Jabberwocky Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I know! lol and don't forget about the Sport's "genuine" "picture" of the london bus on the moon! I remember seeing that pic and thinking `My god! That cant be real!` I was actually taken in for a while, I thought it was a close encounters of the third kind thing with the ship in the desert. I was thrilled and thought we were going to be visited at any time by aliens! God I was dense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotherhamer Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 according to further investigation it seems that the figure would be actually no more than one inch high..Lilliput revisited perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazyherbert Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 N.A.S.A. says it is only a shadow from a rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHawk Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I'd like to see a full print out of the original picture. Just how big is 12500 x 3500 pixels?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 according to further investigation it seems that the figure would be actually no more than one inch high..Lilliput revisited perhaps? That may be true but it depends on who is doing the invesigation and how accurate their calculations are. I would imagine not even NASA scientist who are getting the data first hand, could accurately judge distance and scale on a planet that has no human has yet visited. Even if this figure did turn out to be as small as they suggest, what difference does that make? Why is it that we naturally assume that everything will be on the same scale as we experience on Earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 N.A.S.A. says it is only a shadow from a rock. N.A.S.A also said that foam hitting the shuttle couldn't possibly be the cause of the Columbia disaster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madornay Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I see elvis is wearing his guerilla suit again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfish Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 That may be true but it depends on who is doing the invesigation and how accurate their calculations are. I would imagine not even NASA scientist who are getting the data first hand, could accurately judge distance and scale on a planet that has no human has yet visited. Even if this figure did turn out to be as small as they suggest, what difference does that make? Why is it that we naturally assume that everything will be on the same scale as we experience on Earth? They can relate it to the parts of the rover that are in the photograph. There are probably ways of calculating it very accurately from knowing the resolution of the lens and the horizon distance or somesuch. I downloaded the original image and had a look (75 mb file). That really is quite a small bigfoot. Cool rock/shadow though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 They can relate it to the parts of the rover that are in the photograph. There are probably ways of calculating it very accurately from knowing the resolution of the lens and the horizon distance or somesuch. I downloaded the original image and had a look (75 mb file). That really is quite a small bigfoot. Cool rock/shadow though. But how can they calculate the distance to the horizon when they haven't been there? They would also need to know what altitude the rover is at, so without any human being to check, I think most of the calculations are based on their assumptions and estimations. So I am not really confident that they could very accurately judge size with so few known reference points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 ......... Just how big is 12500 x 3500 pixels?! As large/small as you want (or your your printer can make) it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.