Proof: Station on MARS

Maybe I am just in a bad mood tonight, but let me just say... This is NOT proof. Do you not know what proof means?

This is evidence of something. But there is no proof as to what it is...

Just saying.

Originally posted by Damian-007
Where's the Proof? I don't see how a distorted, granulated video is Proof.

Proof of what? I'm not one to jump to conclusions...I don't know if it is station, I have no clue what it is. But, it does not appear to be a rock, or a glitch. Do you have any ideas? If it is some sort of glitch or pixel artifact, it seems to have a rather nicely balanced geometric structure(which is possible for a glitch, granted it is a glitch). However, besides it being a glitch, only a few other things come to mind. A crashed ship or satellite of some sort, or...some constructed device.

If you wanna be a hardcore debunker about it, you can say there's a possibility that it may be some sort of weird plant life...but...c'mon.

Do you have any suggestions?

There are two source images of this region.
Both taken by Mars Express.
One image is H1597_0000_ND3
The other is
H1564_0000_ND3

You can download the source from here
hrscview.fu-berlin.de...
and here
hrscview.fu-berlin.de...

The software tools for viewing these is located here.
hrscview.fu-berlin.de...

It's kind of a pain to deal with the Planetary Data System formats, but it does give you access to more original data. I'm going to try and get some of the tools working on my Mac here. I haven't fooled with PDS images in a while. Maybe some of you have more experience?

reply to post by spacedoubt

You gave the same image ID but you can use this to view the images without using an img decoder.
viewer.mars.asu.edu...

Here is another page for PDS viewing software.
planetary.org...

reply to post by Phage


ooops...
The iDS are the same, but at least the links are different!
I'll fix that.

reply to post by spacedoubt

H5620_000_ND3 also hits the area in question.

Actually more interesting of a picture than I thought. People keep saying that google is "known for planting hoaxes on their maps". Really? I mean... really? They are? They put in random stuff on maps to mess with people? That's your explanation?

It's not a natural geologic formation. It has to be something else. So what is it? One of those "well known" hoaxes perpetrated by google? That's the only real explanation outside of an artificially constructed object that I can think of.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
Mars Rover took this photo.....Strange much?

WTH is that ~!!

reply to post by dontshoot

Of course the overzooming of a low resolution image couldn't possibly account for it.

reply to post by Komodo


That's Spirit rover, looking up it's own skirt!
It's a Hazcam image that is seeing the underside/overhanging portion of the rover platform. It's also slightly fish-eyed.

I posted a link to this thread on Richard Hoagland's Facebook page......here is his response :

Just because it's on "Google Mars" means NOTHING; this could EASILY be the product of "a mad programmer," employed by Google (think "Jurassic Park")!
...
That's why we need to see the ORIGINAL images ... from NASA ... ESA, etc.

Real science always works from ORIGINAL data -- not "second-hand sourcing."

His FB page

reply to post by Phage


I'll eventually grab that one too.
These are huge files...
23584x71560 pixels for the first one.

reply to post by cosmicpixie


I provided a couple of originals, and Phage also supplied another.
We have both provided links to viewing software. go for it!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dontshoot

 

Of course the overzooming of a low resolution image couldn't possibly account for it.

I am assuming that's sarcasm. Distortion due to a low resolution picture can certainly have a misleading appearance, and the "Mars Face" is a good example of that. But generally, this sort of distortion does not create multiple chance illusions representing more than one geometrically synchronized anomaly in a single picture. Right?

Originally posted by cosmicpixie
I posted a link to this thread on Richard Hoagland's Facebook page......here is his response :

Just because it's on "Google Mars" means NOTHING; this could EASILY be the product of "a mad programmer," employed by Google (think "Jurassic Park")!
...
That's why we need to see the ORIGINAL images ... from NASA ... ESA, etc.

Real science always works from ORIGINAL data -- not "second-hand sourcing."

His FB page

Isn't NASA known for digitally manipulating their images. Uh...don't answer that, t'was rhetorical. Good luck with that science.

reply to post by tombangelta


Yes, let me just reference my personal satellite. One moment please.

Can somebody go over the originals provided by monkey man (no offense, I just forgot to check your username) with the viewing software and post them here. I would, but I don't know where to even begin with. It's all those numbers. I don't even know where to start. Much less how to do it.

No, it's not a "Bio Station Alpha", it's just a blurry texture of a normal Mars terrain. IMO, that is.