Egyptian statue on mars?, page 36
Pages: <<  33    34    35    36    37    38    39  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 184 times


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 09:44 AM by the_spark
reply to post by ziggystar60



Thank you Ziggystar! 20 feet high is not really big then comparing the scale of the structure so called statue cannot be more than 1 or 1.5 feet. Chances are very slim for artificial object of that small dimension on a remote cliff. But what if the martians are lilliputs??? ...


Cheers!


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 05:58 PM by the_spark
reply to post by zorgon



Btw other pics from that site are really amazing.

Cheers!


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 06:07 PM by silver6ix
NASA lie, thats the first important point here. They lie, then they change the lie and then they lie some more. Need Another Space Agency shouldnt be trusted to tell anyone anything.

People talk of the old "sphinx on Mars" case where they returned later with better techniques and showed just a rock.
Say NASA, bear that in mind. Maybe they returned later with better imaging techniques now they knew people were interested and made sure it looked like just a rock.

Same with these pics, looks like NASA has already touched away anything they didnt want seen, but sure as mud if we are smart enough to pick up and believe the things they could explain away...another "better technology" image will probably make it vanish as usual, thats NASA for you.

They probably touch out anything trully exciting but dont want to over tamper, and can probably explain away most things. If it gets too popualr though im sure they will correct it with a new photo where everything turns into rock again.

NASA could have shown all its pictures in real time, we could have seen alot of the feeds and images as they came in, thats something NASA stopped doing a long time ago. Bottom line is they dont want people to see first hand because they know damn fine and well there are somethings which they find too sensitive and too clandestine to be broadcasting to all of us.

When NASA stops being such a secretive bunch of data hording muppets, maybe ill start trusting them , for now if NASA says something, its pretty certain to be a lie.


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 06:57 PM by Raven Darkflight
reply to post by iammonkey



i don't know if anyone has noticed but there seems to be like a ramp leading down to the statue/figure and what could possibly be a door like shadow at the top of the ramp..... or it just could be rock,.??


reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 07:44 AM by ArMaP
reply to post by silver6ix



I am not sure of what you mean, do you mean that the rovers have video cameras?

Do you know the huge amount of bandwidth needed for transmitting video when compared with still images? It would be a waste of resources, video does not add much information (that is why MPEG compression removes areas that are the same in the previous frame, or something like that), specially on a subject with very little movement like the one we see on Mars' photos.

About the number of photos, according to AtlasII Product Search, these are the numbers (for both) at this time.

Descent cameras: 18
Hazard cameras: 391,690
Microscopic imagers: 4,435,670
Navigation cameras: 984,274
Panoramic cameras: 2,899,335

This gives a total of 8,710,987 photos, more than a handful.

PS: I did not include the data gathered by the other instruments, the Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES), the Mössbauer Spectrometer (MB), the Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS) and the Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) because those instruments do not take photos, but the data gathered must be sent back to Earth like the photos and is available for anyone interested in it.


reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 10:25 AM by ArMaP
reply to post by silver6ix



There is no need of making a sequence, the time covered is between the time of the first and the time of the last.

The first photo was taken (by Opportunity's descent camera) at 2004-01-25, the last photo is from 2008-02-11 (as far as I could see, and the PDS site is not updated with the same frequency as the missions pages), so the time covered is 1478 days.

To video all that time (only half of the time, if the hypothetical video camera would stop for the night, at the beginning the rovers also took photos at night) it would mean, at 25 frames per second, something like 3,192,480,000 frames (if I got my calculations right).

And you did not answered my question, are you saying that the rovers have video cameras?


reply posted on 9-11-2008 @ 05:37 AM by ArMaP
reply to post by Anonymous ATS



Yes, but a video with just 32 frames, at the common frame rate of 25 images per second would last just 32/25=1.28 seconds.

So, if you are thinking about short bursts of video, that could be done, but I don't see what could be gained by that, while what I understood of silver6ix posts, what was being discussed was a live video feed from Mars, and that would be, in my understanding, a real time video video feed at 25 frames per second.
Pages: <<  33    34    35    36    37    38    39  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 9 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 17 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 3 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

AP: WHITNEY HOUSTON DEAD
  People, Posted 14 hours ago, 102 replies
Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Political Ideology, Posted 15 hours ago, 73 replies
IF YOURE AMERICAN!
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 32 replies
London 2012 Olympics Conspiracy
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 30 replies
Whitney Houston dead at 48
  Breaking General News, Posted 13 hours ago, 27 replies