Check this video out and say what you think about it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6098058339072523623

I have seen the video I am not sure as to authenticity of the Photos but if they are real this seams very interesting. Is their a link between mars and Earth? Is this just seeing objects in the clouds?
Also post any other relative sources.

I enjoyed the video very much. Thank you for posting it.

Whether there really is anything there or not, it does look like a most excellent site for us to go and explore as well as to use to make our own base on Mars.

well it would be great to find ruins up there, just to see the sceptics and the religous groups running around tearing thier hair out.

I actually think that finding older and more advanced off world civilizations would do more to reinforce a common religious belief that man is not the most intelligent and wisest being that exists, and could increase spiritual, ethical, and moral evolution as well as reformation if the idea of eventual confrontation and accountability were to take hold in the imagination in a more concrete manner than now exists.

it would make me live in fear for the rest of my life and i don't like that...
why you might ask ?? because if mars was once a planet that could support the life (way we know it) and it turned into a RED planet... that would make me think that Earth is going to go through similar process....
than i would become a Psycho and would look at every day things looking for signs in them that would make me paranoid ...

P.S. all that has been said above would happen to 70% of population lol me not being one of them. i am more worried about getting shot while walking down the street than world collapsing lol

yeah but we are allready destroying the earth, slowley but surley.

From what I understand it would not have occurred through a process but be the result of a disaster if evolved life actually existed there.

If they can find no signs of any plant life having ever existed there, then no evolved life existed there, but if they do find evidence of a planet once abundant in primitive life, then it would almost certainly mean that a disaster occurred which literally ripped away the atmosphere.

once again people would go paranoid ...

P.S. and i can so see it right now HUMANS came from mars lol..... muhahahaha

Sorry to ruin your wish for the destruction of faith and religion, but the "Mars anomalies" are nothing more than illusion created by light, shadow, and distance.

I would understand if you said that the video was faked that could very well be the a fact but to say those were created by Light and Shadow is ridiculous. I think people can tell from a shot if that is light and shadow or actual buildings. Thats what the CIA does, thats what we did to find the Warheads in Cuba.

Well then it's faked. But either way it deserves further investigation.

Alright why do you think that is? What made you think its a fake? Or are you so entrenched in your dogmatism that you cant even debate the issue.

I'd recommend anyone check out Project redstars homepage before they say anything else
http://www.truinsight.com/

Well as an artist and photographer, it's possible to draw anything, any shape, into a cluster of barren landscape or rock formations.
Much like people who see faces in clouds or in the leaves of a tree. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just stating the most logical explanation, or if you prefer, my opinion.
The website says that according to their mathematical calculations and "artists renderings" and such, that the world will end on 2017. And you can get the DVD for only $47.95 that explains it in further detail.
Sounds like the doing of a shrewd business man to me. Even the films narration sounds amateurish.

I had not seen this video, thank you for posting it. Looks like we may have found where the Egyptians came from?

you mean our imaginations ?

Thanks for the links!

In the BBC documentry presented by the actor Sam Neil. i think it was called space, they discussed the theory that back at the begining microscopic particles came attached to a meteorite and hit earth an within in time it evolved, to primitave life forms, then to the sea etc etc etc. long story short, we could be the aliens on this planet. intresting theory.

Thanks for the link, I watched the whole video and found it very interesting. I paused the video at the point near the end and copied in the .ORG address they used and it took me to the site they said they used. The only problem when I got there was that the good folks at NASA, USGC, said the software to examine the images was not available. Bit disappointed because i wanted to perform the same Ink-Lift tests that they described using. I will try again today, hopefully it will be available.
IF... the images are as described then I would have to say that this requires a statment from NASA, JPL, whoever...because such an assortment of different regular shapes in such a small area would suggest something very unusual. There are no plate tectonic mechanisms at work on Mars, so all structures are formed by vulcanism, and weathering, and possibly intervention from another source.
The video, I agree, was very amateurish, the voiceover stilted, and the spelling in some places just outrageously bad.The content however needs closer examination because it appears to be self-consistent.
I will post here if I have any luck with the image software

That would be great, let us know how you get on. keep us informed, thanks.

Right, because that was always a mystery. [/sarcasm]



Its called panspermia, and its a quite accepted theory.

lolol you crack me up
thanks

I've just watched the first half hour of that "programme" (I say programme. I mean deranged ramblings of a disturbed mind). There is NOTHING there. No city, no statues, its insane. Some people just should be allowed to own computers and editing software.

And one last thing - the satellite images are taken from ABOVE. The angle that the "buildings" appear at in the images would be impossible unless it was taken from an aeroplane. I think thats proof enough that this is pure bunk.

7/10 on the retarded scale!

Oh no, more of Richard Hoagland's Monuments of Mars nonsense!

That man is certifiable.

Actually you are wrong, the images on the USGC / NASA website detail the angle:

Geometry
Latitude -4.96°
Longitude 89.62°
Resolution * 5.23 meters/pixel
Phase Angle 41.53°
Incidence Angle 41.62°
Emission Angle 0.19°
North Azimuth 93.09°
Slant Range (km) 380.53
Spacecraft Altitude (km) 380.53

This information, and all the raw data are in the pulic domain with this very important caveat..

NOTE: THE BROWSE (JPEG) IMAGES RENDERED ON THIS WEB SITE ARE MEANT SOLELY TO FACILITATE THE SELECTION OF RAW MOC IMAGING PRODUCTS FOR DOWNLOAD AND USE BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. THE BROWSE AND JPEG IMAGES ARE NEITHER RADIOMETRICALLY NOR GEOMETRICALLY ACCURATE AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR QUANTITATIVE OR INTERPRETATIVE PURPOSES.

I have managed now to download the raw MOC data and will spend a bit of time this week seeing if it is possible to re-create the images shown in the video...If not then I will post here and let you know that I think it is complete nonsense. It is particularly interesting though that NASA chose this tiny area for such hi-res and detailed mapping.

this is the link to the imaging in question:

http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m02043/m0204304.html

Wow as I expected alot of people are interested and will do research to find out the accuracy of the video, bt the usual list of characters I will not name names but these guys and gals will dibunk anything based on attacking the source with out any evidence to back them up. This video has a lot of issues that are questionable but it deserves study, not just saying this guy is a crack pot or this guy is a con man. I hope it was interesting to some enough to get some answers or more importantly right questions.

uhuh
and as usual its the same crowd supporting it who don't know any of the facts at all and don't require them to form an opinion using their imagination which has been fed a steady diet of science fiction since they first learned how to operate a television
so quid pro quo really

I've checked Hoaglands Enterprise mission site several times over the years and recently he has ungraded his site to look more professional. It used to be a rambling jumble of science based UFO stuff and psuedo-science sci-fi site stuff, along with his weather manipulation and Mars stuff. I think he is trying to distance himself from the more fantasy stuff now. Maybe to get more respectability.

Myself, I think he is a total fanatic and can not allow himself to be backed down by the high res images sent back to Earth in the last year. So he "sees" monuments and stuff on Mars where regular people just see rocks worn my the Martian winds. Just the same as some people can "see" Bigfoot in pictures taken in just about any woodland scene.

It ultimately will not be solved till people, actual humans, land there and look around. Then if nothing is found the true believers will say the explorers of Mars were brain washed, or the landing was faked or that the aliens moved all the artifacts so we couldn't find them.

I agree that this is indeed what's going on with Mr. Hoagland. Now, back in 1976 when Viking first imaged the "face on Mars" Mr. Hoagland's hypothesis wasn't half bad. Heck, I was hoping that he was correct...that ancient alien ruins were present on Mars. However, newer high resolution images have shown this to be simply wishful thinking.



When it comes to using faith/belief (instead of the evidence) as ones sole criteria nothing serves to surprize me.

or the all time favourite
the government is covering it up

Well prove they are not covering it up.

I wish believers on this site would stop hiding behind that ridiculous logic. The burden of proof is, as always, on those making the claims. You think they're covering something up, prove it. Don't make a claim then expect people to prove otherwise, its idiotic and completely illogical.

I really don't think mars has any remains of some long lost civilization.
It does have some strange landscapes and, these anomolous structures are probably nothing
more than light reflecting off of them which is giving them this appearance of not being natural
land formations.

I suppose the only way we will ever really know is to send a manned mission to mars to see these
anomalies first hand.

Then dont make the claim from any side. if you have a point that they are or they are not .prove it, its easy to say they are not just to discredit someone else. there are 2 people looking at imaging software on this thread to see if nasa had smudged the images or not, then we will have a good idea weither its a cover up or not,
anybody can make the claim there not covering anything up when they dont have to back up thier claim, while the other side must.
if you say it, show some kind of evidence.

Here's some ideas to ponder: If NASA wanted to *cover up* evidence of "the face on Mars", why release any photos of it in the first place? Also, can you imagine the funding NASA would get if they could find any evidence of advanced alien life on Mars?

The best kept secret is the one in front of your eyes. If Nasa did not release those images and some one leaked them then they would have mouch more wieght. But on the other hand if they release them and claim its all light and shadow or some other idiotic reason then it seems easy to believe since these are "Rocket scientist" talking here. Second its not NASA who makes the desicions on what to let the public know but the Defence department.

Ahoy,
When I was a kid in elementary school, I noticed some things about the planets. I noticed how the gas giants like Jupiter could be used to represent the Earth as it was forming from dust. Venus could represent the Earth before life evolved (or was placed here). Mars could be used to show the Earth after it could no longer support life. Keep in mind that I was about 8 when I thought of this. Anyway, it only makes sense to me that there has to be life on other planets out there someplace. We have been searching for ANY indication of life for many years. There have been some hopeful clues, but they tend to be false leads. The SETI signal spike that has never been explained or repeated and the questionable fossilized bacteria in the rock from Mars are just two examples. Most major religions now accept the theory of life on other planets. Governments are spending millions if not billions looking for any indication of life. Most of the top scientists support the possibility of life on other planets. Most government leaders support the theory. So, if proof of life (living or extinct) were to be found, it really doesn’t make sense to me that a government, scientists, or anyone else would cover it up. What would they stand to gain by covering it up? Imagine the cash-cow for the person or persons who can offer irrefutable proof! We are also stuck with the same problem as with any government cover up. How do you keep that many people quiet? Bump them all off? I hardly think so. As someone posted before, Bill Clinton couldn't get a BJ without the world finding out. Don't you think someone would have come forward by now with the proof if it were out there? Or at least hard evidence (not just questionable evidence, at best) of a cover-up? You can't just say, "I think I heard a shot." That isn't proof. Show me the smoking gun.

Okay, so why do ESA keep releasing similar photos then?

The problem with the idea of ruins on Mars is that the evidence is currently exactly the same as the evidence pointing towards this being an ancient lost city:

Dragonwick
Help me out here. What am I doing wrong? I did not mean to post this as though I was responding to you. I just wanted to make a general post. I keep having this happen and people get upset thinking I'm attacking them. Can you help me out? I can sail a ship, but computers baffle me.

Essan,
Great analogy. I would also point out Monument Valley and the South Western United States. We Europeans first explored these places; they thought they were seeing ruins of “lost empires.”

I'm not Dragonwick (obviously!) but I think I see your error. If you click on the reply button located on the bottom of an individual's post you quote that person. In order to just generally respond to the thread you have to go all the way to the very bottom and use the reply button there. I think this is where you're being "scuttled"!

To keep a secret you compartinize the information, so no one knows the whole picture except a few in who's best interest it is to keep it secret. So what NASA is saying might not be lies but just a shortage of all the information. To say that those ruins could natural maybe, but thats a hypothetical unless we get boots on the ground. I just put the video to see what people thought it might very well be nothing but nature.

Thanks Lilly. Now I see it.

Isn't there a saying that you can't prove a negative (statement)? Proving the government is covering things up is possible, proof can possibly be found. Proving that they are not covering it up is not possible, because if the Mars objects don't exist then there can never be any proof.

Its not hypothetical. Its overwhelmingly probable. So overwhelming its barely worth talking about.



Therefore placing NASA in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. 1-0 to the believers.



THANK YOU. Someone talking sense.

It is indeed overwhelmingly probable that the so-called "ruins" are natural land forms. Take a look at this link. Take a close look at the illustration on that page and it's pretty easy to see that the Cydonia region was a product of volcanism in Mars' past history. Back in 1976 whan all that was available was the Viking images there might have been a small element of question involved, this just isn't so any longer. It's really time to put the "monuments of Mars" hypothesis to rest.

"Hypothetical" - "Probable"... this is just semantics,playing with words. The raw data is there for anyone to look at, as is the imaging software, I have posted the links to it here on this thread. I for one am studyig the raw data to see if, to my satisfaction - nobody else's- there is the slightest hint of hoaxing.
It would be useful if you did the same, compare our notes on this thread. Arguing, or deabating, without doing ANY background work is just lazy, making your comments pointless. This is eminently true when you consider that the source data is there for anyone to challenge.

I don't need to do background research into this, its idiotic. If someone claimed that the world had been visited a thousand years ago by a jelly monster called Steve Johnson from the planet Bloppyclaps, you wouldn't need to do any research to know it was crap would you? Same here. There is nothing that looks remotely artificial. At worst its distortion, compression and noise on the images. At best, its a rock. Get over it.