Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bio Station Alpha


Kantzveldt

Recommended Posts

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

Indeed it was.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 591
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TheMcGuffin

    116

  • Moonie2012

    47

  • booNyzarC

    45

  • bee

    34

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The only thing I'm assuming is that this anomaly is most likely an artificial structure of some kind.

No, you were pretty definite:

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!

<snip>

But lets not let that poor choice of words separate us. Because it was artificial, as it was a transmission glitch that was subsequently processed and compressed.

I am not certain of this,

You shouldn't be. never be certain of anything :)

but the evidence strongly suggests so.

NO! As was pretty well shown by Peri, an exercise you yourself should have gone through. Never believe anything without verification. You can now go verify Peri images and see for yourself that this ridiculous claim was indeed, as suggested by several, data transmission errors and/or compression artifacts.

Google is pretty damn good at nearly everything they do as well. And in this case, maybe too good :)

No, Google Mars is for entertainment.

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.

I am not saying that the ideas that you discuss are stupid in general, but this one was. It was pretty ridiculous from the get go, so to say so. And I don't want you to be stereotyped, however, you do that yourself. Why did you not ask the questions that I listed in a previous post to you? It was exactly as predicted! You know how not to be stereotyped next time? You refrain from definite statements unless you have all you need and you ask questions. And you do some research. And, no, searching YouTube videos is not research. Do you even know what compression artifacts are? If not, why not try Google and learn something. Believe me, pursuing the various red threads through a given case can be extremely rewarding and you learn a lot of new stuff along the way. :tu:

But in the end, it is your choice.

All in good respect,

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

TheMcGuffin,

By all means of respect, but I thought you were better than this. Lets just say that my respect for your research abilities just dropped rather significantly! Sadly.

In this statement here:

but one would need to know a lot more about photography than I do to state conclusively that it is bogus.

You just stated that you have no intention whatsoever of researching anything that goes against your belief. And that is where you lose respect completely. Seriously, are you that ignorant or oblivious?

1) It is a well known fact that Google Mars is not a scientific source. It is entertainment. They process and compress images so you can get the best experience possible from a download perspective, not a detail perspective.

2) Compression artifacts are very well known in photography. Wiki link. In fact, I have a current issue running with my local Sears of some pictures they took on my daughter and compressed down to something ridiculous. Did you even try making your own compression artifacts? You know what, they are easily reproducible! And there you have it, scientific, independent verification.

3) Peri found the original image, something a believer that want to know and not just naively believe should be capable of. And something any researcher worth his/her salt would do. It had 11 white pixels in a row. Nowhere near the "artificial structure image"

4) Transmission errors from orbiters. Again, a very well known phenomena. Has been seen more times than I can count here on UM.

5) Imagery from a different orbiter with no white pixels, i.e. no transmission errors.

Now, how hard is that to understand? I am not asking you to believe anything. You can know. If you actually want to. It is that simple and it doesn't even require very much. And if you are really that dubious, I am sure any physicist/image analyst at a University near you would be happy to spend 10 mins with you to look over a printout of this thread.

So, please.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Edited by badeskov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

I find it sad. All I see is either an intellectual laziness or an overwhelming desire to believe. There are so many knowledge people here at UM, ready to answer questions asked. Yet, we see thread after thread entitled "artificial structures on Moon/Mars/insert favorite moon/planet here" based on heavily compressed images and a clear lack of knowledge of image analysis. But what I find really, really sad is the lack of common sense and critical thinking. OK, I just found/saw and image/youtube video and those are definitely artificial structure from aliens/NASA. Now, instead of posting this incredible finding why does one not ask...uhm, I am sure thousands of image analysts have been over these images, why didn't they discover them? Am I actually looking at original imagery? Is there other imagery that I could confirm this with? Frankly, it screams to the heavens!

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.

In fact, in my point of view ETH proponents have a very hard time to give an honest and complete picture of any case. But maybe we have a different definition, BooNy. Frankly, the people I see on parts of both sides of the fence (and on), I actually call skeptics. One side believes that ET visitation has not happened, but will look at all the facts and discuss them openly. On the other side we have the people that believe that ET visitation has happened, but will look at all the facts and discuss them openly. In the middle, well, they are just trying to hang on and not fall down :P And then we have the cynics and the gullible believers. In various degrees. But it is very interesting indeed!

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.

Exactly, and those turn out to be the most rewarding discussions to engage in.

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.

Of course, and to a certain extent I think we are all guilty of that - I certainly am! When we see the same ridiculous topic or non-argument posted for the umpteenth time.

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. :tu: And bravo to those who bring verifiable evidence to back up what they are presenting as possibility or fact. :tu:

Oh, I truly enjoy true facts being brought to the table and there is nothing that I respect more that someone respecting a good argumentative point.

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. :hmm:

You never post ramblings, I truly enjoy your posts :tu: Unfortunately until mid June I am limited in my replying abilities, but I will be back with a vengeance when I have time and abilities!

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facts are being laid out and this is being explained rationally and logically.

...and therein lies the trouble.... :wacko:

Great work Peri! Just kind of wild that someone admitting they know nothing about photo compression and "arguing" against someone who obviously does, clearly put in work and still not believing it!? **(please take no offense, was just an observation as i was going through this)

What i want to know is.....and what i think the bigger mystery may be...... how'd that guy get those funny squigglies in Bee's video she posted? They sure are pretty. :devil:

Edited by Universal Sight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and therein lies the trouble.... :wacko:

Great work Peri! Just kind of wild that someone admitting they know nothing about photo compression and "arguing" against someone who obviously does, clearly put in work and still not believing it!? **(please take no offense, was just an observation as i was going through this)

What i want to know is.....and what i think the bigger mystery may be...... how'd that guy get those funny squigglies in Bee's video she posted? They sure are pretty. :devil:

Indeed, the facts were laid out in all their naked beauty. Now, do the people contesting them have the courage to take them on?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPS I think Peri will come and will present interesting info.

I didn't realise you were psychic..... :o

What i want to know is.....and what i think the bigger mystery may be...... how'd that guy get those funny squigglies in Bee's video she posted? They sure are pretty. :devil:

obviously a pixel-party in space...... ;):tu:

:no:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJF2bdlabvk&feature=player_embedded

:innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Ain't it sad that Peri did just that? Found the exact images? Now, if you had had the abilities you would have done that yourself instead of whining of someone stepping on your believer toes just to be proven wrong. I know you are not gonna read this as you have already fled this thread as you has nothing to offer and a lack of courage to face your "opponents". I definitely expected more from you. Oh well...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you are not gonna read this as you have already fled this thread as you has nothing to offer and a lack of courage to face your "opponents".

crikey....it's just a forum thread...not pistols at dawn

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crikey....it's just a forum thread...not pistols at dawn

:rolleyes:

Well, it was a mere observation.

That said, how are ya Bee? :)

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPS I think Peri will come and will present interesting info.

Hey Bmk, I found this comment very interesting :)

'I wish' or 'it would be good if'....instead of 'I think' would not have been as interesting.

any chance of some assistance on this weeks lottery? also did you use Cathies harmonics to predict? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ain't it sad that Peri did just that? Found the exact images? Now, if you had had the abilities you would have done that yourself instead of whining of someone stepping on your believer toes just to be proven wrong. I know you are not gonna read this as you have already fled this thread as you has nothing to offer and a lack of courage to face your "opponents". I definitely expected more from you. Oh well...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Hey Bad, trust you are well, I am curious as to the use of the word 'opponents' as I thought we were all here to work together in search of the truth, although having spent the last day catching up on threads it does seem that 'sides/teams' are appearing, unfortunately IMO as this can obstruct us being truely objective and leaves us with a desire to win rather than find out, dont you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, how are ya Bee? :)

Cheers,

Badeskov

good, thanks....

flying.jpg

come and join me in the naked beauty of 'space'........ :D:P;)

flying2.jpg

ps...welcome back quillius... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps...welcome back quillius... :)

thanks Bee, looks like you have been having lots of fun without me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, the people I see on parts of both sides of the fence (and on), I actually call skeptics. One side believes that ET visitation has not happened, but will look at all the facts and discuss them openly. On the other side we have the people that believe that ET visitation has happened, but will look at all the facts and discuss them openly. In the middle, well, they are just trying to hang on and not fall down :P And then we have the cynics and the gullible believers. In various degrees. But it is very interesting indeed!

Exactly, and those turn out to be the most rewarding discussions to engage in.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I thought this was very nicely put Badeskov :tu: I have said before I believe yet I am skeptical of each case individually, you somehow capture my position in your words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

GoogleMars400pct.jpg

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%)

H5620_0000_ND2Flaw400pct.jpg

Hi, what you (and others)suggest is looking the most likely explanation, but what about HRSC: H5620_0000_ND3...?

marsf.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious if different scopes or cameras were used in these photos. Also, how many different orbiters have been used to image Mar's surface?

It would be very helpful if one of you skeptics would be able to link other similar imaging glitches that would corroborate your claims. There is an awful lot of skeptic patting on the back going on in this thread, and much of the arguments are geared towards us believers as opposed to dealing with the topic at hand.

Here is another YT video showing what appears to be some more unnatural looking objects on Mars terrain:

Edited by The Religious Hoax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In exploration, research and investigation, whatever happened to the question "I wonder what could have caused that?" ....all you see these days are claims made, then people asking for evidence to prove the claim is wrong. It's much like the overall ufo question, whereby the question "what is it?" is forgotten at the first hurdle in favour of this pointless posturing over who's on what side of this ever widening fence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy that originally posted the video on youtube is probably going to claim that the structure was moved and he is going to spend a lot of time trying to find it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ain't it sad that Peri did just that? Found the exact images? Now, if you had had the abilities you would have done that yourself instead of whining of someone stepping on your believer toes just to be proven wrong. I know you are not gonna read this as you have already fled this thread as you has nothing to offer and a lack of courage to face your "opponents". I definitely expected more from you. Oh well...

Cheers,

Badeskov

No, I haven't fled, but I just noted that for some reason you and your friends seemed particularly unpleasant on this one. Something about it put a real bee in your bonnets, didn't it? What was it, really?

And no, I don't think we are all "colleagues" on here working together to find some objective truth. Just the opposite, in many cases.

It's just that I have other things to do besides this, and will be busy on Sunday and Monday as well. I hope that's all right with you, Badeskov.

Edited by TheMcGuffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In exploration, research and investigation, whatever happened to the question "I wonder what could have caused that?" ....all you see these days are claims made, then people asking for evidence to prove the claim is wrong. It's much like the overall ufo question, whereby the question "what is it?" is forgotten at the first hurdle in favour of this pointless posturing over who's on what side of this ever widening fence.

It was always like that on the subject of UFOs. I'm not even saying that's what this was, but there was something about these pictures that really got the "skeptics" all wound up. They even brought in some people I never encountered on here before, really went out of their way to attack this particular claim. Usually I don't get much response at all from most of them, but for some reason I did this time.

I don't know what it was, but some of these pictures they're talking about now seem to have been pulled from one of the websites I was looking at. Not available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi McGuffin,

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.

I have seen them in color and infrared, but that IR ones showed nothing at all giving off a heat signature--just completely black. The ones in color do not even show many topographical details, at least not those that I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious if different scopes or cameras were used in these photos. Also, how many different orbiters have been used to image Mar's surface?

It would be very helpful if one of you skeptics would be able to link other similar imaging glitches that would corroborate your claims. There is an awful lot of skeptic patting on the back going on in this thread, and much of the arguments are geared towards us believers as opposed to dealing with the topic at hand.

Something really got them going on this one, that's for sure, but I don't know what it was. I'm even getting these messages of how the "skeptics" lost respect for me, when I never noticed they had any to begin with!

I have no idea why they chose to go all out over this particular case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something really got them going on this one, that's for sure, but I don't know what it was. I'm even getting these messages of how the "skeptics" lost respect for me, when I never noticed they had any to begin with!

I have no idea why they chose to go all out over this particular case.

They really came out of the woodwork for this thread huh? I don't take posters seriously who mysteriously appear in a topic, and have been largely absent during numerous other threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.