Nasa to announce something big 13th november.

[Space Commander Travis]

I do enjoy it when Seeder starts arguing with Zoser.

[Space Commander Travis]

Yeah, I thought they would be shut down because of our crazy politicians.

On a side note, is it me or has nothing really changed since the Government has shut down? I can't see any difference. One wonders what we need a Government for now.

You might indeed be excused for wondering whether NASA mightn't be better off not being reliant on government funding.

[zoser]

Once again you're making yourself look a total idiot you really are. Now, as you will see, I have reposted my original post ...again...this time I have bolded the link....and what I said about it... now be a good chap, click the bloody link and then read the whole page.

Erm no.

Just more on the last photo of Phobos

I sense a little face saving going on here seeder.

The photo in the link is not the same as the one above by the way. The one in your link is this:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express/Light_and_shadow_on_the_surface_of_Mars

Compare with this:

Doesn't really look like a shadow of phobos to me.

Maybe you can prove otherwise?

[zoser]

You might indeed be excused for wondering whether NASA mightn't be better off not being reliant on government funding.

OK I see what he is getting at.

[JesseCuster]

Erm no.

Just more on the last photo of Phobos

I sense a little face saving going on here seeder.

The photo in the link is not the same as the one above by the way. The one in your link is this:

http://www.esa.int/O...surface_of_Mars

Compare with this:

Doesn't really look like a shadow of phobos to me.

Why not? Wouldn't the shape of the shadow of Phobos entirely depend on the position of both Phobos and the sun? Notice how your shadow is all long and distorted in the mornings and evenings when the sun is low on the horizon.

Here's the photo of Phobos's shadow taken from ESA's Mars Odyssey orbiter:

Here's the photo Phobos 2 took of the shadow on Mars in 1989.

That's a much better picture as it's not an image of a TV screen grab like yours above in which the colour and contrast are all out of whack.

Seems that it being a shadow of Phobos is an entirely reasonable possibility. I'd love to know if there's any data about the positions of Phobos and the sun at the time to see if it matches up.

Edited October 4, 2013 by JesseCuster

[seeder]

Erm no.

Just more on the last photo of Phobos

I sense a little face saving going on here seeder.

The photo in the link is not the same as the one above by the way. The one in your link is this:

http://www.esa.int/O...surface_of_Mars

Compare with this:

Doesn't really look like a shadow of phobos to me.

Maybe you can prove otherwise?

Maybe youll first prove its a genuine image?

Im not accepting an image off a woo woo site as genuine. If its real, you WILL be able to find me some from reliable sources wont you? With time and dates etc etc, like a good researcher can. Until then, my convo with you is over. If you provide links to ufo sites they will not be viewed or accepted as evidence your pic is real. Only the same pic from credible non ufo sources please.

Pulling your silly youtube vids and credulous acceptance of any old ufo story to pieces is becoming very tiring.. boring. I dont doubt that ANYONE here can see the phobos animation and not realise how mundane that old story is

[zoser]

Why not? Wouldn't the shape of the shadow of Phobos entirely depend on the position of both Phobos and the sun? Notice how your shadow is all long and distorted in the mornings and evenings when the sun is low on the horizon.

Here's the photo Phobos 2 took of the shadow on Mars in 1989.

That's a much better picture as it's not an image of a TV screen grab like yours above in which the colour and contrast are all out of whack.

Seems that it being a shadow of Phobos is an entirely reasonable possibility. I'd love to know if there's any data about the positions of Phobos and the sun at the time to see if it matches up.

Here's the photo of Phobos's shadow taken from ESA's Mars Odyssey orbiter:

Take a look at this:

Phobos 2 returned some images of the Martian surface and in one of those images a shadow of what appears to be a disk shaped object is clearly seen in the image. Dr. Becklake described it as “something that is between the spacecraft and Mars, because we can see the Martian surface below it,” and stressed that the object was seen by both the optical and the infrared (heat seeking) camera. So what could have been “interfering” with the photo-shoot of the Red Planet?

http://www.ancient-c...ufo-encounter/#

Edited October 4, 2013 by zoser

[seeder]

Why not? Wouldn't the shape of the shadow of Phobos entirely depend on the position of both Phobos and the sun? Notice how your shadow is all long and distorted in the mornings and evenings when the sun is low on the horizon.

Here's the photo of Phobos's shadow taken from ESA's Mars Odyssey orbiter:

Here's the photo Phobos 2 took of the shadow on Mars in 1989.

That's a much better picture as it's not an image of a TV screen grab like yours above in which the colour and contrast are all out of whack.

Seems that it being a shadow of Phobos is an entirely reasonable possibility. I'd love to know if there's any data about the positions of Phobos and the sun at the time to see if it matches up.

Plus the entire story has fallen to pieces as the shadow was supposed to be from the 20 mile long thing near Phobos, which as we all now know, is an imaging artefact

so no 20 mile or whatever shadow - if no 20 mile craft ever existed. Simple.

[seeder]

Take a look at this:

No, one quick look and its from a woowoo site who is still promoting the Dark Knight satellite rubbish story on their home page, along with ancient aliens. Therefore, NOT A CREDIBLE source of information. As usual from you

[zoser]

Plus the entire story has fallen to pieces as the shadow was supposed to be from the 20 mile long thing near Phobos, which as we all now know, is an imaging artefact

so no 20 mile or whatever shadow - if no 20 mile craft ever existed. Simple.

Not really. There is no evidence connecting the two phenomena.

If there is please supply proof.

[JesseCuster]

“something that is between the spacecraft and Mars, because we can see the Martian surface below it,” and stressed that the object was seen by both the optical and the infrared (heat seeking) camera. So what could have been “interfering” with the photo-shoot of the Red Planet?

Can you explain that because I don't understand the logic behind it at all. You can see the Martian surface below what? How does seeing the Martian surface "below it" (whatever that means) mean it's an object between the spacecraft and Mars?

Your link also says the the shadow is that of a disc-shaped object. The thing about 2d shadows is that you can't tell the 3d shape of the object that created it. A ball and a plate can create the exact same shadow and you can't extrapolate backwards without more information to whether the object was ball-shaped or disc shaped or something else that can produce such a shadow.

[zoser]

Plus the entire story has fallen to pieces as the shadow was supposed to be from the 20 mile long thing near Phobos, which as we all now know, is an imaging artefact

so no 20 mile or whatever shadow - if no 20 mile craft ever existed. Simple.

Read this:

An unusual photo of a thin shadow across Mars was shown on the Russian television segment. Seem on the surface of Mars was a clearly defined dark shape that could indeed be described, as it was in the initial dispatch from Moscow, as a "thin ellipse" (this photo is a still from the Soviet television clip). It was certainly different from the shadow of Phobos recorded eighteen years earlier by Mariner 9. The latter cast a shadow that was a rounded ellipse and fuzzy at the edges, as would be cast by the uneven surface of the moonlet. The 'anomaly' seen in the Phobos 2 transmission was a thin ellipse with very sharp rather than rounded points (the shape is known in the diamond trade as a "marquise") and the edges, rather than being fuzzy, stood out sharply against a kind of halo on the Martian surface. Dr. Becklake described it as "something that is between the spacecraft and Mars, because we can see the Martian surface below it," and stressed that the object was seen by both the optical and the infrared (heat seeking) camera.

All these reasons explain why the Soviets have not suggested that the dark, "thin ellipse" might have been a shadow of the moonlet. It was taken as the spacecraft was aligning itself with Phobos (the moonlet). "As the last picture was halfway through," he said, "they [soviets] saw something that should not be there." The Soviets, he went on to state, have not yet released this last picture, and we wont speculate on what it shows.

Can you explain that because I don't understand the logic behind it at all. You can see the Martian surface below what? How does seeing the Martian surface "below it" (whatever that means) mean it's an object between the spacecraft and Mars?

Your link also says the the shadow is that of a disc-shaped object. The thing about 2d shadows is that you can't tell the 3d shape of the object that created it. A ball and a plate can create the exact same shadow and you can't extrapolate backwards without more information to whether the object was ball-shaped or disc shaped or something else that can produce such a shadow.

Watch the video is my recommendation.

[seeder]

Watch the video is my recommendation.

and thats your biggest problem mate, the types of videos you keep watching. You said earlier the phobos 2/ufo hadnt been debunked for years, I showed you the debunk in return.

So instead of a grateful thanks you then start finding woowoo stories and vids to try convince us - as they have you. I suggest TRY READING instead of trawling youtube for BS ufo stories...

[Sweetpumper]

Is this about a fake website announcement at all anymore?

[JesseCuster]

Read this:

An unusual photo of a thin shadow across Mars was shown on the Russian television segment. Seem on the surface of Mars was a clearly defined dark shape that could indeed be described, as it was in the initial dispatch from Moscow, as a "thin ellipse" (this photo is a still from the Soviet television clip). It was certainly different from the shadow of Phobos recorded eighteen years earlier by Mariner 9. The latter cast a shadow that was a rounded ellipse and fuzzy at the edges, as would be cast by the uneven surface of the moonlet. The 'anomaly' seen in the Phobos 2 transmission was a thin ellipse with very sharp rather than rounded points (the shape is known in the diamond trade as a "marquise") and the edges, rather than being fuzzy, stood out sharply against a kind of halo on the Martian surface. Dr. Becklake described it as "something that is between the spacecraft and Mars, because we can see the Martian surface below it," and stressed that the object was seen by both the optical and the infrared (heat seeking) camera.

All these reasons explain why the Soviets have not suggested that the dark, "thin ellipse" might have been a shadow of the moonlet. It was taken as the spacecraft was aligning itself with Phobos (the moonlet). "As the last picture was halfway through," he said, "they [soviets] saw something that should not be there." The Soviets, he went on to state, have not yet released this last picture, and we wont speculate on what it shows.

But it's only a well-defined sharp ellipse in the still taken from a TV show. In the original image it appears to be the same as the Mars Odyssey shadow image of Phobos - with fuzzy edges.

Why would anyone use a still taken from a TV show of a photograph when there's the same picture that haven't been through that filtering and where the things being described clearly aren't on the original?

Watch the video is my recommendation.

Can you not just explain it in your own words? I've had my fill of Internet arguments being nothing more than someone presenting someone else's YouTube videos instead of just explaining in any sort of detail what they're talking about.

Do you understand what he was saying when that the object is between the spacecraft and Mars because we can see the surface of Mars "below it"? If so, then please just explain what that means.

Edited October 4, 2013 by JesseCuster

[zoser]

Phobos shadow on Mars.

Now Compare the Phobos UFO

Nothing like as blurry at the ends.

It's not the same object. It's far too distinct all around.

Edited October 4, 2013 by zoser

[seeder]

Phobos shadow on Mars.

Now Compare the Phobos UFO

Nothing like as blurry at the ends.

It's not the same object.

you have been asked to provide a better picture. You so far have failed to do so. cant you find one? Instead of a frame of a very old recording on youtube? Its you and the blob situation again isnt it, trying to analyse and old film clip compressed for youtube. Now do try and restore some credibility and find the original image, as asked for

.

Edited October 4, 2013 by seeder

[zoser]

And another.

Same effect. Too distinct to be a moon shadow.

[zoser]

Is this about a fake website announcement at all anymore?

The announcement could be about Mars. We have probes on Mars at the moment. If the Phobos UFO is what some think it is than this could be what the (fake) announcement is about.

Dip yer bread in old mate.

[Sweetpumper]

You don't really think it's a NASA website, do you?

[JesseCuster]

Nothing like as blurry at the ends.

It's not the same object. It's far too distinct all around.

You're not reading what's being explained to you. That's a still taken from a TV show.

This is the image it's based upon:

That's the image you should be using as evidence. Note the fuzzy edges. It's pretty much the same thing as the Mars Odyssey pic but elongated probably because the position of the sun and Phobos made for a longer shadow.

[zoser]

You don't really think it's a NASA website, do you?

No. I wouldn't rule out leaked info though. Neither would I rule out a complete hoax either.

[zoser]

You're not reading what's being explained to you. That's a still taken from a TV show.

This is the image it's based upon:

That's the image you should be using as evidence. Note the fuzzy edges. It's pretty much the same thing as the Mars Odyssey pic but elongated probably because the position of the sun and Phobos made for a longer shadow.

The object was known to be moving and so there are several shots of it.

This one isn't blurred and is much more of a smoking gun.

[zoser]

Same story in this image:

And this:

Which ever way you slice it the object is far more distinct over the entire image compare to any known moon shadow.

It's not the same thing.

There are three genuine problems as see it:

1) It's much more distinct.

2) It's more elongated than any known moon shadow.

3) The Russians never suggested that a moon shadow was a possibility.

And with that gentleman I bid you a very good night.

Z

Edited October 4, 2013 by zoser

[seeder]

somebody hit him on the head with a mallet....