Under Ground Bases on Mars

[PaulaJedi]

What do you think?

@temporal recon confirmed this is located at 41°46'45.53" N 23°52'51.65" E

 

[Fiera]

My initial response is, "Holy crap, awesome!" but then he mentions that some were partially airbrushed. I know how airbrushing works - I use Photoshop - so it confuses me as to why NASA would only partially airbrush these. I think the airbrush effect is actually just the feathering on the edges of the map tiles that were photographed from satellites...is it possible NASA missed these, or wanted them to be discoverable?

 

[Einstein]

I'm of the opinion that the images are just artifacts due to the jpeg algorithms that are used to compress the image. What we are really looking at in the pictures are just individual pixels. There isn't enough information stored to give a clear image when the image is blown up to the proportions demonstrated.

 

[Fiera]

I'm of the opinion that the images are just artifacts due to the jpeg algorithms that are used to compress the image. What we are really looking at in the pictures are just individual pixels. There isn't enough information stored to give a clear image when the image is blown up to the proportions demonstrated.

Those images actually have many pixels. You can see the shape of a square, with darker colors and a gradient (which would be consistent with lighting falloff, and a border similar to the color of a concrete flat surface. I am not sure I can agree that these are pixelation/artifacts from jpegs. Do you have other examples of jpegs with this artifact?

 

[Fiera]

Actually...I took another look at it, and another plausible explanation could be these were photoshopped in to the images to allow a photomerge. Many times with panorama effects (which would be used to link many different photos of the mapping) they look for high-contrast, sharpened elements of the image to link to other images - perhaps NASA adding them to each image to allow a seemless panorama process? I could also see them leaving them in as to avoid any complaints against airbrushing.

 

[Einstein]

I'm of the opinion that the images are just artifacts due to the jpeg algorithms that are used to compress the image. What we are really looking at in the pictures are just individual pixels. There isn't enough information stored to give a clear image when the image is blown up to the proportions demonstrated.

Those images actually have many pixels. You can see the shape of a square, with darker colors and a gradient (which would be consistent with lighting falloff, and a border similar to the color of a concrete flat surface. I am not sure I can agree that these are pixelation/artifacts from jpegs. Do you have other examples of jpegs with this artifact?

Take any jpeg picture and blow it up and you will see the familiar square pixel pattern. Notice the similar appearance to the square image in the photos. And we do know the images were super enlarged right to the point where everything started to get blurry. But do this for yourself to see what I'm talking about.

 

[Fiera]

Take any jpeg picture and blow it up and you will see the familiar square pixel pattern. Notice the similar appearance to the square image in the photos. And we do know the images were super enlarged right to the point where everything started to get blurry. But do this for yourself to see what I'm talking about.

I have been working with images for a long time, and I have never, ever seen an artifact like that. I am not writing you off as wrong, but rather I'd like to see an artifact exist in another source to convince me. I downloaded a jpeg image of venus and did several enlargements to see if I could find an artifact. I could not. Plus, when it comes to pixelation, the object in the video featured about is several pixels. If you fully enlarge a jpeg, it appears as such:



I did a few more enlargements further out but still couldn't find an example of the artifact. This is what is odd about the video above. Those are not artifacts - they are objects, with many pixels comprising them. Do you have any example of an image with the same pattern/object/artifact?

 

[PaulaJedi]

I'm of the opinion that the images are just artifacts due to the jpeg algorithms that are used to compress the image. What we are really looking at in the pictures are just individual pixels. There isn't enough information stored to give a clear image when the image is blown up to the proportions demonstrated.

I was thinking the same thing, or something to do with the satellite imagery, but I usual hurt peoples' feelings when I speak up.


They are lined up. All IMHO of course. I'm not an expert.

 

[Martian]

That "dahboo" guy always seems overly dramatic in his videos.

 

[PaulaJedi]

OK, I'm not sure what the author of the video used to view these, but I just tried Google Mars:

Google Mars

I entered the coordinates and it won't allow me to zoom in close enough to view these "entrances".

Is there another way to view Mars?