Believe It Or Not! Analogous Structure On The Moon And Mars!!

i hate to be a spoil sport, but there is no way nasa or the nsa are going to release a photo that they didn't correctly "smudge"....this isn't "make sure you block the guys face in the pic so he doesn't sue us" importance...if they are trying hide alien activity on the moon or mars, i'm fairly certain they aren't just going to give it to joe bologna the smudge guy and then arbitrarily release the photos without them being scrutinized....

reply to post by mikesingh


Ah yes, anomalous moon building syndrome. Very contagious, especially with those who have been stricken with UFO disease. Have they come up with a similar rorschach test for this yet? Interesting.

Originally posted by bigwhiffa
There is no way nasa or the nsa are going to release a photo that they didn't correctly "smudge"....this isn't "make sure you block the guys face in the pic so he doesn't sue us" importance...if they are trying hide alien activity on the moon or mars, i'm fairly certain they aren't just going to give it to joe bologna the smudge guy and then arbitrarily release the photos without them being scrutinized....

Images which are of pre 1970 vintage are the best for finding artifacts that NASA doesn't want us to see. It's around the late 70s that NASA got to airbrushing their photos in right earnest.

Today, all photos are digitally 'cleansed' of any and all offending material by super sophisticated computer programs which automatically eliminate offending objects and artifacts and replace them with more suitable and approved images.
John Lear

So that in a nut shell is what the heck's going in NASA's imaging lab. The second image of the 'anomaly' on Mars was taken by Viking in the mid 70s when not much attention was paid to image tampering and airbrushing as we didn't know much about anomalies then.

But with the advent of the Internet and the huge number of images that needed to be put out in the web having anomalous content, NASA had to get pro-active to smother any signs pointing to an extraterrestrial origin in the Solar system!

Cheers!



[edit on 30-12-2007 by mikesingh]

Close up showing actual area with no anomaly:



Close up showing image joins and the outline of the anomaly:



It is more than likely tape.

This being the case there is no point in comparing it with anything else. Let alone a pixelated crater.

I admire your passion mikesingh and have no doubt you will make a discovery sooner or later.

Thank you for you contribution to date

All images taken from the Clementine Lunar Map

[edit on 30/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by skibtz
I admire your passion mikesingh and have no doubt you will make a discovery sooner or later.

Thank you for you contribution to date

Thanks skibtz! Not me alone, but all of us! Discoveries are waiting to happen. A matter of time probably?

Once more I will point that the Clementine image browser works more or less like Google Earth, getting the images from the database and using them to create an image for the area we asked for.

That versions of the browser did not worked as it should when there was an image missing, so it used the black rectangle of the missing image and tried to mix it with the rest of the photos. I think that what we see here is something like that but with a different error (that area is not missing from the original data).

The real Clementine photos are available online or with NASA's WorldWind.

As for the "disappearing site", that is what happens when you use old informations. According to the Internet Archive's last copy of that site, it was replaced back in November 2002 with a new one.

Now, with a little more time than before, I can be more specific about those things.

First, the "missing images" can be seen at the address used now by the Map-a-planet Explorer: www.mapaplanet.org

The image supposedly analogous to the Clementine browser possible flaw is visible here.

Bellow you can see what that crater looks like using THEMIS data on WorldWind.


If the argument that the old photos are the good ones because NASA started to airbrush their photos after their first missions is true then we can stop looking, right? What is the use of looking at "airbrushed" photos?

Originally posted by lunarSightings
It's hard to believe that the Navy spent all that money to take digital photos resulting in less quality than off-the-shelf digital imaging chips readily available in the 90's...

I once heard a great anecdote about NASA where if even the cold-war era clocks on the walls aren't broke, they aren't going to replace them. Supposedly it's a top-down policy.

Originally posted by ArMaP
If the argument that the old photos are the good ones because NASA started to airbrush their photos after their first missions is true then we can stop looking, right? What is the use of looking at "airbrushed" photos?

Spot on ArMaP!! How the Dickens will we really get to know this? But the general consensus is as exactly what you mentioned, that NASA is probably airbrushing their pics after the initial missions as brought out by John!

And he has inside information?? Am I right, John?

Cheers!

[edit on 30-12-2007 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


My problem with that theory is that I find it very unlikely that an organisation like NASA would have first let some of those things slip (remember that, for example, the "face" on Mars and the rolling rock on the Moon were discovered and presented by NASA) and after that that they weren't capable of changing and control the changes made to the photos, and because of that we can see some of the things that we aren't supposed to see.

Retouching a black and white photo of an unknown scene in large format like those NASA images were it's a simple task for anyone with some practice at a photo lab, so I consider that excuse that the photos were retouched just because they don't show what some people want to see a weak excuse.

But this is just my opinion and I may be wrong.

Originally posted by neuralfraud
It's the tape used to hold together the hundreds of smaller photos that make up the whole panorama. On occasion we catch a glimpse of scotch tape peeking out.

I can understand scotch tape on moon panorama images dating back to the 1960-1970s but at least later Mars images are digitally mastered, if its not older images from the Mariner 9 launched in 1971 or Viking Orbiters 1975/1976, hmm.

Later Mars missions
Mars Observer - 1992
Mars Global Surveyor - 1996
Mars Odyssey - 2001
Mars Express (ESA/NASA) - 2005
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - 2005

Picture 1 ) Glitch with camera?
Picture 2) Well thats just a crater.

Sorry just dont buy into this! The first picture is interesting but im sure that its just a glitch in the taking of the picture. I very much doubt its anything too suspect. Its possible that NASA has blurred out the image, but even if this was the case it doesnt mean they blurred out anything special.

reply to post by mikesingh


Hi,

sounds like a conspiracy. indeed, it could be, if you like to watch this:

www.nuoviso.de...

best regards
Tom

reply to post by mikesingh

zgtiger-zgtiger.blogspot.com...

Check this out

Wow you see the same structure in an old moon photo you say its a rock. Your shown the same photo in a Iraq, Iran, or China satellite photo you call it a nuke plant. Go figure.