Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

reply to post by mikesingh


I think the first pics are probably pixellated artifacts, but without seeing the original - it's hard to say. This pic however is far more interesting IMO. Looks natural - but so incredibly...ermm...wierd.

Jimbo

reply to post by tep200377


Ive never seen a symmetric feature like that in the grand canyon. Nor will any examples of such be likely to show up here. So I go for the options either its not a genuine picture of something on mars, or its an artificial structure.

I don't think that those rectangles are the result of JPEG compression or anything like that, I think that they are the result of mapping a 2D photo over a computer generated 3D model of that area.

Mapping a 2D image over a 3D model creates a new kind of artifact, the stretching of the original image.

Imagining that we have a 3D representation of a tennis court. Mapping a photo taken from the vertical of that court would make a perfect representation of the real court because there isn't any real relief on a tennis court.

But if we had a photo good enough to show the net between the two halves of the court, what would that look like when mapped over its 3D model, with a sharp (probably vertical, but that would vary with the precision of the height measurements) increase in height?

The only visible part of the net, when viewed from the top, would be the top canvas strip, and that would be what the mapping of the image over the 3D model would use, making a vertical wall with the thin canvas strip stretched 2 times (one for each side) over the full height of the net.

What would that thin strip of canvas would look if it originally was only 3 or 4 pixels wide? Those pixels would be repeated (or probably interpolated, if there was any difference in colour between them) until they had the needed size.

That is what I think we are viewing in these photos, and if that is what is really happening, then all of those 3D models with the photos mapped over them will show signs of that stretching of the texture that is mapped over the 3D data, specially in places where there is a sharp difference in colour or in height.

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
Here's some more "alien cities on mars". Notice the same tiling?

Hahahaha!
is this serious?

Originally posted by GrimTroll

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
Here's some more "alien cities on mars". Notice the same tiling?

Hahahaha!
is this serious?

Hey there GT, respectfully, could you elaborate what you meant by your comment?

Mike great pics as always my friend, This is definatly getting under the skin of the powers that be. I have noticed that most of the debunkers on this thread just opened accounts to specifically debunk these pics. Disinfo IMO working hard to make this discussion thread go away. Pixilation, Jpeg artifacts, WTF? I dont prefess to know anything about imaging, but what we see for sure looks like intelligent construction. Why is it so hard for some to believe that intelligent life couldnt exsist anywhere else but earth. Pretty short sited and just doesnt make sense IMO.

Keep it up Mike dont stop and to be honest I have been feeling like we are about to know what the deal is or isnt!!!!


S&F

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think that those rectangles are the result of JPEG compression or anything like that, I think that they are the result of mapping a 2D photo over a computer generated 3D model of that area.

Mapping a 2D image over a 3D model creates a new kind of artifact, the stretching of the original image.

Imagining that we have a 3D representation of a tennis court. Mapping a photo taken from the vertical of that court would make a perfect representation of the real court because there isn't any real relief on a tennis court.

But if we had a photo good enough to show the net between the two halves of the court, what would that look like when mapped over its 3D model, with a sharp (probably vertical, but that would vary with the precision of the height measurements) increase in height?

The only visible part of the net, when viewed from the top, would be the top canvas strip, and that would be what the mapping of the image over the 3D model would use, making a vertical wall with the thin canvas strip stretched 2 times (one for each side) over the full height of the net.

What would that thin strip of canvas would look if it originally was only 3 or 4 pixels wide? Those pixels would be repeated (or probably interpolated, if there was any difference in colour between them) until they had the needed size.

That is what I think we are viewing in these photos, and if that is what is really happening, then all of those 3D models with the photos mapped over them will show signs of that stretching of the texture that is mapped over the 3D data, specially in places where there is a sharp difference in colour or in height.

so perhaps if there is a 2D picture with same anomaly you could discover whether this is indeed the correct explanation or not?

maybe John Lear was saying the truth after all about mars....

[edit on 093030p://am3009 by andre18]

reply to post by geemony


Thanks geemony! I guess we've gotta bash on, regardless! The truth is out there. Let's go get it!!

Cheers!

reply to post by spikedmilk

I know it: this is the result of posting pictures out of contest and with a non-sense caption, as i told yesterday to the poster: that's a close-up of an alleged geyser on mars, but clearly, posting only the close-up alone, deceives the people, as i foresaw yesterday and as it happened today.
Anyway, this is the original contest of that image.



[edit on 9/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by eyewitness86




lol I HATE TO BRAKE IT TO ALL OF YOU is that it could easily be either and maybe both sides of the argument should stfu and concentrate on more important things like watching Tv and drinking beer.

reply to post by internos


YARRR!!! yeah, I wasnt gonna let those pics get tore apart ...again. especiallly when the explanation is sittin right in the previous pages.

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by mikesingh

 

I think the first pics are probably pixellated artifacts, but without seeing the original - it's hard to say...
Jimbo

right, artifacts.

Originally posted by defuntion
Here is a comparison of the "original" photo (from link by internos) to what was posted...

Original (from link by internos- zoomed in close to level of posted version)

posted (appears modified - shadowing added to emulate depth/geometry)

Seems apparent to me (Pixelation - not a city)...

[edit on 8-11-2007 by defuntion]

This post should have ended it. Plain as day, the deliberate and disingenuous manipulation of the source material to create the impression of something that isn't there can be seen.

Folks are always complaining about how "the powers that be" are manipulating the data to hide the truth yet y'all don't seem to care about the obvious doctoring in this case. Why?

reply to post by IAttackPeople


You attack people. The first photo shows the same objects as the second one. The second one only emphasizes them.

Also: Mikesing posted a new set of photos from another place on one of the last two pages. What is your take on these?

reply to post by mikesingh


That image is far more meaningful and interesting. I'd agree it is possible in this case. Not definitive by any stretch but possible. It is probably a natural feature but a construct can not be ruled out. That would be a good feature to watch as the quality of photo's from these missions increase. Unlike the face which has reached the point of silly.

Not being a Learite I actually expect the first proof to be more along the line of a microbe or bacteria or even something akin to a lichen from Mars. I'm all for a Manned Mission and hope they do so before I die. At my age I hope quickly.

When I critique these things it is never directed at the OP unless they are the source. You seem very reasonable and consider what others say. Keep posting

Originally posted by Skyfloating

The first photo shows the same objects as the second one. The second one only emphasizes them.

Ohhhhh no. It doesn't just emphasize. The doctoring gives you a completely different impression than the original. Why do you think they did the doctoring? I'll answer my own question: Because they know the original doesn't show what they want it to show.

Why do you accept this? Anyway...

Look at this portion of a typical satellite image converted into a jpg.



Did the ancient Martians build an ancient city in Norway? No? Looks pretty similar to me. Imagine if I took this image and rendered it in 3d to add a little perspective to the compression blocks and then doctored the results the way Mars Anomaly Research did.

Also: Mikesing posted a new set of photos from another place on one of the last two pages. What is your take on these?

I'm here to discuss the OP "city". I'm not really interested in playing "Mars Anomaly Whack-A-Mole" right now.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by IAttackPeople]

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
I'm not really interested in playing "Mars Anomaly Whack-A-Mole" right now.

"Mars Anomaly Whack-A-Mole"!!!!

ROTFLMAO

Now THAT's funny!

Hoot!

reply to post by IAttackPeople


Im especially interested in those four straight and symmetric lines in the original undoctored photo.

Im also interested in those four straight and symmetric steps in the second photo.

Im not saying this is evidence of anything (except of course an ancient civilization of super-beings who`s home planet was destroyed), just asking questions.

It does look like the Chinese rice fields. I'm definitley interested to find out too if it's just natural reason's or what. Maybe it's a grand canyon type of thing?