Philae lander found

[ArMaP]

It looks like Philae to me.

[funbox]

It looks like Philae to me.

why doesn't that surprise me ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

why doesn't that surprise me ?

Because I'm predictable?
(that's a guess, although I don't like make them I do it from time to time, when the subject is not important)

[Pimander]

ATS now doesn't allow "hotlinking" to the images hosted on their servers, you can see them if you open ATS in another tab in your browser and refresh the page, that's what I did.

You can even click on a single ATS image link and open it in another tab.  That allows you to see the images in peggy too.

[Pimander]

So the lander shaped object that looks nothing like the rocks is not a human trapped beneath a refrigerator?  That amazes me! 

[funbox]

Because I'm predictable?
(that's a guess, although I don't like make them I do it from time to time, when the subject is not important)

if I had said there was a robot on mars and showed you such a picture from a sat. you wouldn't be instantly agreeing with me , especially if I hadn't put up the link to the original picture.

but Nasaassa dropped it up there, a little montage, and now your cooing the official strapline , without all the measures you require from all else who make such claims

funbox

[Pimander]

if I had said there was a robot on mars and showed you such a picture from a sat. you wouldn't be instantly agreeing with me , especially if I hadn't put up the link to the original picture.

but Nasaassa dropped it up there, a little montage, and now your cooing the official strapline , without all the measures you require from all else who make such claims

NASA did NOT drop it there.  GRRRRR! 

Philae is a European craft (ESA is European Space Agency).  It travelled there on the Rosetta space ship (also ESA) and was launched from the ESA designed and built Ariane 5 rocket!

The difference between this and a Mars picture is obvious. We knew roughly where the lander was.  We were specifically looking for a lander and we found a picture that looks just like the lander in the sort of place we expect.  There isn't even a good reason to fake the picture as the mission is practically over.

And I NEVER just take any claim from any side of an argument at face value.  ArMaP is not the kind of sceptic you are accusing him of being and he does if you read through his posts carefully see the merit in some of the arguments against the official line but only when there is good reason.

Lets say it isn't the lander.  Does that prove there are secret human space programs or aliens on the comet?  No.  So obviously, as ArMaP implies, it isn't that important and doesn't warrant the same kind of scrutiny because it would be a pointless hoax that only proves what we already know - that the lander crashed in a place without much light because its harpoons didn't fire and anchor it to the comet surface.

If you're trying to make a point then pick on some of the sketchy "proof" that Apollo 11 really happened how we were told.  On that topic ArMaP is not so sure, and if he says he is then I'll happily shout pseudo-sceptic.

[funbox]

NASA did NOT drop it there.  GRRRRR! 

Philae is a European craft (ESA is European Space Agency).  It travelled there on the Rosetta space ship (also ESA) and was launched from the ESA designed and built Ariane 5 rocket!

and they obviously had no help from NASA, besides I didn't say nasa, I said Nasa-assa

The difference between this and a Mars picture is obvious. We knew roughly where the lander was.  We were specifically looking for a lander and we found a picture that looks just like the lander in the sort of place we expect.  There isn't even a good reason to fake the picture as the mission is practically over.

no excuse to not put up the original picture of where it was found, why should we take there word for it ?

There isn't even a good reason to fake the picture as the mission is practically over

no , cause all that money spent and a virtually failed project is no good reason

And I NEVER just take any claim from any side of an argument at face value.  ArMaP is not the kind of sceptic you are accusing him of being and he does if you read through his posts carefully see the merit in some of the arguments against the official line but only when there is good reason.

example please

Lets say it isn't the lander.  Does that prove there are secret human space programs or aliens on the comet?  No.  So obviously, as ArMaP implies, it isn't that important and doesn't warrant the same kind of scrutiny because it would be a pointless hoax that only proves what we already know - that the lander crashed in a place without much light because its harpoons didn't fire and anchor it to the comet surface.

see above above

If you're trying to make a point then pick on some of the sketchy "proof" that Apollo 11 really happened how we were told.  On that topic ArMaP is not so sure, and if he says he is then I'll happily shout pseudo-sceptic.

this is sketchy proof, without the raw, any old crap can be peddled to the unquestioning

funbox

[Pimander]

example please

You spend your time if you can be bothered to look at ArMaP's past posts.  I have better things to do.

Like I say, this just isn't important enough to waste more time on.

[funbox]

You spend your time if you can be bothered to look at ArMaP's past posts.  I have better things to do.

Like I say, this just isn't important enough to waste more time on.

going on five years of chatting with him on mars and other topics.. i think i get his drift by now

agreed

funbox

[rdunk]

Yes, it does look pretty much like the lander IMO! For sure it is something other than "just a rock"! In the general pics of Philae I do not see anything that looks like that length of white piece/arm we see in the pic of it here. But Philae is a metallic looking box, it is supposed to be somewhere on this rock, and the people that put it there think they have found it! 

[ArMaP]

if I had said there was a robot on mars and showed you such a picture from a sat. you wouldn't be instantly agreeing with me , especially if I hadn't put up the link to the original picture.

You are wrong, as this looks artificial and nothing like the surrounding area. But without a link to the original picture I could have some doubts, as you could be "purposefully wrong" again. 

but Nasaassa dropped it up there, a little montage, and now your cooing the official strapline , without all the measures you require from all else who make such claims

It was ESA not Nasaassa.
What measures do I ask besides an original photo? In this case ESA posted the photo, so it's the closest to the original at the moment, I just have to wait for the original to be available, like in other occasions.

[funbox]

You are wrong, as this looks artificial and nothing like the surrounding area. But without a link to the original picture I could have some doubts, as you could be "purposefully wrong" again. 

so where's the link to the original picture?

It was ESA not Nasaassa.
What measures do I ask besides an original photo? In this case ESA posted the photo, so it's the closest to the original at the moment, I just have to wait for the original to be available, like in other occasions.

wait away , in the meantime  im going to play the



card

hows the rock hunting going ? found any robot shaped ones on mars lately ?, cause in the new batch, there looks like, what appears to be a rock*et thruster just lying about there on the side of a mound

no pictures cause im also playing the



card

funbox

[Pimander]

What measures do I ask besides an original photo? In this case ESA posted the photo, so it's the closest to the original at the moment, I just have to wait for the original to be available, like in other occasions.

I found the photo in the UK press.  It was released by the ESA I think.

[funbox]

I found the photo in the UK press.  It was released by the ESA I think.

but they've not released the raw file, just the montage..its the rules of anomaly hunting sadly, show your source or piss off with that altered image don't take this personally its not your problem they're sloppy with showing sources

funbox