Quote:
Originally Posted by viking
This looks interesting... Cities on Mars!! Makes you mad doesn't it!!!
...
viking
|
Well, it is kinda interesting, but it's also obvious that the guy in the video doesn't have much clue about anything he's talking about (e.g. image editing, radar imaging etc.). You can pull something like that with sooooo many images of Mars, Moon or even Earth. Regularities don't automatically mean it's artificial. It COULD be a city, but the whole thing is too fuzzy for anyone with a trace of brain cells in their skull to go on and state THIS IS A CITY.
How about this one (and I assume everyone on this forum is familiar with this):
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/e...v-evidence.htm
(image hotlinked)
The image adjustments are just as easy to replicate, and I have at one point tried this on a B/W image of the same area taken by the Viking probe, and it seemed to produce very similar results (unfortunately I pulled a McKinnon on that and didn't save, and now I can't seem to locate the source again, so if anyone has a link to sources please don't hesitate and post it :)
Mind you the source image for this is also a result of radar imaging rather than optical. And since I work with computer graphics on daily basis, I know that all kinds of artefacts can be produced by the imaging method as well as compression/image transfer protocols. Than again, the 'artefacts' should be consistent across the entire image, which they're not, also they would be probably parallel to the image's sides ... But is this a smoking gun evidence of a city? Well, it certainly looks like a re-touch, but it could also be a purposefully implanted distraction. Or a genuine transfer artefact. And if it wasn't for my previous experiement with the Viking image, I proly wouldn't even bother replying to this thread.
Not to mention the 'Never Before Seen' stuff in this thread's title has been posted in another thread on this forum not so long ago.