Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (2015)

a reply to: ArMaP

is this some kind of scientific where's wally ? is this how scientist get there kicks?
if the data's there someone somewhere would have catalogued it, even in a fan site etc
.........
im still searching though

I wonder if Wildespace and Phage are too, we've already had this discussion


a reply to: eriktheawful

I think I might have answered your question in the below post of that question, what do you think ?

*Darkness floods the thread as looming tenticulayered shadows envelope the Awfulness that is Eric*
p.s ITS behind you

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
why is there any need then to try and explain the actual white balanced photo's as faulty due to the nature of white balancing ,*as apposed to the hypotheticals they give answer's to in your linked txt* which they are far from being honest about in that body of text I initially posted

Because they are two different things, the result of white balancing a photo taken with dust in the air is not the same as a photo from the same place without dust in the air.

a reply to: funbox

I can only find data for the first 200 or so sols, like this.

a reply to: ArMaP

hmmm interesting , 60% humidity , dropping to 10%, with no real temperature fluctuation noteworthy, what do you interpret from this chart you have provided?



shame we cant see the rest of the sols, still searching , at least you have found some data ,

still looking

funbox

a reply to: funbox

The only thing that changed was the rover's position, could it be that what we see is the influence from the ground?

a reply to: ArMaP

so then why not say , "well theres a bit of dust in the air, enough to scatter slow coach blue, but enough to make it light blue, and not the dark blue without dust,

no they jump on white balancing

but we both know that even autocolor white balancing , has enough data in the average picture of mars ,to get a very good approximation, even if it has a horizon or not ,take the test if you like take a picture from any sol , and if you've had as much experience with imagery as you say you've had , you would know when the picture is correctly balanced , whether it was here, the moon, mars, Jupiter.. *endless list of exoplanets*

unless somehow the electromagnetic spectrum works differently on some exo's

funbox

a reply to: ArMaP

you mean they landed in a bog >?

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
so then why not say , "well theres a bit of dust in the air, enough to scatter slow coach blue, but enough to make it light blue, and not the dark blue without dust,

The dust makes the sky orange, not light blue.

no they jump on white balancing

Because the colours on the white balanced image are a result of the white balancing.

but we both know that even autocolor white balancing , has enough data in the average picture of mars ,to get a very good approximation, even if it has a horizon or not ,take the test if you like take a picture from any sol , and if you've had as much experience with imagery as you say you've had , you would know when the picture is correctly balanced , whether it was here, the moon, mars, Jupiter.. *endless list of exoplanets*

Yes, an approximation, but not the real colours, and, regardless of everything else, the colours we see on a white balanced image are obviously the result of the white balancing.

a reply to: funbox

Maybe.

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes, an approximation, but not the real colours, and, regardless of everything else, the colours we see on a white balanced image are obviously the result of the white balancing.

do you think the balancing here is so wrong as to mistake blue from butterscotch ?



even one shiny thing on the surface in this picture would have given an accurate reading ,
nasa did a good job balancing , ide imagine those geologist would have demanded no less.. why? , because how could you interpret anything in the picture? , identify any elements or compounds ?

those fascinating rocks of all sorts

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
do you think the balancing here is so wrong as to mistake blue from butterscotch ?

Mistake? Who said any thing about mistakes?

a reply to: ArMaP

the geologist's , when they sent the picture back for the umpteenth time, moaning about the green looking calcites

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
the geologist's , when they sent the picture back for the umpteenth time, moaning about the green looking calcites

What geologists?

a reply to: ArMaP

the same ones that were also watching a lightning-bolt that decided to take multi paths upon itself within a small space of sky*tip of finger at arms length*, then resume its merry way.

is this the usual behaviour of lightning , or for that matter geologists ?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

I don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

a reply to: ArMaP

pictures then..



funbox

a reply to: funbox

Well that's an electrical trip of a different color.

a reply to: Aleister

the video is much better, some time will pass and you'll see it,
any idea as to this behavior of lightning?



funbox

a reply to: funbox

No idea whatsoever, unless it was wrapping itself around and circling a lightning bug (hahaheeheeheehahahaheeheehahuh?).


On topic: "Gee, I wonder if there were fireflies on Mars, Mr. Wizard?" "Yes, Tommy, Mars had so many fireflies that glowed red that the planet was named 'The Red Planet'". "Gee, thanks Mr. Wizard!"

a reply to: Aleister

i thought onlong them lines , i was half expecting a dead seagal to drop , but the slowed down footage says differently,

*placeholder*

funbox