Unexplained Mysteries On The Moon And Mars! An Alien Connection?

reply to post by jkrog08


I'm sorry, I thought that the high resolution of the crater made it quite obvious what the "dome" actually is, sand dunes. I'll admit that I've found the "golf ball" intriguing until ArMap showed us that image.

I have not seen any images from Mars that I think are anything other than the result of natural processes (except, of course, for things like wheel tracks and heat shields). Mars is a strange place with an environment very different from that of Earth. That environment is capable of producing things very unlike anything on Earth (i.e. the CO2 geysers in the south polar regions). I'm sure we're going to find even stranger things going on.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage




I understand about the Mars environment being different than ours. But some of the images, especially the "Moon Towers" are much harder to explain, I agree though a lot of the evidence is natural anomalies, but some of it is very interesting. Also (as I have not been keeping up to date with this rapidly growing thread) what were you talking about on the heat shield?

Tell me, what is your take on the face in Cydonia.


[edit on 5/8/2009 by jkrog08]

WOW...I am sorry I have to say this, I might get flamed or whatever but I really don't care.

Again we have (albeit more 'gentled down') believer/skeptic sides here and even though there is some good research being done to debunk or prove certain things in Mikes post, I still see a lot of "teaming up". I am seeing members get stars for some straight bs...lol, I am sorry but (not mentioning names due to respect for all members)makes one, one line post telling me to look at page four of this thread an gets like 2 stars! I am not saying this out of ego or anything, I just am pointing out this situation. It is not only skeptics but believers, there are obvious situations where this is being treated like a 'game' with 'points' (ie;stars)........This is not a game, at least for me, I understand the ever growing divide among members and the innate human urge to bump anything or anyone that believes the same as them. But this is getting kinda' ridiculous IMO, people saying " you can't convince the members who gave 100 stars and flags to meaningless pictures"........guess what though, at least Mike, at the very least, is eliminating these from possibilities so we (well true members who really want the truth and are not on ATS "just to chat") can move on to analyzing other things. So does Mike deserve all the stars and flags? Yes, IMO he is adding to the growing list of analyzed evidence, not to mention the great things he does on Pegasus Research. Do some of the skeptics posts deserve stars, absolutely, but I think we often forget that the star system was made to judge the quality of information in a post/thread, not who or what side said something. No one claimed these were real pictures of alien evidence, it was ONLY SUGGESTED, and like we as members should, we have gone over the majority of evidence and reached multiple conclusions.


I just don't see why we all can't unite in an organized way and research and respond to research in a organized, more neutral way. Why does everything have to become a war or battle?!

Those are just my thoughts however, and I am just one member.~Justin

PS: Sorry for any grammatical errors, but this is more of a pure emotion post.

EDITED for anonymity.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by jkrog08]

This thread has not eliminated any of the pictures Mike has posted as anomalies.
When someone offers an alternative theory as to what something is, there is nothing that says one must run with that possibility amongst many others as a fact. But you see, I have to weigh these explanations with photos of the crowned face, and trees on mars, and far too many numerous pictures, and weight each possibility into the already existing puzzle. The skeptics pieces don't fit into the bigger puzzle the many anomaly pieces fit into. Their puzzles make certain pictorial information already released non-existent. But it exists. Therefore the picture their puzzle paints that display the logical conclusions of their possibilities are erroneous.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by mystiq]

reply to post by mystiq



I am not sure I understand what you are saying Mystic.

reply to post by mystiq



I am not sure I understand what you are saying Mystic.

If you follow the conclusion of their opinions on what pictures mean, the pieces fall into a puzzle that paints an entirely different picture of the planetary body, than the puzzle the anomalous pieces fit into. But their puzzle has to annex out pictures that cannot be explained away, and no explanation given is anything other than BUNK. The crowned face and the numerous pictures of forests cannot be ignored. And nothing ever given as an explanation is satisfactory even as a 1/1 000 000 possiblity.

Edit to add: if you can think of 3 possibilites that have a similar feel, then you could sort the possibilities and paint 3 different pictures of the body in question at the end. But, logic determines that you must address the many pictures out there, and in the end, theres only one that makes sense of them all. And the skeptics aren't on that trail!

[edit on 8-5-2009 by mystiq]

reply to post by mystiq



Agreed, but what I am wanting to happen is skeptics and believers alike to become unified and stop being on sides. I will say however, some of their debunks appear solid.

Now, some of the photos I have not comented yet.

First, the "Equally Spaced Objects".

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/8ae914af33e6b521.gif[/atsimg]

I am still looking for more information about this photo, to see if what Jim Scott said on this post is really the best explanation (it looks like it, but the distance looks too big for the tire tracks to look like that)




The three objects at "exactly 800 feet apart" are not exactly 800 feet apart, but I think it would be more correct to remove the "exactly", because there is a distance of 795 feet between the one in the left and the one in the middle and 772 feet between the one in the middle and the one on the right, as you can see on the following images.






There is not much that can be said about the "Anomaly 502", it could be fake, it could be a real photo from Mars, so, without any real confirmation of where was this photo taken I have to ignore it for now.

(It looks fake and the supposed location (near 86.8°S, 341.3°W) is too far south to look like that, the photo posted by Skallagrimsson is not that much to the South and it looks like a polar region, while the "Anomaly 502" image looks nothing like a polar region)


I think that the "Hale Crater city" is just the result of using an image with too few shades of grey as the "paint" over the 3D model. The stretching of the image just made it more visible.

This time I found more images of the same area, with higher resolutions, but I guess some people will think that the images were altered to hide the "city"...

At 5.09 metres per pixel, too big to post.


At 2.91 metres per pixel.


And here you can see a 25.8 cm per pixel image, but you need a program to see the JPEG2000 files, like IASViewer, available on that site.

In this post I tried to show what I think happened with the original image used to create the 3D version.



More images tomorrow.

[edit on 9/5/2009 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP


Now see this is what I am talking about!

Armap, you are a wonderful contribution to this site and all other "skeptics" and "believers" should learn from you. You know I am a pretty strong believer, but I am logical. Great work!

So what would you guess the first images are, if you had to.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by jkrog08
So again I ask you or Armap to provide a better explanation, other than enhanced color photographs and comparisons with small holes on Mars, as obviously this was not small.

Well, I do not have any explanation that I think is better than a crater with some sand dunes inside, common on that area.

The colour photo was not enhanced (it was even reduced to 25%), but there is also a greyscale version, if you want it.



Does it still looks like a dome to you? Try rotate the image, I always do that when dealing with images that have a 3D look to avoid illusions.

To explain it better, I think that not only the sand dunes make a larger dune (although not high enough to consider it a dome), one side of that larger dune is made with darker material (maybe a difference in density makes it more or less affected by the winds, I think more affected), and that darker area makes us interpret it as a shadow, when it's just a difference in colour, that is why the colour image is important in this case (I usually prefer the greyscale images).

I don't understand why you talk about "small hole on Mars", I did not saw any reference to that, did I missed it?

reply to post by mikesingh


WOW, that mirrored, rotating image of the face looks really interesting, was there any enhancements to it, I also forgot what region that is in, I know thats not the Cydonia face is it?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
While I'm here, please enjoy this Martian rectilinear feature:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/929bc321e92a.gif[/atsimg]

Compared to Terrestrial ruins:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4aeaf1127bff.jpg[/atsimg]

If you liked that area I think you should see more of it, the whole crater is very interesting, as you can see here.

For a full size () image you can click here, it's a JPEG2000 image.

PS: IrfanView is able to read and save JPEG2000 images, if you install the full plug-in pack.

reply to post by Phage




I strongly disagree with you on the fact that the "shuttle on Mars" image is a "gas plume". It looks nothing like a gas plume and you know it, you are reaching there Phage. The object obviously shows mechanical,linear design and is non congruent with mechanics of gas jets. Your postulate is ambiguous at best on that particular image.






[edit on 5/8/2009 by jkrog08]

Reply to Armap:

You can find the post about the small holes right here, posted by Exuberant 1.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Phage


Also, after further viewing of the images I must continue to refute the tracks. I am not in any way saying you are wrong, but I feel it s a little premature to call a definite decision. I am busy on other things right now, but will present a more valid argument tomorrow.

reply to post by ArMaP




WOW, that link was amazing, what do you think about that region? I have saved it and will research it further later.

reply to post by ArMaP


Those are the methane gas plumes or also known as ice geysers they were all over the news. Nasa is trying to figure out if there geological or are they biologically created could be proof of microbial life on mars. However keep in mind mars is a completely different environment so trying to compare mars anomalies to terrestrial ones wont work they have completely different processes at work.

Heres a great picture where they were caught in the act.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/318ecbfe8540.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Skallagrimsson

 

Here's a high resolution image of the "base".
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/c1f726622793641a.jpg[/atsimg]


It looks to be an example of ice fracturing, similar to this. There's a lot of it in the area.
www.corienbakermans.org...


[edit on 5/8/2009 by Phage]

Thanks Phage It looked very artificial in the low-rez google used....

Better to stay with the HiRise and Orbiter pictures. Google even has the cheese thing when you zoom in too much on the moon

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Skallagrimsson

 

It makes sense to build a dome in a crater.

The odds of a crater being impacted again are statistically lower than for the surrounding area - as is evidenced by the majority of craters.

Here is a good 3D rendering of the geodesic dome in a crater on Mars:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/657ebbf699c0.jpg[/atsimg]

This is a good example of the dome. The resolution (of the image that ArMaP posted earlier of the 'golf ball' and Phage's reference to it), just sucks! However, the one ArMaP showed as seen through the IAS viewer was far far better and can be compared to this 3D rendering.

Here's the 'golf ball' as seen through the IAS Viewer:



Hundreds of thousand of years of exposure could have covered it up in Moon dust. Dig a few meters and Eureka! You may find something in there!

Cheers!


[edit on 9-5-2009 by mikesingh]