Bio Station Alpha

[Legaia]

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.

You don't take them seriously? Why? Even when they lay out solid evidence that debunks a claim, when it should be the claimant proving their claim? No need to get so bent out of shape about a thread, let alone take it so personally.

[TSS]

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.

True that there are some that are outright dismissive of just about anything to do with this subject from the outset....they've always been here though. I don't see any particular interest from sceptics on this thread though, not beyond the normal anyway...there are a couple of very knowledgeable people on image artifacts etc though, so i'd imagine that any perception of being wound up may come from the fact that these type of threads appear time and time again, with little or no effort by people making claims to look into alternatives before making conclusions.. (i'm not referring to you, i'm just talking generally).

[bmk1245]

There were request for more glitches in HRSC images.

Here yea go (H1597 0000 IR2):

And I checked image, part of which Peri already posted (as always, Peri does great job, kudos, Peri). Here is what I found:

Now, TRH and TMG, would you like to share your findings?

[The Religious Hoax]

You don't take them seriously? Why? Even when they lay out solid evidence that debunks a claim, when it should be the claimant proving their claim? No need to get so bent out of shape about a thread, let alone take it so personally.

I don't take anything on a forum personally. I am fortunate enough not to care what others think about me, virtual or in RL.

Also, if a poster makes a brief cameo in only certain threads to debunk something, it comes across as cherry-picking. If someone was truly interested in the ETH, and an active UM member, wouldn't we see them in more threads?

[TheMcGuffin]

Now, TRH and TMG, would you like to share your findings?

The pictures I looked at were here:

http://viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/hrsc#/planetview/inst/hrsc/H1597_0000_ND3

http://viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/hrsc#/planetview/inst/hrsc/H1564_0000_ND3

It is possible to view these in color and with day and night infrared.

Details:

Product ID H1597_0000_ND3

Data Products http://hrscview.fu-berlin.de/cgi-bin/ion-p?page=product.ionℑ=1597_0000

PDS File http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/mex/mex-m-hrsc-5-refdr-mapprojected-v2/mexhrsc_1001//data/1597/h1597_0000_nd3.img

Orbital Inclination 8533.88 °

Westernmost Lon 314.688 °

Map Resolution 4741.9756 pixels/degree

Periapsis Altitude 327.5 km

Samples 23899

Release 0020

Data Set ID MEX-M-HRSC-5-REFDR-MAPPROJECTED-V2.0

Revision 0000

Map Scale 0.0125 km/pixel

Max Lat 80.0844 °

PDS Version ID PDS3

Min Lat 64.9156 °

Center Lon 327 °

Modification Date 2011-06-02 16:20:49.737978

Processing Level ID 3

Stop Time (UTC) 2005-04-14T22:44:02.411Z

Map Projection SINUSOIDAL

Spacecraft Solar Distance 215240992 km

Lines 71932

Center Lat 0 °

Maximum Resolution 16.7 m/pixel

Spacecraft Pointing Mode ACROSSTRACK

instrument_name HIGH RESOLUTION STEREO CAMERA

Orbit Number 1597

Ascending Node Longitude 195 °

Easternmost Lat 333.668 °

Mission Phase MR_Phase_6

Coordinate System PLANETOGRAPHIC

Detector ID MEX_HRSC_NADIR

Product ID H1564_0000_ND3

Data Products http://hrscview.fu-berlin.de/cgi-bin/ion-p?page=product.ionℑ=1564_0000

PDS File http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/mex/mex-m-hrsc-5-refdr-mapprojected-v2/mexhrsc_1001//data/1564/h1564_0000_nd3.img

Orbital Inclination 8531.33 °

Westernmost Lon 322.927 °

Map Resolution 4741.9756 pixels/degree

Periapsis Altitude 327.91 km

Samples 19530

Release 0020

Data Set ID MEX-M-HRSC-5-REFDR-MAPPROJECTED-V2.0

Revision 0000

Map Scale 0.0125 km/pixel

Max Lat 78.4108 °

PDS Version ID PDS3

Min Lat 65.9827 °

Center Lon 332 °

Modification Date 2011-06-02 16:20:49.737978

Processing Level ID 3

Stop Time (UTC) 2005-04-05T16:51:31.468Z

Map Projection SINUSOIDAL

Spacecraft Solar Distance 216815008 km

Lines 58936

Center Lat 0 °

Maximum Resolution 15.4 m/pixel

Spacecraft Pointing Mode ACROSSTRACK

instrument_name HIGH RESOLUTION STEREO CAMERA

Orbit Number 1564

Ascending Node Longitude 195.7 °

Easternmost Lat 337.528 °

Mission Phase MR_Phase_6

Coordinate System PLANETOGRAPHIC

Detector ID MEX_HRSC_NADIR

[The Religious Hoax]

There were request for more glitches in HRSC images.

Here yea go (H1597 0000 IR2):

It's a bit hard to make out that first pic, do you have a link you can share? I definitely see the similarity, but the Mars pic is still a bit more distinct than the pic you posted BMK.

Also, do you have the coordinates of where that first pic was taken? This would be an excellent opportunity to see if that first pic of the glitch has the same geometrical and 3 dimensional appearance of the images in OP by using Google Mars.

Regardless, nice find BMK

And I checked image, part of which Peri already posted (as always, Peri does great job, kudos, Peri). Here is what I found:

Now, TRH and TMG, would you like to share your findings?

Edited June 3, 2011 by The Religious Hoax

[TheMcGuffin]

H562-000-ND3, the other one they are talking about, is not available on that website.

[The Religious Hoax]

Sorry about the embedded post. Stupid iPhone

[bmk1245]

I don't take anything on a forum personally. I am fortunate enough not to care what others think about me, virtual or in RL.

Also, if a poster makes a brief cameo in only certain threads to debunk something, it comes across as cherry-picking. If someone was truly interested in the ETH, and an active UM member, wouldn't we see them in more threads?

Hmmm... I can't recall you postin' on B.Cathie thread.

[TheMcGuffin]

The European Space Agency's Mars Express website is here:

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?type=I&mission=Mars%20Express

[bmk1245]

The pictures I looked at were here:

http://viewer.mars.a.../H1597_0000_ND3

http://viewer.mars.a.../H1564_0000_ND3

It is possible to view these in color and with day and night infrared.

*snip image data*

Thats neat, but what did you found?

H562-000-ND3, the other one they are talking about, is not available on that website.

Look deeper, for img files (everything is in Boon's link)

[TheMcGuffin]

Note the "modification date" of June 2, 2011 on both of the older sets of photographs--not sure what that means.

[The Religious Hoax]

Hmmm... I can't recall you postin' on B.Cathie thread.

You are right, although I have read quite a bit regarding that thread. I think there are credibility issues with Mr. Cathie, but I cannot prove or disprove that.

[TheMcGuffin]

Thats neat, but what did you found?

That they have been modified recently, whatever that means.

[The Religious Hoax]

Note the "modification date" of June 2, 2011 on both of the older sets of photographs--not sure what that means.

Can you please elaborate on this more, maybe post a SS? I'm at work on my iPhone, otherwise I would help with some heavy lifting.

[badeskov]

Sorry about the embedded post. Stupid iPhone

Hehe, tell me about it - that was what I was using last night

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

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

Hi quillius,

First, thanks! Secondly, I know your position and I hold it in great respect given your skeptical approach. I know I have not been very engaged in debates here for a long time, but I have been following what has been going on and you certainly earned my respect.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[The Religious Hoax]

Hehe, tell me about it - that was what I was using last night

Cheers,

Badeskov

Yes, I believe you were sipping some gin & tonics as well. Please tell me you use Bombay Sapphire. I assume someone of your sophistication wouldn't resort to low quality gin, right?

[Moonie2012]

Why is it that after some wild-ass claim is completely disproven and explained, certain people simply can't even admit they might have been wrong?

That's what bugs me about this thread. We rarely get to see a claim so brutally yet eloquently slain like this one was, yet some won't admit it and keep trying to get people to question the facts, or at the very least change the subject.

I can admit when I'm wrong.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Moonie2012

[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?

I cannot speak for others, just myself. But yes, it did indeed "put a real bee in my bonnets". And it did that for the exact reasons stated earlier. We see some YouTube video of some incredible claims of artificial structures on Mars or the Moon (yeah, they are a dime a dozen here), which are clearly some compression artifacts. The fact is pointed out immediately and yet readily dismissed. And then somebody does the digging and finds not only the original, high quality imagery, but also other imagery from the same area disproving the original claim.

And that is my beef. Some skeptics (myself included, as I have deduced) are accused of just being here just to debunk. Yet, it is the same skeptics that have to do the actual digging when some claim comes up. Why did the OP and, by proxy, you as a supporter not do this digging? Peri did a great job, as usual and completely put another "artifact/structure" claim to death. Why? Because he has been researching and going through original and raw images and spent countless hours familiarizing himself with this stuff. Would he like to see artificial structures on Mars or the Moon? I am sure he would. We all would. But why did the OP and the "definite artificial" claimants not ask some questions? Why was it absolutely artificial?

No, I have no respect for ridiculous threads like this where a claim is made and a bunch of people jumping in screaming "yay". It is outright laughable by all means of respect. I mean, why do people not question stuff like this? The discovery of the century? An amateur finding this on Google Mars? How many professional image analysts have been looking over this do you think? The raw images? No, in my world it just screams to the heavens.

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.

No, unfortunately I think you are right and that is saddening. But, also, again, the truth wasn't found on "your" side. Again, it was the "other" side that found it. I would ponder that a bit if I were you.

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.

Absolutely. I have no problem with that. It was yourself that indicated that you would no engage in discussions that had a skeptical angle to it; that was all I commented on.

Have a great weekend

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

Yes, I believe you were sipping some gin & tonics as well. Please tell me you use Bombay Sapphire. I assume someone of your sophistication wouldn't resort to low quality gin, right?

Uhm, it was not Bombay Sapphire. It was Tanqueray. Sorry

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

I don't take anything on a forum personally. I am fortunate enough not to care what others think about me, virtual or in RL.

Also, if a poster makes a brief cameo in only certain threads to debunk something, it comes across as cherry-picking. If someone was truly interested in the ETH, and an active UM member, wouldn't we see them in more threads?

Yes, normally, but some of us have an extremely busy work day and have to do some cherry picking once in a while.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[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?

Hi quillius,

We are indeed here together to find the truth in my honest opinion, which was also why I wrote "opponents" and not opponents. While I do not consider those I debate as opponents, that was how it came across to me in the post I replied to. Thus the "". I hope that makes sense

Cheers,

Badeskov

[bmk1245]

H562-000-ND3, the other one they are talking about, is not available on that website.

Sorry, just realized - its H5620_0000_ND3 (just check numbering) and its there .

[bmk1245]

It's a bit hard to make out that first pic, do you have a link you can share? [...]

Follow Boon's link. Its all there.

[...]

Also, do you have the coordinates of where that first pic was taken? [...]

I can't say, cause its secret. I'm joking. I still can't figure out how to convert orbital parameters to lat/lon.

[...] This would be an excellent opportunity to see if that first pic of the glitch has the same geometrical and 3 dimensional appearance of the images in OP by using Google Mars.

Its IR (infrared), so I don't think it will be included in nice pics you are seeing, although I'm not knowledgeable as Peri, hence I can be wrong.