Ancient Ruins Found on Mars!

This is interesting. Wonder if it could be a fake. [Excuse my skepticism, but somebody's gotta do it. ]

Just going to throw this out there, but I read somewhere that these so called 'greys' we keep hearing about, had what was the term? Stations on Mars and the moon and many other planets. If this is real... then that kinda of gives more proof pointing to that possibility. And if this is real then why isn't it full blast over the news? This would be BIG NEWS. Something that everyone would hear about. A formation of rocks on mars, or a plant? They've been saying for years how great it would be to even find bacteria! AN ACTUAL PLANT? Oh dear God, what would the Neanderthals think?

Originally posted by Just-Think
reply to post by thrashee

 

Well thats why I asked if its just me imagening things but I still think its hard to believe that this is shaped naturally..

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Just-Think]

are you serious?

that looks like an artifact?

it is a perfect, hand crafted statue of a boulder blown from either a volcano or meteor impact.

a stunning work indeed, obviously a product of an enlightened and advanced culture...

I think it is the top of an ancient Chia Pet- Chia head. The main part is still buried in the sands. Actually though when I first saw it, it brought to mind the burial cairnes of some of the past civilizations. Just a thought.

reply to post by dodgygeeza


LOL
Looks like the old Vista Cruiser!
I wasn't expecting that, I am still laughing!

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
starred and flagged...I think this is the jackpot... I don't know what else people need to beleive that there are ancient ruins are mars... besides actually going there and seeing for yourself this is as good as it gets.

oh brother, all it takes is a few odd looking rocks and the true-believers are wetting themselves...

no swaying them with the facts, when their minds are already made up, eh?

i wonder why serious science doesn't share this sort of enthusiasm over these obvious chunks of rock? (them's aliens!)

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Here are some pics that are from the same site that look more interesting than the one at the start of this post.
You can see the full page here: www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

the op image is interesting. it's shaped generally, like a long tent with a bumpy surface. notice the far left end that's mostly in shadow, is roughly triangular. i used a photographic clarifier on it and the object is actually a greenish color with a layer of martian soil clinging to the top of it. perhaps it's a chunk of some metal that is green or turns green in the presence of ...water? doesn't seem to be any water in the area so prolly not.

reply to feydrautha

oh brother, all it takes is a few odd looking rocks and the true-believers are wetting themselves...

no swaying them with the facts, when their minds are already made up, eh?

i wonder why serious science doesn't share this sort of enthusiasm over these obvious chunks of rock? (them's aliens!)

So, certain that these are just average ordinary rocks, are you?

I admit that some people tend to engage in hyperbole, but it doesn't negate the fact that this object does not reflect the average look of the surrounding rocks. Therefore it appears out of place and attracts our attention. Until a later time when we can re-visit this and other rocks on Mars, we can speculate the possibilities. To engage in this we need a vast array of opinions. Yours is just as valuable as the next persons in this process. Don't be so quick to dismiss something that you may not have noticed right away. Or so quick to say “thems ain’t nothing but danged ole rocks”.


[edit on 8/27/2008 by eaganthorn]

I'm not going to say either way, whether I believe it's a porous rock, or some sort of stacked formation. To me, it could very well be either.

But, if it is a porous rock, it's amazing the size difference of the "pores" on these rocks. The anomaly in question seems to be at least 50 yards behind another rock that everyone keeps pointing out and saying, "look at all the similar porous rocks around it that he cropped out".

When placed side by side, the "pores" appear to be approximately the same size. That's odd, given that the anomaly is roughly 50 yards further away. The "pores" on the anomaly should be quite a bit smaller, if even viewable, at that distance. Odd that the two rock could weather so differently, given they're in the same region as one another.

reply to post by eaganthorn


A good point that applies to both sides: on the flip side, don't be so quick to look at these and insist that no one can now doubt life on Mars.

The only healthy stance any of us can really take is to perhaps acknowledge that these photos are of interest, and it's an unknown. Of course where we'll differ is what we each consider is the probability of it being x, y, or z.

reply to post by immortal pagan


those are well known jpeg artifacts in the texture map of a 3d terrain model...

you must be kidding.

reply to post by thrashee


Very good, I agree that all we can really do is to say that these things are of interest as we do not have any control over what is to be photographed. And whether someone wishes to zealous on either side of a debate, there must still be respect.
And for that I owe Feyd an apology for being less than respectful. Sorry.

Originally posted by immortal pagan
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

 

Here are some pics that are from the same site that look more interesting than the one at the start of this post.
You can see the full page here: www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Thanks for that. From memory aren't these objects in the Hale crater? I got quite excited about these photographs when they were first released until someone, I forget who, provided evidence that they were the result of image processing etc. Are the Hale structures now back on the table as evidence of past llife on Mars?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


As far as I know, they're not back on the table.

These were originally proved to be .jpg compression artifacts. But, these look a little different from the ones I've chimed in about on numerous threads. It appears as though someone has used a 3D program to add depth to the .jpg compression, making the artifacts look as if they're more realistic.

Still just .jpg compression in my opinion. Until someone provides another picture, other than this original .jpg, that can be examined to get a similar result - they'll remain compression artifacts in my mind.

EDIT: To clarify.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by immortal pagan
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

 

Here are some pics that are from the same site that look more interesting than the one at the start of this post.
You can see the full page here: www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

With the risk of sounding arrogant, i'll say it dosn't take a photoshop genius (im far from) to recognise compression artifacts, and that's the first thing that entered my mind.

How can this even look natural or manmade to anyone ? It's compression artifacts of one kind or the other.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


If you click the link to the full page and read the bottom half of said page there are new pics(the last 2), have a read and make your own mind up. the explanations seem very interesting!

im a designer and use photoshop everday..and i thought these were from the image compression..i wasnt impressed at all.....BUT..ive seen the same shapes on 2 images taken from 2 different angles..and the same shapes are in the same location on the ground.....so they cant be...ill try and find the images that im talking about.

ok..ive had a look and the same artifacts are on all the images from the crater..the same patterns..and i assumed this must mean that they are real objects..

but..obviously these images are not REAL photographs..they are landscape models with texture mapping applied...so if the same maps are used on all the models then these artifacts..image compression artifacts on the image maps..would appear on all of them.

im not convined..i dont know how they have now got these more 3d looking images of buildings etc but on the original images the pink and yellow shapes would appear to be caused by image compression..

Originally posted by alienesque
im a designer and use photoshop everday..and i thought these were from the image compression..i wasnt impressed at all.....BUT..ive seen the same shapes on 2 images taken from 2 different angles..and the same shapes are in the same location on the ground.....so they cant be...ill try and find the images that im talking about.

I'm a bit of a technophobe on the sly so I can't get my head around how image compression creates organised linear arrangements like what appear in the Hale crater pictures. One thing I have noticed about the lines etc is that they don't appear to follow the terrain! The landscape rises and falls but the lines stay straight and true. . .

Excellent, now I can add "car" to the list of 'really silly things people see when they look at rocks' list.

Whoever said I must work for NASA.. yea, that's it.. obviously, if I don't see cars and statues and gorillas that apparently eat rocks since there is no other food, I'm a stooge from NASA sent here to mess with your heads.

And then you ironically point to the "face" on Mars as proof as to why I am wrong, and why that is a structure, not a rock. Not a smart move. Here is your "face" on Mars once photographed clearly. Convenient how you only posted old pics:

cr4.globalspec.com...

frankwarner.typepad.com...

Now, does that look like a face any longer? Hmmm.... could it just have been shadows and over-reactive imaginations all along? And yet just like current pictures, people were adamant that that HAD to be a face, no WAY it could be a natural effect. Yet.. ta-dah.. it was nothing. A hill, as many said it was.

So forgive me if I think a porous rock is just that, based on OTHER rocks DIRECTLY NEARBY that have the exact same type of surface, and the likelyhood that it is much more likely to be a simple rock, than a small structure all by its lonesome in the middle of nowhere.

You know what.. they may find structures someday. That would be amazing if they did. But if they did, I think it would be a cluster of structures, you'd realize it was once a populated area. Not statues, homes, and whatever else you are seeing, all by themselves in the middle of a dune. Whatever you saw, you'd KNOW it was something amazing. And you know what? You'd never see it to begin with. NASA isn't this stupid.

You can't have it both ways. NASA is trying to cover up all signs of UFOs.. BUUUTT.. they purposely let photos of amazing things slip through? And the government is also apparently, too stupid to notice.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by fleabit]