Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Human Skull on Mars

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I think this is beside the point.

Making the photos most clear and crisp does not appear to be what's going on by the people who put out Mars photos.

NASA either adds red or blue color or turns everything to grey mud from what I'm seeing Beamer displaying.

I wish I knew more about photoshop.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sarcastic
 


You don't need to know a thing about Photoshop, you just need to know about photography, especially digital photography.

And that is the problem with many people, they accuse NASA of changing the photos without knowing how the photos are taken or without knowing how things work.

Knowing something about geology would help, also, when we are talking about geological features.

Believing in what someone says just because they talk against NASA is not the best way of knowing the truth, that is just a way of being deceived.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


We have all seen what look's like obvious attempts at deceit. Most of the moon photo's from the Apollo missions, look awfully similar to the sickly green moon model that Zorgon show's on the Pegasus site. And the level of precision....

Honestly, makes you wonder why they don't use a regular old HP digital camera. Wouldn't that be nice? I mean, the infrared camera is important and all...but i wouldn't mind photo's that we can relate to. Even if it is just a 5 or 6 mp variety. From a lander or rover, that would be JUST fine.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
In my grandmother's family album there are pictures going back to the 1840's. They didn't have color back then everything was brown.

Those photographs look better in quality than the stuff NASA has put out from the Phoenix Project already because everything looks black or pebbly.

I don't think they know how to take pictures or they're not trying very hard.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sarcastic
In my grandmother's family album there are pictures going back to the 1840's. They didn't have color back then everything was brown.

That is great, you probably have photos made with several different methods, like daguerreotypes, colloidal emulsions (my sister got a 95% score on her last year of photography at the university because she re-created the colloidal process on painted paper) and other less know methods, there were many at the beginning.

Some of the photos were brown (sepia) because it was a method that transformed the silver of the photo into silver sulfide, and this is much more resistant to the passing of time.


Those photographs look better in quality than the stuff NASA has put out from the Phoenix Project already because everything looks black or pebbly.
Those photos were probably taken with very long exposures, something like 3 to 5 minutes was common with the first photos, and even after photography became more widespread, a 30 seconds exposure was normal.

Also, the negatives (or sometimes positives, depending on the method) were very large when compared to present day photos and to digital processes.

The photos taken by machines lack the knowledge of the photographer, and automatic settings can not rival a good photographer, and family photos may have been adjusted at the developing process and/or after the print was made, these things are not possible with the robotic photographers on Mars (or anywhere else).


I don't think they know how to take pictures or they're not trying very hard.
They obviously know how to take photos, but it depends on what is the mission's goal.

If their primary objective was to take photos then they could have equipped the lander with a better camera that would take large, high quality photos.

But then they would have the problem of sending all that data back to Earth, so they should have a different method of sending the data and a large on-board storage.

Also, something that most people forget (or don't know) is that the Sun light on Mars is much weaker than what we get on Earth (something like 60% of the what we have on Earth), and that is one more reason why the photos on Mars sometimes are too dark, Mars is really slightly darker than Earth.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Large Mars Spirit skull with eyes intact. Smaller masked LIVE head facing cam.
Another LIVE face
Small dead skull(note the eye socket holes)
Live elfish vampire looking gnomes
I was looking for my giant Mars skull ,much larger and more humanoid than the Skipper Mars skull. I'll post it soon.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
The top Mars skull is quite large.A human with that size skull would be estimted ove ten feet tall.It's not positively humanoid,but certainly looks close to human.Spirit spring 2004.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Sol 44 Spirit The faces onMars appear on the side of a distant hill and obviously could not be that huge.Their faces are smaller than yours,yet why do they appear only where the darkened background reveals them? I have told you why before,but let's see the masterful crickets ummm critics explain this one.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Sol 44 Spirit The faces onMars appear on the side of a distant hill and obviously could not be that huge.Their faces are smaller than yours,yet why do they appear only where the darkened background reveals them? I have told you why before,but let's see the masterful crickets ummm critics explain this one.
When you talk about the "darkened background" do you mean that the faces only appear in the negative image? I ask this because the background is not dark unless we invert the colours or change the image in any way.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The white letters are positive image pics and the black letters are the Negative image pics. The faces would be in these cases several yards or less than 30 feet away as they surround the rover in their usual curiousity(sol 44 Spirit),yet they ONLY appear in the relatively flat bland background ofthe hillside when highlighted and stretching the pixelation to yield definite shapes of faces/heads staring at rover. The hill has to be at least a half a mile away and more realisticallya full mile or more,yet the zoom makes the faces appear much larger,since the far-focus of the hill on the horizon is blocked outonly partially by animal faces there is no SEVERE BLUR effect...so the animals aren't SO CLOSE in this case as to mess with the focus.The cam is able to shoot around/thru them with minimal loss of qualty.I requested pan cam shoot at the height of 5 ft from the ground to simulate the average Earth human standing there,where the height of the eyes is 5 ft above ground.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


Sorry, I don't understand it.

Are you saying that the faces appear closer because of the zoom and that they are not as far as the hills?

Does that happen in other photos or just in this photo?

And why do you say that the camera can shoot around/though the faces? What explanation do you have for that?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I'm saying you could throw a rock from the rover and hit an animal even if you were a bad aim because they are so many in number.I'm saying they are about 30 feet away or so ,plus or minus 10 feet either way. If they were closer they would BLUR UP and PIXELATE the view of the hill more,and more likely not register at all as solid or in PARTIAL focus. Take your own hand at arm's length and focus a still or video cam to the horizon(turning your auto-focus OFF),then move your hand in and out watching the blur. Or better yet place a YARDSTICK 10 or 20 feet from your cam and do the same,focus on the horizon. You are seeing past and thru it as if it's not there at all. Now why the fist-sized faces appear large against the gigantic far away hill should become more clear after a few such trial experiments. The faces are in the NEAR FOREGROUND but just out of focus,and so they appear superimposed on the flat background that's like a stage curtain.By comparison the sky is so bright that it easily washes out almost all evidence of the other faces(taller or closer) that happen to be all around.The animals are very social and travel in groups of various species,unlike Earth animals.Packs of genetically unrelated animals,unlike the great herds of Africa savannah wherea million birds of one breed like flamingos PINK OUT the sky.
Tiny female,body unknown.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


OK, I understand it now. Sorry for asking for a clarification, but I sometimes have a little difficulty understanding sentences written in a less "text-book" way, as I never had English classes I never learnt how to create the sentences, so I do not understand all the subtleties of sentence writing, although I know the words.

And although I do not agree with faces, I agree with your explanation, a object near the camera, specially a moving object, would appear blurred, but I think that the way the Rovers' cameras are made would show an object at 30 feet as focused as an object at one mile.

In fact, if you look at the photo you will see that the rocks near the rover are more focused than the background, and that is even visible in this colour version that I just made with the L4, L5 and L6 versions of the left camera, corresponding more or less to red, green and blue.



Full size image here



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Here's another bit of info on an animal blurring out from movement like the long exposure 1800's old timey photography. Lets say a cobra snake stands upright 3-4 ft in the air and is only 10 feet away from the ROVER cam.If he bobs back and forth a distance of 1 foot while the multi-exposures are clicked he will blur out much more than if he were 30 to 40 feet away because the amount of motion/distance would be less from the Point of View of the cam. Sure the cobra at 30 to 40 feet would appear drastically smaller,but the slight movement would blur him out less,even if he moved exactly 1 foot in both cases near and far ( like an upside down pendulum). They can't all be PRETTY BABIES.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Imho, these are all rocks. You don't even know if those are holes, it could be darker stone Try this.... when looking at those rocks in pictures, try to imagine not houses or skulls, but do what you do when you look at clouds. Try to let your mind go, and see whatever is there. All of a sudden, you'll find that there are not only skulls there, but boats, dogs, motorcycles, whales, elvis, blenders, and all sorts of other things. Or in other words, your brain is just putting images to those shapes. They are none of those things, and they are also not skulls as far as I can tell. Nor pyramids, statues, tools, houses, roads, DQs, you name it.

I like the idea that we might find some alien artifact on Mars or some other planet, but I'm thinking when we do find this, we'll know it. We won't have to be trying to justify that two depressions on a slightly round stone means there is an ancient dead alien.

Finally, the range that these rovers have is honestly quite tiny in comparison to the size of the planet. In my mind, it would be astronomically unreal to find even one skull. Let alone stuff in every picture people seem to see stuff.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I took the same hill section with your improved color version. You have some fans.
The very tiny reduction is useful.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
If he bobs back and forth a distance of 1 foot while the multi-exposures are clicked he will blur out much more than if he were 30 to 40 feet away because the amount of motion/distance would be less from the Point of View of the cam.
What do you mean by "while the multi-exposures are clicked"?



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Each pic is not one click alone,but the frames overlap,taken in rapid succession.You misread the word "optimal" 1.5 meters to infinity as a lower limit.The animals are NOT all as close as that 1.5 meters(roughly 6 feet)distant from pan cam.The animals are spread out widely dispersed in all four and a half years (Earth Years) away from the rover/camera on a mast.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Each pic is not one click alone,but the frames overlap,taken in rapid succession.You misread the word "optimal" 1.5 meters to infinity as a lower limit.The animals are NOT all as close as that 1.5 meters(roughly 6 feet)distant from pan cam.The animals are spread out widely dispersed in all four and a half years (Earth Years) away from the rover/camera on a mast.

So, you think that all the the photos are multi-exposures? That is an interesting idea (and would explain the blurriness of hypothetical moving objects), but why would they use multi-exposures? Just to show the moving objects blurred?

I did not misread the word "optimal", as far as I know there is only one way of reading "optimal". If the optimal focus is from 1.5 metres (that's 4.91 feet) to infinity that means that things at a distance of more than 1.5 metres are completely focused, things closer may still be somewhat focused, but the closer they are the less focused they will appear.

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying in the next sentence.

What do you mean by "The animals are spread out widely dispersed in all four and a half years (Earth Years) away from the rover/camera on a mast."? In what does the four and a half years change the way a hypothetical animal would appear on a photo taken by the rovers?






top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join