Secret Space Base Found on Mars Debunked [UPDATED]

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Great reply and pics to demo.

Yes, I see what is being said now.

Got it.

Thank you for taking the time.

I love ATS and the wide range of the knowledge base.

reply to post by anon72
[m

This got media attention? heh wouldn't surprise me if the spot on the map disappears in the near future..

Originally posted by anon72

Secret Space Base Found on Google Mars Debunked

www.foxnews.com

A self-described "armchair astronaut" claims to have identified a human (or alien) base on Mars. David Martines noticed a mysterious rectangular structure that appears to be on the Red Planet's surface while trolling the planetary surface using Google Mars, a map program created from compiled satellite images of the planet.

"This is a video of something I discovered on Google Mars quite by accident," said Martines, the armchair astronaut, in a now-viral YouTube video. "I call it Bio Station Alpha, because I'm just assuming that something lives in it or has lived in it."

He zooms

(visit the link for the full news article)

I Updated this to show that ATS Member Phage provided the case solving info on page 16 of the original thread that broke the story (Thanks Phage for the Heads Up): Link to Phage's post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is what Phage posted.

Originally posted by Phage

The source image which Google used is from ESA's Mars Express orbiter, using the high resolution stereo camera. The image ID: H5620_0000_ND2

You can find it here:
HRSC viewer

If you want to download the full image you can get it here:
psa.esac.esa.int...
It is large, 355 MB. You will need a viewer to decode the image. You can get that here:
pds.nasa.gov...

This is what it looks like at full native resolution:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4a0268cb01e.gif[/atsimg]
This is what it looks like zoomed 300%
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d7510372308.png[/atsimg]

It is obviously an image artifact in the source image. Note the one pixel spacing. Note that the pixels are in a horizontal line across the image.

Well, I did look very closely to that picture in that link and I made even an enlargement of that so called artifact and compared it with the other pictures of it.
And its therefore that I am still not convinced about that explanation for it.

These are some enlargement from that video from xavi1000.

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by Dalke07

 

To embed the pics for any case

And this is the enlargement in the picture posted by Phage.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d7510372308.png[/atsimg]

This my enlargement from that “artifact” in the picture in the link posted by Phage.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d6b31693850.jpg[/atsimg]

So it is not debunked yet in my opinion.

reply to post by spacevisitor

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by spacevisitor
This my enlargement from that “artifact” in the picture in the link posted by Phage.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

So it is not debunked yet in my opinion.

It is debunked... and your enlargement of that "artifact" is incredibly flawed.

What image resizing algorithm did you use? "Bicubic interpolation", "Bilinear interpolation", "Lanczos resampling", "nearest-neighbor interpolation", or..?

To me it appears you did NOT use "nearest-neighbor interpolation" (which is also known as "pixel resize") when you should have. That keeps all the original detail and data of each pixel and only makes the pixels bigger.

Every other resize algorithm creates data/detail that didn't exist in the original image and makes it blurry and or "smooth" which actually hides details and should NEVER be used in forensics. Those algorithms are designed to remove jagged edges for aesthetic purposes. That alters the original image into something that it is not and should not be use in forensics.

So I think you should learn a bit about resizing images before you try to use it as evidence. The same goes for the Google Mars software and the original creator of the video. I believe that the Google Mars software does NOT use "nearest-neighbor interpolation" when you ZOOM in on the image (resize). I think they use Bicubic interpolation which "smooths" the images for aesthetic purposes, and that creates a distorted image from the original.

That is why the images Phage links to looks different from Google Mars and the original video. Phage is linking to the original untouched images that have not been resized, while Google Mars images are resized using resampling algorithms that smooths and modifies the image when you "zoom" in on the object.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Thanks for explaining all of that so nicely.

And so a layman like myself could grasp it.

So, does Cosmic Rays ALSO play a part?

Let me guess from what I read today. Yes-some what.

It was on the news so it must be true.

reply to post by anon72

A cosmic ray striking the sensor was the cause of the original image artifact.

Google's processing of the original image resulted in the change in appearance.

If there is 2 images of this region, then surely a cosmic ray can't explain the distorted pixels in both? A bit like lightning striking twice, no? I haven't downloaded both images to confirm the anomaly is in both but assuming it is.

Quoting spacedoubt from original thread about 2 source images;

Originally posted by spacedoubt
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?

edit on 2-6-2011 by spacedoubt because: (no reason given)

Why do computer chair idiots on this site think they have the intelligence to debate actual scientist?

You're a conspiracy theory, these guys have spent decades learning about science.

Just give up nut job.

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Why do computer chair idiots on this site think they have the intelligence to debate actual scientist?

You're a conspiracy theory, these guys have spent decades learning about science.

Just give up nut job.

You are registered on a conspiracy forum and have 500+ posts. You refer to conspiracy theorists as nut jobs. Do you have ulterior motives sir?

reply to post by TheSam

There are actually three images which cover the region but they are not used by Google. If you look at H1597_0000_ND3 and H1564_0000_ND3 you will see that the artifact does not appear in them. H5620_0000_ND2 is the image used by Google. It is only in that image that the artifact appears.

reply to post by Phage


Well that explains it then it seems. Good job

reply to post by meathed


So you don't believe the claims this is a base too, right?

Or is it that you don't believe anything that is opposite to your views?

It seems many here were happy to embrace the MSM when they were reporting this base in a positive light, but as soon as someone gets to the bottom of it and the MSM reports this, they're the big bad wolf again.

The double standards are ridiculous!


You see, the evidence to support this being an image artifact is very strong and has been shown time and time again, it doesn't matter who says it, FOX, NASA, Phage or Bigbird, the fact remains the data to see for yourself is available.

If after seeing all the evidence presented, you still think this is a base, then props to you, but from reading your replies in this thread, it seems you're not even willing to look at all the evidence, so it shows that you're close minded.

Close minded people make getting to the bottom of things like this very difficult, thanks for muddying the waters.

reply to post by anon72


Here's another source carrying the story, I've corresponded with the authour and she has added information provided by Phage to the article as well:

www.lifeslittlemysteries.com...

Why does everyone think every photo artifact, every shadow equal a base on the moon or mars?

Does it really matter...the yahoo's of the UFO community will not believe it.

They would rather live in their dream world of aliens and other such nonsense.

To them it will always be proof of an alien base on mars...even though there is no proof of it...just a blurry picture.

reply to post by Chadwickus

I've corresponded with the authour and she has added information provided by Phage to the article as well

Man, that was AWESOME! Good work. Flag if I could.

ATS... .making it's place in the world.

Thanks to all who like the thread and participated. This one and the original one announcing it.

I have to say. I think it is funny when something like this happens. Look at the original thread.... 250+ flags /stars etc.

But when an original one is proven wrong or something else,.... 3 flags.

No body like a party spoilier I can only assume.

But, for us on this one..... Job Well Done.

reply to post by Misterlondon


It was just reference to the oft-used acronym around here: TPTB ...the "controllers-somewhere-out-there" (thus my referring to 'them' as peoples' new god.

During checking some more things out regarding this discussion I found this on Linda Moulton Howe’s site.

Part 2: Google Mars Update with Planetary Scientist James Bell
© 2011 by Linda Moulton Howe

“It would have been incredibly exciting and interesting and perhaps even historic if this were a real feature, but it appears to have just been some sort of mapping or mosaic mistake in the low-resolution data.”

- James Bell, Ph.D., Astronomer and Planetary Scientist, ASU

www.earthfiles.com...

So what is clear to me now is that James Bell, Ph.D. confirms what Phage said right from the beginning.

In here I said that I was still not convinced about that explanation for it and that I therefore did not consider it as being debunked yet.

reply to post by spacevisitor


But I am convinced now that it is debunked.

Originally posted by Phage
It is obviously an image artifact in the source image. Note the one pixel spacing. Note that the pixels are in a horizontal line across the image.

And I therefore do consider it as being debunked by you.