Comments on: The Return of (Little) Bigfoot on Mars http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/ Space and astronomy news Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:16:05 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: floor jack http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-3/#comment-58408 floor jack Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:31:41 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-58408 I have to say, that I can not agree with you in 100%, but that's just my IMHO, which could be very wrong. p.s. You have an awesome template . Where have you got it from? I have to say, that I can not agree with you in 100%, but that's just my IMHO, which could be very wrong.
p.s. You have an awesome template . Where have you got it from?

]]> By: rocker http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-3/#comment-58151 rocker Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:41:45 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-58151 okay it looks just like a rock formation to me, I think some people take it a little to serious and look to deep in it, but I do believe their was life on Mars at one point. Not now because there is nothing that would be able to support it. On the other hand people say we are supposed to be an "advanced" species, when in fact we are not. Over years we have actually lost knowledge. For example look at the pyramids they didn't have any tools or anything to make that, and it's been said that the way it's been depicted in movies is not possible. So we have no idea how they were really done, so in the end we are NOT an advanced species. I believe at one point we would've been but we've just lost a ton of knowledge over the years. I do still in fact believe that there was at one point life on Mars, and no offence those who commented this saying "don't you have something better to do with you time" is just ridiculous because if you don't think its possible why waste your time reading? okay it looks just like a rock formation to me, I think some people take it a little to serious and look to deep in it, but I do believe their was life on Mars at one point. Not now because there is nothing that would be able to support it. On the other hand people say we are supposed to be an "advanced" species, when in fact we are not. Over years we have actually lost knowledge. For example look at the pyramids they didn't have any tools or anything to make that, and it's been said that the way it's been depicted in movies is not possible. So we have no idea how they were really done, so in the end we are NOT an advanced species. I believe at one point we would've been but we've just lost a ton of knowledge over the years.

I do still in fact believe that there was at one point life on Mars, and no offence those who commented this saying "don't you have something better to do with you time" is just ridiculous because if you don't think its possible why waste your time reading?

]]> By: topaz http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-3/#comment-49000 topaz Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:12:19 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-49000 I'm afraid that Mr. Basiago is a little late in asserting that he is the first to discover 'Life on Mars'. The possibility of there being intelligent life on the planet was originally discovered in late 2007 by a serious visual researcher in the UK. The objects seen in the image PIA10214 have been discussed on a forum (see newmars.com/forums and also marsanomalyresearch.com) prior to the date that Mr. Basiago published his research, therefore he cannot claim to be the first person to discover the possibility of life on the planet. I'm afraid that Mr. Basiago is a little late in asserting that he is the first to discover 'Life on Mars'. The possibility of there being intelligent life on the planet was originally discovered in late 2007 by a serious visual researcher in the UK.

The objects seen in the image PIA10214 have been discussed on a forum (see newmars.com/forums and also marsanomalyresearch.com) prior to the date that Mr. Basiago published his research, therefore he cannot claim to be the first person to discover the possibility of life on the planet.

]]> By: joseph http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-3/#comment-48544 joseph Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:03:26 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48544 come on does this guy have anything better to do? come on does this guy have anything better to do?

]]> By: SPACERIDER http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-3/#comment-48535 SPACERIDER Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:10:19 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48535 Come on i thought we are a advanced species. He should get some new glasses! Come on i thought we are a advanced species. He should get some new glasses!

]]> By: Olaf http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-3/#comment-48473 Olaf Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:31:59 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48473 i mean if there are living marsians out there and they see our robot, at least they should check this wierd thing out and at least we should have pictures of a marsian at point blank range looking into the camera one time or another. Even if it is not intelligent, like an anmal, it you should have seen bit marks in the solar panels or other part? i mean if there are living marsians out there and they see our robot, at least they should check this wierd thing out and at least we should have pictures of a marsian at point blank range looking into the camera one time or another. Even if it is not intelligent, like an anmal, it you should have seen bit marks in the solar panels or other part?

]]> By: Olaf http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48472 Olaf Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:30:14 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48472 Whatever you think of those marsians, they are not very curious. I mean some UFO is driving at a very slow pace on their soil and they did not blow it up or put their teeth in it yet. Whatever you think of those marsians, they are not very curious. I mean some UFO is driving at a very slow pace on their soil and they did not blow it up or put their teeth in it yet.

]]> By: gudenboink http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48466 gudenboink Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:31:55 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48466 Wouldn't it be nice to just reach through the pc and slap the S**T out of some people??? Wouldn't it be nice to just reach through the pc and slap the S**T out of some people???

]]> By: Matt http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48430 Matt Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:49:46 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48430 Drugs are bad mmmmmkay..... Drugs are bad mmmmmkay…..

]]> By: Olaf http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48364 Olaf Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:42:03 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48364 "I would put more faith in the eyewitness accounts of astronauts, who have the ability to use instruments of science to then back up their accounts,...." I doubt that the conspiracy theorists will believe that astronauts actually landed on Mars. ROFL "I would put more faith in the eyewitness accounts of astronauts, who have the ability to use instruments of science to then back up their accounts,…."

I doubt that the conspiracy theorists will believe that astronauts actually landed on Mars. ROFL

]]> By: Tareece http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48352 Tareece Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:42:57 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48352 This is an example of the very reasons WE as humans should explore the near cosmos. I would put more faith in the eyewitness accounts of astronauts, who have the ability to use instruments of science to then back up their accounts, than do ranging little rovers who have exceeded all expectations. We are forced to analyze from afar the pictures and information from the rovers, etc. I know we are planning to go back to the moon and then to Mars, but people always wonder why should we bother. This is why. To end mysteries and to add onto others. Its what we were meant to do, not be stagnant and just flop about, happy to be where we are. MAN needs to explore. This is an example of the very reasons WE as humans should explore the near cosmos.
I would put more faith in the eyewitness accounts of astronauts, who have the ability to use instruments of science to then back up their accounts, than do ranging little rovers who have exceeded all expectations.
We are forced to analyze from afar the pictures and information from the rovers, etc.
I know we are planning to go back to the moon and then to Mars, but people always wonder why should we bother.
This is why. To end mysteries and to add onto others. Its what we were meant to do, not be stagnant and just flop about, happy to be where we are.
MAN needs to explore.

]]> By: Alejandro http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48310 Alejandro Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:07:14 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48310 really....it is very "interesting" when the people do not have any knowlege about the real conditions of the origin enviroment can bring live :-) very funy really….it is very "interesting" when the people do not have any knowlege about the real conditions of the origin enviroment can bring live :-) very funy

]]> By: Yael Dragwyla http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48296 Yael Dragwyla Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:54:16 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48296 silver thread -- the reason our society is no longer civil is that too many people have given up on being civil, not to mention using reason to answer questions rather than yelling at one another. Maybe we ought to reexamine our behavior and priorities? silver thread — the reason our society is no longer civil is that too many people have given up on being civil, not to mention using reason to answer questions rather than yelling at one another. Maybe we ought to reexamine our behavior and priorities?

]]> By: Yael Dragwyla http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48295 Yael Dragwyla Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:51:18 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48295 tacitus -- Perhaps "don't feed the trolls" is a better philosophy. Presenting nonsense like the claim that "Bigfoot is on Mars" <i>as</i> nonsense is fine, but calling the claimer "crazy" or "whacked-out" is just an invitation to an endless series of trolls to leave their literary scat all over this site, which isn't all that productive. It's not even a matter of being civil, just common sense. I agree that this particular set of claims <i>is</i> total nonsense, and that the one making the claims is either trying to make a sensation, seriously deluded, or badly misinformed about what science is and what it does. Likewise, saying that Richard Hoagland has wasted a great deal of time and seriously misled a good swath of the public is spot on. But "You're crazy!" is an invitation to a fight, one most of us don't have time or the inclination for. Don't feed the trolls. tacitus — Perhaps "don't feed the trolls" is a better philosophy. Presenting nonsense like the claim that "Bigfoot is on Mars" as nonsense is fine, but calling the claimer "crazy" or "whacked-out" is just an invitation to an endless series of trolls to leave their literary scat all over this site, which isn't all that productive. It's not even a matter of being civil, just common sense. I agree that this particular set of claims is total nonsense, and that the one making the claims is either trying to make a sensation, seriously deluded, or badly misinformed about what science is and what it does. Likewise, saying that Richard Hoagland has wasted a great deal of time and seriously misled a good swath of the public is spot on. But "You're crazy!" is an invitation to a fight, one most of us don't have time or the inclination for. Don't feed the trolls.

]]> By: Yael Dragwyla http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48287 Yael Dragwyla Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:38:32 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48287 englishbob -- "I think this is the problem today, bad journalism. People who don't know that much about these things don't have the information they need to make their own informed decision. Its not like every article you read your gonna go and Google on the net, some people don't. So when they read an article that has very poor journalism, no research into the matter done at all, it causes alot of confusion and is why these crazy myths linger on like a bad Oder." You're right. This isn't a modern problem, either -- the tabloids and tabloid sensibilities have been with us always, or at least the last two centuries. (Before then, people relied on rumor and gossip for their daily ration of BS.) Poe's Great Moon Hoax doesn't come anywhere near it, either -- that was a deliberate joke that both its author and the newspaper involved were in on. This sort of nonsense, however, shouldn't have made the news at all -- if the idiot who came up with this claim wants to blog it, fine, but it should never have appeared in any medium that wants to be taken seriously. I notice that over the last few decades, the quality of scientific journalism, i.e., that for consumption by the general public, has been going downhill like a lead boulder -- not good. :-( englishbob — "I think this is the problem today, bad journalism. People who don't know that much about these things don't have the information they need to make their own informed decision. Its not like every article you read your gonna go and Google on the net, some people don't. So when they read an article that has very poor journalism, no research into the matter done at all, it causes alot of confusion and is why these crazy myths linger on like a bad Oder." You're right. This isn't a modern problem, either — the tabloids and tabloid sensibilities have been with us always, or at least the last two centuries. (Before then, people relied on rumor and gossip for their daily ration of BS.) Poe's Great Moon Hoax doesn't come anywhere near it, either — that was a deliberate joke that both its author and the newspaper involved were in on. This sort of nonsense, however, shouldn't have made the news at all — if the idiot who came up with this claim wants to blog it, fine, but it should never have appeared in any medium that wants to be taken seriously. I notice that over the last few decades, the quality of scientific journalism, i.e., that for consumption by the general public, has been going downhill like a lead boulder — not good. :-(

]]> By: Emission Nebula http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48269 Emission Nebula Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:02:06 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48269 Hey is that the same bigfoot that predicted the end of the world in 2012? We shouldnt anger it ;) Hey is that the same bigfoot that predicted the end of the world in 2012?

We shouldnt anger it ;)

]]> By: Tom http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48258 Tom Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:11:31 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48258 Having downloaded the full picture, there is clear evidence of products of intelligent life--the front end of the Spirit rover. All you conspiracy-mongers need to find something useful to do with your time. Having downloaded the full picture, there is clear evidence of products of intelligent life–the front end of the Spirit rover. All you conspiracy-mongers need to find something useful to do with your time.

]]> By: englishbob http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48254 englishbob Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:03:43 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48254 I find it ridiculous that anyone could take him seriously. they use "He holds five academic degrees, including a BA in History from UCLA and a Master of Philosophy from the University of Cambridge. " As if that qualifies him as an expert in this particular field which has no relevance to his degrees. hes using a HP desktop computer and zooming in on jpeg images to conduct his "research". A 10 year old kid could do that and be just as qualified as this guy. Now who would you believe, this guy or the guys at NASA who have experts who have studied and trained for years, are no doubt very intelligent, have years of experience and are actually receiving the data directly from its source. They out-trump this guy and throws into question why anyone would report on him. I think this is the problem today, bad journalism. People who don't know that much about these things don't have the information they need to make their own informed decision. Its not like every article you read your gonna go and Google on the net, some people don't. So when they read an article that has very poor journalism, no research into the matter done at all, it causes alot of confusion and is why these crazy myths linger on like a bad Oder We need to instead of bashing this guy for his obvious non-insight. But instead bash on the people who report on it as if it were factual. Maybe then they will sort out their bad journalism and we will all be better off for it. I find it ridiculous that anyone could take him seriously.

they use "He holds five academic degrees, including a BA in History from UCLA and a Master of Philosophy from the University of Cambridge. " As if that qualifies him as an expert in this particular field which has no relevance to his degrees.

hes using a HP desktop computer and zooming in on jpeg images to conduct his "research". A 10 year old kid could do that and be just as qualified as this guy.

Now who would you believe, this guy or the guys at NASA who have experts who have studied and trained for years, are no doubt very intelligent, have years of experience and are actually receiving the data directly from its source. They out-trump this guy and throws into question why anyone would report on him.

I think this is the problem today, bad journalism. People who don't know that much about these things don't have the information they need to make their own informed decision. Its not like every article you read your gonna go and Google on the net, some people don't. So when they read an article that has very poor journalism, no research into the matter done at all, it causes alot of confusion and is why these crazy myths linger on like a bad Oder

We need to instead of bashing this guy for his obvious non-insight. But instead bash on the people who report on it as if it were factual. Maybe then they will sort out their bad journalism and we will all be better off for it.

]]> By: Spoodle58 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48250 Spoodle58 Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:40:40 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48250 Thanks for making laugh this morning Nancy. :) Thanks for making laugh this morning Nancy. :)

]]> By: maudyfish http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48248 maudyfish Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:21:47 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48248 And we thought Gulliver's Travels were a good read!! And we thought Gulliver's Travels were a good read!!

]]> By: Richard Kirk http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48246 Richard Kirk Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:57:26 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48246 Ha! I thought the CIA had censored my yesterday's reply. In fact I had replied to the wrong thread. Here's a repost... This is a pretty good image of a person. To me it looks like the little mermaid statue in Copenhagen. It took me some time to figure it out. If you are having some trouble figuring out how a little statuette like this can happen by accident, well it's not that shape at all. As far as I can gather from the 3D pictures…. The rock that forms the dark 'figure' also has lighter pink surfaces to the right and left of it. These are the same color as the background, and it is hard to distinguish the two. The regions above and below the 'arm' are part of the same right-hand surface. The 'figure' seems to be a dark or shadowed region formed when the edge between these two surfaces was knocked off. Weathering may have caused the top-left to bottom right striations. The left pancam filter 7 image shows this a bit more clearly than the others. The 3D shape we see is largely an effect of grazing light, and most of the features we see may be concave rather than convex. It may look like a little person from this angle, but it isn't little person shaped. Nevertheless, even when I know what the real shape is, I still see the little mermaid. Ha! I thought the CIA had censored my yesterday's reply. In fact I had replied to the wrong thread. Here's a repost…

This is a pretty good image of a person. To me it looks like the little mermaid statue in Copenhagen. It took me some time to figure it out. If you are having some trouble figuring out how a little statuette like this can happen by accident, well it's not that shape at all. As far as I can gather from the 3D pictures….

The rock that forms the dark 'figure' also has lighter pink surfaces to the right and left of it. These are the same color as the background, and it is hard to distinguish the two. The regions above and below the 'arm' are part of the same right-hand surface. The 'figure' seems to be a dark or shadowed region formed when the edge between these two surfaces was knocked off. Weathering may have caused the top-left to bottom right striations. The left pancam filter 7 image shows this a bit more clearly than the others.

The 3D shape we see is largely an effect of grazing light, and most of the features we see may be concave rather than convex. It may look like a little person from this angle, but it isn't little person shaped.

Nevertheless, even when I know what the real shape is, I still see the little mermaid.

]]> By: Feenixx http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48240 Feenixx Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:42:38 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48240 When I saw this image first, when NASA first released it, the similarity to the "Little Mermaid" statue in Copenhagen struck me. reference: http://www.bloggingcopenhagen.net/images/april06/littleMermaid.jpg It's like taken from the opposite direction of the reference shot, and she's raised her right arm a little. If nobody comes up with a conspiracy theory to explain this obvious connection very soon, then I'll have to make up my own.... ;) Happy New Year, Everybody! When I saw this image first, when NASA first released it, the similarity to the "Little Mermaid" statue in Copenhagen struck me.

reference:
http://www.bloggingcopenhagen.net/images/april06/littleMermaid.jpg

It's like taken from the opposite direction of the reference shot, and she's raised her right arm a little.

If nobody comes up with a conspiracy theory to explain this obvious connection very soon, then I'll have to make up my own…. ;)

Happy New Year, Everybody!

]]> By: Diakanos http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48226 Diakanos Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:08:21 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48226 Everyone's full of **** at one time or another in life. Today, it was this guy's turn. Everyone's full of **** at one time or another in life. Today, it was this guy's turn.

]]> By: Shawn http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48219 Shawn Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:31:36 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48219 That made my brain hurt....... I think someone forgot to take his anti-psychotic medication. To bad Bush will be out of office in less than a month, they probably could have found a cushy job for this guy, I don't know, maybe with the department of education or something. He'd fit right in. That made my brain hurt…….
I think someone forgot to take his anti-psychotic medication.
To bad Bush will be out of office in less than a month,
they probably could have found a cushy job for this guy, I don't know, maybe with the department of education or something. He'd fit right in.

]]> By: Olaf http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/31/the-return-of-little-bigfoot-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-48218 Olaf Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:25:55 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22931#comment-48218 "Who "dismissed", and dismissal based on what evidence? " Because it could not have moved to be on color, that is why. If it moved then you would see the figure in 3 distinct and known base colors at 3 different places because it moved. Space craft camera's work in black and white only, and color filters must be put in front of them to get colors. So at least 3 images should have been taken to create one color image. So the object did not move at all, not even slightly. Why would you need a commitee for something that obvious that it can only be something that is very static and does not move! Of course it could be a gnome statue put by an alien to fool us. "Who "dismissed", and dismissal based on what evidence? "

Because it could not have moved to be on color, that is why. If it moved then you would see the figure in 3 distinct and known base colors at 3 different places because it moved.

Space craft camera's work in black and white only, and color filters must be put in front of them to get colors. So at least 3 images should have been taken to create one color image. So the object did not move at all, not even slightly.

Why would you need a commitee for something that obvious that it can only be something that is very static and does not move!

Of course it could be a gnome statue put by an alien to fool us.

]]>