Mars Image: Building (Pics), page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 52 times


reply posted on 14-7-2008 @ 08:43 AM by mikesingh
reply to post by ArMaP

I forgot to say that I used a value of 2.200 on the Wavelet Sharpening dialog, it makes the image look better.


Wow! It seems you've really done your homework! But....

A value of 2.200?? Now that would just sharpen the pixels and make the image suck if zoomed in further, what?


reply posted on 14-7-2008 @ 05:59 PM by ArMaP
reply to post by zorgon


I think you should change your crown for one who does not give you those strange ideas.

Who said anything about castles (or even other large buildings)?

A large building would leave more material on its previous location, and the materials would have a more uniform shape and size.

If we had a real geologist on ATS that could explain geologic processes to us it would be easier to see (or maybe not) the most probable origin of these rocks.



reply posted on 15-7-2008 @ 06:09 PM by ArMaP
reply to post by zorgon


While there are some subjective things (people do not have a standard way of seeing colours, and people with Daltonism are unable to see colours as other people do, and some mothers of people suffering from Daltonism see more shades of green than "normal" people, and those are not measurable), there also objective things, like ISPs, browsers and monitors.

One thing I know is that some cheap LCD screens can not show more than 18 bit colour (with only 64 instead of the usual 256 shades of red, green and blue), giving a total of 262,144 colours, while all CRT monitors can show 24 bit colour with 16,777,216 colours.

Also, LCD screens do not have contrast as high that from CRT monitors and if a LCD screen is not used in its native resolution the image will have artifacts.


reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:06 AM by 2Faced
Originally posted by rhw007
Part of an on-going inquiry with the PDS:

Specifically I was
searching for an image linked here:

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

where the object in question "looks like" a petrified piece of a wooden log.
The rover's track go OVER this but it amazed me that there were NO PanCam
images in various filters so that a COLOR and also a minerological study of
this object was taken. Since the merb site search produced the above image
while searching for just nav and pan cam images it appears that no such
pancam images were put into the PDS...IF...any were taken. I remain puzzled
why this "anomalous" object was not imaged by the PanCam camea suite. That
is a question you cannot answer and it is far to late to go back to the site
to re-image the object in question for scientific definitive evidence as to
WHAT it may be. Certainly is an "odd rock".

Bob...

[edit on 7-7-2008 by rhw007]


I was about to take a look at the log, untill I noticed something else that I thought was a bit strange. When you look a bit above the "log" you see two, what apear to be, allmost perfect squares laying side by side. Or am I "seeing" things?

Here are the images I am talking about:





[edit on 17-7-2008 by 2Faced]


reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 10:42 AM by nablator
reply to post by 2Faced

Amazing. In the second picture (green), the 2 squares are unmistakably... square. I don't see anything in the first one (red). Good find!


reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 10:45 AM by Tomis_Nexis
reply to post by super70


Cool pictures. I've always believe that man was on the moon before the apollo's. You can't broadcast the deaths of astronauts because they went into the unknown, takes a few passes to get it right. As I believe with Mars, Man has traversed there and one day, they'll actually broadcast it....as "the first landing and walk".


reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 10:47 AM by ziggystar60
reply to post by 2Faced


I see the squares clearly in both the images. That is a very good observation, thanks for your post! Star from me!


reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 03:07 PM by 2Faced
Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by 2Faced

Amazing. In the second picture (green), the 2 squares are unmistakably... square. I don't see anything in the first one (red). Good find!


perhaps I should have clarified that the red lines simply hover above the squares. I changed it a bit, so it is more obvious.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by 2Faced]



reply posted on 18-7-2008 @ 03:04 AM by nablator
reply to post by 2Faced

Ah right, I thought you found 4 squares. 2 squares side by side is already weird enough. Hexagonal mounds similar to what is found in Antarctica's dry valleys are common, they are not always hexagonal, other random polygons are possible. But these look special as there are no other polygons nearby. Why is it that anomalies seem to cluster in the same picture? Nothing out of the ordinary in 100 pictures and then several in a single picture. The picture in the OP has many interesting features too.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^



"My God, its full of stars!"
  Posted 15 days ago with 83 member flags
Newfound "super-Earth"
  Posted 4 days ago with 55 member flags
Toronto teens send Lego man into space: video
  Posted 12 days ago with 28 member flags
Amazing new photo of Earth. The Blue Marble 2012
  Posted 9 days ago with 21 member flags
Russia proposes international Moon base-- again!
  Posted 17 days ago with 20 member flags
NASA Probe Captures 1st Video of Moon\'s Far Side
  Posted 5 days ago with 19 member flags