Mars Weird Anomalies!

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Well, you got my attention. Some of those images I have never seen.
I suppose a manned mission to mars is needed with many 3rd party people along to report what they see,
because I don't trust our government to tell us any truth at all.

Originally posted by conorkerr
Has no-one noticed this? Maybe it's just me but it looks like a woman is sitting down with her back to the camera and a wall behind her that stops half-way up her back.

Maybe another "statue" or a hole. It's hard to understand what is that.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


This sure is fascinating.

reply to post by theitalian


I see a woman wearing a race car seatbelt and sucking on the end of a hyooge Martian palm tree leaf!

OK, what do I win?

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by MorganAlice
That statue on Mars looks like a mermaid to me. My eyes probably just depict it that way.
I'm not sure if someone already mentioned this, but NASA's rover Curiosity is set to land on Mars August 6th. Let's wait and see what it finds.

You're not alone. A lot of people see a mermaid too. In fact, I started a thread on just that. To me they look like inverted twins....separated at birth!

The middle picture you have enhanced of the "statue" looks like an actual person holding something in its right hand, eerily you can almost make out 2 eyes as well

Originally posted by KatTeats

I see a woman wearing a race car seatbelt and sucking on the end of a hyooge Martian palm tree leaf!

It's a banana leaf.

Originally posted by KatTeats OK, what do I win?

Nothing, KatTeats, you're wrong.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Has anyone been able to confirm the legitimacy of these photos yet?
-J

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Can you care to explain what made them do this?

Can you provide more context regarding this photograph? Mostly I only find it on conspiracy sites. It gets shown a lot but that's about it. If it was a 'cover up' why are they displaying it at a conference? It makes no sense.

I know from sources that the Mars sky can have shades of blue around the sun and at certain times of day. This shot could also have been presented for all kinds of purposes. I don't understand what is sinister about it or why it would need slow disclosure?

Whatever happened to those lengthy explanations on filters used on the CCDs on the PanCam in that link you provided?

I don't understand the question.

The facts I appear to have are:

- NASA aren't quite sure exactly what color Mar's sky is, and it may be a little less red than we imagined but still a bit pinkish/redish
- There are photos owned by NASA that include some blue skies they have shown publically ... which doesn't back up the conspiracy theory
- Richard Hoagland endorses these conspiracy theories but I wouldn't trust this man processing a family snap shot nevermind looking at photos of Mars. I believe firmly believe Hoagland lies 100%.
- Astrophotography often involves combining different plates/filters ... I've done some myself, and this seems to be in line with my previous experiences ... Colours are not always accurate in space photography and often need correcting.

I suppose what I would like to see from the 'Mars is blue and NASA are lying persons' is a bit more than just a few questions that require a lot of time answering. I want to see indepth what the problem is rather than just being shown a photo and some vague opinionated commentary. IE ...

- Mathematical evidence or demonstration that NASA could be lying about this ... not 'surely they should have' or 'I would have' ... actual mathematical evidence on the same level the skeptics are providing
- Referenced imagery ... If I'm seeing a photo of a conference or the planet surface, I'd like to see some commentary on it demonstrating knowledge of where it's from, how it was processed, and WHY it's suspiscious ...

The problem I have with the theory is ... if NASA are lying, the photos would all look the way they do. If NASA aren't lying, the photos would all look the way they do. Also, if NASA are lying, they frequently release imagery of martian archeology and blue skies by accident?

Help me understand this. I honestly just don't get it! Other than it being a Hoagland theory which instantly makes me approach it skeptically.

Edit:

On a side note I think Keith Laney is slightly more trustworthy than Richard Hoagland. Keith and Richard fell out years ago but I think he is a wishful thinker and a keen hobbyist when it comes to Mars imagery.

reply to post by Pinke


Disinformation and chaos. It's part of the plan - just like "UFO's"...

Originally posted by unb3k44n7
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

Has anyone been able to confirm the legitimacy of these photos yet?
-J

What do you consider legitimate? Filtered? Yes/no. Original images? Yes/no. Only images? Yes/no.

Originally posted by CiAlice

Originally posted by unb3k44n7
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

Has anyone been able to confirm the legitimacy of these photos yet?
-J

What do you consider legitimate? Filtered? Yes/no. Original images? Yes/no. Only images? Yes/no.

Legitimate = photos that have not been tampered with, edited, or otherwise manipulated in any way to or add in show features that do not really exist.
Filtered: No
Why filter in the first place besides in attempts to sharpen key point in an image for better view. If there is a photo that shows legit anomalies that really exist on Mars it should speak for itself and should not need a filter? Yeah?

Original: Preferably yes. Or if someone has copies of the original that's legitimate too as long as they are not tampered with in Photoshop or other editing software.

And only images: We'll we are talking about photos of anomalies on Mars not really videos... Although videos can obviously be legitimate as well if they are not manipulated......

Original pictures from Mars that are actual pictures of Mars alleged anomalies that have not been edited and or produced or otherwise manipulated in any way. I don't think images from "someone who was once a popular member on ATS" makes these photos legitimate by any means. Just saying.

Maybe if there was some background info on the person who has these photos and how he/she obtained them, and from who? What camera was used to shoot these? Who shot them and when? Was it someone from NASA who originally took these photos for example? That could show or prove legitimacy.

The fact that nobody (including myself) has seen these images circulating through the internet also makes them suspicious. They just showed up out of thin air. This person as far as I'm concerned maybe just edited them to make them look like this. Or straight out made them in an image manipulation program from scratch at their home computer ........? You know?


Until then, these photos, however intriguing and "interesting looking" they might be, do not really mean anything.

Originally posted by davethebear
Mmmmmmmmm...................I know that people's eyes see what they want to see, but the photo of the dome and the long wall that leads to the object that looks similar to a skull is very interesting.........would be great to get a much closer and sharper image to see what it really is.............but interesting....cheers

I agree that is the only picture that does not look natural to me, the rest could have been formed naturally in my opinion.

Originally posted by unb3k44n7
Legitimate = photos that have not been tampered with, edited, or otherwise manipulated in any way to or add in show features that do not really exist.

As far as I know, these photos were not edited.

Filtered: No

The original photos are taken with filters, then the images from those filters were joined to make colour images (obviously, only in the cases of colour images). Images from HiRISE may be made with infrared, red and green+blue (what they call IRB images) or made with red, green+blue and a "synthetic blue" (the ones presented as RGB).
THEMIS images use one or more of the 9 infrared filters.
The other, non-identified images look to be from Mars Express, and in that case they are also made from several filters, but in this case from red, green and blue filters, if my memory serves ne well.

Original: Preferably yes. Or if someone has copies of the original that's legitimate too as long as they are not tampered with in Photoshop or other editing software.

The ones I know do not show visible signs of editing, but that means nothing, as any good editing will be unnoticeable.

I don't think images from "someone who was once a popular member on ATS" makes these photos legitimate by any means. Just saying.

The images I know from those posted on the opening post are official photos, the "once popular member on ATS" just found the "anomalies" or found the images with the "anomalies" already pointed out.

Meh. I believe mars did once have life.

reply to post by ArMaP


reply to post by ArMaP

The original photos are taken with filters, then the images from those filters were joined to make colour images (obviously, only in the cases of colour images). Images from HiRISE may be made with infrared, red and green+blue (what they call IRB images) or made with red, green+blue and a "synthetic blue" (the ones presented as RGB).
THEMIS images use one or more of the 9 infrared filters.
The other, non-identified images look to be from Mars Express, and in that case they are also made from several filters, but in this case from red, green and blue filters, if my memory serves ne well.

What is the consequence of this filtering? It appears not only to "falsely" color the image but drastically, in some, alter the clarity, impression, depth and several other key features. I don't doubt this made sense to the photographic examiners at NASA but does it have any value, other than a negative, disrupting one, for the amateur analyzer such as those in this thread?

Originally posted by RenalFailure
What is the consequence of this filtering?

Nothing special, as that filtering is applied when taking the photos, so we get a photo that shows how things look as if seen through a red (for example) filter. Different filters show things in different ways, so its easier to distinguish different types of rocks when using different filters. Infrared and ultraviolet are also used.

It appears not only to "falsely" color the image but drastically, in some, alter the clarity, impression, depth and several other key features.

It does not "falsefy" the colour, as colour images are just a side effect of using red, green and blue filters. As for clarity, greyscale images are clearer than colour images, as our vision reacts to colour in a way that makes us see colours that are not there. For example, if we have green area next to a grey area, we will see that grey area as pink, as our vision tries to compensate for the presence of a one colour block next to a neutral colour. This method is used in JPEG compression to use less colours and achieve higher compression ratios.
I don't understand what you mean by "impression", but depth is not affected by using different filters.

I don't doubt this made sense to the photographic examiners at NASA but does it have any value, other than a negative, disrupting one, for the amateur analyzer such as those in this thread?

What doesn't make sense is to have colour photos when looking for something that doesn't have colour as it's most important attribute. In what way is a colour photo more important than having red, green and blue versions?

For those of the 'natural anomalies' mindset, I'd be great full if someone posted satellite views of Earth showing known natural features that look man made. At least we'd know how often these things can happen

reply to post by theitalian


these pictures of Mars surface are surely fascinating, I find the "woman" sat with her back to the camera qutie amusing, we see what we want to see. As humans we are trained to identify objects with what we expect through experiance and biology.

I can remember when the face of mars was first broadcast, it was uncanny, but then when hi-tech cameras years later photographed the same area, the story was much different!!

We will see a face on the surface of mars, bin laden in a piece of toast, david beckhams hair in a sand dune! As babies the first thing we see is our mothers face or the face of a person at least, we are hardwired to see these things in objects and other things, its how humans subcouncisiouly recognise people and relatives etc etc etc

Originally posted by JamesRiches
Meh. I believe mars did once have life.

Whe?
Who?
What were they?
When did thye leave or die?
Inquiring minds...

reply to post by boiledeggs


Hi Boiledeggs,

For me the jury is still out on anomalies on Mars, though as of yet I haven't seen anything that couldn't be explained in lots of different ways, and the ones that are most intriguing often seem to have dubious validity in terms of their source or the digital enhancing processes.

However, on reading your question, a couple of natural Earth anomalies instantly jumped to mind, and I thought I would share them. Chances are many ATS members have seen these, and there are others, but these were two off the top of my head.

Alberta Indian iPod

img source: Peoples Geography
The site this is from also has a nice article about it, and the co-ordinates on Google Earth, so you can find it yourself. Interestingly, the "iPod" is a man made road and an oil well.

Giants Causeway


img sources: great-britain.co.uk
This formation of basalt columns was due to a volcanic eruption approximately 60 million years ago, (according to this source and others I have read in the past). It has quite a varied history and folklore associated with it, as can be read on the source site.

Hope you enjoy!
Cheers