It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Proof: Station on MARS
page: 26share:
You must laugh at the people that want proof !!!! If some one started a thread saying :The sun is there now and I can prove it. you would probably say
thats obvious.
But did you know that there is no tec on earth that can prove the sun is there now or now, you can only prove it was there 8mins ago.
But did you know that there is no tec on earth that can prove the sun is there now or now, you can only prove it was there 8mins ago.
Originally posted by DragonFire1024
Originally posted by 001ggg100
reply to post by blupblup
Thats because most people are to lazy to read the entire thread and/or to entrenched in their own beliefs that faced with any semblence of hard facts, they refuse to accept they may be misinformed....
Misinformation = Telling people its "pixels", when regardless of what these "debunkers" say, don't line up...at all. The pixels above are blocks. Clear as day. Whereas the original photo is not. The pixels are a block line. The original photo contains more than one set of 'blocks' or whatever you want to call them. They are two totally different things. Anyone who doesn't see that, and is willing to accept that they are pixels, isn't contributing anything but misinformation. Funny how these so called pixels show up just in that area. Did this happen anywhere else? Show some more photos of these pixels elsewhere. That's what is called "hard facts." So far there have been no "hard facts" presented in this thread.edit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: typoedit on 7-6-2011 by DragonFire1024 because: typo
Okay. You want to see another image with similar missing pixels on Google Earth? I can do that.
I remember reading the post asking for evidence of other such image flaws, and had to dig to find your post again once I stumbled upon one of many such pixelated images on Google Earth last night. Zoom to about 6000 feet. It even has "Shadows" on both sides:
Earth (southwest Lincoln County, Nevada, USA-- I was looking for a source for lava flows): 36 51'24.86"N 115 44'32.35"W
In fact, there is a large thread on Google Earth containing known imaging artifacts called Data Problems Compendium.
Concerning the missing pixels not lining up with the Google Earth image-- they do. The process of digitally bending a flat image onto a spherical presentation with variations in elevation is called orthorectification.
When digitally blending images (also called "stitching") some software averages colors using an algorithm which takes color samples from nearby pixels to lessen stark pixel variations so the image appears consistent at common viewing resolutions. You zoom in more that that, and you start to see raw data out of context. In this case, the software attempted to do that with too wide a variation in color because of the stark white representation of the missing pixels and leaves us with a vague and whitish "structure."
Using an earlier post in which I demonstrated that we can distinguish a rectangle of pixels which had been altered, it seems reasonable to assume that someone, aware of the missing data, applied such a software color-averaging filter to the pixels within that rectangle-- seen in the image shared in that post as having a different resolution than the surrounding image.
For those new to the discussion, the ANSWER to this apparent mystery may be found here.
It is disingenuous (and ironic) to re-label information presented, which is contrary to what one wishes to be presented, as "mis-information." There are some really smart people with much world experience and that ought not be met with implicit accusations that such persons have nefarious intent. The intent of smart persons and stupid persons, as with the intent of powerful persons and weak persons, is a matter of character. That seems to be a truth missed by many on this site.
Does anyone else thing it is hilarious and ridiculous that several mainstream media sites have actually run this story!? I am absolutely flabbergasted
that even the MSM could be so stupid.
reply to post by Frira
The 'Data Problems Compendium' you linked includes a sensible noting of the obfuscation techniques employed by Google Earth (or more likely by the data providers, or under instruction from intelligence agencies).
Your argument is therefore undermined by your reference material.
You cannot claim that the anomalies in the images pointed out by the OP are explicable as data errors, if you are 'proving' it with a link where deliberate obfuscation is noted, bemoaned, and pointed out as widespread/ varied in technical specification.
By circumnavigating the logical consequences, we can say that there is a good chance that the 'secret base' on Mars does exist, and that if anything is suspect about the image itself, it is because of obfuscatory tactics.
The reviewers in the data compendium make no bones that obfuscation is widely seen in the Google applications, as seen in others like Microsoft's Virtual Earth (is that what it's called? I use MAC and avoid Windows stuff like the plague.) The same reviewers blame it on intelligence operatives within or affecting the source agencies who collect and collate various bits of data (for security filtering) before it goes to Google. The writers of the compendium say that's no excuse, and that Google have a responsibility to provide clean data at 'commercially available' resolution.
What is Google's stance on the matter? Has anyone tried to find out whether the US Government (or others) has/ have made a clear statement about such things?
The 'Data Problems Compendium' you linked includes a sensible noting of the obfuscation techniques employed by Google Earth (or more likely by the data providers, or under instruction from intelligence agencies).
Your argument is therefore undermined by your reference material.
You cannot claim that the anomalies in the images pointed out by the OP are explicable as data errors, if you are 'proving' it with a link where deliberate obfuscation is noted, bemoaned, and pointed out as widespread/ varied in technical specification.
By circumnavigating the logical consequences, we can say that there is a good chance that the 'secret base' on Mars does exist, and that if anything is suspect about the image itself, it is because of obfuscatory tactics.
The reviewers in the data compendium make no bones that obfuscation is widely seen in the Google applications, as seen in others like Microsoft's Virtual Earth (is that what it's called? I use MAC and avoid Windows stuff like the plague.) The same reviewers blame it on intelligence operatives within or affecting the source agencies who collect and collate various bits of data (for security filtering) before it goes to Google. The writers of the compendium say that's no excuse, and that Google have a responsibility to provide clean data at 'commercially available' resolution.
What is Google's stance on the matter? Has anyone tried to find out whether the US Government (or others) has/ have made a clear statement about such things?
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Frira
The 'Data Problems Compendium' you linked includes a sensible noting of the obfuscation techniques employed by Google Earth (or more likely by the data providers, or under instruction from intelligence agencies).
Really? That is what you see when you read that page and its links? You see a page of "obfuscation techniques" at that link?
I don't know how to discuss a page of text when the other person in the discussion sees words, context and content not on the page.
I wonder what you think I just typed. Can you see the picture of the little green man in the X I type below?
Keep looking, you will see it if you look hard enough...
Keep looking...
Keep looking...
reply to post by Frira
Are you pretending to be dim, or is it coming naturally?
OBFUSCATION IS NOTED BY THE COMPENDIUM AUTHOR
Which is a page of notes and data on OBFUSCATION, as I said. Why did you call me out as though I felt the entire site was referring to obfuscation? Are you trying to sour people's understanding of my comments by misrepresenting them? I made mention of a note made by the compendium authors, and you over-generalised and suggested that I was referring to the whole site. I wasn't, and you know it. My point is valid, as you seem to be entirely discounting the possibility of deliberate obfuscation, when it is as clear as day that such obfuscation does take place.
And yes, I still find it unusual that you will claim data errors as the 'be all, end all' of this matter, when the reference material you linked makes a clear issue of the obfuscatory tactics employed by the various source agencies providing the images.
SOURCE
Here's a few direct examples from the same page, for those who don't like clicking on links:
[FITO - my emphasis]
Are you pretending to be dim, or is it coming naturally?
OBFUSCATION IS NOTED BY THE COMPENDIUM AUTHOR
Which is a page of notes and data on OBFUSCATION, as I said. Why did you call me out as though I felt the entire site was referring to obfuscation? Are you trying to sour people's understanding of my comments by misrepresenting them? I made mention of a note made by the compendium authors, and you over-generalised and suggested that I was referring to the whole site. I wasn't, and you know it. My point is valid, as you seem to be entirely discounting the possibility of deliberate obfuscation, when it is as clear as day that such obfuscation does take place.
And yes, I still find it unusual that you will claim data errors as the 'be all, end all' of this matter, when the reference material you linked makes a clear issue of the obfuscatory tactics employed by the various source agencies providing the images.
A recurring theme of BBS discussion is possible censorship by Google. It has been suggested that this is not Google's responsibility, because the data is provided by other sources, and that users should take it up with such sources. We look to Google for the quality of the output, no matter how or where they obtain the data. As noted elsewhere, one does not receive bad food from a restaurant, and then permit the owner to tell you to contact the farmer if you are dissatisfied.
This is a conservative listing, because censorship can be a serious assertion. The censorship must be clear and obvious when compared with adjacent imagery. Generally, they are in three categories: blurring, pixelization, and "whiteout."
SOURCE
Here's a few direct examples from the same page, for those who don't like clicking on links:
Russia:
---- Chukotskiy censored by blurring, noted 23 July 2005 and 18 February 2006. Instead of blurring, Microsoft's Virtual Earth copied a nearby image and placed it on the area, which we show. [color:"red"]Reasons unknown
Slovakia: Some military airports
Spain: Several mainland coastal radar sites
USA:
---- Washington, DC: The Naval Observatory and the US Vice President's house are uncensored since the January 2009 Inauguration. Microsoft's Virtual Earth has also removed their censorship from this location. However, Microsoft still blurs the 'Bird's eye" views of the Capitol buildings, the White House, and the Naval Observatory.
---- New York GIS censorship: Most of the high resolution imagery is supplied by the NY State GIS agency. The censorship appears to be selected by the counties, because they vary greatly in criteria. Westchester County continues to be the most highly censored, followed closely by Long Island. We have significantly expanded our analysis upstate and in Long Island after the September 2006 image upgrades. Many blurred Hudson Valley locations were noted 5 May 2006. Note the 7-by-7 mile size of the West Point Academy forest blurring in Orange County. Orange and Suffolk County have not blurred some locations - they simply "paint" them in white.
[FITO - my emphasis]
edit on 14-6-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by amcdermott20
Does anyone else thing it is hilarious and ridiculous that several mainstream media sites have actually run this story!? I am absolutely flabbergasted that even the MSM could be so stupid.
Tause you are starting from the wrong viewpoint. If you expect the MSM to always be this stupid you will have far less surprises.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Frira
Are you pretending to be dim, or is it coming naturally?
Nope. You pushed too hard, and didn't like me pushing back. Of course you didn't. Welcome to to the real world-- or, at least, welcome to mine.
Quoting the post from which you then backed off by trying to misrepresent my interpretation of what you wrote is this statement:
You cannot claim that the anomalies in the images pointed out by the OP are explicable as data errors, if you are 'proving' it with a link where deliberate obfuscation is noted, bemoaned, and pointed out as widespread/ varied in technical specification.
I didn't claim it is proof, you put words in my mouth to set up a straw man to push over. Shoot, try pushing a real man over-- you'll find it much more difficult.
Now you say you really didn't mean to characterize the link as being all about intentional censorship-- but it was what you meant until I called you on it, and you were happy to leave that false impression hanging there-- until I called you on it. Of course you didn't like it, but take your lumps; you threw the first punch.
What you could have written was something like, "Hey, a good source of information on images, data flaws, some technical details, how Google gets images, and such-- but the last category is about censorship, and that is a big issue among many."
But that is not how you presented your point of view in the first post, is it?
I can guess why, can you?
New Second Mars Base Anomaly Discovered
Second mars structure on google mars at 62 52'34.85"N 0 19'19.29"E
Very interesting. I wonder if Nasa or the Satellite imaging group will make any announcement regarding this?
reply to post by smartbuddy
Hmm, I joined up here finally (after about a year lurking) to suggest people take a long hard look at a certain HiRise picture taken in 2007. Please forgive me for intruding on this thread. I am posting this message to advise you to take a step back and 'Look' at a HiRISE image.
It can be found at NASA.
It can be found at NASA.
It can be found here.
And via here.
Note that the HiRISE website is giving problems when trying to load the page.
(1) Near the bottom right, to see the first thing: Numbers written into the Martian soil. Magnify the image and focus on the light-ish terrain near the bottom right of the image. You will see what appears to be written 23-18 or 23-98
(2) Look nearby, slightly to the right and slightly above. Now do you see what the message says? "LOOK". Rotate the image and return to where that "LOOK" was written. Now what can you read? After gazing at it for a while (knowing there was something there) it came to me: "NASA LOOK".
Now this may be my active imagination. As a practice I routinely discard pixelated parts of the images as computer generated crap. This crap tends to be horizontal and vertical in nature and can be spotted easily. The crap is generated when magnifying an image, or when the image is processed in someway by a computer to derive the original form (such as the ESA Hale Crater images).
In addition images are often brought collated from a collection of images and this process leaves tell-tale seams and image artifacts. they can be spotted when you know what to look for. Pictures from the Mars rovers are famous for this method of photo construction.
Shadows and terrain can play a huge part in misleading the image viewer. Try to account for terrain and sun angles. Most of the time you will be unsure as to what exactly you are looking at.
The image I have pointed your attention to contains most of these problems. Apart from certain rumours about transparent structures, electro-magnetic fields and industrial facilities on the surface of Mars (most of which cannot be adequately proven) there are some that hold up under close examination - or at-least do not get suitably explained away by TPTB.
Take a 'LOOK' and see what you see. It may just blow your mind.
Blister
Hmm, I joined up here finally (after about a year lurking) to suggest people take a long hard look at a certain HiRise picture taken in 2007. Please forgive me for intruding on this thread. I am posting this message to advise you to take a step back and 'Look' at a HiRISE image.
It can be found at NASA.
It can be found at NASA.
It can be found here.
And via here.
Note that the HiRISE website is giving problems when trying to load the page.
(1) Near the bottom right, to see the first thing: Numbers written into the Martian soil. Magnify the image and focus on the light-ish terrain near the bottom right of the image. You will see what appears to be written 23-18 or 23-98
(2) Look nearby, slightly to the right and slightly above. Now do you see what the message says? "LOOK". Rotate the image and return to where that "LOOK" was written. Now what can you read? After gazing at it for a while (knowing there was something there) it came to me: "NASA LOOK".
Now this may be my active imagination. As a practice I routinely discard pixelated parts of the images as computer generated crap. This crap tends to be horizontal and vertical in nature and can be spotted easily. The crap is generated when magnifying an image, or when the image is processed in someway by a computer to derive the original form (such as the ESA Hale Crater images).
In addition images are often brought collated from a collection of images and this process leaves tell-tale seams and image artifacts. they can be spotted when you know what to look for. Pictures from the Mars rovers are famous for this method of photo construction.
Shadows and terrain can play a huge part in misleading the image viewer. Try to account for terrain and sun angles. Most of the time you will be unsure as to what exactly you are looking at.
The image I have pointed your attention to contains most of these problems. Apart from certain rumours about transparent structures, electro-magnetic fields and industrial facilities on the surface of Mars (most of which cannot be adequately proven) there are some that hold up under close examination - or at-least do not get suitably explained away by TPTB.
Take a 'LOOK' and see what you see. It may just blow your mind.
Blister
edit on 15-6-2011 by Blister because: Deleted instruction to "rotate image".
edit on 15-6-2011 by Blister because: (no
reason given)
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Pixel distortion maybe? I guess it COULD be a base, but I kind of doubt it with the fuzzy resolution.
Great video though.
Originally posted by HarveyRabbit
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Pixel distortion maybe? I guess it COULD be a base, but I kind of doubt it with the fuzzy resolution.
Great video though.
The issue, I have difficulty with and find extremely insulting. is why does NASA and our government treat us like we are hopeless embeciles. We are suppose to be the most intelligent and up to date nation in the world, Nasa could resolve the entire issue by dropping all government funding and going straight private funding. They would not have their mouthes taped shut and hands tied by our government. They could share all of their experiences with you and me. Its my tax money they are using' I have a right to know the facts.
reply to post by HarveyRabbit
The problem with that Harvey is that NASA would either (a) cease to exist very quickly as private enterprise ain't gonna pay for such a bloated organization, or (b) would be unable to carry-out much pure research - instead it would be forced to do (mostly) what makes money.
Plus private entities will be even more secret than govt. ones. Do you really want to pay to see the images? Would you trust private enterprise to be more honest than NASA?
I'm not sure that I would in this field.
Blister
The problem with that Harvey is that NASA would either (a) cease to exist very quickly as private enterprise ain't gonna pay for such a bloated organization, or (b) would be unable to carry-out much pure research - instead it would be forced to do (mostly) what makes money.
Plus private entities will be even more secret than govt. ones. Do you really want to pay to see the images? Would you trust private enterprise to be more honest than NASA?
I'm not sure that I would in this field.
Blister
I thought that i would give you a sample of the image I refer to an my earlier post:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/657665aad00a.jpg[/atsimg]
Can you see the numbers and the letters? Yep, they are there. Also take note of the many strange shapes (characters?) scrawled about the place. Interesting among them is an odd message that reads "You R us" or "You R oos". I am not sure.
Anyways, the little image I have provided is a mere sample of the goodies contained in the full image. Everything from Camo' hangers (with twindling force fields - one especially badly), structures, pipes, trenches, gantries (transparent), and large quantities of mostly illegible/strange writing.
Enjoy. Remember. 2012 anyone? Look at the full pic - you may understand.
Blister.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/657665aad00a.jpg[/atsimg]
Can you see the numbers and the letters? Yep, they are there. Also take note of the many strange shapes (characters?) scrawled about the place. Interesting among them is an odd message that reads "You R us" or "You R oos". I am not sure.
Anyways, the little image I have provided is a mere sample of the goodies contained in the full image. Everything from Camo' hangers (with twindling force fields - one especially badly), structures, pipes, trenches, gantries (transparent), and large quantities of mostly illegible/strange writing.
Enjoy. Remember. 2012 anyone? Look at the full pic - you may understand.
Blister.
reply to post by Blister
i can clearly see the "2" or "S" image right in the middle and the number "3" that' makes them " 23" but the "you r us/ you r oos" is a bit too much, i just can't find it. it could be really there so can you please be more explicit? kind of highlight it for us? before it gets down to "toys r us?
just kidding mate. i really do want to see it...
i can clearly see the "2" or "S" image right in the middle and the number "3" that' makes them " 23" but the "you r us/ you r oos" is a bit too much, i just can't find it. it could be really there so can you please be more explicit? kind of highlight it for us? before it gets down to "toys r us?
just kidding mate. i really do want to see it...
edit on 16-6-2011 by alphaMegas because: typo
edit on 16-6-2011 by alphaMegas because: add info
Hi, yeah sure...just to help you focus here is an annotated version of the sample image:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3df4c71f2f1.jpg[/atsimg]
Lots more in the original image. Note: only the text in question (23-18 and You R Us) have been shown. Heaps more to think about just in this small sample.
Blister
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3df4c71f2f1.jpg[/atsimg]
Lots more in the original image. Note: only the text in question (23-18 and You R Us) have been shown. Heaps more to think about just in this small sample.
Blister
reply to post by Blister
thanks mate. got them letters. now what could be the implications? why have they got the English alphabets with them? and the arabic/roman numerals too? are they "us or or are we "them"?
youtu.be...
thanks mate. got them letters. now what could be the implications? why have they got the English alphabets with them? and the arabic/roman numerals too? are they "us or or are we "them"?
youtu.be...
reply to post by Blister
and here are some more reasons why I got interested in your "numbers" and "letters':
I can only surmise that this is a very pretty picture if not the prettiest of them all:
but there is that enigmatic number "3" and he or she is definitely not alone...there is more of them in this particular area aside from the one i encircled...
and all of these in...Mars...
i wonder what the pixels,blotchers , imagery artifacts , cosmic ray proponentsand other heavies will heap to explain/obliterate this "anomaly"....
and very interested in their technical inputs...
and here are some more reasons why I got interested in your "numbers" and "letters':
I can only surmise that this is a very pretty picture if not the prettiest of them all:
but there is that enigmatic number "3" and he or she is definitely not alone...there is more of them in this particular area aside from the one i encircled...
and all of these in...Mars...
i wonder what the pixels,blotchers , imagery artifacts , cosmic ray proponentsand other heavies will heap to explain/obliterate this "anomaly"....
and very interested in their technical inputs...
edit on 16-6-2011 by alphaMegas because: add info
As for what the messages mean or the motivation/s of those that put them there - assuming that there is no alternative reason for them being there -
is anyone's question. Perhaps a rogue worker at the complex decided to send us a message and one night scrawled a message in the dirt just like a
human may do on a beach. Or maybe it is part of a deliberate and organized attempt to communicate with the people of Earth. It is interesting that
NASA and the HiRISE team have not brought the matter to the public's attention.
Taking this latter point further, NASA has obviously published the material, so they cannot be claimed to be covering it up. Either they are incompetent at looking at the images or they do not publicly admit to the messages. If we assume that NASA are not a bunch of blind idiots and have seen the messages (and other items in the images) then we are left with trying to understand the alternative: that NASA have a policy NOT to disclose message content.
Taking this conclusion further, we may begin to reason why. I put it to you that NASA is waiting for overwhelming public acceptance of the fact that sentient Martian life does exist (far, far advanced than ours). When humans know this and have figured it out pretty much without doubt, then NASA and the various authorities who have direct experience with the messages will come clean and tell us about Martian lifeforms.
Until then, we have to look and see for ourselves. That is the only way to progress from the shock of the "greatest discovery" of the modern age to full acceptance of the fact. Looking and believing your own eyes is the first step to comprehending.
Maybe that is what is going on.
Blister
Taking this latter point further, NASA has obviously published the material, so they cannot be claimed to be covering it up. Either they are incompetent at looking at the images or they do not publicly admit to the messages. If we assume that NASA are not a bunch of blind idiots and have seen the messages (and other items in the images) then we are left with trying to understand the alternative: that NASA have a policy NOT to disclose message content.
Taking this conclusion further, we may begin to reason why. I put it to you that NASA is waiting for overwhelming public acceptance of the fact that sentient Martian life does exist (far, far advanced than ours). When humans know this and have figured it out pretty much without doubt, then NASA and the various authorities who have direct experience with the messages will come clean and tell us about Martian lifeforms.
Until then, we have to look and see for ourselves. That is the only way to progress from the shock of the "greatest discovery" of the modern age to full acceptance of the fact. Looking and believing your own eyes is the first step to comprehending.
Maybe that is what is going on.
Blister
reply to post by Blister
Makes sense to me.
Cause it kind of boggle me up why those people are so "speculative" when it comes to Mars.
They havent come out clear cut if there are "Martians", and yet they havent come out also saying clearly , no there arent any...
but definitely continuing to release tantalizing bits and pieces...
Taking this conclusion further, we may begin to reason why. I put it to you that NASA is waiting for overwhelming public acceptance of the fact that sentient Martian life does exist (far, far advanced than ours). When humans know this and have figured it out pretty much without doubt, then NASA and the various authorities who have direct experience with the messages will come clean and tell us about Martian lifeforms.
Makes sense to me.
Cause it kind of boggle me up why those people are so "speculative" when it comes to Mars.
They havent come out clear cut if there are "Martians", and yet they havent come out also saying clearly , no there arent any...
but definitely continuing to release tantalizing bits and pieces...
new topics
-
DOJ Special Counsel Robert HUR Says JOE BIDEN Can Be ARRESTED After Jan 20th 2025.
Above Politics: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
More Proof of Lawfare
US Political Madness: 17 hours ago, 20 flags -
DOJ Special Counsel Robert HUR Says JOE BIDEN Can Be ARRESTED After Jan 20th 2025.
Above Politics: 11 hours ago, 9 flags
active topics
-
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology • 78 • : CarlLaFong -
DOJ Special Counsel Robert HUR Says JOE BIDEN Can Be ARRESTED After Jan 20th 2025.
Above Politics • 12 • : network dude -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 231 • : andy06shake -
Ok this is some BS now WTH
Rant • 23 • : doctordark -
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three • 55 • : andy06shake -
Anyone like the Scorpions?
Music • 16 • : andy06shake -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 368 • : andy06shake -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 987 • : JJproductions -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues • 89 • : angelchemuel -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3379 • : brewtiger123