WHO'S ON MARS? (continued)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by luiz rio</i>
<br />I saw one of a lot of rocks on the top of a mount.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think you mean to be looking through <i>Spirit</i> photos, not <i>Opportunity</i>. The latter saw very few rocks through March other than the outcrop in the crater it landed in. -|Tom|-

If I had a certain degree of insight, perhaps unavailable to anyone else; I’d also be emphatic about civilian technical ability. Considering the resolution provided, it does take skill to drag hidden details out of the closet.

Mars.
Ancient ruins and artefacts.
Gold and other minerals, possibly unknown ones?
Opportunity and Spirit rovers exist because of the facts above?
God inspires us to learn and yet the sceptics persist.

ESA Image
wallpaper_HRSC_spole1024.gif
enlarged, curve-adjusted clip

Much of the terrain in this image shows pronounced similarities to sat images of urban areas on Earth. Grid patterns and groupings of rectinlinear shapes can be found throughout the image.

What I find especially fascinating is what can be seen where the light and dark areas adjoin. Along the common borders of the light and dark areas subtle shadings can be found that look very much like the subtle shadings one would find in an Earth sat image of an area where land meets water. Additionally, on the left side of this image there is a spot where a small peninsula appears to have a series of piers protruding into the possible water.

The sat image of The Great Salt Lake area is posted for comparison.



Great Salt Lake 1963:

jaxstraw posted:

"Having looked through all these images, I feel I ought to point some things out about digital images.
The main thing is that a digital image can't be magnified. You can, on your PC, zoom in until you have 1 image pixel=1 monitor pixel, and you can make it easier on your eyes to make it larger, but you cannot see any more detail, because there is no more detail to see. Using a magnifying glass on a monitor screen is a waste of time; all you are doing is looking at larger pixels; again, you will see no more detail.
It's very easy to forget this since it isn't the way the Real World works; I'm an artist, I stare at a monitor all day, and yet still find myself leaning closer to see more detail in waht I am drawing even though I know logically that this is pointless; it's a reflex.
Additionally, bear in mind that pixels are rectangular, so if you magnify one digitally you will see rectangular structures; added to this is the fact that the jpeg compression system works on blocks of image and produces rectangular artifacts as a result; these artifacts will be enhanced by image processing."

jaxstraw,

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Based on my experience which includes at this point, thousands of hours analyzing images, I absolutely do not agree with you on several points. I find a magnifying glass a huge help in seeing small details in the onscreen Mars images. Have you actually tried using a magnifying glass to look at these images? I use a small Tojaz purchased at Walgreens. I do not see pixels with a magnifying glass unless the image is already so enlarged that pixels are visible to the naked eye. What I do see is a slightly enlarged version of exactly what is already on the screen.

I find this very helpful at times.

It is basically the same concept as using a magnifying glass to get a better look at a print photo. Getting a slightly enlarged version to look at does not suddenly change the image into something that wasn't already there. It is the same, except a little bigger. Of course certain types of magnifying glasses do not work with video screens, a jewelers loop for example does not work. And extreme magnification does not work because then the lines in the video screen start to interfere with the image. Also I have discovered that this technique does not work very well at all with most flat screen moniters. Perhaps you are using a laptop or flatscreen? Enlarged images tend to fall apart visually on flat screens and a magnifying glass is not very useful.

When my old cpu bit the dust I was happy because it gave me an excuse to buy the monitor I had been lusting after for years, the Mac cinema flatscreen. I was very disappointed when I started using it, finding the visual quality for the type of work I do far inferior to my old cpu. I ended up taking it back to the store and getting my old cpu fixed.

As to Jpegs, I avoid using jpegs or saving an image as a jpeg if at all possible and when I do use the jpeg format I always opt not to have the image compressed.

Yes, I know perfectly well that jpegs and certain processing methods can cause the formation of false shapes or artifacts that may look like repeated rectilinear shapes. In the past I have made a few mistakes of this type. For the most part I feel that the images I have posted represent what is actually there. I believe that there are vast areas of Mars that show signs of civilization. I am not basing my opinion just on a few square artifacts. If an area shows rectilinear shapes there are other characteristics I look for, ground art, alpha-numeric figures in the immediate vicinity, the arrangement of the shapes, do they seem random or placed by intelligent design? There are other features which frequently appear in an area that looks civilized. An example is the appearance of ridged rows. Also the appearance of domes or craters with designs on them. Sometimes the "worm tubes" (which I suspect are transportation tunnels) can be found adjacent to areas with rectilinear shapes.

Certain processing techniques can allow details to be seen that are not seen in the original image but still are part of the digital information. I am currently working on an imaging technique that allows one to see under the skin using images taken with a digital camera.

Also, if the rectilinear shapes are artifacts then they should appear fairly consistently throughout the image and not just in one or two areas. Although artifacts can look like repeated, square shapes, they do not suggest civilization to me because the patterns they make do look just like patterns and not like intelligently designed architecture.

Tom,

In reply to your comments about NASA, image tampering, and risking being charged with criminal destruction of government property; According to Public Law 85-568, which is the legislation which enabled the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, (published in 1958 by the 85th Congress),and is based on the recommendations of the Brookings Report, page four, section 3 states under Functions of the Administration (of NASA) that: "The administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this act, shall 1. plan, direct and conduct aeronautical and space activities,......3. provide for the widest practicable and APPROPRIATE DISSEMINATION (caps mine) of information concerning its activities and the result therof". But then in section 206 it states that: "No information which for the reason(s) of national security shall be included in any report made under this section, unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given, by the President."

I can imagine several scenarios which would dictate the with-holding of what is on Mars for reasons of national security or possibly for the reason of establishing US presence on Mars as the dominant and controlling presence. Or for more ominous reasons for the possible control of knowledge and options available to humans on Earth. Somehow, given present day political machinations and eductional policies I do not think the ruling elite see it in their best interest that advanced technical knowledge and opportunities be fully available to the masses.

Grahm Hancock states in "The Mars Mystery": "A pervasive sense of something being "covered up" does....infect the organization (NASA), ...Indeed, it must be remembered that documents like the Brookings Report advise that as far as possible even the scientists themselves should be kept in the dark if evidence of extraterrestrial life is ever confirmed."

So image alteration done by NASA could by law be a protected "mutilation of government property" done in the interests of national security. Additionally I believe there are provisions in the National Security Act which state that the defense department (and NASA is a Defense Agency) is allowed to break any law that it feels it is necessary to break (in the interests of national security), unless it specifically states in the law the it can not be broken by the DOD.

Several years ago I heard an interview with a former NASA employ who stated that it had been her job to airbrush out all evidence of UFOs before images taken by satellite were released to the general public.

Other researchers have pointed out that later releases of the "Face" image have been deliberately skewed, filtered and washed out to make the Face look less like a face. I have personally run across different versions of exactly the same image pulled up at different times under the same image id number except in the more recent version the interesting features had been obliterated, or turned upside down and fuzzy focused. I have found very dark areas that I removed some of the darkness from through processing and
found obvious use of the photoshop blur tool to obliterate structural shapes which I could still see underneath. Not only this but I have seen things in the images that has led me to consider that there has been on ongoing psyops campaign, using subliminals to discourage image viewing. Strategically placed blocks of "noise" which do not show up in the data transmission files seem to be one method of hiding stuff. I have found image after image after image from certain areas of Mars that are all whited out. Possibly this particular situation resulted from a dust storm but I wonder.


I came to the opinion some time ago that there is so much evidence of civilization on Mars that NASA has had a heck of a time finding images to release that don't show "things of interest". I think they have used every trick in the book and then some to try to keep a secret.

NASA does not see image obliteration as criminial, they are just doing their job under the provisions of the National Security Act and Public Law 85-568.

As one newsman on the "NASA beat" once said (quote found at enterprisemission) "NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer".

I think you can take that to the bank.

Current Surface Water on Mars?

In March of 2000 I posted my discovery of a dozen or so Mars images that I believed to be showing current surface water on Mars. I have recently added a few of the Mars Rover images to this group.

The two green arrows at the top of the image point to shapes that look vaguely structural.



Some of the rocks in the image below look a little greenish around the edges. The areas that show the most green are at the point where the sides of the rocks meet the dampish looking soil. As the green is most pronounced where the rocks appear to be contacting wet soil it increases the probability that the green is the result of plant life. Could the greenish areas be lichen?