Alien Anomalies

Thanks for reading and analyzing my post watcher. You hit the nail on the head. After trying to convince people who I thought were open minded I was ridiculed. After that I just dont care if they drown in thier ignorance. The reason I "Pigeonholed" Zealots is exactly the reason they are zealots. Thier faith is so strong no truth will change them.  From then on I did this for myself and the other people in this forum, believers. I dont care if joe public sees this or not, if I did I would post it on youtube. It has actually become quite entertaining to find these works of art while listening to the mainstream media news that they are still looking for microbiological life.

Oh and Prof Wexler, I dont believe all of the Apollo stuff was faked. Just the stuff they wanted to hide. Especially in 15 and 17. (hearsay)  They couldn't show us the machines and bases now could they? And you are right about the leaking of the evidence we are uncovering. If they wanted to cover it up they would have pulled and modded all these pics. (or hired better screeners)  I am not sure but maybe they only want the people who are interested or observent enough to find this evidence and like me, dont care if Joe six-pack sees it or not.

Maybe I am naieve but I do believe we have sent probes to mars and many other places through classified military operations. I used to work for "Orbital" and its easier than you might think to put something up there.

This is a very interesting thread and one of the reasons I enjoy being part of this team. I agree with both sides, Macten I too do this for my own enjoyment and I am no longer trying to convince anyone else of what I see. I post what I find, I do it because I like to share with other members and the silent watchers that visit the site.

Marsrocks highlights the challenges we are facing, both with the images themselves and then with the publics perception and the influence of the powers that be on the publics perception.

What is obvious to us in our work is rarely seen by people that do not look at these images all of the time, I have tested this fact myself with the broadest possible cross-section of people I can get to sit down long enough for me to show them. In most cases the images and our finds are instantly dismissed. A sobering and humiliating experience at times after it has been presented to them with such enthusiasm and passion by me. The rare ones that see (many times children) nod, are interested for a few moments, and then continue on with their lives.

The way to imbed these images in the minds of the general populace is to include them in movies, tv series, pop culture, a best-selling series of childrens books, t-shirts, animation etc. There have been so many movies released that skirt around some of what we are seeing. The strange thing is that if the public sees it on a screen then their minds seem to accept it more easily than when we try to present it. We discussed this in some detail on the PTP thread and came up with ideas if you would like to read that thread.

Many, many people visit this site. The figures show us that but they stay in the shadows as silent observers and that is OK. The people that post on this site, despite our varying beliefs and opinions, are all on the same side...we are all seekers. We need to remember that and we need to try to showcase our work to as wide an audience as we can. What TW says is absolutely true, take a dip in reality from time to time, show your work to anyone that will sit still long enough, LISTEN very carefully to what they say, watch their reactions, it will help you grow a thicker skin and it will help you understand what needs to be done to improve work so that more people see what we see. Or else, just do it for the other seekers if you do not want to reach a wider audience, that choice is always yours.

Thank you Marsrocks for your detailed and well thought out post.

I believe this is a bit of a competition. To see who can find the best and clearest evidence possible with the degraded images we have. I dont do this for the general public.  I do this to show believers what I have found. To point things out that others here might have missed. I have been roundly criticized for coloring images but the only reason for that was to show objects that I believed to be artificial and separate them from the background. That was for people in this forum to see what I see, not to present to the public.   NO ONE is going to change any public opinion without mainstream media support. That will not happen with the current state of political affairs worldwide. It has nothing to do with any evidence presented here.  There are not enough outside viewers of this forum to change public opinion.  Maybe we, as a group, can draw conclusions from the evidence we collect. I have allready drawn some conclusions and have been convinced of others by certan members of this forum and I thank them for that information.

  This is my view and mine alone. If you disagree or agree it matters not.  I personally do not care if anyone else believes in life on any other planet. It is enough for me to know and it teaches me to look through the lies of governments and politics.

Let me give a big thumbs up to the Watcher here, and thank him for broaching this topic.  I have put a lot of images up on youtube, so I get to read the general public's response to anomalies daily.

There are so many things that I find that I personally think 'there is just no way that it is just a rock' - I could put hundreds of these examples in videos and the general public would think I was completely off my rocker.

For an anomaly to be general-public-ready, the anomaly has to really scream out upon first view that it must be artificial.

And there are a lot of things working against us.  For instance, most of the images seen by the general public of Mars are salmon brown images.  The way the mind works, people rationalize that scientists have already concluded that everything salmon brown is just the ground, and therefore everything that is salmon brown is just rocks and ground.

Of course those of us who look closer don't think this way.  We know everything on Mars is covered with dust.  This salmon brown color on everything works against us like camoflage. 

We also have blurry imagery working against us.  If the public sees anything blurry, they look the other way.  All the pictures in their world are nice clean well-focused images.  So, just why are we showing them murky, blurry pictures of Mars? Every Mars picture is focused only at about 10 feet out on the MER rovers, for instance.  Too close to the rover, and it is blurry - just try to read the words on the color calibration target, if you don't believe me.  Now, look at the same pic taken on Earth of the color calibration target  - it is in good focus, and you will have no trouble reading the words.  Similarly, anything beyond 10-12 feet out is also blurry.  Only a tiny area of the ground is in the correct range of focus. 

So, we all go about working with the images, sharpening, changing contrast and brightness up and down the dial, until somehow we manage to see more details of our subject.  In our mind, we are now seeing an object with a lot more details (still in our memories from all the adjustments we made as we went up and down the dial), than what we can show in a single image.  We are, at that point, actually perceiving information that others will never be able to perceive just from looking at our single adjusted image.

Then the official images put up by JPL for the general public are auto equalized - that means the images are stretched to the point that a large percentage of the pixels are either white or black- destroying (often 20% or more) of the real detail data that was in the 254 other grey shades of pixels between those two shades. 

And what does the anxious public get even in those pictures?  Without realizing it, unless they study the NASA documents, they are only getting a specific color filter of the whole picture.  Often they only get to see what is screened out by the infra red filter, by the green filter, or by the ultra violet picture.  If you are a member of the general public, good luck guessing which one contains the most data.  And regardless of which one you choose you are looking at a thing totally unfamiliar to your eyes - which is only an incomplete part of the whole picture.

And I haven't even begun to talk about satellite images.  Most people never view satellite images, and their minds have no way to make heads or tails from them.  Only people who walk around with their heads hanging and looking at their feet will have any concept of ground contour from a nadir (true straight down) position.  When we walk or run, we look at the ground more horizontally, and register the contours of the ground about 20 feet in front of us, long before we get there.  Yet, most satellite images are nadir - and it takes special training to interpret those before you can regularly perceive craters as depressions and not mounds.

Next, consider the colors.  Even on hirise, they still use false colors (unless you know to look at the little rgb image, and have special training on how to overlay that on the detailed image).  That is, they use colors that are unfamiliar to our eyes - that represent things differently than how we normally perceive them.  How confusing is that?

These problems go on and on, and on, seemingly forever, before we even reach any problem with possible image tampering.

Then we reach the next BIG problem.  There is almost no literature, scientific or otherwise, on how to distinguish the artificial from the natural.  Therefore, there can be no agreement on what the heck we are even looking for. This topic seems completely taboo, yet there is a bit of it in archeology.  But earth archeologists don't have the problems we have, of identifying these things from images - they can hold and even test their items - with magnets, X-rays, etc.  They don't just get a single angled view of it either - they can see the whole thing from every possible angle.

Perceiving things from a single angled view often renders illusions - we are all used to using our two eyes to see things - and being able to see all around it.  Our minds trick us into believing one view of a thing gives us the entire picture - but I promise you, it does not.  On Mars, we can't even pick a thing up and see where one item stops and the next one starts - nor can we see the part hidden underground, or behind shadows or other objects.

This is a darned hard thing to do - we develop skills and learn things that the general public simply has no ability to comprehend.

And then when we show them something, why should they believe us that the image we found is even a real NASA image.  Most have no clue how to research a Mars image, but they are well aware of photoshop, and pranksters.

All of this I have described is out in the open tampering taking place right before our eyes, and presented to the general public as acceptable process, and acceptable images - when the same general public would have none of it if the same types of images were presented to them with expectation of payment for photographs of a loved one's wedding.

So why even bother to tamper with images when all you have to do is show bits of images, stretch the data to nothing, and withhold second and third angle views?  And then put the real images up on a slow PDS server that almost no one in the general public has the patience to learn how to operate?

This hobby is of a much higher difficulty than much of the public can even imagine.  So, we have to be extremely careful what we select to show them.  They are harsh judges, with no sympathy for the state of the evidence, or how it got that way.

Good grief, I see I have written a book.  Sorry about that - but I did need to vent a bit.

Fascinating thread. This kinda scratches at the core of anomaly hunting. I have 2 points...

Norman Bryden:
Sad to say Im unaware of his work until now but interestingly we hit the same location at around the same time...
I love the presentation and the detailed break down of each location

MY examples from then (2009-10)
I nicknamed location,,, "Needle City"


Closer

Location:-
Derived values
Longitude of image center: 47.31°W
Latitude of image center: 78.50°S
Scaled pixel width: 2.90 meters
Scaled image width: 2.99 km
Scaled image height: 26.51 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 270.86°
Local True Solar Time: 14.77 decimal hours
Emission angle: 18.03°
Incidence angle: 56.51°
Phase angle: 41.87°
North azimuth: 104.83°
Sun azimuth: 58.65°
Spacecraft altitude: 373.27 km
Slant distance: 390.50 km

Cropped from details below:-
Acquisition parameters
Image ID (picno): E10-01841
Image start time: 2001-11-12T20:47:43.54 SCET
Image width: 1024 pixels
Image height: 6016 pixels
Line integration time: 0.7231 millisec
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.51
Crosstrack summing: 2
Downtrack summing: 2
Compression type: MOC-PRED-X-5
Gain mode: CA (hexadecimal)
Offset mode: 14 (decimal) 

 Thank you for all of your observations. I'm honored.

  Certainly have enjoyed the journey, Gmantoo--- following every development on Skipper's site for years. Can't tell you how many "educated" people I've shown the huge amount of evidence presented by Skipper and others-- Always careful to explain these are NASA's own pictures.Yet...nothing. Many people are oblivious to anything unless it's HYPED and told to care by the mainstream media.

  I suppose one site in particular led me to question the "reality" of it all:

                   http://www.marsstructures.com/

Anyone familiar with this evidence presented by Norman Bryden? Fantastically weird, like a hellish Annunaki playground-- A statue of a head visible in at least one of the photos and it looks Sumerian. Had I directed the film version of JOHN CARTER OF MARS, these images would have been my inspiration for much of it. It's got an H. R. Geiger meets William Gibson feel...and too good to true. Wouldn't you agree? Interesting that these images don't seem to be edited, if a little hazy.

Love to hear your the thoughts on these images.

Very well said Levelwind, goggog, and, respectfully, gmantoo . I also notice PROF WEXLER/CHAS BERLIN , has his name attached to his post ... just like me! ... so ... hello??     -Morbius

An interesting thread and an interesting question  There is no independent verification that the Curiosity is on Mars, there may have been had the Phobos Grunt landed and there may be in the years to come if China/Japan/India/EU succesfully land or orbit Mars...but having said that how much did we learn from those countries investigations of the Moon ? No more than we did from NASA, so who do we trust.

In fact just last night I was wondering if we even know if the signal is coming from Mars, I remember reading that wiki-leaks paper where some university staff/students stumbled on information about the volume of data being received/sent to the rovers and that made me wonder of they do not create the data here, send it to the rover and then appear to receive it from the rover. How would we know ?

As gmantoo says, you sometimes just have to trust, hard as it is and just enjoy the journey. I personally sometimes think we may well be looking at images filmed on Earth and manipulated because the things we are finding are just too familiar, but then I also believe that our civilisation was possibly once far larger and more advanced than it is today so the possibility of similar life-forms on other bodies in the solar system are not beyond my comprehension or acceptance.

I look at the images for nfun, I love what we find and can discuss. The similarities to Earth puzzle me, but I no longer lose sleep over them I have just decided to take them at face value and as the famous CSI saying goes 'just follow the evidence' . Ocassionally I will post my thories and ideas about how it's possible , like many members here do, but not one of us can make definitive statements until all of us are standing on the surface of Mars together ready to discuss what we see with our own eyes...