WHO'S ON MARS? (continued)

Xterrester, I couldn't download your largest images at home, but got them okay via high-speed connection at the library.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What the Heck is this?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It looks to me like three successive events, probably millions of years apart.
(1) A meteor impact made the large circular crater.
(2) An much larger meteor, moving very fast horizontally, just grazed the moon. I think it grazed the first side of the crater (bottom of picture), creating those long parallel lines. The fact that it missed the top side of the crater could mean that the top side is at a lower elevation; also, the impact may have deflected the meteor slightly upward. The bright lines are sunlit slopes, facing left; the darker lines are shaded slopes facing right. The deeper grooves were made by higher peaks on the surface of the meteor. The uniformity of the lines suggests that the large meteor did not rotate appreciably, nor did it suffer significant erosion during the event. It must have been made of a very hard substance compared to the crater walls.
(3) A smaller meteor hit the center of the large crater, sending out rays of darker material, some of which settled on top of the parallel lines.

P.S.: I think glancing impacts are probably more common than intuition suggests. Last March 12, I personally witnessed a meteor skipping across 8-foot swells of the Pacific Ocean. I was a quarter mile from the shore and didn't actually see the impact, but the bright green meteor dipped below the treetops, about 10 degrees elevation, and several seconds later I saw at least three plumes of red hot steam, rising one after another thru the tree branches. I figure, when it hit the water, it was either a refrigerator-size object half a mile away or, more likely, battleship size 20 miles away. My report is #55z at the American Meteor Society's 2005 fireball log . Judging by other reports, I think it hit the upper atmosphere near Medford Oregon, 300 miles south of my location. It didn't show up on radar because this part of the coast is shaded from radar by mountains. [EDIT 2005/07/29 04:50 UT: With a passport issued by MSN or HotMail, you can read my detailed report with illustration and map at XUZME ---a site I created but lost control of years ago. END EDIT]
Also, I've seen photos of a string of ellyptical lakes in South America, which scientists believe were caused only a thousand or so years ago by a meteor, which probably careened out into space and kept going.

6-sides said:

"Look, MSSS, NASA, NSA etc, if you're reading this, (yeah, we can read too), give us the god damned data!

All the norms out there in sitcom/reality tv land, won't give a 4X about it all, they WILL NOT believe or comprehend it.

So they can carry on sleeping and WE can have some real 21st century digital clarity here, therefore, everyone will be happy.

We're ALL fed up with these crappy b/w photos ffs."

6-sides,

I agree with you. I am tired of struggling with images of ridiculously low quality. Some of the Mars images seem to have taken a detour through various Photoshop features on the way to The MOC Image Gallery. Favorite Photoshop destinations seem to be Blur Tool, Selective Defocus, Layered on Pattern and Big Black Brush. Additionally, I wouldn't bet my life that all the images in the gallery are really of Mars in the first place.

The range of quality to be found in the Mars images covers the spectrum of nothing there at all except white blankness, to I can sort of see something that looks like it might be really interesting but there is a (take your pick) big transmission glitch, huge dark shadow, anomalous blurry area) plunked down right in the middle of the area of interest, to completely spectacular. Occasionally I find a gif Mars image of remarkable quality. The detail in these rare, high quality images is amazing.

Oh well. NASA seems to take it's job of protecting the public from knowledge of et life quite seriously. Are we ever going to see stacks of high definition Mars images? Probably not in this lifetime, if ever.

God is merciful. The image sanitizers didn't get everything. Disclosure is within reach for those willing to spend the time taking a careful look at the images. There are amazing discoveries to be made.

After 6000 plus hours of image research I have become personally convinced that the Martian surface has been home to a highly evolved, wide-spread civilization. The possibility that current intelligent life might exist on Mars and that we are not being told makes me crazy.

It is very unfair that NASA is hiding so much and not sharing the exictement of discovery with those that are footing the bill (the taxpayers). Of course this is just my fanatical opinion, but I just bet they are sitting on a huge amount of absolutely mind boggleing news (and not just about Mars).

PhilJ,

The pages do take a long time to load. In the future I will keep that in mind and be more agressive about image cropping. I am oppossed to only posting smaller images with a link. I prefer to post the image at the size that is best for viewing the subject matter.

FHA00625

Look at the band that cuts into the image from the left. This band just abruptly ends, like it was neatly sliced off, and does not look like natural geology to me. A close look (with magnifying glass) reveals organized, structural looking shapes.

In the enlarged clip the red arrow in the middle points out something that looks like a tower or high rise.



FHA00625 enlarged clip

M0203974.jpg enlarged

The upper left corner of this image could pass for a sat pic of a civilized area on Earth. The rest of the image is mostly blotted out with a peculiar looking, blobby pattern. Interesting that parts of the image are in focus, showing rich detail and other parts of the image are just gone...no detail whatsoever.

I wonder what that long, narrow, varigated strip is in the left, lower area.

Hardly a century has passed since the Wright brothers first got off the ground, and you guys think it is scandalous that we don't yet have centimeter-resolution full-color photos of every rock on the surface of Mars! In case you hadn't noticed, we still have a problem or two back here on Earth to deal with, which tends to explain why NASA's budget keeps being cut. If your great-grandparents could hear you gripe, they'd wish for a deeper grave!

The Mars survey is a mosaic of images, taken from different angles, with the sun shining at different angles. They have been twisted by a computer to compensate for the different perspectives. Some areas have been covered fully at high resolution; other areas only from one angle at lower resolution.

Areas that have parallel lines are most likely scanned in such a way that successive passes of the raster were seen from a different angle, due to the satellite's motion over the Martian surface. Those scan lines end abruptly because a better image was available in the next sector. I know you prefer to believe the opposite, but it makes sense that, when a better image is available, the poorer image is cut off along a straight line. So why imagine that those are real features, like giant plow furrows?

That grainy area in the upper left is probably a higher resolution. The smoother area might be equally grainy if it, too, were photographed at higer resolution. A lower angle of the sun plays a role by lengthening shadows, which can make rough surfaces look rougher.

As for those blotchy areas, they do appear to be genuine features of the planet---not as you say, sabotage of the images. I'd guess they are due to some geologic process. If you have a topographic map of the area, perhaps you can correlate the light and dark blotches to elevation.

If that's a "tower or highrise", where is its shadow? Besides, I'm guessing that the surface is shown from a vertical looking-down perspective, in which case you would not see the side of a tower. You're pushing the limits of the resolution to see anything there, anyway.