Mars Anomaly Research

This has to be the best site I have found in a long time

Mars Anomaly Research Home

The reports are extremely detailed and shows interesting pictures, which stimulate the debate surrounding Mars. A very interesting site for ATS members to discuss.

All pictures are officialy from NASA and are sourced back to the orignal page on NASA. The site includes a secton on the moon as well, with some fascinating pictures too.

The pic that caught my attention was the one that looks like a statue of a man sitting,

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

The area up from the statue towards the left looks like that of a male face wearing something like a Mayan headdress complete with the full lips and everything. Just

Ive seen a carving very similar to it before but cant remember where. Tell me if anyone else sees what im talking about. I wish i could attach a photo to show the area im talking about.

i didnt think of it before but i guess i could use imageshack to host an image.
Please forgive the crappy photo editing im not good but heres the basic outline im talking about.

Plant life?




Some of these pictures are well and truly amazing, I never understood why NASA refuse to discuss the idea of potential plant life on Mars

Some of these pictures are well and truly amazing, I never understood why NASA refuse to discuss the idea of potential plant life on Mars

admitting to plant life leads to speculation of animal life. Speculation of animal life leads to biblical questions and or fear as what we do not know we generally fear.

reply to post by minniescar


This is quite interesting, pictures form the South Pole on Mars




Very, very strange

Here is another thread that talks about what people believe to be a forest region on mars by the south pole. ATS

On page 59, a member posted some High Res images to show what that actual area looks like.

I don't like that site.

They avoid returning to the subjects of the photos when some newer data is available, and the case of the "trees" is one good example.

In my opinion, sites like that only make people look in a wrong direction (like the "trees"), and while people are arguing with the sceptics about the veracity of the "trees" they are ignoring other possibilities, and if (or when) those people finally see that they were wrong about the "trees" they will probably forget the case without thinking that although those things are not trees there may be something more to them than just some cracks in the ground.

you hear about the underground bases on mars?

here is another Mars picture website...
mars.galactic.to...

reply to post by Skipper1975


The images on that site are all from Mars Anomaly, so that site is just making a (bad) copy job, copying the images and ignoring the text from the original source.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't like that site.

They avoid returning to the subjects of the photos when some newer data is available, and the case of the "trees" is one good example.

In my opinion, sites like that only make people look in a wrong direction (like the "trees"), and while people are arguing with the sceptics about the veracity of the "trees" they are ignoring other possibilities, and if (or when) those people finally see that they were wrong about the "trees" they will probably forget the case without thinking that although those things are not trees there may be something more to them than just some cracks in the ground.

wouldn't bet on it

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

trees revisited...
and as far as me,it is on topic...



the site is one of the best on the net....Skipper is a legend of a kind

reply to post by darkraver


Yes, but notice how he used what he called "original science data .JPEG browse image" and avoided using the higher quality JPEG2000 image because "they require a large file size special graphics viewer that I doubt many of you will avail yourself of and so we'll stick here with the lesser quality browse images so that most of you who wish to can easily follow behind me."

One of those "special graphics viewer" is available on the same site as the images, we just have to click on two links to have it.

Also, he could have done what I do, I use the JPEG2000 images and grab what I want from them and post them as PNGs.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't like that site.

They avoid returning to the subjects of the photos when some newer data is available, and the case of the "trees" is one good example.

He does come back on the "trees" doesnt he ?

reply to post by jaamaan


See my post just before yours.

Also, they show a great ignorance about digital images, and that is on what their whole work is based.

I'm 3.000 % with ArMaP on this.

MOC narrow-angle image M08-04688

Derived values
Longitude of image center: 284.38°W
Latitude of image center: 82.02°S
Scaled pixel width: 5.50 meters
Scaled image width: 2.83 km
Scaled image height: 20.46 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 227.77°
Local True Solar Time: 1.04 decimal hours
Emission angle: 0.26°
Incidence angle: 79.32°
Phase angle: 79.18°
North azimuth: 248.42°
Sun azimuth: 53.26°
Spacecraft altitude: 370.13 km
Slant distance: 370.13 km



When one shares VISUAL DATA, he should share it AS IS, not "enhanced",
especially if he/she has NO CLUE what a REAL enhancement is, since his
"enhancements" always produce the result to REDUCE the general quality
of the image as well as the result of his manipulations is always
something far from REALITY, everyone with a few basys in
imageering can get what i mean. This is NOT a matter of opinions
because SCIENCE is NOT a matter of opinions, but FACTS.
It's nor a matter of fredoom of speech because while one is free to
express an opinion, NO ONE is free to try to pass wild, personal
untrained opinions as FACTS.
If one wants to make serious research, then he should base it on both
REAL data and REAL knowledge, and nothing of this is being done on
marsanomalyresearchebuthfoundnothingyet.com
I do appreciate Skip's efforts, please don't take me wrong: yes i actually
do, i really think that he has an unique charisma, i would be a liar if
i wouldn't admit it.
But the more one IS interested in reality, the more he/she should keep
away from that website: much better to make your own analysis by
yourself because you have the same chances to get close to the truth
by using random filters with Photoshop.

So, do you want to take a close look at one of those "threes"?
Here are some of them:
Starburst Channels (PSP_003443_0980)
Crop (grayscale, non-map projected)


Starburst Channels (PSP_003443_0980)
RGB color (non-map projected)


Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

Source:
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

Does someone believe that we are actually looking at TREES?

reply to post by internos



so...I'm not quite sure what you are claiming....
that his lo res picture investigation is not worth thinking about?!?

where does that come from?

I totally do not agree...



as far as these trees....
he revisited the problem and found out that these hi res images could have easily been derived through filtering the same images he used....

the question is,do you believe someone on top is hiding sth about Mars or not...


I believe that someone is...


and therefore I find it possible that these hi res images could be filtered that way just for the sake of debunking...

on the other hand,they might not be,but who is to know...

all in all,it isn't right to question all of Skippers work and findings on this sole tree revision problem...

Originally posted by darkraver
reply to post by internos

 

so...I'm not quite sure what you are claiming....
that his lo res picture investigation is not worth thinking about?!?

where does that come from?

Don't put in my mouth words that i've never said please: if you don't get the meaning of a post, then ASK rather than to give to it a meaning at your choice, thank you.

I totally do not agree...

With all the due respect, im not here to convince you of anything

as far as these trees....
he revisited the problem and found out that these hi res images could have easily been derived through filtering the same images he used....

the question is,do you believe someone on top is hiding sth about Mars or not...

I believe that it cannot be ruled out that something is being hidden, but i also believe that those filters can't prove anything worthy to be taken seriously, but of course everyone who wants to believe is free to believe

I believe that someone is...

And i respect this point, because you are clearly saying that you BELIEVE someone is, not that you are PROVING it: there's a huge difference between the two things.

and therefore I find it possible that these hi res images could be filtered that way just for the sake of debunking...

on the other hand,they might not be,but who is to know...

Well, but all that we can do is to guess: of course no one will be able to find it out just manipulating an image decreasing its brightness, increasing its contrats and colorizing it: all the change mate in such a way will unavoiadably bring the result of ALTERING the original image, hence to bring the observer far from the reality: if this way to proceed is being taken seriously, of course is not my fault, i'm just pointing out how pointless is that technique: what would be its technical value, may i ask?

all in all,it isn't right to question all of Skippers work and findings on this sole tree revision problem...

I've already said that i appreciate the efforts that he puts on this stuff and his charisma (his website's contents are continuosly being stolen from many websites, and this has to mean something, after all), but i can't say the same for is technique that as said is pointless: to reduce the quality of an image is equal to distort the truth, is like to report a statement cutting some words, i don't think that way may add anything to an image: it just may subtract something.
Anyway, we have discussed many times stuff coming from that website, and some images were interesting: i remember to have seen a cubic shaped formation that was clearly visible also in the original image, with no need to enhance it If ill find it i will post it here): i wish to him to really spot something of actually out of the ordinary because he would deserve it: but not because the quality of his research: just because he putted many efforts on this stuff, so he would somehow deserve it. Hope to have clarified the point now


[edit on 21/6/2008 by internos]