Moonie2012 Posted June 2, 2011 #26 Share Posted June 2, 2011 There's a You Tube video about this "bio station" We're well aware - specifically since it's in the first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMcGuffin Posted June 2, 2011 #27 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) We're well aware - specifically since it's in the first post. That's nice of you to point out (sneer). And no, I don't think you guys would be so sloppy as to leave the really good stuff out in the open to be picked up on Google, but then again maybe some of it is not ours. Edited June 2, 2011 by TheMcGuffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerix Posted June 2, 2011 #28 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Looks like an ice patch. It's pixilated, that's why there are straight edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 2, 2011 #29 Share Posted June 2, 2011 YT generation - straight way to idiocracy... TMG, TRH, and, ah... bee. Why not follow link (with links werein), Boon provided, and check data for yourself, for potatoes sake! There you will find Gigs of data. Everything is served on silver plate, with golden spoons, just one little effort to do something by yourself. (I'm not done this yet - ~300KB/s/file very slow - but, hell I'll download all related files and see for myself) PS and ah, many thanks go to Boon PPS I think Peri will come and will present interesting info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerix Posted June 2, 2011 #30 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Did you watch the video? Did you verify the coordinates by checking out Google Mars? Care to explain how a presence of shadows jibes with a lens artifact or imaging glitch? This makes ZERO sense, and you are really grasping at straws here... You still believe in the face on mars don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Religious Hoax Posted June 2, 2011 #31 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table? Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously. You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up. Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonie2012 Posted June 2, 2011 #32 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table? Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously. You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up. Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave. Nobody who supports this as some sort of "alien base" or whatever has actually SAID anything that supports that theory in any decent capacity. Considering it's a blurry white pixel-ey squiggle on Google Mars (if it is anything like Google Earth it has PLENTY of bugs and flaws), it's not surprising that no one can come up with a decent argument for it being a "base". Edited June 2, 2011 by Moonie2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMcGuffin Posted June 2, 2011 #33 Share Posted June 2, 2011 YT generation - straight way to idiocracy... TMG, TRH, and, ah... bee. Why not follow link (with links werein), Boon provided, and check data for yourself, for potatoes sake! There you will find Gigs of data. Everything is served on silver plate, with golden spoons, just one little effort to do something by yourself. (I'm not done this yet - ~300KB/s/file very slow - but, hell I'll download all related files and see for myself) PS and ah, many thanks go to Boon PPS I think Peri will come and will present interesting info. You mean pictures like these: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Religious Hoax Posted June 2, 2011 #34 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Nobody who supports this as some sort of "alien base" or whatever has actually SAID anything that supports that theory. Nobody. You are correct. But there are additional pictures showing the same object, which almost dismisses the artifact or glitch argument completely. If that option is off the table, what is left? I won't pretend for a second to know what that is. But unfortunately conventional means no longer suffice for this explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMcGuffin Posted June 2, 2011 #35 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table? Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously. You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up. Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave. Second that. BMK's views are all too familiar, of course, but the Moonie is new to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 2, 2011 #36 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table? Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously. You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up. Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave. I already said, I'm looking in it, so why don't you just do the same. Afterwards we can share results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 2, 2011 #37 Share Posted June 2, 2011 You mean pictures like these: Did you looked at Boon's link (and links werein) at all?! Did you downloaded data, and converted to more visual image? Can you post your findings, or you will still relate on YT, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kantzveldt Posted June 2, 2011 Author #38 Share Posted June 2, 2011 You are correct. But there are additional pictures showing the same object, which almost dismisses the artifact or glitch argument completely. If that option is off the table, what is left? I won't pretend for a second to know what that is. But unfortunately conventional means no longer suffice for this explanation. That's true, if the object has appeared on more than one Nasa image that rules out a pixel artifact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Religious Hoax Posted June 2, 2011 #39 Share Posted June 2, 2011 It really sticks out like a sore thumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socio Posted June 2, 2011 #40 Share Posted June 2, 2011 It really sticks out like a sore thumb. Sure does, and if it was an ice patch I would expect to see more than just one in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonie2012 Posted June 2, 2011 #41 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) That's true, if the object has appeared on more than one Nasa image that rules out a pixel artifact. Fair enough, but that STILL doesn't lend any credence to the whole "base" idea. All it proves is that there's a white-ish thing on a sea of brown. Edited June 2, 2011 by Moonie2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMcGuffin Posted June 2, 2011 #42 Share Posted June 2, 2011 According to NASA, Mars bases might look something like these. They would have to build them near ice fields or some other source of water, since it would not be economical to carry it all to Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMcGuffin Posted June 2, 2011 #43 Share Posted June 2, 2011 And there is even such a thing as a "Mars Homestead Society". http://richardtrombly.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/mars-foundation-plans-to-homestead-mars/ Just don't end up looking like this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattavich123 Posted June 2, 2011 #44 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Can't see a thing. What kind of idiot spends their days scanning an ENTIRE PLANET and claims there are aliens there at the first sight of a stupid f-king blurry squiggle. Edited June 2, 2011 by mattavich123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMcGuffin Posted June 2, 2011 #45 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Can't see a thing. What kind of idiot spends their days scanning an ENTIRE PLANET and claims there are aliens there at the first sight of a stupid f-king blurry squiggle. Who says that it's always aliens? For that matter, who says that it's just the US government? I can think of any number of possibilities. In this world, about 10% of the people make things happen, 20% watch things happen and 70% wonder what happened. Edited June 2, 2011 by TheMcGuffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted June 3, 2011 #46 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table? Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously. You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up. Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave. By all means of respect, but you are making yourself into a stereotype. Some of us here have been through an uncountable number of similar threads and they all tend to end the same way. I predict that a hires image from either NASA or ESA will show up at some point, showing a natural formation, be it an ice patch or a ridge that is pixilated due to heavy image compression. I will follow this thread unfold while I enjoy a couple of gin and tonics and a snack (I am on my phone and can thus not go search for high res images myself) and then later tonight I will follow BooNy's link and see what pops up. Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted June 3, 2011 #47 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) You can always tell the threads with substance on these forums, because they generate the least amount of comments/arguments. Very telling indeed! Actually, it is typically the opposite. The threads with substance typically generate a lot of good discussion. The ridiculous ones are typically a bit quiet to start with as the more level headed will just sit and shake their heads and the nonsense continues, will then chip in. Cheers, Badeskov Edited June 3, 2011 by badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted June 3, 2011 #48 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) Just watched the video, extremely interesting, to say the least! The object in the video is clearly artificial/manufactured, and not a natural formation If this Google Mars system is legit, this is quite a headscratcher. Thanks for posting! It is stuff like this that feeds gullibility and is an example of exceptionally poor research abilities and/or intellectual laziness in a certain group of the UFO segment. I am still typing on my phone, so I cannot watch the video. But did the video give the following information: * which spacecraft took the image? * what is the resolution of the camera, ie how many square meters is a single pixel on the ground? * is there a higher resolution image available? * is google mars compressing the images further so you can download them faster? * etc etc etc. I am sure you can follow my line of thought here. Did they offer the above information? If not, why do you think that is? But more importantly, why didnt you ask those questions yourself? What makes you believe that you can jump straight to a conclusion without knowing all there is to know? That is why you making yourself into a stereotype. But don't take it in a bad way. This is a chance to learn. I can promise you that if the OP had worded the initial post differently and asked for help to finding the actual facts about the image in question, the responses would have been overly positive :-) Just my two cents. Cheers, Badeskov Edited June 3, 2011 by badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Religious Hoax Posted June 3, 2011 #49 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) The only thing I'm assuming is that this anomaly is most likely an artificial structure of some kind. I am not certain of this, but the evidence strongly suggests so. Google is pretty damn good at nearly everything they do as well. And in this case, maybe too good I don't like being stereotyped as part of a "YT idiocracy", or that the ideas I discuss are "stupid". There is no justification for that type of behavior, especially in this thread. I don't shy away from pointed arguments, but it really needs to be kept within reason. After all, if a debate isn't civil, it ceases to be a debate, and is reduced to forum fodder. Edited June 3, 2011 by The Religious Hoax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pericynthion Posted June 3, 2011 #50 Share Posted June 3, 2011 What's that doing there...? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJt0LJZG2k Co-ordinates are 71 49'19.73"N 29 33'06.53"W Hi Kantzveldt, This isn't a "bio station" or any other sort of object, natural or artificial. It's actually just 11 pixels of bad data in the original image, probably a data dropout. The image has been reprocessed multiple times to prepare it for use in Google Earth, so the original pixels have been badly distorted. They're also surrounded by some pretty noticeable compression artifacts. The original source image used by Google is an ESA Mars Express High Resolution Stereo Camera image (H5620_0000_ND), taken on 18 May 2008 (link). First of all, here's a copy of the image as seen in Google Earth: Google Earth Now, here's a crop from the original Mars Express HRSC science data, before processing (click on the image to enlarge it to full size!): H5620_0000_ND2 (Enlarged to 400%) And finally, here's a higher-resolution image of the same area as seen by the Mars Reconaissance Orbiter Context Camera on 25 January 2010: MRO CTX B17_016407_2528_XN_72N029W I've uploaded this crop at full resolution, so each pixel represents a distance of about 6.25 meters. There is clearly nothing unusual at that location. Hope this helps! Regards, P. P.S. to bmk1245: Thanks for the vote of confidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now