Quote:
Originally Posted by haibane
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. |
Why is it that people want to slander the messenger. For your information the video presentation shows way more than what you posted here. Also I would like to here your take on the difference between optical and radar imaging if you think you know so much. Image artifacts do not follow parallel to the image sides. Image artifacts will not appear to be shaped like tall buildings and have window and doors in them and continue to show land and terrain consistent with a city. Image artifacts will not appear as buildings lined up respectively across an entire image. Also I would like to mention that the whole idea of Image artifacts came about when NASA started getting images from the public. The public was enhancing images of nasa released archives and finding geometrically shaped objects that defied the common reasoning of the time, so nasa decided to call them image artifacts.
Image artifacts are mostly from taking an image and transferring it to another format or reducing the image with compression, The images in the video are not from compression they are there because they are really there.
Also the image you posted is another persons work. If you are so good at working with images then lets see some of your own work.
But that is the case most of the time. People want to treat this as a contest and cut other peoples work down and post some other work that is not even theirs. This is so they can be the center of attention.
For your information I am the guy in the video presentation. I have been working with images from nasa archives and you will not get image artifact from TRANSFERING the image. But image artifacts are usually caused from reducing the image size and trying to zoom in. Or compression alone. But downloading and image to your computer will not produce image artifacts.
You said====
I know that all kinds of artifacts can be produced by the imaging method as well as compression/image transfer protocols.
Imaging method and compression image transfer protocols.
Artifacts will not become present in an image from enhancement unless the image is compressed.
Adding contrast and reducing brightness will not produce Image artifacts.
Image transfer will not produce image artifacts, Unless the image has been compressed several times. Like going from tiff to jpeg to gif will produce image artifacts.