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 -
UM-Bot

Perfectly square iceberg baffles the Internet

45 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ouija ouija

 Pull the other one, it's got bells on! :lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eldorado

I like this one.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
20 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

I like this one.

Thanks for that, I was wondering how tall that thing was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
woopypooky

It's an ancient spaceship buried inside

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyOtherAccount

I don't get the amazement factor... the cubes in my freezer are "square". (Sorry, I simply had to say it. lol :ph34r:)

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Borgs on vacation.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Fake news. 

1) the picture of the icebreaker ship with the iceberg is a photoshop fake. Compare it with the earlier pictures of the "iceberg" surrounded by ice fragments. 

2) No NASA source has shown this picture. 

People.. it's a fake. 

Alleged (but not substantiated) "NASA" picture. 

 

DpuMLroXUAAtKPc.jpg

"Sexed-up" twitter picture... 

DXH_ijKW4AA5pEW.jpg

For pete's sake people.. this is bull****E !

< sigh> 

 

 

 

 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

If the internet would read the reasoning they wouldn't be baffled.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eldorado
10 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Fake news. 

1) the picture of the icebreaker ship with the iceberg is a photoshop fake. Compare it with the earlier pictures of the "iceberg" surrounded by ice fragments. 

2) No NASA source has shown this picture. 

People.. it's a fake. 

The iceberg I posted the pic of is a different one to the one in the OP.  I only posted it to share another cool pic of a tabular berg.

The pic in the OP was tweeted by NASA. https://twitter.com/NASA_ICE

Edited by Eldorado
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

The iceberg in the OP link is allegedly 'several miles across'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos Allende

_(Meghan Trainor punches roadie in anger over more photoshopping)_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
42 minutes ago, MyOtherAccount said:

I don't get the amazement factor... the cubes in my freezer are "square". (Sorry, I simply had to say it. lol :ph34r:)

Your ice cubes may be square, but they're not big. Size matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 minutes ago, Carlos Allende said:

_(Meghan Trainor punches roadie in anger over more photoshopping)_

< roadie sues under Human Rights legislation > 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
18 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

The iceberg in the OP link is allegedly 'several miles across'.

which all the more gives the lie to the picture of the "rectangular" ice flow with the icebreaker ship in the foreground. 

The twitter picture has the author of "NASA-ICE", but does it have ANYTHING to do with NASA itself ? 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The twitter picture has the author of "NASA-ICE", but does it have ANYTHING to do with NASA itself ? 

Yes it does.

https://ice.nasa.gov/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
42 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The twitter picture has the author of "NASA-ICE", but does it have ANYTHING to do with NASA itself ? 

Indeed it does - that Twitter feed is even embedded on the "NASA Ice" section of NASA's website.

It's their main portal for science and research pertaining to the polar ice caps.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

If the internet would read the reasoning they wouldn't be baffled.

You're right, they wouldn't. But I can understand how in this instance their first reaction would be one of disbelief. It's just so incredibly perfect looking, especially in comparison to its surrounding landscape. And NASA sure has a way of making things look otherworldly — that's how spectacular their images often are.

I've seen tabular icebergs up close, but nothing quite like this one (and certainly not from the same viewpoint). One almost wants to put chocolate icing on it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarkmBha

Amazing - the odds are....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

You're right, they wouldn't. But I can understand how in this instance their first reaction would be one of disbelief. It's just so incredibly perfect looking, especially in comparison to its surrounding landscape. And NASA sure has a way of making things look otherworldly — that's how spectacular their images often are.

To be fair, NASA doesn't release a lot of raw images. Most are touched up by artists, composites of several images put together or can be entirely CGI created based on known data.

Space.com (2010)

Quote

NASA routinely processes raw images to enhance details, or to visualize things the human eye could never see, agency officials have said. Other space agencies, and many astronomers, do the same thing.

Such editing lets scientists and the public gain a better understanding of the structure of celestial objects — and a better appreciation of their beauty. 

Quote

Take, as an example, photos beamed back to Earth by the Hubble Space Telescope, which has been imaging the cosmos since 1990. Many of these images are processed or edited, as SPACE.com reported back in 2002.

Like Cassini, Hubble takes separate, digital color images through red, blue, green and other filters. Scientists can combine these photos to create a comprehensive picture. Often, this image is a close approximation of what people would see if they could get close enough to the object in a spacecraft.

This is actually the core argument of the "flat-earthers", believe it or not. They argue that since so few raw pictures have been released by NASA, primarily of the Earth as seen from space, that leaves open the possibility that NASA could tell us whatever they want and we have no way of verifying it. This allows NASA to spin a false narrative of space exploration and technology development that warrants a budget of $54 million per dayThat's a lot of cheddar for...nefarious projects.

I personally don't believe it but an increasing number of people do in the age of Government distrust...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
46 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

To be fair, NASA doesn't release a lot of raw images. Most are touched up by artists, composites of several images put together or can be entirely CGI created based on known data.

Yes, that's true. Still, a great many of their raw images are amazing. They have a vantage point the rest of us will never have.

Edited by Kittens Are Jerks
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DirtyDocMartens
10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Thanks for that, I was wondering how tall that thing was.

The article says it's several miles across.

Share this post


Link to post
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.