06 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I mean is, I can clearly see it is a fuselage. It is not all the same, but part of it is a perfect sized fuselage that is painted partly either orange or red. half way across it.
[b]It is not perfectly symmetrical. You must need glasses.
All I can do is encourage people to see for themselves and decide for themselves.
So if it is a natural artifact, what praytell is it in your opinion?
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt should be filed under 'curiosity' until higher resolution images are available. Also like he says, it could just be a speck on the lens of the optics taking the image or something like that.
I don't think you quite understand image artefacts.
One thing that can be done, not sure how well, but the image could be subjected to sharpening software, maybe something could be made out after that, but it probably would not reveal much more detail than has already been shown.
First you have to prove it is not an artifact of the optics, THEN look for higher res photo's.
If real, it could not have been anything launched by mankind, the Soviet era rockets could not even send people to the moon much less mars.
There is a big almost unresolvable problem landing large objects on mars, in that the atmosphere is too thin to slow down anything much larger than the landers already sent. If we had to for instance, land the space shuttle on mars, it would have to be with rockets, the air is too thin for the wings to slow it down much.
That puts a huge burden on the idea of getting something large to mars. Maybe a couple hundred years from now if we have mastered fusion rockets or some such, large objects could land there but right now, its just a dream.
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseNASA should address this ASAP. Has anyone heard anything from them?
It should be filed under 'curiosity' until higher resolution images are available. Also like he says, it could just be a speck on the lens of the optics taking the image or something like that.
One thing that can be done, not sure how well, but the image could be subjected to sharpening software, maybe something could be made out after that, but it prob ...[text shortened]... fusion rockets or some such, large objects could land there but right now, its just a dream.
I say the next step is to point Hubble at it. I would think it would be a high priority.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseer... they did send people to the moon, it was quite a big event, got televised live and everything... surprised you missed it.
If real, it could not have been anything launched by mankind, the Soviet era rockets could not even send people to the moon much less mars.
There is a big almost unresolvable problem landing large objects on mars, in that the atmosphere is too thin to slow down anything much larger than the landers already sent. If we had to for instance, land the spa ...[text shortened]... red fusion rockets or some such, large objects could land there but right now, its just a dream.
The shuttle would indeed be useless for landing on the moon, because its designed to land on the earth,
if you were to design something to land on Mars it would have a much larger surface area to weight ratio.
The main problem with landing people on Mars is not getting them there...
its getting them back again (in a fit state to cope with Earth's gravity again).
If you drop into Mars' gravity well then your going to have to blast out of it again, which takes a lot more fuel (assuming you don't make the return journeys fuel when you get there).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by whodeyNASA has better things to do than debunk every crackpot theory.
NASA should address this ASAP. Has anyone heard anything from them?
I say the next step is to point Hubble at it. I would think it would be a high priority.
And what makes you think Hubble will get higher res pictures of the area?
And no, wasting time on one of the worlds best and most expensive telescopes on debunking a crackpot internet theory is not a good way to use the limited remaining time of Hubble.
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by whodeyOK, so you are just trolling. I get it now.
What I mean is, I can clearly see it is a fuselage. It is not all the same, but part of it is a perfect sized fuselage that is painted partly either orange or red. half way across it.
All I can do is encourage people to see for themselves and decide for themselves.
So if it is a natural artifact, what praytell is it in your opinion?
If it is not an imagery artifact (which is the most likely explanation), then it could be some different colored sand or some rocks, or even a scar from some small meteorite (though I doubt that). In a long thin stip. What it is definitely not, is the squarey shape that you see in the images. The squareness is definitely imagery artifacts (pixelation). The coloring is also mostly artifacts.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 11
what you have to realise, is that the structure appears to be about 200m long (assuming Google Earth's measurements are accurate.) But is only comprised of about 7 pixels... meaning each pixel is nearly 30 meters to a side.
And I suspect that's conservative.
The pixels will also likely take the colour of the brightest object in the image, so brighter objects tend to dominate and appear much bigger than they actually are.
I would recommend looking around the Martian polar region in Google Earth and load up some of the high res images they have embedded, and see what a difference the change in resolution makes.
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by whodeyThe imaga as already shown is about 1000 times higher res than the Hubble.
NASA should address this ASAP. Has anyone heard anything from them?
I say the next step is to point Hubble at it. I would think it would be a high priority.
No help there.
The only help would be rephotographing the same area again by the hi res optics already in orbit. But like the guy says, NASA would not target such a place just based on possible artifacts in the optics or processing software.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThey almost certainly do all ready have much higher res images of the area but they are either not free to the public (they cost a fortune to get after all) or are released but not easily searchable by coordinate, meaning you would have to know the exact name of the features in the area and find a pic of them that covers the place with the artefact in it.
The imaga as already shown is about 1000 times higher res than the Hubble.
No help there.
The only help would be rephotographing the same area again by the hi res optics already in orbit. But like the guy says, NASA would not target such a place just based on possible artifacts in the optics or processing software.
The fact is that if the high res images did show something interesting they would have highlighted it, the fact they haven't shows that the high res images of the area don't show anything interesting.
07 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease. I don't see "squary shapes". I see a cylindar type structure attached to some other cylindar like structures perfectly symetrical. I see a red/organge cylandir like stipe on the clyindar indicating it had markings that were also perfectly symetrical. Furthermore, it is in a setting that stands apart from whatever it is. It simply does not belong there in terms of it being a naturalistic anomaly.
OK, so you are just trolling. I get it now.
[b]So if it is a natural artifact, what praytell is it in your opinion?
If it is not an imagery artifact (which is the most likely explanation), then it could be some different colored sand or some rocks, or even a scar from some small meteorite (though I doubt that). In a long thin stip. What it is defi ...[text shortened]... squareness is definitely imagery artifacts (pixelation). The coloring is also mostly artifacts.[/b]
07 Jun 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo you can honestly say after looking at the object that it is not of interest?
[The fact is that if the high res images did show something interesting they would have highlighted it, the fact they haven't shows that the high res images of the area don't show anything interesting.[/b]
Of course, you assume that NASA looked at the structure. You assume that they have studied every last square inch of the planet using these pictures. Do keep in mind this is a government agency we are talking about. Nuff said!!
07 Jun 11
Originally posted by whodeyScroll over to the west to the next image strip. You will find hundreds of other 'space stations' looking almost the same as the one we are discussing. The only difference being that there are lots of them.
Please. I don't see "squary shapes". I see a cylindar type structure attached to some other cylindar like structures perfectly symetrical. I see a red/organge cylandir like stipe on the clyindar indicating it had markings that were also perfectly symetrical. Furthermore, it is in a setting that stands apart from whatever it is. It simply does not belong there in terms of it being a naturalistic anomaly.