Strange Structure with Pillars, porthole and dome on the top In Hellas Basin.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

but NONE of the Russian missions to Mars do? All 18 of them?

Incorrect.
The Soviet Union had several successful Mars missions. They got an early start but had a hard time getting it right.
But there's no doubt the US was better at it and was for quite a while. Probably because the Soviets tended to go for a "quick and dirty" approach (not to mention the almost total collapse of their space program due to the failure of the N1 program and the breakup of the Union) but the US was more methodical.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


And i bet we already have a manned deep space program (no sarcasm).

Its all propaganda, NASA, ESA, the Russians, no one will tell the truth...

Image analysis says no, I'm afraid.

Clearer.


The actual terrain edging.


The bank of the terrain itself.

reply to post by Havick007


phew interesting image the "starfighter" reminds me of the vipers that they had in battle star galactica ,and I also see what looks like a couple of flights of stairs leading down they are just under and parallel to the long red line that you drew and below them and slightly to the right looks like two broken down terrace walls I really hope that they are it would be nice to finally find some concrete evidence out there literally and figuratively as it were.I would also like to see more discussions on ATS that don't degenerate into character assasinations as I see it happening more and more ,I am relatively new to ATS so I don't really know who's who in the zoo but I would like to see the bad eggs and debunkers sidelined and muzzled so we can get down to some serious researching and debate ,I think if like minded individuals band together on here and ignore the yapping it will eventually go away...Nice post

Originally posted by ellieN

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Klassified

 

I'm thinking 100-150 years minimum. I'm also thinking these are the good photos, the quality is just degraded before they're released to the public.

Correct.

Star for you.
All the the images are deliberately degraded, after an heavy scrutiny, before the public release.

edit on 30-5-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)

Years and years ago I ordered an image of Tycho crater ..It was really good..and the picture was sharp. Some years later I ordered the same photograph, same size and an 11 x 14 too... the quality was poor and the images much blurrier. Very disappointing.

TYCHO Crater on the Moon is the worst NIGHTMARE for NASA.....

Totaly unrelated.......apart from your comments earlier.

Zorgon has been banned?? Boooooooooooooooooo!!!!!! Shame ATS. Shame.

Keep up the good work mate.

Originally posted by circuitsports
When I was at the NTS range in Nevada they told me in the 50's they developed cameras that could shoot at 1 billion frames per second and would never even think about telling Hollywood about them - that's just a stupid little thing IMO and it was considered a state secret - any and all images publicly available of mars or anywhere else using government technology of any kind have been wiped of anything incriminating. With the only exceptions probably being on purpose to confuse.

A giant dome on mars are you kidding me that is so far from believable its not even funny - if there was one there is no reason for you to know about it means Photoshop means it never happened.

I wish all of this brain drain was put into something here on earth we could actually solve, not cover story rumor mongering about giant domes on Mars.

Cameras like the one you mention are not like a NORMAL camera thats were you guys jump to the wrong conclusions! You see the headline but dont look into it!

Anyway a billion fps how about a trillion fps

web.media.mit.edu...

You wont be making a hollywood blockbuster with that will you!

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Arken

 

You know what seems absolutely ridiculous? The fact that we have consumer grade camera's in space that can see people on the ground. We have military grade, that can read headlines on newspapers. We've had the hi-res equipment since 1986, since one of my contracts that year was to put together a 10kx10k optical array for a satellite.

So, this being the case, why do we have these really cheezy images from the moon? Especially when the technology to perform proper 1foot or less resolution was available 20 years ago. I would love to see moon imagery that was high res, even 3D, the tech is available for that as well and I am quite sure everyone else here would like to see that also. It's a shame that so much is being diverted towards death and control, rather than exploration and knowledge.

Cheers - Dave

Again we have another person jumping to conclusions resolution seems to stump you guys all the time here is a link scroll down on that link and it shows examples of resolution required!
Not guesses from conspiracy sites

makalu57.com...

From the site above

This is 10cm resolution



This is 0.1cm resolution or 1mm resolution

Are you guy's buying into the "grass is always greener on the other side theory"??

Just because it's shiny and newer doesn't mean your being sold a load of crap does it?
Just take a look at cars from China?? lol.

How the hell do you know that what your seeing isn't all smoke and mirrors from Hi Res sites?

Personally, I don't believe anything on the net anymore?
Jee, even if going on to government sites you a sold a bag of lemons these days. lies and propaganda etc.

Why waste your breath flogging a dead horse guys? How do you know with definitive proof these "newer" images you are seeing are true images? They are so "clear" that they look manipulated anyway?

I'm not seeing anything unusual here, it looks like the angle and the rock or crater I couldn't say well from the blurry picture, just like on the Moon make it look like a pillar when it is a crater under angle, at least I see nothing non-natural there.

Originally posted by Arken
I must be sincere, I feel a bit frightened, because I imagine the hysteric reactions of some members when I will show in a next thread what I have found right in this area of the Hellas Basin. Unimaginable....

Can't wait hi-res this time I hope and not the usual google Mars blur!

reply to post by cookiemonster32


Yes!! Thankyou that's exactly what comes to mind when I saw that object!!

I was thinking the one Fighter that Skywalker flies in but this is much more like the ones in Galactica!



It was that object that first stood out when I was scouting the area for the OP's object, then I noticed the straight road or path like lines and the objects sitting next to the small path/road. Like little dome houses..

The main one is more interesting in that it looks so smoothed out but has rocky type overpasses as you move along the road.. as per the lines I drew.

Also - at the very far tip of the "fighter" looking object there is a strange black line, it is either a shadow of something long and thin like an antenna or something else.. i'm not sure.

On the first post with the raw and edited image have a look at the raw one with no "paint" additions, at the very tip you can see the odd black line extending from the object.




Thanks for the input

reply to post by wmd_2008


It was Hi Res - the best available anyways.

The blur was the zoom level, the detail lacked but you could still see what the OP was pointing out!


I donwloaded the JP2 file for that image - 260Mb. Not the largest or best quality compared to other area's on Mars but it was almost the same as the Google overlay. In the IAS viewer when I got to 100/200x zoom, there wasn't much difference at all.

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

It was Hi Res - the best available anyways.

The blur was the zoom level, the detail lacked but you could still see what the OP was pointing out!


I donwloaded the JP2 file for that image - 260Mb. Not the largest or best quality compared to other area's on Mars but it was almost the same as the Google overlay. In the IAS viewer when I got to 100/200x zoom, there wasn't much difference at all.

Still waiting for a SORRY for accusing me of fabrication did you find it on Google Mars

No it was NOT high res

Arkens



Mine


Obviously YOU should look up what hi res means HIGH RESOLUTION ie you can see DETAIL

As anyone can see above similar size in both picture's mines shows rocks terrain shadow detail etc and what he claims were pillars.

Your post shows YOU are as delduded as the OP.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I find your image verrr-y interesting...more so than the Ops! I have saved the photo to look at a bit closer....Thanks...

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Arken

 

You know what seems absolutely ridiculous? The fact that we have consumer grade camera's in space that can see people on the ground. We have military grade, that can read headlines on newspapers. We've had the hi-res equipment since 1986, since one of my contracts that year was to put together a 10kx10k optical array for a satellite.

So, this being the case, why do we have these really cheezy images from the moon? Especially when the technology to perform proper 1foot or less resolution was available 20 years ago. I would love to see moon imagery that was high res, even 3D, the tech is available for that as well and I am quite sure everyone else here would like to see that also. It's a shame that so much is being diverted towards death and control, rather than exploration and knowledge.

Cheers - Dave

Again we have another person jumping to conclusions resolution seems to stump you guys all the time here is a link scroll down on that link and it shows examples of resolution required!
Not guesses from conspiracy sites

makalu57.com...

From the site above

This is 10cm resolution



This is 0.1cm resolution or 1mm resolution

That's all well and good and it was a good reference article, but that isn't the point. If we have low "flying" orbitors around the earth that can provide excellent resolution imagines, why don't we have them circling the moon? The cost of putting an orbitor around the moon is not really that much more than putting one around the earth. The only real cost difference is the fuel to get there, and a bit of electronics.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

If we have low "flying" orbitors around the earth that can provide excellent resolution imagine, why don't we have them circling the moon?

We do.
LROC provides higher resolution images than any satellite images of Earth which are available to the public. LROC provides higher resolution images than GeoEye. LROC can provide images at a resolution of 25cm. GeoEye can do 41cm but is prevented by the DoD from releasing anything better than 50cm.
www.geoeye.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

If we have low "flying" orbitors around the earth that can provide excellent resolution imagine, why don't we have them circling the moon?

We do.
LROC provides higher resolution images than any satellite images of Earth which are available to the public. LROC provides higher resolution images than GeoEye. LROC can provide images at a resolution of 25cm. GeoEye can do 41cm but is prevented by the DoD from releasing anything better than 50cm.
www.geoeye.com...

edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

It appears the GeoEye IKONOS satellite is talking pictures of the moon from Earth orbit, I am not terribly interested in Earth satellite photo's. I was talking about a specific moon orbitor and the availability of high resolution images of a 25cm or maybe as high as 5cm quality. You have to admit the moon imagery from the US is pretty cheezy, especially when the military/NASA have the capacity to produce images of excellent resolution and quality. My point is simply, why are they not allowed into the public domain when they could be, so we can all examine them? National security is not a viable reason, it's a dodge or an excuse.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

If we have low "flying" orbitors around the earth that can provide excellent resolution imagine, why don't we have them circling the moon?

We do.
LROC provides higher resolution images than any satellite images of Earth which are available to the public. LROC provides higher resolution images than GeoEye. LROC can provide images at a resolution of 25cm. GeoEye can do 41cm but is prevented by the DoD from releasing anything better than 50cm.
www.geoeye.com...

edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

It appears the GeoEye IKONOS satellite is talking pictures of the moon from Earth orbit, I am not terribly interested in Earth satellite photo's. I was talking about a specific moon orbitor and the availability of high resolution images of a 25cm or maybe as high as 5cm quality. You have to admit the moon imagery from the US is pretty cheezy, especially when the military/NASA have the capacity to produce images of excellent resolution and quality. My point is simply, why are they not allowed into the public domain when they could be, so we can all examine them? National security is not a viable reason, it's a dodge or an excuse.

Cheers - Dave

bob the LRO has taken pics at 25cm per pixel



Google earth 50cm per pixel No one has 5cm per pixel.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

You have to admit the moon imagery from the US is pretty cheezy, especially when the military/NASA have the capacity to produce images of excellent resolution and quality.

25cm resolution is not "cheezy", that's the best LROC provides. 50cm is not "cheezy" either. This is an image from GeoEye at 50cm. Not really that "cheezy".


What is it you want or expect to see? Rocks the size of a hand? That's what you'll get with 5cm. What's the point?

In any case, all of the LROC images are available for our examination.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...