The fact that we have gone to space, mars and even Jupiter, but

>>18307990
Dave Cameron won't release the footage

>>18307990

The fact that we have gone to space, mars and even Jupiter, but we still don't know what lies at the bottom of the sea is terrifying. (OP dun goofed)

cthulhu

the answer is cthulhu

possibly in a metaphorical sense

>>18307990

Mermen & mermaids.

File: 1476653703221.png (749KB, 598x444px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 598x444px

>>18307998
Would you please shut the fuck up?

I think that perhaps at the bottom of the deepest depths lies some sort of metaphorical Cthulu tbqh

>>18307990
We do know what's not at the bottom of the sea, and it's organisms that defy the laws of physics...

At most there are more of those creepy-looking Anglerfish or some unicellular organisms.

You should calm your imagination and think realistically about what's actually possible.

if there is I hope a dolphin saves the world

>>18307990
Or, you know, creepy looking,weird, but at the end of the day, normal animals like the ones we already discovered

>>18308040
>We do know what's not at the bottom of the sea, and it's organisms that defy the laws of physics...
no
just fucking no
what is it with you guys?

>>18308050
You would deny the laws of physics? Explain yourself.

>>18308061
Explain why something couldn't live there.

There's nothing at the bottom of the ocean, fuck off you land bastards

>>18308070
>not believing in our Great Lord Cthulhu

are you retarded?

>>18308061
>You would deny the laws of physics?
what?
I am telling you that your assumption is wrong

>>18308078
No I don't, and there is nothing down there fuckhead so don't even bother looking here.

>>18308092
sounds like something Cthulhu would say

>>18308098
Cthulu is sick right now and doesn't want any visitors. Come back in 1000 years.

File: 1472096207287.jpg (51KB, 562x730px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 562x730px

>>18308092
>here

>>18308065
Nothing really big as >>18308040 pretty much said
>extremely high pressure
>Extreme temperature variations, vents/it's fucking cold down there
>very small amount of calories/nutrients present the deeper you go
inb4
>we haven't seen all the possible ways life can survive/run/operate
We have a pretty good idea of what is absolutely necessary for life.

>>18308086
The assumption that physics is right? Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong on that assumption.

>>18308043
this

surprising and cool stuff for sure, but nothing like OP desribed

>>18307990
>The fact that we have gone to space, mars and even Jupiter, but we still don't know what lies at the bottom of the sea

Or...? If we can't go to the bottom of the sea, how could we go into space? Makes you think huh?

>protip: space travel is a hoax, and this is your proof

>>18308139
The assumption that we know what is on the bottom of the ocean and that organism defy the law of physics.

You didnt say "physics are right" and I wasnt talking about that

>>18308142
I dont know if this is a joke or extremely low effort bait, but I laughed

>mars and even Jupiter

Weve been there? When?

Also:

>Theres a hole at the bottom of the sea,
>Theres a hole at the bottom of the sea,
>Theres a hole, theres a hole,
>Theres a hole at the bottom of the sea.

>>18308148
Did you even read my original post? I said we KNOW what is NOT on the bottom of the ocean floor. I didn't make ANY assumptions about what IS there, aside from a little speculations. I just said to think logically about what would actually be POSSIBLE to exist there, taking into account what we know about biology and physics and the like.

>>18308244
yes. multiple times.
what the fuck is wrong with people?

>>18308268
> I didn't make ANY assumptions about what IS there
you did

>taking into account what we know about biology and physics and the like
well no shit about physics. But it is a big assumption to suggest we wont find any new organisms based on things we already know about biology. There are hundreds of newly discovered organisms that have yet to be entirely desribed.

and again:
What creatures defy the laws of physics?
or was this just a random "the sky is blue" statement?

>>18308070

Giant squid detected

>>18307990
I am guessing here but I think the ocean floor is at the bottom of the sea. As for monsterous creatures....umm...stay off the bottom of the sea if thats a worry for you.

>>18308268
You do know youre arguing with an idiot right? They will.move the goalposts, then they will make the haystack so large that nothing can possibly be ruled out. These folks don't exist in reality so using rational arguments wont work. Its like a religion to them.

>>18308321
a lot of assumptions there mate.
Just pointing out that the ocean isnt entirely discovered and want to know what creatures other anon is refering to. No need for your autism, pal

>>18308002

Also, Atlantis is down there too.

Deep sea gigantism is a thing, guys... Giant and colossal squid are a perfect example as well as the Pacific sleeper shark which can grow over 20 ft and lives at those depths. Don't forget the mega mouth shark and basking sharks which grow to 40 ft and survive off of plankton while living at those depths.

>>18308002
>>18308333
and the tooth fairy

>>18308142
I'd like to rebuttal with a joke from Futurama.

Professor Farnsworth: Good Lord! That's over 5000 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?

Professor Farnsworth: Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.

>>18307990
>The fact that we have gone to space, mars and even Jupiter, but we still don't know what lies at the bottom of the sea.

Number of probes we've sent to Mars: 54
Number of probes that successfully orbited/landed on Mars: 22

Number of probes we've sent to Jupiter: 10
Number of probes that actually entered Jupiter's orbit: 2

Number of deep sea exploration/survey missions: hundreds per year from governments, oil companies, and movie producers

This "the ocean floor is less explored than the moon/planets" tripe is nonsense.

>>18308306
you misread his original post, dude. you're making a fool of yourself.

>>18308369
That is such a foolish train of logic, it's almost unbelievable. You should take a second look at what you just said.

>>18308402
Exploration of the deep sea has been going on since the 1600s. There have been more explorations of the deep sea than of the solar system. There have been more people who have gone to the bottom of the sea than to the surface of another planet/moon. We have sent vehicles to closely explore more area on the bottom of the ocean than on another planet/moon.

In what way is the ocean less explored than Mars or Jupiter?

In what way is the deep ocean less explored

>>18308418
You guys are both fucking retarded

>>18308011
dat photobomb tho

>>18307990
It can't be some huge creature that we don't know about. We would know if some huge ass cthulhu looking motherfucker is hidding under the sea.
Something that size would appear on sonars and would require huge amounts of food to keep going.
Also, as a side note, when in the name of fuck have we been to jupiter? Or even mars? The best we got is a drone.

Theee is a difference between deep sea and ocean floor.... We have explored of the deep sea but only 10 perfect of the ocean floor due to the amount of pressure at that depth.

File: reefbacks.jpg (126KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1680x1050px

>>18307990
These dudes
<----------

>>18308452
>only 10 [percent] of the ocean floor

The total, combined distance explored on other planets/moons is 110 miles. Since the beginning of space exploration: 110 miles.

That isn't even 10% of the moon, let alone the moon, mars, and jupiter.

>>18308042
Underrated post

>>18308306
Seriously though you misread his post

>>18308268
Microbes mostly some eels and crustations

>>18308375
>>18308585
no
way to not adress my points

File: 14947414_10154015537247308_7227826581406554169_n.jpg (275KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 960x960px

>>18308270
Probed not been there was my point

File: 5SAkyoZa8aj-lReiM0ZDUM37wLsCAcqQQCTN9f1nxK0.jpg (151KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x765px

>>18308601
>Just some snakes and spiders
YOU DON'T SAY

>>18308369
>men who visited the challenger deep: 3
>men who visited the surface of the moon: 12

see?
not saying you are right or wrong, but your reasoning misses the point

>we don't know what lies at the bottom of the ocean

Mud, rocks, worms. We've been to the bottom of the ocean. It's not that interesting. That's why there's not a lot of incentive to go back.

>>18308617
I see idiocy and moving goalposts. Are we talking the ocean floor, or a single spot that happens to be the deepest part of the ocean floor? Because there have been WAY more than 12 people to go to the ocean floor.

>>18308644
>It's not that interesting.
It's amazingly interesting, and we are continually sending missions to explore it.

>>18308612

Yes have you ever used google?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/tech/oceans-woods-hole-oped/

http://www.livescience.com/8188-world-deepest-undersea-vents-discovered.html

For instance, vents in the Pacific Ocean are known to teem with tubeworms and giant clams, while the Atlantic variety is typically home to eyeless shrimp and other extreme residents.

The pressure at the bottom of the trough, which is 500 times normal atmospheric pressure, would be the equivalent to the weight of a large family car pushing down on every square inch of the creatures that live there, the researchers say.

marine life in the abyss of the Cayman Trough with organisms found at other deep-sea vents.

>>18308666
>The pressure at the bottom of the trough, which is 500 times normal atmospheric pressure, would be the equivalent to the weight of a large family car pushing down on every square inch of the creatures that live there, the researchers say.

Which would be almost as impressive as your trips if the animals down there weren't equally pressurized.

>>18308651
>I see idiocy and moving goalposts
I see ad hominem and missing the point.
The fact that you thought that me listing those numbers was a bad argument is exactly what I was going for.
Listing the number of probes is a shitty argument. How exactly did I move the goalposts here?

>>18308678
The list was to show that by any equal metric, there has been more exploration of the ocean floor than of anything extra-terrestrial.

>Listing the number of probes is a shitty argument.
And what exactly is your argument to show that we've explored the ocean floor less than the above planets?

>How exactly did I move the goalposts here?

Do you have issues with reading?

>Are we talking the ocean floor, or a single spot that happens to be the deepest part of the ocean floor?

If that wasn't you who mentioned the 10% of the ocean floor thing, then you haven't presented ANY points in favor of your assertion.

>>18308698
>Do you have issues with reading?
you seem to have a problem with that:

>And what exactly is your argument to show that we've explored the ocean floor less than the above planets?
never claimed this
see
>>18308617 (my first post itt)
>not saying you are right or wrong

Turtles, turtles all the way down.

>>18308732
Are they by any chance also teenage and mutant?

>>18308737
not enough different ninja weapons and italian renaissance name for all of them

>>18308348

The tooth fairy lives in the same country with Santa, you dumbass.

>>18307990
we spent billions with the submarine programs to make sure there was not supercryptids at the bottom of the sea.

perhaps the other places to hide a ufo will be more likely now: under sand, under ice, space.

also theres clearly UFOS, youtube 'luna cognita'

>>18308721
That was misattributing a post, not a reading issue. Thus this remark:

>If that wasn't you who mentioned the 10% of the ocean floor thing, then you haven't presented ANY points in favor of your assertion.

And it still stands - what is your argument?

as much as i want to believe there's something more interesting than the creepy and cool fish and organisms, in my heart i know that it's probably a similar situation to when most of the scientists in the world thought that the space between the planets was full of "ether."

>>18309253
>not a reading issue
So why didnt you read my post (that you directly responded to) I made, that clearly made my point clear? Your remark doesnt make sense if you would have done that, since I clearly didnt want to defend or debunk the 10%shit with my post nor did I have an assertion.

>what is your argument?
That your argument isnt good as I repeatedly said and already demonstrated.
The number of missions/probes doesnt necessarily tell us how well something is researched.
Without specifying the metric under which you consider something to be better researched, it is really meaningless anyway.
By directly comparing the "research levels" of oceans and celestial bodies you obviously run into a lot of problems. So making broad statements about this without saying what measurements/research you are refering to, basing it solely on the number physical objects that had contact with it, is not very convincing

>>18308375
>>18308585
Intelectual dishonesty at its finest.

>>18307990

>What's at the bottom of the sea

Really dark fucking water.

File: blown-glass-hermit-crab-shells-4580.jpg (109KB, 640x533px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x533px

That would be the perfect place for aliens to set up base

>>18309427
>So why didnt you read my post (that you directly responded to) I made, that clearly made my point clear?

You'll have to show explicitly which posts are yours. This is one, yes? >>18308617

This being your first post, you make a specious argument of very unequal comparison and try to strawman my accounting of how we have performed more exploration of the ocean floor than of the planets mentioned in OP.

Any other clarification needed?

>That your argument isnt good as I repeatedly said and already demonstrated.

My argument is that we have explored more area of the ocean floor than we have of the moon, mars, and jupiter. I have shown we've sent more missions, both manned and unmanned. I've shown we've been studying it longer. I've shown more organizations are actively surveying the ocean floor.

>The number of missions/probes doesnt necessarily tell us how well something is researched.
So what metric do you want to use?

>Without specifying the metric
I clearly established my metrics: number of missions, length of exploration time, and area directly explored.
What metric are you thinking of?

>>18309629
>I clearly established my metrics
I explained in my post why simply listing the number of missions is a useless metric.

>>18309673
No, you stated that and expected me to accept it as true. You can't or won't give a different metric so your words are worthless.

>The number of missions/probes doesnt necessarily tell us how well something is researched.
Define "well." What reason do you have to think there is a difference in this vague "wellness" between the research?

>>18309687
>Define "well."
This is exactly my criticism.
see
>Without specifying the metric under which you consider something to be better researched, it is really meaningless anyway.
By directly comparing the "research levels" of oceans and celestial bodies you obviously run into a lot of problems. So making broad statements about this without saying what measurements/research you are refering to, basing it solely on the number physical objects that had contact with it, is not very convincing

You need to define what you consider the "better researched" and in what regard. The pure number of missions/probes doesnt necessarily tell us anything about this.
It is not my job to tell you what metric you should use either, since I dont know what exactly you are trying to convey. Surely you must understand, that we are running into a apples and oranges situation by comparing oceans to planets

>>18308428
newfag

>>18307990
>The fact that we have gone to space, mars and even Jupiter, but we still don't know what lies at the bottom of the sea.

I could not think of greater proof that something major is down there, but I don't think it's a single, colossal organism...

>>18307990
whatever it is, it must be delicate as fuck.

>>18309725
>So making broad statements about this
You mean like, "we know less about the ocean floor than the moon, mars, and jupiter?"

>without saying what measurements/research you are refering to
The metric HAS been established, first by the pop-sci phrase

>>18308452
>We have explored...only 10 percent of the ocean floor

And then my own with duration of exploration period, area explored, and missions sent.

>>18309886
>You mean like, "we know less about the ocean floor than the moon, mars, and jupiter?"
yes

>The metric HAS been established
no. thats the problem

>>18309909
>>You mean like, "we know less about the ocean floor than the moon, mars, and jupiter?"
>yes

Then you agree with my first post when I call this tripe nonsense.

>>18309987
Well, I explained how I think about such broad statements. They are not right and they are not even wrong. So yes, "nonsense" fits.

But as I keep saying, I never tried to tackle your viewpoint on the matter. I just pointed out that the way you argued for it was lacking

>>18307994
You mean James Cameron?

File: david.jpg (41KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 620x387px

>>18310024

>>18309477
> dark water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_5F1zYQF5M

>>18308268
>>18308375
>>18308585

I'm sensing potential samefaggage.

>>18310019
You tried and failed to make that point. You gave no reason to reject my metrics other than vague maybes like "there might be a difference in how well things are researched."

>>18310566
But I did. You fail to give a counter argument.
Why do think a pure number of arbitarily chosen missons say anything about the "research level"? I demonstrated how this metric is useless by using it to make the opposite point of yours. I explained how it doesnt neccesarily say anything. There is nothing vague about it. How is it vague? One probe could gather more data than 10 other probes. So comparing the number of probes is a shit argument.

And again:
YOU HAVE TO CLARIFY WHAT MEASUREMENTS/RESEARCH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN ORDER FOR YOUR STATEMENTS TO MAKE SENSE

>>18310581
Yes, his argument was dumb but the nigger was right.
We have explored the deep sea way more than we have explored space.

>>18310581
>You fail to give a counter argument.
No need to argue with a baseless claim.

>Why do think a pure number of arbitarily chosen missons say anything about the "research level"?
Not arbitrarily chosen, I'm looking at all missions. YOU were the one cherrypicking missions to again fail at making a point.

>"research level"
Define this, please. It currently means nothing.

>I demonstrated how this metric is useless by using it to make the opposite point of yours.
No, you ignored the metrics given (which at that point was only total number of sent missions) to cherrypick one specific ocean floor spot and series of expeditions vs. the entire history of moon exploration. Pathetically dishonest.

>How is it vague?
Define "well" in how well the research is performed.
Define "research levels."
Define your metric.
You have left all of this vague.

>One probe could gather more data than 10 other probes.
Is THIS your metric? Amount of data collected?

>YOU HAVE TO CLARIFY WHAT MEASUREMENTS/RESEARCH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

Nice attempt to shift goalposts; we aren't talking about specific measurements. We are talking about metrics of comparison. And I gave my metrics, you are just irrationally ignoring them.

>duration of exploration period, area explored, and missions sent

If you want, we can add amount of data collected. We have more data on the ocean floor too.

2 headed sharks are on the rise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3905028/Mystery-TWO-HEADED-sharks-mutant-fish-appearing-alarming-rates-no-one-knows-why.html

>>18307998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop

Check the link to read up on how they discovered a sound several times large than that of a blue whale and is not manmade. The kicker is that the noise came from the same as H.P. Lovecraft gave for R'lyeh.

>>18310598
>The sound was consistent with the noises generated by icequakes in large icebergs

Do you even read the links you post?

>>18310588
well sure. since "space" is possibly infinite and includes our planet, thats a given

But when you choose a metric and frame under which it becomes an useful comparison, things arent that obvious.
For example:
The surface of the moon and even mars are mapped in a better resolution, than the ocean floor.
On the other hand:
We have more samples of the ocean to judge its chemical components, than we could ever dream of having data on the moon.

So under different viewpoints, you get different statements. "x is better researched than y" is most of the time too broad of a statement to be useful

>>18310606
We can't really take pictures of the ocean floor because of the pressure of the entire fucking ocean pressing down on us.
And we can't really take pictures of the floor from above because there is no light.
But that does not mean we don't know shit about it.
Don't worry. Soon Google will have ocean floor view and all cthulhu enthusiasts will shut up.

>>18310603
Keep reading anon

>While the audio profile of Bloop does resemble that of a living creature, the source was a mystery both because it was different from known sounds and because it was several times louder than the loudest recorded animal, the blue whale.

>>18308732
Based Sturgil.

>>18310589
>No need to argue with a baseless claim
What baseless claim? That the number of missions doesnt necessarily tell us anything? Thats not a baseless claim. That is logical conclusion backed up by real events

>I'm looking at all missions
not really, no

>to cherrypick
as you did. that was my point. We've been over this. It was a purposfully shitty argument to show how shitty your argument is.

>Define "well" in how well the research is performed.
>Define "research levels."
>Define your metric.
These are exactly the things you didnt do. Why should I define them for you? Are you this obtuse? This is exactly the point I am trying to hammer through your thick skull. "better researched" is a retarded thing to say.

>Is THIS your metric?
It certainly isnt yours, since you just compared the numbers of missions sent, which tells us nothing about the actual research

>we aren't talking about specific measurements
You dont. Thats why you are not making a point.

>We are talking about metrics of comparison
Your metric is "total missions sent". It is a metric, I guess. But you fail to understand how it is a shitty one. Even after I explained it to you again and again and again.

>We have more data on the ocean floor too
You are finally starting to have an actual point. If you now add what data you are talking about and how it compars, you will actually have an argument! yay!

>>18310615
So it's either just another icequake like all the other sounds we had or is some huge ass creature that can scream several times louder than a fucking blue whale.
For a creature to be that loud it will also need to be several times bigger.
How do you think a species that big would stay alive without consuming everything in it's wake?

>>18310613
>We can't really take pictures of the ocean floor
sure
And we cant simply collect a sample of the mars surface. Thats the point.

>But that does not mean we don't know shit about it.
agreed

>>18310622
>What baseless claim? That the number of missions doesnt necessarily tell us anything?
Yes. That is baseless. It was the chosen metric: number of missions sent. It was the very thing being compared.

>not really, no
Yes, really.

>These are exactly the things you didnt do.
I don't have to. They don't factor into my metrics. YOU are the one saying they are a factor, so YOU are the one that has to define them.

>"better researched" is a retarded thing to say.
So why did you bring it up? Right here is when this retarded thing was said:

>>18309427
>The number of missions/probes doesnt necessarily tell us how well something is researched.

So at this moment you've agreed with my original statement, and you agree that this argument about "better researched" you brought up is retarded.

...

What the fuck is your point?

>the actual research
There's that vague idiocy again. Give a comparison metric and then compare, fool.

>Your metric is "total missions sent".
One of them, yes. You can't seem to read simply sentences. Let's try again. The metric is length of exploration period, total area explored, and number of missions sent.

>You are finally starting to have an actual point.

So yes? Total data is your metric? Yes or no? Not going further with your stupidity until you can give an actual answer.

>>18310623
Its hard to measure said creature's damage on the environment when we don't even know the environment itself.

Maybe it is consuming everything in its wake!

>>18310643
But we know the enviroment anon.
You should pick up a book or two that are not about the ocult.

>>18310642
maybe you can read this post
>>18310606
where I demonstrate how different viewpoints lead to different conclusions.

>>18310664
And can't even answer a simple yes or no question. Have fun trying to think.

File: watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png (153KB, 769x595px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 769x595px

>>18310653
You been to the deepest part of the ocean?!

>the bulk of the thread is OP being retarded
Color me surprised

>>18310670
It doesnt matter what my metric is. Metric for what? All I am saying is, that "amount of missions sent" is a shitty metric.
As I repeatedly pointed out, a better metric would be "data about [specific feature].
Actually read the post I linked to you andn start to understand that your statements are too broad to be useful

>>18310590
>dailymail

alright bud

>>18307990

>it is either a massive creature that is big enough to withstand the immense pressure.
Size doesn't let you withstand pressure.
Size also poses huge problems when it comes to nourishment. How would such a creature feed itself do you believe? Food is extremely hard to come by at the bottom of the deep sea. No sunlight means no plantlife means no herbivores means no carnivores. Most sustenance comes from what little dead matter sinks from the upper layers.

>or something far more complex than what our human minds can comprehend.
Human brains are the most complex machines we know of, and we may not know exactly how they work, but our minds are very much capable of comprehending them, It's just physics and chemistry on a larger scale than you're used to.
What makes you think we'd have trouble comprehending greater complexity? Why do you think we'd find such complexity at the bottom of the sea of all places, where evolutionary simplicity is the norm?

>>18310680
Welcome to chan, James Cameron

>>18308369
I wonder if Russia or any other country have any rovers or probes on mars or other planets like U.S? Maybe i'm not looking hard enough because I can't find anything.

>>18308306
>>18308605
>>18309441
Let's all hold up for a moment >>18308375 is right, the original post said this:

>We do know what's not at the bottom of the sea, and it's organisms that defy the laws of physics...
He said whats ""NOT"" at the bottom of the sea. you fuckwads were arguing on a misread post

>>18308133
I agree that it's unlikely that there's anything too large down there that can withstand the pressure, I imagine it would be easier to resist that amount of pressure the smaller you are because less surface area.

But anyways, we don't have any idea of what's nessecary for life, we just have an idea of what's nesscary for the type of life on this planet, and even then only somewhat. They recently found an organize that utilizes arsenic instead of phosphorus I believe it was. That goes to show what we thought were the building blocks of life, can be interchanged.

>>18311308
*organism

>>18311301
Most of Russia's Martian expeditions failed. You can check out the list here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars

They currently have one operational, but it's jointly controlled with the ESA (Europe).

>>18308061
Exactly what kind of physics are you talking about here dude? Pressure? Tons of organisms live happily miles below the surface. Giant squid being one of them. Sperm whales can dive miles down as well and both these animals are large. Why couldn't something larger exist? Certainly weight wouldn't be an issue. Temperature? Plenty of organisms live in extreme temperatures. Maybe food could be a problem but as far as we know there could be all sorts of colossal shit to eat. Maybe there's legions of giant squid or who knows what else. The possibilities are nearly endless. The fact remains we just don't know, but judging from all the other physics bending monstrosities we've seen at those depths we certainly cannot say its a matter of physics.

>>18307990
>thinking outer space is real

Lmao educate yourself bro

>>18307990
We've barely set foot on the Moon kiddo.
Our probes are out there, yeah, but we've not "gone" to Mars and even Jupiter.

>>18312542

The "colossal shit" still needs something to eat, and no matter how you break it down the vast majority of the energy has to originates from the sun, meaning higher levels of the ocean has already absorbed the vast, vast majority of the energy.

>>18312520
Interesting, when you go to the wiki link and click on "Schiaparelli EDM lander" it shows mostly 3d and artist pictures. How come they don't have actual pictures like the U.S? I just find that very interesting.

>>18309743
'sup been here for 4 years. i guess that means im a newfag for some people

>>18312542
>Sperm whales can dive miles down

They also have to come up for air, where they're easily viewed.

Furthermore, in order for an animal to exist, there can't be just one. There has to be an entire reproducing population. Which means there wouldn't be just one "bloop" once, but multiple such noises over multiple places and on multiple occasions. And it probably wouldn't perfectly mimic a perfectly natural, non-biological phenomenon.

Use your head a little.

Maybe it's the quackers again.

They were reported creatures that would find and circle submarines during the cold war. They would make quacking noises while doing so, thus the name.

They were reported to be faster and more maneuverable than any torpedo or probe capable of being built at the time.

Reports stopped after the cold war ended.

>>18313887
Thx for providing link to sources for your claims.
Really helps the discussion.

>>18308011
>laaaidies

>>18310623
>For a creature to be that loud it will also need to be several times bigger.

Not true the loudest land animal is an insect.

>>18307990
I think it would be cool if there were creatures that have been at the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years. If it's true they could have evolved into fantastic evolutionary animals capable of extraordinary feats such as being able to withstand massive amounts of pressure. Concepts science hasn't even begun to explore. It will be interesting once we invent machines capable of exploring down their.

>>18307990
One does not need to be big to withstand the pressure

>>18314304
Wrong. The loudest animal is the sperm whale at about 230 dB.
The loudest non-aquatic animal is a bat at at over 140 dB.

>>18313594

Did you read the text or are pretty pictures all you're interested in?

>The DECA descent camera data were stored during descent and not meant to be relayed to Earth until after landing, so these images were lost in the crash.

>TL;DR
Lander crashed, but transmitted about 80% of the expected meteorological data before it did, marking the mission as mostly successful.
The camera, meant to take 15 pictures of the landing zone and provide context on the landing zone, did not transmit it's data.

>>18314413

What the hell are you talking about? Almost none of your post makes sense or is factually correct.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 480x707px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x707px

We all know what's down there

>>18315096
No I didn't read it, but pictures will help. I'm not discrediting anyone, but isn't it a little odd compared to pictures taken from Nasa's Curiosity rover? And the fact that it's 2016? The only pictures are coming from Nasa.

>>18315098
welcome to x

File: Comet_67P_on_19_September_2014_NavCam_mosaic.jpg (1MB, 2200x1750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2200x1750px

>>18315431

Huh?
Maybe you really should read up on it. Give the article a read. Try to educate yourself at least somewhat, get at least a minimal grasp of what you're trying to discuss.


One, visual data simply isn't of interest when your mission purpose is meteorological data and technology tests for soft landing. Every gram counts when you're sending material into space, and it makes much more sense to focus on gathering the data you care about instead of mostly useless pictures.

Two, VISUAL visual data is rarely all that interest anyway, it's 2016 and things like IR, UV and spectroscopy will tell you a lot more about the composition and nature of what you're observing, it's just not as "sexy" for media coverage. Nowhere near as sexy as Nasa's """""color-corrected""""" Mars pictures anyway.

Three, there are TONS of pictures and data not from Nasa, you just have to pay attention and read up a bit.
Remember ESA's Rosetta? It was covered quite heavily in social and even mainstream media last year, and back in 2014 for putting a probe on a fucking COMET.

Seeing as you're so obsessed with pictures, please have a look at Rosetta's gallery, some of the most incredible pictures ever taken by man.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Missions/Rosetta
Can you even imagine? Landing on an object less than 5 kilometers across, traveling at up to 135,000 km/h?

Pic fucking related, a downsize because 4chan file size limit.

>>18315523
But it was because of the pictures and video footage of the moon landing that made it believable. I guess Nasa is just more advanced because they have more pictures of mars then China, Russia, or Japan. Cool looking rock tho.

>>18315578

That was half a fucking century ago, and the world (at least most of it) has developed since then.

Also, you're wrong. The irony is that there are STILL people who believe the moon landing footage is faked, pouring hours upon hours comparing lighting and flag movement.
The lasting, undeniable, evidence that the landing took place came from the LRRR in the EASEP itself and of course the samples they brought back.

>>18315578
>Cool looking rock tho.
damn fucking str8 it is, m8. Landing on it is the most advanced maneuver humanity has ever attempted.

>>18315619
don't we already have lunar rocks and meteorites found on earth?

>>18315630

Yes. So?

Only vacuum-sealed samples brought back in a shielded spaceship are clean from thermal, chemical and biological contamination.

Seriously, I have neither the time nor the patience to sit here and educate you on basic stuff like this, next time you feel the need to spout some unsubstantiated opinion-piece on a subject, I recommend you at the absolute minimum read the relevant wikipedia articles beforehand.