earlier thread of mine and ArMaP let that one pass!

I feel that NASA removed those anomalies, like the smudging of those Moon towers image in the later version of the Clementine browser. And that's why you can't see them any more! PERIOD!! QED!!

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Could you please post an image with the location of that area?

Thanks.

Ahhh...Seems you did find that image of the dome intriguing!! Before I tell you the exact location, what do you think of it?

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh
The Dome

Here's an Image from image strip PSP_008189_2080. Check out the dome I've marked with an arrow which is at the end of a long structure. Also the geometric shapes don't look too natural to me!



Cheers!

Great find Mike, this is what I see. The huge dome structure is actually in the shape of a helmet worn by a human like Martonian. The insignia on the left side of helmet dome looking toward the left direction in the photo is an upside down triangle and on the front of the helmet doom is a 5 sided star emblem. The upside down triangle is an opening that I believe can be opened or closed as an entry way or door on the side of the helmet dome. The face of the huge Martonian humanoid structure is part of the building.

I believe this is a landing base as well as housing area for inhabitants and you can clearly see geometric platforms above the helmet doom design. The Martians, I call Martonians are notorious for creating structures that look humanoid with headdresses. Rik Riley


[edit on 8-7-2008 by rikriley]

Originally posted by mikesingh
This is the exact question I had asked in an earlier thread of mine and ArMaP let that one pass!

I remember answering this question before, but apparently it wasn't yours.

Consider the answer delivered, although with a large delay.

Ahhh...Seems you did find that image of the dome intriguing!!

Before I tell you the exact location, what do you think of it?

The only thing I found intriguing was your processing.

As I don't know what "damage" your processing did, I can not make any comment, it would be the same as using a painting as the base of comments about what the painting was representing, your version may be a realist, an expressionist or even a cubist.

And unlike rikriley, I want to know the size of that feature before calling it "huge".

reply to post by ArMaP


I read your response to this. So you believe it IS a software problem? I don't want to spread crappy info. But yes, as has been pointed out, sounds like a convenient excuse. Software glitch.
But what do you think really, ArMaP?
I may continue to show this image with the Clementine software version discrepancy noted... Maybe not...?

Originally posted by djerwulfe
But what do you think really, ArMaP?

I really think what I said, that is why I said it.

The image sent to our Internet browsers is created at the moment we ask for it because it isn't possible to have all the possible images that people could ask for, for a 100x100 pixels image from which people can choose any 10x10 section would need 8281 images (I have my calculations right), now imagine how many images would be needed for the almost full coverage made by Clementine.

What happens in this type of software is that it gets the coordinates, detail level and the output size of the image and it gets the data from those coordinates at the detail level needed, creating after that the image of the desired size. The problem arises when there is no data available, the software must "make a choice", and apparently the older version made the wrong choice, repeating the pixels until it got another image to get pixels from. That would create a repeating colour along the image, creating those odd shapes. Besides that, the images are available online on the PDS Imaging Node Online Data Volumes - Clementine page.

PS: as I said before, I do not really know how the older Clementine Browser was made, but being a programmer and being very good (if I may say so myself) at finding faults in software I suppose that my explanation is right.

reply to post by ArMaP


Seems like a specific and odd looking glitch to me, but what do I know?
Thank you for the explanation. Sounds sound.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Being a programmer and being very good (if I may say so myself) at finding faults in software I suppose that my explanation is right.

Wow! That's what I call 'blowing one's own trumpet'!! And you seem to be having one as big as the Titanic!

Ok, Ok, just joking! I know you're good!

Now as Ron and I have mentioned, are you absolutely sure that NASA has not erased those anomalies in the later version of the Clementine browser, which is why you can't see them? Are you aware of the proprietary software that NASA uses for 'erasing' these anomalies which has been incorporated with the latest version of the CB? And that's probably been handed over to MSSS and HiRISE too! It sucks!

Cheers!