Mars Weird Anomalies!

reply to post by OrionHunterX


9, 14 and 15 look like they definately could be something other than normal rock formations... especially no. 14.

I know i'm late to this thread as usual so probably no.14 has been flagged plenty of times!

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Funny how all these pictures dont look as weird if you download them yourself.





Mr singh and his cohorts tend to over process or zoom to much, that area doesn't look strange above.

As for all the Mars face posts, well I remember seeing it on the news when first announced it was taken form a great distance and was low res compared to todays images so it's not what we thought hard cheese

Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by kudegras

 

I have an open mind, but I do believe that Richard Hoagland is a professional fraud.

My main point is this....what do the people who are certain we are facing catastrophe during the upcoming pole shift have to say about complex life evolving on a planet without a protective magnetic field?

That's why some scientists say that if at all there's any life on Mars, it would most certainly be deep underground where there's adequate protection from harmful UV rays and cosmic particles.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


So....None, to be precise about it.

I believe the trouble here is when analysis starts at a flawed premise, or corrupted source materials, it makes any conclusions suspect at best.

And relying on Keith Laney is certainly an example of flawed source material. The rest of it is fascinating though.

reply to post by wmd_2008

While I'm with you mate on most of the stuff that's written about so called anomalies all over the net, with most bordering on crap, I gotta ask you where you got that black/white image from? Mike's color image is from HiRISE as seen through NASA's IAS Viewer. I haven't seen that through the Viewer myself, but then your B/W image is nowhere near the resolution as seen in the HiRISE image.

Do check that out (As I don't have the time nor patience to do it myself!! And I don't have a clue how to do it anyway! ) You'd probably see much more in that hi res color image than than that low res B/W image of yours!

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Guess were I got the image ah well lets see

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

Guess were I got the image ah well lets see

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

Nope! That's a B/W image from an image strip, a far cry from Mike's image as seen through the IAS viewer! Now let's see if I can locate it.

Edit to add: Oh darn! It says I've gotta download the Viewer first! Why are things so bl00dy complicated?

Great thread.
I was sure I was going to have seen all the pics before... turns out I might have seen one!
Wow they just keep coming don't they. To me it's more than just natural formations, those skulls are too damn real. Seen a lot of rocks on earth, never seen anything quite like those skulls.

Just think, these are the images that we are allowed to see, what are they holding back I wonder?
My guess is there's life there right now, and plenty of it. But Mars' heyday is well behind it.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Whoever thinks that we're alone in the universe or that life came out of nothing is totally ignorant.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Fun stuff, but, likely all of it's Pareidolia

Pareidolia - wiki

Basically; seeing what you want to see.

Best call yet. I to believe this. What do all of these photos of Mars have in common? And I'm talking of all of them, the curious and the plain pictures? To me, it would seem that the pictures already taken have an element of this 'pareidolia' to them, and some being enhanced, even more so, as the desired enhanced results were arrived at through manipulation. ?Life on Mars? Of course it could have been possible, but the stretch these pictures are subjected to doesn't bode well. I think civilizations there on Mars would have left much more definable structures and transportation routes. As for modern times, well of course there could still be rudimentary life forms like bacteria or microbes and such. I am Not sold that any pictures hold evidence of life. Many pictures are in deed bizarre, and some of the same types of structures here or natural formations exist on earth. The only difference here is that the amount of weathering and natural forces exerted on our formations in the form of rain, wind and heating/cooling deteriorate ours much faster over millenia. For every anomaly on Mars, you will find one on earth of similar composition, though maybe much more eroded. But..... a good post never the less.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Mikesinghs over processed version



From same source!



Is that better for you?

Originally posted by screwcensors
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

Whoever thinks that we're alone in the universe or that life came out of nothing is totally ignorant.

Who said that on this thread

NASA has cameras that are powerful enough to read a newspaper on a parking lot from 200 miles up and they can't get better pictures than that?
Nature does not make multiple right angle structures repeatedly all over the place.
What do you mean "over processed"?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

Mikesinghs over processed version

From same source!

Is that better for you?

Artificial structure or not, when you rotate the image by 180 degrees there is no denying that we have found the intact wreckage of the Titanic

Come on! Someone had to see it

Originally posted by OhZone
NASA has cameras that are powerful enough to read a newspaper on a parking lot from 200 miles up and they can't get better pictures than that?
Nature does not make multiple right angle structures repeatedly all over the place.
What do you mean "over processed"?

Not that old chestnut again Hi-rise pics resolution 52cm/pixel to read a newspaper from a standard spy satellite orbit .... look here at link and sroll down the page.

makalu57.com...

From that page



THATS 1mm resolution!!!!!

Also spy satellites have mirrors of similar size to hubble 2.4mtr (8 feet)
NOBODY has sky cameras of 1mm resolution yet!!

As for over processed look at the image from the viewer I posted compared to mikesingh's if you cant see how it's overprocessed there is NO point in you commenting about images!!

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
So, does Mars look actually like this instead of the gory red color they always show?

Why NASA has to indulge in this is apparently because the red filter on the cameras is supposed to enhance resolution and also reduce the amount of data required to be transmitted back to Earth.

Regarding the data transfer ... confining an image to a single channel or ensuring the values stored in the image are in a certain range will make an image smaller. Without seeing the entire workflow I wouldn't be able to run through the entire process but it's not abnormal.

Regarding the actual color of mars:



The issue with this 'color correction' theory is you can actually whack a blue filter in front of a camera and rebalance the image to a more natural look. It isn't difficult, and doesn't require much technical knowledge what so ever.

So it *could* be possible that NASA are lying about the color of mars, however rebalancing an image to look like it's on Earth doesn't tell us this at all. A reddish atmosphere is no different from processing a shot with a bad filter, or poor coloured lighting. The sun and atmosphere of Mars are producing a light source in the same way as a red light or filter might. It's the equivolent of rotating a hue slider.

If you want to test this yourself, go to a hardware store or similar and pick up some RED LEDs. Point them at something, turn them on and take a photo. Take the photo into photoshop and balance the image manually (hue), levels etc ... I could give you a tutorial on it if you wanted.

Bottom line is, the colors might be a bit different but the issue is the result will be the same regardless of the conspiracy theory. I don't understand the slow disclosure concept etiher. Would anyone care that much if the sky on Mars was a bit more blue? I'd find it fascinating but I wouldn't think I was being lied to.

reply to post by jaijlee


Is that the iceberg next to it

reply to post by DaemonD14

Actually I think the images are crap and blurred, however I did once watch a presentation of 90mins of some professor who had enhanced the pictures and well wow, they were unvieled there was one of a male and one female and it showed them in 3d and i mean 3d they were very big pictures and the audience was gasping with delight, unfortunately I don't have the source to show you as i had a virus on my pc and lost all book marks, the faces were so clear and they both had crowns so i'm assuming these are the rulers of planet mars these faces are humoungous and i have a link here www.dudeman.net... that tells you about the sizes of them, if anyone has this presentation please make a new thread i must see it again it was brilliant the camera went all around the faces in 3d showing how they enhanced them too, sorry to let you all down on not having the video. There is also a pyramid too the same as the giza and there is also one on the moon too, gosh I wonder who or what built them it certainly wasn't the pharoh's in my opinion that is. I also read somewhere of a star child boy who said he was from mars and that the atmosphere went bad and that they all had to go underground, nasa and the governments won't tell us anything they know so don't rely on them bar stewards.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by jaijlee

 

Is that the iceberg next to it

As above, so below! Pareidolia and its finest example.

reply to post by PlanetxIsComing



Yes its a face



That's from your link