Hello All.

I have a couple of websites to share. I have been studying the latest Mars Express images.

Evidence of Martian ruins….This evidence has been available for 2 years.

Website:
http://www.marsesa.9f.com/slide_show.html

I also have a website analyzing the Rex Heflin UFO. Most are gradient mapped enhanced images. By using gradients of different spectral ranges, Detail normally not seen by the eye is made visible. Detail that is capture by the original Polaroid photos. My analysis confirms the reality of this vehicle.

Rex Heflin UFO analysis website:
http://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/

Stop by and browse both websites.

Thanks.

Samples………..

A few images of Cydonia.

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Im...D250UNPROC.jpg

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/CYD336.jpg

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/CYD335N.jpg

The left side mirrored or reflected:
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/CYD335L.jpg

Right side reflected:
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/CYD335M.jpg

The Pyramid.
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/CYD400B.jpg

Another “Face” revealed. This artwork was obscured by Sun glare.
This “Face” is also designed to be mirrored.
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/CYD410A.jpg

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/CYD410D.jpg

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/CYD410EE.jpg

A few images of the Rex Heflin UFO analysis…

http://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/s..._UFO/REX15.gif

http://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/s...UFO/REX62B.gif

http://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/s...UFO/REX62A.gif

http://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/s...UFO/REX72A.gif

http://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/s...FO/REX196A.png

Mars Express source images:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=...ngle=y&start=4

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=...gle=y&start=10

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Exp...65R03EF_1.html

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Exp...FHSZEFF_0.html

Rex Heflin UFO analysis:
http://www.scientificexploration.org...ts/v14n4a4.php

http://www.scientificexploration.org...ood_kelson.pdf

Are you stating that NASA/ESA/etc are covering up evidence? Please post your analysis here. We are not going to debate your website.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Hello.

My websites are the results of my analysis.

Visit.

You are looking at scientific conclusions in image form.

NASA is NOT covering up any evidence. They are altering and/or igoring it.

It seems the ESA is the only one giving us glimples....

An example....Remove parantheses...It is unfortunate I have to post links this way....


(http)://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Cydonia_Images/CYD360A.jpg

You have a lot of webpages. BTW, the Heflin image links do not work. I suggest you figure out how to set them up so they do.

So your conclusion is that the Heflin photographs are of something and not a hoax? Your other conclusion is that NASA is covering up the truth about Cydonia by alterring their images?

Why should I consider your "analysis" is any better than others?

Um. I thought that Heflin claims that mysterious NORAD agents took the originals. You work for NORAD, I presume?

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

Hello Bozola, astrophotographer.

Bozola read the article.
http://www.scientificexploration.org...ts/v14n4a4.php

Astro....Links work for me.....

"Why should I consider your "analysis" is any better than others?"

By using the scientific method. My Mars Express images are based on released images...

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html

The Rex Heflin photos are NOT a hoax.....

My challenge to anyone is this...Visit my websites and study them for a spell before jumping to conclusions. After studying the sites, then come back and ask questions.

I am very serious in what I am doing....I do not speculate wildly....

Hello bozola, astrophotographer.

bozola, read the article..remove the ()
(http)://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.4_druffel_wood_kelson.pdf

astro....links work for me

"Why should I consider your "analysis" is any better than others? "

That is for you to decide.

The Heflin photos are NOT a hoax. The Heflin website reveal detail invisble to the naked eye. Detail only photographic film and software can detect.

A challenge.....Study the images on both websites for a spell before jumping to conclusions. After a good study period, come back and ask questions.

Both sites are a serious study/investigation

Not for me either.

So very serious that it implies that it's even POSSIBLE for NASA to alter all these images.

Heflin screwed up and suffered Pareidolia.

It amazes me to no end when people claim that the very photographs released by NASA are evidence of a cover up

Then why do they release these thousands and thousands of images for analysis?
Must be a very pathetic COVER UP.

No, I don't think that is how it will work for me. You are making the claim it is not a hoax and I asked you why you think this. For all I know, you are a 12-year old and not the author of the article in question. If you want to come in here and make a claim, you need to answer the questions about your analysis.

Again, why is your analysis any better than others done previously? What are your qualifications and what makes your (assuming it is yours) analysis any better than William Hartmann's?

BTW, your links for the heflin images do not work but I got them to work by cutting and pasting them into the browser. I am confused by what the images are supposed to show. They do not show anything IMO other than you used different colors to show the different light levels. Perhaps you can explain what each shows and what it means. This is supposedly your work and it is up to you to explain/defend it.

"Again, why is your analysis any better than others done previously?"

As far as I can tell, I am the only one who has used multi-spectral gradients to analyze the Heflin images.

I am using Adobe Photoshop CS3. I will be expecting jeers and smart remarks.
Comments by people who do not even own CS3 or do not how to use it.

It is not a question if it's better, Just unique...so far...

My Heflin site shows detail not seen before. Detail intrinsic to the oringinal images. Ann Druffel will post first generation copies of the Heflin photos on her website in appox. 8 months.

So, I am stuck with online pdf article images. Even so, The quality of the pdf images (Low Q JPEG's) are decent to work with.

The Mars Express images. What can I say?....I download the images from their website and I get to work. If there is a damaged Pyramid with a debris field...That's exactly what it is.....I can not convince any to "Believe". That depends on the individuals willingness to look and question his or her own view of what's "Going on".

Is NASA playing games with their images?...Only a few..not thousands.

Is the ESA playing games?....Yes.....They like to play around with their TIFF images alot..Some are indentical to their transmitted JPEG images....some are not....However, This is a minor distraction.

Every time a new CT post shows up, I anticipate some new revelation. Yet each and every time, it is the same stuff in a different wrapper. I really don't see anything that hasn't been discussed before. Photoshopped images with no supporting analysis and the typical refrain, look at my website for all the answers.

*yawn*

KS42 - why not do something really unique and bold, and present some evidence? Lay out a conspiracy case for us to evaluate.

"Every time a new CT post shows up, I anticipate some new revelation. Yet each and every time, it is the same stuff in a different wrapper. I really don't see anything that hasn't been discussed before. Photoshopped images with no supporting analysis and the typical refrain, look at my website for all the answers.

*yawn*

KS42 - why not do something really unique and bold, and present some evidence? Lay out a conspiracy case for us to evaluate."

The images on my website are evidence. Lets stay on topic.

Do not anticipate anything.

Goto my websites and study the images for yourself....

This will be my last post for awhile...Unless there is a meaningful reply..

I remember the "Photo Analysis" performed on the original Face of Cydonia image.
They were WAY off.

Recent surveys and photos of the "face" show it to be nothing more than a regular mesa.

Hmmmm...and these gradients are supposed to reveal....what? I still see nothing in these images you linked that strike me as something earth shattering. How do they prove there is no possibility that these images could not be hoaxed?

To be honest you sound a lot like Jim Diletosso and his flawed attempts to perform analysis on video images to show the Phoenix lights were not flares. His qualifications were that he had fancy software (Btw I own photoshop CS-3) and said he was doing things with it that he could not do. He was misinterpreting his results. What makes you any different than him?

As for the Mars images, let's suppose that the face is an artificial construct of some kind. After 4 landers and two (and a half) rovers have surveyed the martian surface, why haven't they found one shred of undeniable evidence that shows a martian civilization once existed? Certainly, if they can construct a huge monument to man (or is it martian) they certainly would have left something else significant behind that could be found by a rover. Maybe a few rusty martian chevy's or ford's on the side of a sand dune or in a crater? I would settle for one skyscraper that is half-buried in sand.

I just saw this...

"BTW, your links for the heflin images do not work but I got them to work by cutting and pasting them into the browser. I am confused by what the images are supposed to show. They do not show anything IMO other than you used different colors to show the different light levels. Perhaps you can explain what each shows and what it means. This is supposedly your work and it is up to you to explain/defend it."

The Heflin images show field structure!...Or at least atmospheric distrubances.....disturbances caused by the UFO.....Copy/paste and remove the ( )

(http)://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/slide_shows/Rex_Heflin_Photo2/RH103.gif

(http)://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/slide_shows/Rex_Heflin_Photo2/RH104.gif


(http)://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/slide_shows/Rex_Heflin_Photo2/RH135A.png

This "go to my website" and read appears to be a dodge to avoid discussing the details. I am not sure if you know what your photographic photoshopping efforts mean. You can't seem to explain it for us. If you can not support your claims, then go someplace else where people will nod their heads in agreement with you and will not question what you present. Apparently, this is what you want. You won't get it here.

KS - you've been promoting this site around the web for a few months at least and pretty much everywhere you go you meet the same response. "What is the significance?", "What's the point?"

What do you think your images are evidence of? What is the topic? We've seen this all before, some have done it worse, some better. You have not presented anything new, nor given us an analysis.

This will be my last post for awhile..unless I see some meaningful content...

Anyone else notice how he is completely avoiding answering any questions and is refusing to explain Anything at all?

I have No Idea WHAT he is trying to show in some of these pictures.

But then I admit, I don't really suffer pareidolia much... I'm not good at seeing faces in sandwiches and stuff. Takes me forever to see it.

And those three D images that you stare at and see a ship or whatever? Forget about it... Can't do those things at all.

All this from a polaroid. Amazing...isn't it?

How can you say it is "field structure"? What kind of field are you talking about? Then there is this "atmospheric distrubances"? How does a photograph record this? I think you are making a stretch here.

To me, your images just show varying levels of light on the image and nothing more. There is one bright spot near the UFO but that means very little. It just means that portion of the image is brightest. If this is your "proof" then you really need to read up on how films work.

One more reply.....I will come back later.


A few Cydonia images to study....Copy/paste and remove the ( ). Thanks.
I know it's cumbersome.....

The "Face"

Before:
(http)://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Image_Processing/SS3A.jpg

After:
(http)://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Image_Processing/SS4A.jpg

(http)://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/CYD336.jpg

The Pyramid.
(http)://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/CYD188.jpg

(http)://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/CYD410EE.jpg

One more....

"All this from a polaroid. Amazing...isn't it?

How can you say it is "field structure"? What kind of field are you talking about? Then there is this "atmospheric distrubances"? How does a photograph record this? I think you are making a stretch here.

To me, your images just show varying levels of light on the image and nothing more. There is one bright spot near the UFO but that means very little. It just means that portion of the image is brightest. If this is your "proof" then you really need to read up on how films work."

Any film/CCD/camera combination is way more senstive than the eye.

This combination will detect very subltle atmospheric disturbances....These disturbances are changes in air density.....Changes in density that effects the index of refraction....Thus changing light levels...Ever see heat waves rise from a hot road???...I am sure you know all this already....You are testing me....good night........vist my webistes....It will be an educational experience.....

"Mysteriously showed up"? How convenient.

I know it's odd, but it's my experience with NORAD that when you give them a document it's almost certainly permanently lost in the morass of filing hell.

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

KS, if you leave your URLs alone, they'll get through the spam filter when a mod has time to look at them. In a few more posts, the spam filter won't catch you anymore, though the mods like leaving the exact number a secret to better fool the enormous number of spammers we get around here.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

And a polaroid's sensitivity curve is....what? What kind of "field" are you talking about that is being recorded by the film? It almost sounds like you want to state "magnetic field". I am quite familiar with how film can record things. However, daylight film can not record certain things. It is specifically designed to record a certain band of the spectrum. For instance, it can not record in the infrared. Therefore, you are going to have to do better than just state this film is recording things not visible to the eye.

However, you are stating that the air density changes in the open air is being recorded by a polaroid? Your heat waves over a hot road is not a good example. You are talking about a photograph of the open air. Can you photograph the wake of a low flying airplane on film? Your theory is not supported by what is on the image. You begin to sound like somebody who really does not have a clue about what you are talking about.

This has been quite educational to be honest. It demonstrates you really do not understand what you are doing and are using pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo to support your preconceived conclusions.

Technically, this is false. The eye has a wider range of color sensitivity than any film or CCD. Also, CCDs have linear gamma, whereas the human eye has logarithmic gamma, making it more sensitive to shadow details.

As for visual acuity, it is estimated that the human eye has the resolution of a 576 mega-pixel camera. Much better than commercial cameras and far better than a 1960's era polaroid.

Unless you have the original film and are using a rotary scanner to scan the images your analysis is highly suspect. I'm more or less going to assume to you are using JPEGs as source which automatically discredits any analysis.

Also your ignorance (I do not mean this as an insult - please be aware) of film/ccd/sensor capabilities discredits your analysis.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

I can spend hours talking technical aspects of imaging, CCD versus rods and cones, 90mm lenses versus 5mm lense,gamma responses, etc, etc, etc,...This will only distract from my main argument....

A summary,

There are ruins on Mars.

Website;
http://www.marsesa.9f.com/slide_show.html

The Rex Heflin UFO is a real vehicle.

Website;
http://rex-heflin-ufo-analysis.com/

JPEG's are scientifically valid images.

I can spend hours debating technical aspects of imaging, CCD versus rods and cones, 90mm lenses vs 5mm lens, gamma repsonses, Index of refractions, gradients, etc, etc.

This will only distract from my original topic.

A summary:

There are ruins on Mars.

The Rex Heflin UFO is a real vehicle.

Visit my websites.

All images are pure science. Science at its best.

I looked at these first two pictures. I don't get what's new other than you made them some pretty colors. People have been looking at this picture for decades. How then is NASA covering anything up?

Ok, it looks kind of like a face. If you look at any of the newer, more recent pictures, it doesn't look like a face. If I look at something with better resolution and it looks less like what I thought it was (not more) don't you think that shows that the first impression was wrong.

I saw a cloudy today that looked just like a horse. Do you think that this proves that horse-like creatures inhabit our atmosphere? Do you think the National Weather Service is keeping this a secret?

As Neverfly suggested, do you know what Pareidolia means?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

JPEGs are not even remotely valid. just as "analyzing" and MP# would have you laughed out of an audio forum. And yes lets argue source material technical specs as they are perfectly valid when trying to cliam aspects of a highly compressed image.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---