Pareidolia and imagery anomalies on Mars: Case study#1 Bonestell Crater Part 1

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by Saint Exupery

 

No ridicule - just earnest attempts to answer you questions.

Were I to lighten-up, I'd say you're right: Your favorite looks an awful lot like this

hmmm, sort of

does it go with some kind of MK ultra subliminal message

i want some techie input please...

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by alphaMegas
My picking Bonestell Crater was a random process.

If you picked it, it's hardly a random process.

okey. so it was a "spur of the moment" thing...spontaneous maybe...

what about the images, any take on them?

this is a "case study"
I need all the data inputs, good or bad, bunk or debunked to get to the nearest plausible denomination.

reply to post by alphaMegas


well its been good 4 pages for my "case study part 1" so i guess time to move to "part 2 " which would be "the face on mars-revisited" but before i lid off my part 1 i will be parting off with another set of images from this erstwhile Bonestell crater.

from a viewing distance of 99 meters,this very insignificant black speck of a dot could only be construed by some as "insignificant".
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7bb25830e876.jpg[/atsimg]

this second and 3rd images, from a viewing distance of 5 and 12 meters respectively, though the pixels are already strained, still the head and the face part is discernible.This guy stands 4 meters tall, which i reckon for Martian standards, is the average height.Though some maybe as tall as 10 meters just like the fuzzy lady in my previous images.At least this one he took off his hood.
one thing that's constantly around , is the glowing bluish blob "hangin" around these images.it also featured prominently in my "favorite martian photo" and in fact this bluish thing is my telltale sign that an "anomaly" is next to it.
Well there are anomalies and there are "anomalies". And as i wrote before and i write it again ,there's lots of them about.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a89be332cf1a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1412142efe47.jpg[/atsimg]

part 2: The face on Mars Revisited...

reply to post by alphaMegas


At 30 cm per pixel on the following image, that feature is less than 2 metres wide, so I don't think it's 4 metres tall.



I will try to get an idea of its height by using the length of its shadow, but I do not promise any results.

PS: remember, you can only call something an "anomaly" when you know what's normal.

reply to post by ArMaP


i do have a strange feeling these "anomalies" may soon be the normal thing...

thanks mate...

reply to post by ArMaP


hi armap,
as stated in my previous post, i'm going to shift my case study of Pareidolia and imagery anomalies from bonestell crater now to the "face on mars".
The Face on Mars is i think the most enigmatic face that earth people has seen and that kind of shocked us earthlings to the bones...but it was easily dismissed by NASA as trick of lights and shadows. A typical pareidolia case.. We all first saw it 35 years ago. it looks like this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d14a9484e112.jpg[/atsimg]

and this is how it looks now...as close as it is to the original image.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/90130986c946.jpg[/atsimg]

only difference? false colored...

the '75 image no doubt was the "image" . but is it?

reply to post by alphaMegas


Now, words don't come easy...especially when you're 4 pints up and more to go, right mate
well since a pix paints more than 0,000 Words than we know, i do have some more pix for the membs to really grab on...
enjoy....and talking bout "pareidolia"?
here's more...to it

reply to post by alphaMegas


I am confused....

In the post I am replying to, there is a last picture, in the bottom....with an area circled.

I see nothing other than some blurred pixels.

What is that supposed to be, in your opinion?

reply to post by weedwhacker


it should be the lower shoulder part to the head.
from me, there's more of it comin...

am no anotomist...sorry

I never understood how this


resulted in this

after being processed.

Maybe too much processing to remove all those errors (the back and white dots).

reply to post by ArMaP


it could be on the angle of incidence.

since we dont have have the incidental data such as, where the source of light came from or should be coming from, then those images will be just "images".
it is the typical britty up tight-lipped
www.youtube.com...
now if this wont appease you that much mate, then try this...
just lighting up the mood


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ArMaP


now, back to serious business, am bit curious why your image is sooo bent on the lefty side when the official pix is obviously leaning to the right? which is the real one? i can understand the hazy part, but why so much
effort to undermine or in fact obscure things instead of clearing things up?

reply to post by ArMaP


something is really bugging me bout the heights of these martian gentlemen and ladies too..
terrestially, they are bound to change the standard heights of our basketball ball courts here on earth.but who's to say ? they might have evolved in such way that any organsim would, reach for the sun?

reply to post by alphaMegas


and a view of the face from the north side:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/496ffcda5bc4.jpg[/atsimg]

from the south:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2ddd9983c6a.jpg[/atsimg]

from the west:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a1fb24d5d13.jpg[/atsimg]

from the east:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/808f3b5e1dd5.jpg[/atsimg]

am presenting these 4 views of the face on mars to build up my case that these "mother of pareidolia" is a designed structure by comparing it to 3 enigmatic structures found here on earth.
First is the great pyramid of giza.The pyramids base is actually a natural rock outcrop and the first blocks in forming the pyramid are perfectly hewn unto this outcrop.
Secondly the Sphinx.
The sphinx was sculpted in place from a natural limestone rock in the vicinity of the pyramids, though it could have been sculpted much ahead of the construction of the pyramids.
And thirdly, the Nazca lines...
Now, vectoring these 3 terrestial factors this is what I can say bout the "face" on Mars...

It is a naturally occuring mound. The sharp edges/smooth curves is an indication of a constructed structure.
i already discounted the erosion factor.
The east side shows signs of deterioration which could be an indication of how old this mound is.
and the ones who constructed it is well aware of how it well look from a higher altitude which makes it a kind of a landmark.And they knew that they only have to do a minimal re-structuring..to get the desired effect of a "face".

And landmark just exactly for the area around the face itself...
and i do have some images that seems to indicate or suggests that this mound could also very well be a camouflaged base or center of their activities which cannot be seen from the surface.
too much of a sci-fi??? who knows...but we have to start on something...thats why i posted this thread...

Originally posted by alphaMegas
it could be on the angle of incidence.

It's the same image, only the first one is the "raw" image data, without any processing.

since we dont have have the incidental data such as, where the source of light came from or should be coming from, then those images will be just "images".

All photos have that information. In this case the Sun light is coming from the top left corner, with an angle of 66º counter clockwise from the top of the screen, and the Sun was only 10º above the horizon.

Originally posted by alphaMegas
now, back to serious business, am bit curious why your image is sooo bent on the lefty side when the official pix is obviously leaning to the right? which is the real one?

Both are real, but "my" images was not rotated to show the north at the top of the screen and the aspect ratio is the original 0.997048.

This is a great thread,and its times like these I wish our old friend Mike Singh was here with the ATS community.

My good thoughts are with you Mike,wherever in our blessed universe you may be.
I for one miss your ATS input,but I know you are still with us somwhere.

Originally posted by alphaMegas
now, back to serious business, am bit curious why your image is sooo bent on the lefty side when the official pix is obviously leaning to the right? which is the real one?

Both are real, but "my" images was not rotated to show the north at the top of the screen and the aspect ratio is the original 0.997048.


Yes i saw it and and was expecting you'll come out come out withthose data

reply to post by alphaMegas


As i mentioned in my previous post, I have images of "anomalies" of humanoid figures.in this "orb" or an opening like structure.
If we look at it closely, it seems they are on their way out. I can see at least 3 anomalous figures.
Could be a play on pixels, lights, shadows?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/afe151ef5599.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44cd83c0f6cd.jpg[/atsimg]


these 2 sets of images came from this spot:
Its just about 120 meters from where the transition of the main slope and the ground is on a levelling course.Northeast of the face.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3675ae288096.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by alphaMegas
As i mentioned in my previous post, I have images of "anomalies" of humanoid figures.in this "orb" or an opening like structure.

I think that's a small (10 metres) crater.

If we look at it closely, it seems they are on their way out. I can see at least 3 anomalous figures.
Could be a play on pixels, lights, shadows?

In the original image, that crater (if it's a crater) is only 40 pixels wide, how can you say that those pixels are "anomalous figures"? There's nothing identifiable on that image.

reply to post by ArMaP


I now understand how this:

can turn into this:

I only had to change the light levels, at some point the slightly darker shades are replaced with the same colour as the lighter shades, so that noticeable "step" in the side of the mound disappears and it becomes more like a face.

That's why I like to see the original, unprocessed images, if possible.