1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    05 Jun '11 03:33
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-google-geek-discover-space-station-on-mars-surface/

    Is there a space station on Mars? In this article, someone says they used "google Mars" and found it. I had no idea there was a google mars. Does anyone have access to it and can use the coordinates to verify the presense of this object? If so, the implications are obvious. Either NASA is doing things we don't know about, or other life forms must be up there.

    Now get busy to see if you can debunk this!! 😠
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3083
    05 Jun '11 10:16
    No.
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 Jun '11 13:20
    Really no

    Nobody has launched the kind of hardware needed to do anything more than land a rover on Mars.
    You can't secretly launch a rocket carrying a rover let alone the gear required for a massive Martian base.
    The image has either been photoshoped... or its a natural feature that happens to look slightly artificial from that particular angle at such incredibly low resolution.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    05 Jun '11 13:261 edit
    My question is about "Google Mars". Is there such a thing and, if so, does anyone have access to it? I suppose if it does exist, someone could have tampered with "Google Mars", but the same could be said for "Google Earth". If Google Mars has been doctored, then the same could be said for Google Earth.

    Anyone out there with a really, really, really powerful telescope? 😀
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3083
    05 Jun '11 13:40
    http://www.google.com/mars/

    You can't zoom in very far.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    05 Jun '11 14:21
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    http://www.google.com/mars/

    You can't zoom in very far.
    If this is the same google mars he was using, then it must be a hoax. I don't even see coordinants listed let alone be able to type them in anywhere. And as you say, you can't zoom in that far either.
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 Jun '11 15:041 edit
    I checked out the area he indicated on google earth. you can definitely see the patch of whitish pixels he's talking about. So unless someone has altered the image data for google earth its a real artefact in the images.

    Doesn't mean there is anything there of any interest.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Jun '11 16:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    My question is about "Google Mars". Is there such a thing and, if so, does anyone have access to it?
    Google earth has a 'Mars' option (as well as 'Moon' and 'Sky'😉. You should really have a look at them some time they are very interesting.

    I found the location he refers to and the image shown on the webpage you gave is genuinely from Google Mars.
    However, the squaryness of the structure is a result of low image resolution and image processing. It could be nothing more than a bit of sand that is brighter than the surroundings or possibly rocks showing that are elsewhere covered in sand. Or even a result of image processing.
    Its about 200m long.

    Google have several other image sets but none of them have the necessary resolution to see anything there.

    There is however, no reason whatsoever for thinking it is a space station.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    05 Jun '11 20:521 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Google earth has a 'Mars' option (as well as 'Moon' and 'Sky'😉. You should really have a look at them some time they are very interesting.

    I found the location he refers to and the image shown on the webpage you gave is genuinely from Google Mars.
    However, the squaryness of the structure is a result of low image resolution and image processing. It cou ...[text shortened]... thing there.

    There is however, no reason whatsoever for thinking it is a space station.
    Yes, I just found it!!

    I'm not sure how anyone could mistake this for anything other than man made, image processing aside. The object appears perfectly symetrical, whatever it is.

    Check it out everyone. You have your coordinants, so judge for yourself!!
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 Jun '11 22:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes, I just found it!!

    I'm not sure how anyone could mistake this for anything other than man made, image processing aside. The object appears perfectly symetrical, whatever it is.

    Check it out everyone. You have your coordinants, so judge for yourself!!
    because there have been many people over the years either looking through scopes themselves,
    or going through satellite photographs who have claimed to see 'man made' structures on Mars...
    They were all wrong.
    Higher res photos of the area have shown that it was either image processing,
    a trick of the light (the way the shadows were at the time of the original photo)
    or simple wishful delusion on the part of the person claiming to see proof of aliens or whatever.

    Given that pixelation naturally squares everything off, seeing 'squared' structures at that resolution is expected.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Jun '11 00:582 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    because there have been many people over the years either looking through scopes themselves,
    or going through satellite photographs who have claimed to see 'man made' structures on Mars...
    They were all wrong.
    Higher res photos of the area have shown that it was either image processing,
    a trick of the light (the way the shadows were at the time o ...[text shortened]... aturally squares everything off, seeing 'squared' structures at that resolution is expected.
    All I know is NASA better debunk this as soon as possible, even if it is true. If it is true, I would advise them to take higher resolution shots and then change them to look as if it is just a natural anomaly. Otherwise they are faced with a zit faced teenager sitting at his computer saying, "Dude, I found your aliens you were looking for on my Dell. Far out!! Say, don't you kids look at your own photographs before sending up your million dollar probes?" 😵
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Jun '11 07:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    I'm not sure how anyone could mistake this for anything other than man made, image processing aside. The object appears perfectly symetrical, whatever it is.
    It is not perfectly symmetrical. You must need glasses. It does have squared off edges, but as I said that is a direct result of image processing at the very low resolution that the photo is taken at.
    The fact that you didn't even know of the existence of Google Mars suggests that you are not qualified to make assertions like "I'm not sure how anyone could mistake this for anything other than man made".

    I have been a big fan of Google Earth since before it was bought by Google (it used to be called Keyhole). There have been lots of interesting effects ranging from artifacts of image processing, to dirt or even insects on the negatives. But to assume that something like this is a man made space station shows more about the desire of the viewer than about anything actually present in the imagery.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Jun '11 07:19
    Originally posted by whodey
    All I know is NASA better debunk this as soon as possible, even if it is true.
    I am sure they have better things to do. The only think significant about this particular case is that some reporter decided it was worth sensationalizing and writing an article about it.
    There are thousands of similar cases of people misinterpreting images due to ignorance of the technology involved. They often get discussed and debunked on blogs or forums related to Google earth. NASA shouldn't waste any money debunking them.
  14. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6873
    06 Jun '11 11:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I am sure they have better things to do. The only think significant about this particular case is that some reporter decided it was worth sensationalizing and writing an article about it.
    I think you misuse the word "reporter" here. "Sludge dredger" would have been more appropriate.

    Richard
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Jun '11 11:49
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    I think you misuse the word "reporter" here. "Sludge dredger" would have been more appropriate.

    Richard
    I thought the terms were normally interchangeable.
Back to Top