Bio Station Alpha

[Pericynthion]

The thread there is from yesterday.

They confirm it is there from other Nasa images.

That's the Mars Express image used by Google. I haven't seen any other images of this area containing the same artifact. Have you seen anyone reference any other source image ID's?

[The Religious Hoax]

So these 11 pixels of bad data are found in multiple pictures of the same coordinates? What would be the statistical odds of that happening? Would you say this bad data is characteristic of Google's products? I'm pretty sure the beta for Google Earth ended quite some time ago.

Also, can you produce some similar bad data/pixels that have a 3 dimensional appearance and with such distinct geometry?

Edited June 3, 2011 by The Religious Hoax

[Moonie2012]

Thanks Peri. That B&W pic you posted makes it painfully obvious that this is nothing more than an error. Hello errant pixels!

Unless someone actually SHOWS a different orbiter picture with that same exact thing at that same exact location (never mind the fact that you posted another one WITHOUT it), you just blew this "OMG SPACE BASE" out of the water and straight to hell.

Awesome work!

Edited June 3, 2011 by Moonie2012

[Pericynthion]

So these 11 pixels of bad data are found in multiple pictures of the same coordinates? What would be the statistical odds of that happening?

Can you give me an official ID number for another independent image showing the same feature in that location?

Would you say this bad data is characteristic of Google's products? I'm pretty sure the beta for Google Earth ended quite some time ago.

The bad pixels have nothing to do with Google. They exist in the nearly-raw science data I just posted. My guess would be that they were lost during transmission from Mars Express.

[The Religious Hoax]

How do you explain the geometric shape and 3 dimensional appearance?

[Moonie2012]

How do you explain the geometric shape and 3 dimensional appearance?

Image compression and the artifacts it creates, like Peri said (and like I alluded to earlier in the thread). The glitch has been distorted by the conversion process.

Seriously, unless you come up with that other picture you keep on about, this is case closed. There's nothing to argue.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Moonie2012

[TheMcGuffin]

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

Actually, if you guys think you can disprove something like this, you will chime in--otherwise you will say nothing at all.

[TheMcGuffin]

So these 11 pixels of bad data are found in multiple pictures of the same coordinates? What would be the statistical odds of that happening? Would you say this bad data is characteristic of Google's products? I'm pretty sure the beta for Google Earth ended quite some time ago.

Also, can you produce some similar bad data/pixels that have a 3 dimensional appearance and with such distinct geometry?

Now, what they are saying could well be false--and I wouldn't be shocked if it was--but one would need to know a lot more about photography than I do to state conclusively that it is bogus. I'm just going by the past record when I voice such suspicions, though, for admittedly I'm no expert in this area.

[The Religious Hoax]

Image compression and the artifacts it creates, like Peri said (and like I alluded to earlier in the thread). The glitch has been distorted by the conversion process.

Seriously, unless you come up with that other picture you keep on about, this is case closed. There's nothing to argue.

Case closed? That's a pretty sweeping statement, and this is hardly proof that this anomaly is a case of bad data.

Perhaps you can produce some similar glitches and examples of bad data to compare this to?

I am not an expert in photog or imaging either, so I am genuinely curious

Edited June 3, 2011 by The Religious Hoax

[Pax Unum]

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!

Great job, the last picture really bursts the bio stations bubble... Oh, wait, I'm sure someone will claim they installed a cloaking shield!...

[Pax Unum]

Case closed? That's a pretty sweeping statement, and this is hardly proof that this anomaly is a case of bad data.

Yea, case closed, look at the picture without the 'glitch', no 'station'...

[Moonie2012]

Case closed? That's a pretty sweeping statement, and this is hardly proof that this anomaly is a case of bad data.

Did you even bother to click on Peri's pic and look at it at full resolution?

Perhaps you can produce some similar glitches and examples of bad data to compare this to?

I am not an expert in photog or imaging either, so I am genuinely curious

I'm no super expert, but I know a row of bad pixels when I see them. I've only been staring at digital images and media for 25+ years now.

I don't have a different error for you to look at, sorry. I don't have a pile of dog poo handy either but I'm fairly certain I could identify one if put on the spot.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Moonie2012

[Pericynthion]

How do you explain the geometric shape and 3 dimensional appearance?

Human imagination. The original, best-quality image direct from the science archives shows a single row of white pixels that is completely consistent with something like a data dropout. There is no "three-dimensional appearance" to that artifact in the original image. As Moonie just posted, the Google Earth version of that image is highly compressed and highly processed. Google Earth is primarly meant for entertainment. The image data is not anywhere near the quality level required for serious image analysis.

While I'm at it, here are two more Mars Express images from the science archives. These are the Stereo 1 and Stereo 2 channels from the same H5620 image series. The image with the flaw was taken by the nadir imager, pointing straght down at the surface of Mars. The two stereo imagers collect data at the same time, but are aimed to look slightly forward and backward along the ground track. These photos only have half the resolution of the nadir image, but were taken at essentially the same time as the image with "bio station" artifact.

Mars Express HRSC Image H5620_0000_S12 (400% Enlargement)

Mars Express HRSC Image H5620_0000_S22 (400% Enlargement)

Neither of these images shows anything unusual at the location of the artifact seen in the nadir image. The "bio station" is an image artifact, not a real feature on the surface of Mars.

P.

[booNyzarC]

For once I'm thankful about having been kept late at work. Peri, my hat is off to your pristine presentation of argument and evidence. Thanks for saving me a fair bit of research. I surely would have taken much longer to unearth the compelling evidence that you've presented for all. Well done mate.

I guess we'll have to search elsewhere for that damned rebel scum!

[TheMcGuffin]

While I'm at it, here are two more Mars Express images from the science archives. These are the Stereo 1 and Stereo 2 channels from the same H5620 image series. The image with the flaw was taken by the nadir imager, pointing straght down at the surface of Mars. The two stereo imagers collect data at the same time, but are aimed to look slightly forward and backward along the ground track. These photos only have half the resolution of the nadir image, but were taken at essentially the same time as the image with "bio station" artifact.

Neither of these images shows anything unusual at the location of the artifact seen in the nadir image. The "bio station" is an image artifact, not a real feature on the surface of Mars.

P.

Since they all agree that you're so right and I know so little about pictures, I can only ask why you did not look at Mars Express images H1597-0000-ND3 and H1564-0000-ND3, which were supposedly the original sources for the "bio station" photos.

And yes, I have seen them. They come in pretty colors, and black and white, and infrared and all kinds of fun things.

Edited June 3, 2011 by TheMcGuffin

[Moonie2012]

Since they all agree that you're so right and I know so little about pictures, I can only ask why you did not look at Mars Express images H1597-0000-ND3 and H1564-0000-ND3, which were supposedly the original sources for the "bio station" photos.

And yes, I have seen them.

So in saying that, you must mean you found this on those as well?

Edited June 3, 2011 by Moonie2012

[booNyzarC]

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

Isn't it amazing how so much "evidence" that is supposedly in support of the ETH lacks that above mentioned list? Rarely are enough details provided and hardly ever are alternate explanations honestly presented or entertained. Occasionally there is a mock semblance of objectivity presented, but it seems to be getting more and more rare. And even when those alternate explanations are presented they seem to be skewed into the least credible light possible, and often misrepresented when they are even mentioned at all. This was blatantly obvious in a recent mocumentary I watched about the Phoenix Lights, and I also noticed it in another mocumentary recently posted (but produced many years ago by James Fox).

It is almost as if proponents of the ETH do not want to give an honest and complete picture. They only want to show the portion that gives some semblance of supporting the ETH. And then they come along and accuse those of a skeptical bent of doing the very same. Very interesting subject I must say. And very interesting the way everyone looks at the whole thing.

Not everyone, of course. There are people on both sides of this question who are too quick to dismiss the alternate explanations, and there are people on both sides who seem to be open to the explanations which make the most sense.

In fact, while typing this I must honestly admit that there are some skeptics who apply the same tactics from time to time. That is probably where Skeptiphobia comes from. Well, somewhat anyway. I honestly wish that we could all just apply reason to this question and focus more on answering it than on pointing fingers. It is very difficult to do though when certain overly vocal personalities capitalize the limelight.

All too often the extremes get the highlight in this subject and the fence sitters don't even get mentioned. To me, it is the fence sitters who are deserving of the most praise for being genuinely objective. Sitting by, waiting to see all of the evidence and assess it for themselves. Providing evidence themselves after research and accepting the value of that research based on feedback from others and confirmatory sources. Bravo to the fence sitters and may they all gain more praise as time goes on. And bravo to those who bring verifiable evidence to back up what they are presenting as possibility or fact.

Apologies for the rambling rant... This post took on a life of its own and ended up in a completely different place than I originally envisioned. I'll stop now even though I could probably ramble on for many more paragraphs... Hopefully it makes sense to someone other than just me.

[TheMcGuffin]

So in saying that, you must mean you found this on those as well?

I don't know about photography, but I do know about you guys.

Why don't you keep checking out that 5620 series or whatever instead of messing with this poor kid's mind?

I've got other fish to fry now. You boys have a nice evening.

[Moonie2012]

I don't know about photography, but I do know about you guys.

Why don't you keep checking out that 5620 series or whatever instead of messing with this poor kid's mind?

I've got other fish to fry now. You boys have a nice evening.

So much easier to just say "no I didn't".

But what poor kid's mind are we talking about here, and how is anyone "messing" with it? The facts are being laid out and this is being explained rationally and logically.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Moonie2012

[TheMcGuffin]

hey all gain more praise as time goes on. And bravo to those who bring verifiable evidence to back up what they are presenting as possibility or fact.

Apologies for the rambling rant... This post took on a life of its own and ended up in a completely different place than I originally envisioned. I'll stop now even though I could probably ramble on for many more paragraphs... Hopefully it makes sense to someone other than just me.

No one rambles better than you, Boon, I must say that, even though I've never been in your fan club.

But at least tell you buddies to look at the right series of Mars Express pictures next time, because you must realize by now I can check up on any of these things whenever the mood strikes me. Do you doubt it at this point?

[booNyzarC]

Since they all agree that you're so right and I know so little about pictures, I can only ask why you did not look at Mars Express images H1597-0000-ND3 and H1564-0000-ND3, which were supposedly the original sources for the "bio station" photos.

And yes, I have seen them. They come in pretty colors, and black and white, and infrared and all kinds of fun things.

I just went to look at those here. Both images are long strips. I didn't see anything that resembled the OP video in either. Can you point me to where you observed a similarity? Or was it in that ATS link I posted earlier? (by the way, those were underscores in the image names, not hyphens. _ not -, hyphens break the search on that link.)

[booNyzarC]

No one rambles better than you, Boon, I must say that, even though I've never been in your fan club.

But at least tell you buddies to look at the right series of Mars Express pictures next time, because you must realize by now I can check up on any of these things whenever the mood strikes me. Do you doubt it at this point?

It is unfortunate that the feeling and respect is apparently not mutual because I've felt rather partial to several of your contributions here. I must wonder if I've rubbed you the wrong way somewhere which has caused this vendetta? If I have, please accept my apology. It was not intended. If you say something I think is bunk, I'll tell you as much. But I'm criticizing your statement, not you personally. If it has ever come across differently from that, please know now that I did not intend it as such. And I'm completely open to being shown, with evidence, how my understanding is off the mark. By all means, I welcome the opportunities to learn.

Now, as to your other mention here. My understanding, and admittedly I just recently arrived home from work and finished dinner (truth is I got home hours ago but have spent the time eating dinner, watching a show with my lovely lady on DVR, and de-stressing) and haven't spent a great deal of research time on this topic as yet... but my understanding is that Peri was sharing alternate imagery of the same area for comparative purposes. And that imagery does not corroborate the imagery from the OP. So perhaps the alternate imagery (which shows no anomalous pixelation that I could see) is in error or perhaps the original imagery (which looked extremely pixelated and anomalous to me) is in error.

I know where my money would lie when faced with such a quandary. Where would yours lie?

Edited June 3, 2011 by booNyzarC

[Pericynthion]

Since they all agree that you're so right and I know so little about pictures, I can only ask why you did not look at Mars Express images H1597-0000-ND3 and H1564-0000-ND3, which were supposedly the original sources for the "bio station" photos.

Hi McGuffin,

Yes, I've seen those images. They're pretty low quality and are definitely not the source for the Google Earth image.

H1564 was taken on 05 April 2005.

H1597 was taken on 14 April 2005.

H5620 was taken on 18 May 2008.

If you zoom in on the Google Earth image of the "bio station" and look in the lower left corner of the image area, you'll see the comment "Imagery Date: 5/17/2008" This matches image H5620_0000_ND (I suspect the one day date difference may be due to a time zone conversion).

If you zoom OUT on Google Earth far enough to see the boundaries of that particular image, it becomes even more clear that it's H5620_0000_ND. Here's the bottom third of that image:

Mars Express HRSC H5620_0000_ND2

The boundaries of this image precisely match those shown on Google Earth.

And yes, I have seen them. They come in pretty colors, and black and white, and infrared and all kinds of fun things.

If you've seen them, what makes you think they're the source for the Google Earth image? And just to be precise, both H1597_0000_ND3 and H1564_0000_ND3 are black and white images. The "ND" at the end of the image number refers to the nadir imager. The infrared imager data ends in "IR" and the color channels end in "RE" "GR" and "BL". Just a little bit of interesting trivia ...

P.

[Soul Kitchen]

I think it's just the pixelation that gives it the angular appearance/

[badeskov]

Actually, if you guys think you can disprove something like this, you will chime in--otherwise you will say nothing at all.

Actually, I will disprove nothing, it is up to the proponent to prove what is claimed! Now Peri had the courtesy to do the work the proponents should have done - again, I daresay. Great work, as usual Peri!

And I will comment whenever I see it fitting, thank you! May I remind you that this is a discussion forum and when you post you invite everybody here to reply? If you don't like my posts, I suggest you put me on ignore or report me. The sad thing, though, is probably that you realize that I am correct in what I stated over several posts and that irks you!