It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

**AMAZING** Artifact On Mars!! Original JPL Picture source included!!

page: 13
81
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
If it is not a rock it could be from Earth. How many probes and landers have been sent from Earth to Mars that have crashed or are other wise unaccounted for. There is Earth "junk" all over Mars and we are bound to run into it sooner or later. Filp that "thing" over you may find "MADE IN CHINA" stamped on the back.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism
 


Interesting, but....

A lot of objects in the scene are not as they seem.
Due to the resolution of the camera a lot of "real" rocks in the
background appear to have perfectly square and straight edges,
obviously this can't be. The strange objects have similar lines.
And the Bent eel, appears to be made of several objects. But
it is almost impossible to prove with this photo. The eye is just
a trick of light and shadows, I'm pretty sure about that.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Yes, I am aware. I'm a Photographer and so is my Wife. I'm a very advanced amateur and she is a Pro. You could buy a small house with what we have spent on Nikon equipment, both film and digital. I love those VR Lenses as I've developed hyperthyroidism and I'd have to give it up without that modern technology.

This trying to evaluate these photo's is a completely different ball of wax though. I find the skills I've learned in getting small crops to blow up to larger sizes very helpful though.

The hardest thing I've found is trying to explain that any filtering or enhancement you do adds data that was not there. For some reason it is hard to get people to comprehend. So many hoaxes floating around out there


I use only Raw .nef files and save to 16 bit .tif when need be. One afternoon of shooting fills quite a few DVD's. I've got to switch to Blue Ray shortly for storage. I'm saving for the newest Nikon DX but at $8,000.00+ it will be a while
Shooting with no noise in candlelight will be great though. This generation is the end of film, once and for all. No reason for film when I can print wall sized images or full billboards.

Sorry, I seem to be rambling today.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
My first impression was that maybe it is a bone. A second look suggested it was something mechanical. It definitely does not look natural.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
some kind of frek tool from back in the day aliens like are first tools



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Yep, that object sure looks like a curved piece of metal.
Almost looks like that object from the Taken mini-series from a few years back.


I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but I also see something that looks like a helmet. It appears to be symetrical too and reminds of something the Predator would probably wear to battle.



Maybe the two objects were originally part of the same piece of armor??

I also see a broken rock just below the curved object.
What broke the rock? Some impact perhaps.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


There also is a huge face (top of head white) next to and looking at it!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
By no means do i intend to be rude, but i would have thought that at least in this day and age and from the vast amount of leaked images referring to mars and the moon, you would have had an idea on how to analyze a true construction.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
My likes or dislikes of someone has nothing to do with it. What it does have everything to do with is that both provide evidence to make their case. And as I have said, there are plenty of people in this thread alone who are doing just that. For some reason, you seem to want to dance around that fact and continue to spout this nonsense to either boost a deflating ego, or to simply derail this thread's progression.


Ok, tell you what, chief. Let me say this very slowly for you: I had no claim to make, other than not believing the OP, and thus I have no need to provide evidence. Reread that. And then reread it again. Because somehow you keep managing to fumble the ball on this.

In fact, I'll state it again. I have no claim to make here. Get it? No claim, no need for evidence. Get it? Light bulb going on yet? For the love of God, get yourself over to wikipedia or Google burden of proof as soon as you can, because this really shouldn't be that hard for you. Quit asking me to provide some sort of data, because I don't have to. I've explained this to you now at least three times. We get it, you think it's nonsense not to provide an alternating theory, but so what? That's your preference. Logically, I'm still correct. If you don't think so, go read up on logic.



Other than to your world it makes all the difference since you are the only one so far who is arguing that no one else is required to provide proof. Again, look at the posts in this thread, plenty of opposite points of view and they are providing data to back those point of views.


Dude, I could care less what other people are doing in this thread. That's an appeal to popularity argument (that's a formal logical fallacy, by the way, but I wouldn't expect you to know that). All you're doing here is failing to address the points of burden, and instead are turning to what everyone else is doing, thus I must be wrong. Grrreaat logic there, chief.



Keep telling yourself that and boost that deflated ego some more. Obviously there are people here that understand logic more than you do, and on a much wider prospective. They provide data, discussion. All you are doing is derailing this thread.


Ok, look. I get it. You respect these others who attempt to explain other alternatives. And that's great, really. I respect that, too. But them doing so is not logically required. Do you understand that? That's not a demonstration of better logic, they're just contributing more to the thread, in your eyes, than me. And that's fine. I can respect that too.



Thanks but I dont pay attention to flawed biased logic lessons. Go try it on someone else.

Isnt it interesting folks, how our "logical" friend here is focusing on this one thread?


You know, you say some things that actually make sense. And as I said, I can respect that. But you fail here. My logic here has not been flawed in any way, and it has not been biased. No matter how much you ignore what I keep saying over and over again, you're still wrong. I certainly can't expect you to bother looking this stuff up on your own, but if you ever do, you'll see exactly what I mean.

Tell you what, I actually wrote an entire thread about logical arguments and burden of proof because I got tired of running into persons like you who have no formal concept of logical discourse. Why don't you check it out.

By the way, your assumption that I'm only focusing on this thread is rather pathetic.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


PNG is a lossless format, like TIFF, only newer and without the possibility of having multiple files packaged inside like TIFF does.

 


reply to post by Blaine91555
 


The original files from the rovers are 8 or 12 bits, and when they are converted the first time (from the packets sent via radio from Mars) they are converted in 12 bit images.

I will post a link to where I got "my" image and how to work with it in my lunch break.


[edit on 11/2/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 



Rocks do not have 90 degrees angles to them.

This just cant be a rock.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
OK, this is where I got the image from.

We choose the data set that we want (in this case Pancam Science Image EDRs or Pancam Science Radiometrically Calibrated Image RDRs) and the rover (in this case Spirit).

After choosing that, we click on the link for the "data" directory, choosing the Sol we want (527 in this case) in the next page.

Then we can see a page with all the images from that camera and from that Sol, so we need to know which image we want.

As in this case the image posted was image "2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1", we look for that image, ignoring the two last characters, because those two characters show who created this particular file and the file's version. The image from the OP (the one presented as raw JPG) has a "M", showing that it was created by JPL using a program called MIPL, and the images on this page all show a "C", meaning that they were produced by Cornell University.

As these images are in a IMG file format, we need a program that can read this file type (and this is not the same IMG file type that was used some years ago on PCs).

There are at least three ways of seeing these images:
1 - The Gimp and a plug-in (it does not work for all images)
2 - NASAView, a freeware program available from NASA (but with registration required)
3 - IMG2PNG, another freeware program that I used to convert the image that I posted to PNG



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Look, your not the defining pinacle of opinion or belief. Now if you seem to have a problem with people believing in what they want to believe, then bark at everyone, quit trying to single out me amongst hundreds of thousands of others who do not think the way you do.

You are not going to win this one fella. If you are that much bent out of shape about this stuff, why arent you trolling in the other threads in the alien/ufo forum? If you believe you are so correct about everything, you should be plastering this entire forum with your ranting.

So once again, either contribute to this particular thread's subject or go bother someone else. Ok? Get this through your head right now, I wont give in to your BS, so give it up. You done lost that attempt several pages back.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by RFBurns
 


PNG is a lossless format, like TIFF, only newer and without the possibility of having multiple files packaged inside like TIFF does.



Well to each their own preference...something our logical friend here doesnt seem to quite understand. In any case, I would rather work with the TIFF formats. Any compression, doesnt matter if its called lossless or not, removes information to reduce file size.

TIFF might be old, but its still the best to work with IMO.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Look, your not the defining pinacle of opinion or belief. Now if you seem to have a problem with people believing in what they want to believe, then bark at everyone, quit trying to single out me amongst hundreds of thousands of others who do not think the way you do.


Don't feel so special, RF...you responded to me at first, remember? But here's a Kleenex for you.



You are not going to win this one fella. If you are that much bent out of shape about this stuff, why arent you trolling in the other threads in the alien/ufo forum? If you believe you are so correct about everything, you should be plastering this entire forum with your ranting.


I won it during my first few posts. I can't not win it--not because I'm so good or anything, but because I'm simply applying and following logical rules that have been established for a long, long, long time. It doesn't surprise me too much that you don't want to be bothered by formal logic, but there it is all the same. So ok, we get it, there's no beating logic into your head...



So once again, either contribute to this particular thread's subject or go bother someone else. Ok? Get this through your head right now, I wont give in to your BS, so give it up. You done lost that attempt several pages back.


Poor thing, you really think I've targeted you exclusively. It's not BS, RF, no matter how much you plug your ears and shout na-na-na-na-na-na. If you were rational you would have pointed out where I was logically inconsistent a long time ago, but that would require understanding logic to begin with; so instead just go with your "but you haven't given us evidence!" stuff.

Here's a hint: if you don't want to be "picked on", err...quit responding to me.

See how easy that is?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Whatever...are you done disrupting the thread discussion flow yet? Im sure others are getting quite tired of this nonsense out here on the thread. If you want to continue to rant and rave against me, do it in u2u so this thread can continue without your consistant disruption.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by RFBurns
 


The hardest thing I've found is trying to explain that any filtering or enhancement you do adds data that was not there. For some reason it is hard to get people to comprehend. So many hoaxes floating around out there


Very true. I never try to process any image by using smoothing or converting. I may turn up or turn down brightness/contrast to some degree but not run the image through sharpening or blur or other filter, even with the highest res files from NASA.



Originally posted by Blaine91555
I use only Raw .nef files and save to 16 bit .tif when need be. One afternoon of shooting fills quite a few DVD's. I've got to switch to Blue Ray shortly for storage. I'm saving for the newest Nikon DX but at $8,000.00+ it will be a while
Shooting with no noise in candlelight will be great though. This generation is the end of film, once and for all. No reason for film when I can print wall sized images or full billboards.

Sorry, I seem to be rambling today.


Film has had a great run, and up till recently was the best to use. Now that digital has ecxeeded film's resolutions it makes sense to use the digital formats. But there are those who will still insist on using film, just like those who insist analog audio is better than digital. A matter of personal preference for them.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Whatever...are you done disrupting the thread discussion flow yet? Im sure others are getting quite tired of this nonsense out here on the thread. If you want to continue to rant and rave against me, do it in u2u so this thread can continue without your consistant disruption.


I'm not really ranting and raving, guy. I tried very thoroughly explaining the errors in what you were challenging me with. But hey, as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

It's amusing to me that you keep pointing out how disruptive our conversation is, that I gave you a hint that would make it stop, and yet amazingly, even that did not sink in.

Shrug.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Dude, let it go!!! (i.e. Grow up!!!!)

I'm trying to read about this picture and not your constant reasoning with RF about who made what point....we get it!!!

ArMaP, great info. Realy admire your knowlidge of these things....


Rfburns, just ignore it ,dude....


Peace

[edit on 11/2/2009 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Fantastic pics !!!
These pics are really amazing



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join