Posts
Original:
Google Mars version:
Links:
Discussion 1
Discussion 2
Not that it's a bad thing, being skeptical of what you're told. It works both ways. But the likelihood that NASA overlooked an actual base and passed it off onto the Internet is pretty fucking slim. And considering the agency's penchant for altering photos, if this were really some kind of secret base, you'd think they'd avoid releasing the unaltered image to the, you know, Internet.
Some will say that this data error is hiding something important. That it's made to look like an error, but instead camouflaging something beneath it. To that I say, fine, have it your way. Write 12 books on the NASA Secret Mars Bio Base. But it's still probably not a base since the whole base idea came about in the first place because the pixel-pattern of the missing image data was misinterpreted by some guy in... wherever.
As always, it is baffling to me why people will jump wayyyyy the fuck over the gun at a completely improbable landing point instead of questioning whether there is a more simple explanation. I suppose those who don't really work with images on a regular or professional basis might not be familiar with these kinds of errors, which is somewhat understandable -- though most of our lives are now centered around the Internet: the largest warehouse of crap photos in the known solar system. You'd think people would be more familiar with this sort of thing.
How many of you have opened up Google Earth, typed in your old or current home address and noticed pixelization or smearing? Oh, that's right -- just about everyone who's used the damn app. Look, I empathize with the desire to find answers to some of the more bizarre mysteries that plague us, particularly when it comes to UFOs. But reel it in once in a while, will ya? And choose your battles, for Christ's sake.
6 comments:
Couldn't agree more, it's seems like if you look hard enough you can find anything you want. Although what if NASA is secretly letting the image slip as a part of Disclosure!!!!!(Kidding of course). Hopefully people have a little bit more critical thought when it comes to these images in the future, even though that's highly unlikely. All of that aside, there does seem to be some genuine anomalous features on Mars that are actually worth looking into. But like most things in the Paranormal we are busy looking at the bullshit and not the potentially real.
Hi Tony :)
The mars anomolies were of particular interest to me for some time. While I am still mildly interested, Hoagland pretty much killed it for me in the early 00's.
I agree that there are some pecularities that still stand out. I only wish I could view them in person!
Can't argue there, Hoagland is definitely umm a personality that's for sure. But I would absolutely love to go there in person, I think I would go for the D + M pyramid over the Face. The Face gets too much uh 'face' time. You could probably blame Hoagland, or maybe even John Lear to an extent, for giving amateur Astronomers cause to look for things that are probably not there.
The D&M Pyramid is kind of cool looking, though I am skeptical of a purposeful pentagonal design by alien hands, of course. I'd love to believe the Cydonia region is what many claim it to be, but I just can't make that leap without more examination of the 'city,' the D&M, and the face.
In the end, the fact that we have beautiful images of and from an alien planet is spectacular enough. Even if we find that the only life that existed (or may still exist) there was non-complex.
These types of pictures are rife with digital artifacts. Sadly, that will never stop some folks from running wild.
Exactly. Not to mention that they are taken in 'strips,' and in the case of Google Earth and Google Mars, stretched & stitched together to skin their 3D spherical model.
Post a Comment