Mars Vacuum cleaner attachment

originally posted by: lindalinda
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

I thought Mars Needs Women.

Haha I believe every planet needs a woman's touch

originally posted by: avatar01
a reply to: Xeven

This is NASA... Their mandate is to whitewash the secrets of outer space.

When you see artifacts like this, they probably put it in there just to mess with you.

I'll break their bones if they did!
Talking about bones, maybe Mars is where the Smithsonian 'hid' all the discovered Giant skeletons in the early 1900's, now they're going to have to bring them back...the Supreme Court says so!

a reply to: nataylor

That looks nothing like it, and why are the pics so damn small!?

a reply to: Xeven

If you worked for a private company that didn't have the little issue with secrecy when it comes to änomalies on Mars"or elsewhere besides Earth, they would have, upon seeing this object, gone up to i5t and used the little rover buzz-saw and other neat toys it has to check it out further. and perhaps they already have and maybe they will let us know what kind of rock it is in the future.
Of course further investigation would put any questions like this to rest, unless you are one of ATS's resident experts who already know it couldn't be anything except a funny looking rock because they already know for sure, since no other explanation is possible.
What intrigues me about Mars the most is how the natural rock formations can look so much like unnatural objects and even when they have absolute mathematical and geometrical precision in their appearance, it just means that their really isn't anything to see there of much interest, (especially for NASA rover mission specialists publicly speaking of course.), (Oh, and also for the resident NASA groupies who believe with 100% certainty that Mars doesn't have anything but rocks and stuff, even though many failed Mars missions have had craft crash on the planet and even though THIS could be one of the items crash landed, but they already insist its or assume it's a rock before actually knowing.

Isn't that cute?

After studying the main image zoomed out for quite some time, it is most clearly a rock.

If you look to the left edge about center level you will see a group of rocks that looked pancaked together, and right next to it is a fairly smooth lightly colored rock. It's the most similar looking rock in the picture. Once I started looking at this rock to the left and glancing back at our rock in question, it just became obvious that we are all looking at a rock.

As for the oval shaped corner on our rock, I bet that another angle of this rock will show it's not unique and has no aero-dynamic shape to it. The oval shape is probably the inside of that rock because this rock may have broken billions of years ago.

NASA could have little green men making sign language in their photos and they would move the rover over to a rock to drill rather than acknowledge and examine the lil green men lol.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Xeven


What intrigues me about Mars the most is how the natural rock formations can look so much like unnatural objects and even when they have absolute mathematical and geometrical precision in their appearance, it just means that their really isn't anything to see there of much interest, (especially for NASA rover mission specialists publicly speaking of course.), (Oh, and also for the resident NASA groupies who believe with 100% certainty that Mars doesn't have anything but rocks and stuff, even though many failed Mars missions have had craft crash on the planet and even though THIS could be one of the items crash landed, but they already insist its or assume it's a rock before actually knowing.

Isn't that cute?

That's the way it goes though, arguably the difference between knowing feck nothing, and knowing Feck all, we're all in there somewhere, as in Et Al, and that includes NASA. However we now have Mars Telly..sort of, a technical achievement in Curiosity, so we can all have a nosy and that should be a good thing. We can make jokes about it too, not much wrong with that either. ESA did a good job too, as did China, although China needs to loosen up a bit.
Anyway, as far as NASA having a close peek at this thing, the raw pics of Sol 821 are there with the time frames, the object is in several, check them out an decide for yourself if Curiosity was ever near the object.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Here's an example of what I mean, scroll down to the bottom and look at the rock on the left, it looks like a burnt book, but it's a knackered brittle rock since millions of years or more ago, you don't see stuff like that just lying around a street corner too much on Earth.


ATS image address (reccommended), files.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Interpolation or algorithms produce false details which is why you should never judge anything by the product of running an image through filters or re-sampling to a larger size.

There are some wonderful threads here full of helpful advice and explanations of why you never do this as it gives false impressions of what's actually in the image. Some of the most disturbing and fraudulent sites on the internet rely on such images to trick those who have no reason to know. One example of the misuse of re-sampling was the face on Mars. Fooled a lot of people.

Clearly one of the more interesting shapes, but I note that the cleavage of the surrounding rock is the same.

Interesting but what I would call a bleep rock (you fill in the bleep). Looks good, but it's still a bleeping rock.

The problem is that a person with no real knowledge of geology or "rocks" has nothing to base their opinion on beyond sorta looks like. It's natural to want to believe its something other than what it is, but a geologist or experienced enthusiast would barely give it a second glance.

It is in fact the same rock as all of them around it and has no properties to make anyone think otherwise.

What an odd reality on this thread. Most of these "Proof on Mars" threads that show rocks....are just that..rocks. I've said so many times and I usually think nothing of these threads.

But THIS object shows HOLES in a circular pattern. I can see them when I ran this through filters in Gimp for an hour. I couldn't possibly post all the photos from the filter changes I made which were (to me) CLEARLY showing the pattern on the back.

ATS searches for evidence of something all day. People post debunked "proof" all the time. And for once, we have a truly unusual artifact with evidence of symmetry and holes in a pattern and a LIP around the top edge, and the thread just dies off into nothing filled with jokes and puns....down to nowhere.



I don't get it.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Interpolation or algorithms produce false details which is why you should never judge anything by the product of running an image through filters or re-sampling to a larger size.

There are some wonderful threads here full of helpful advice and explanations of why you never do this as it gives false impressions of what's actually in the image. Some of the most disturbing and fraudulent sites on the internet rely on such images to trick those who have no reason to know. One example of the misuse of re-sampling was the face on Mars. Fooled a lot of people.

edit on 12/10/2014 by

I ran it through multiple filter types and with zooms. I accounted for pixelation in many of the pics. Some of the harder filters obscured much around the 'holes'. But when you center on the holes with even simple sharpening and boost gain and ADD noise, I can see the holes are in a pattern and evenly spaced.

The more you actually fool with the original JPG from the website, the more cluttered the image becomes. The initial photo has many flaws in it and one can only get so much out of it.

If you go to far in, the pixels distort. Medium zoom is the best range to see the raw image. The "holes" aren't obscured so one can focus on the definition. The holes there, and they're in a centric pattern around a center hole.

I'm familiar with Pareidolia too. Unless I'm suffering from an acute case of it I can't be sure this is a rock. Sorry. extra DIV