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

Looks like an artifact to me.

to the OP. That picture proves that some Martian got hit in the head by a wrench.

I see my prediction for at least 2 other possible "explanations" stemming from intelligent design has been fulfilled.

So just to be clear, where are we with this thread now? It's the rocks-versus-whatever you can imagine debate, correct?

And how is this different from any other Mars/Moon amazing find thread currently here on ATS?

Source






Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism


Fascinating, great post. Couple this with other peculiarities like the Cydonia photos and you have a case for something.

Originally posted by seekclarity
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism

 

Fascinating, great post. Couple this with other peculiarities like the Cydonia photos and you have a case for something.

Yeah, you have a case for something. The question is, what?

reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism


There are some real gullible folks out there. That rock that looks like a wrench is just shadowed in areas that make markings appear to us the way they do, but it is obvious that the bigger rock near it is casting the shadow that makes the head of the supposed wrench take the sharp 90 degree turn to the right and the supposed mouth of the wrench is just a shadow that is being cast by either a formation that is pertruding out from the rock or another rock is sitting on top of it with a small dot shadow of it's own.

Look at all the shadows in this picture. Any rocks projecting south is casting their shadow at 7:00 o’clock. See it now???

Looks to me like the real skepticism is whether these are rocks. The swatting at thin air is with the argument that all positions require proof. Who here is arguing that there are no rocks in this photo? I haven’t read any comments here that say that there are no rocks in this photo. Since everyone acknowledges that there are very many rocks in this photo, the burden of proof then shifts to anyone who would depart from the accepted consensus to suggest that there is anything else in this photo other than rocks.

The scientific method can only deal with facts. The only fact that I see in this photo is that the sun is hitting the objects at an observable angle to produce verifiable shadows and shadows have been scientifically proven to make things “appear” different than they really are.

There are believers who put their faith in arguments of supposed “data” that just because they can conjure what they want to portray as data; on a website such as this, their data cannot be corroborated; so it is effectually worthless. I have seen no verifiable data offered in this debate that these images are anything other than the generally accepted rocks and all the speculation about improvable compilations of observation data is not true data.

What amazes me is that, if a person walking through the forest should come across 4 rocks sitting neatly right on top of each other; the first thing that comes to a person’s mind is that someone else was there before them. However, their answer to all the vast complexities of this world; the same mind concludes it all just evolved. This obvious contradiction is simply understood by those who are able to be honest with themselves.

This contradiction of understandings is so unfathomable, because for everyone; it really all boils down to just a matter of faith. Darwin was a confused soul that argued he couldn’t trust the conclusions of a brain derived from ape-like ancestors, but he trusted that same ape-like derived brain to conclude that evolution took place. So, even the father of evolution recognized that his own theory demands that he cannot trust his own mind.

The irony is flabbergasting. Why should the “brain derived from apes” be doubted only when it sees and interprets the evidence for creation and not when it concludes evolution?

thrashee, you have not failed at all to make your point regarding the burden of proof. Everyone sees rocks and those who “want” to see otherwise are very strongly influenced by the same reasonable conclusion as you and I, but their desire to see something different outweighs their ability to accept the scientific method that scientists agree that these are just rocks. Predetermined want is a hard thing to argue against, but honesty is not hard to grasp.

Who was it that had me laughing about seeing multiple images on their cubical wall at work? Ha ha ha ha ha! It reminds me of the many faces in the ceramic tile on my patio. I’m sure the manufacturer put them there to taunt me.

reply to post by mi2sense




Everyone sees rocks. Just who exactly is everyone btw?

Generally accepted...just what is accepted generally?

The status quo? The inside the box collective? The ones who will no doubt have a huge problem dealing with the reality byond that box?

I suppose all the secrecy, all the lack of full datasets, all the provable and documented coverups..(google it yourself), all the tape delayed video from space....all that billions spent on missions for the sake of nothing but rocks.

It generally sounds like a load of general poop, and highly illogical.

If a planet located light years away, photographed with Hubble, can be determined to have an atmosphere, CO2 and other elements without having to send or spend billions on rovers to go see it, why all the fuss and muss of spending billions on missions out to the 4th planet when it is "generally accepted" that there is nothing but rocks there????

Well not "everyone" generally accepts the generally acceptable and not everyone lives inside a very tiny box like the "generally accpeted" bunch.

It amazes me that the "generally accepted" bunch seems to forget that our ancestors seen, documented, recorded in paintings, cave art, art pieces, and carved into rocks glyphs of visitations and their craft, 12+ thousand years ago. And the "generally accepted" crowd totally ignores that FACT. Yet readily accepts the "generally accepted"..nothing here move along song.

I suppose thats why that picture I posted a couple posts above, which was one of the thousands of image strips taken by the MGS MOC camera, was tucked away in Malin's "neat stuff" drawer for months prior to being pressured to release them. I suppose those numbered formations in that picture are just rocks. Perhaps comprised of many little rocks like bricks perhaps.




Cheers!!!!


[edit on 16-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by mi2sense
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism

 

There are some real gullible folks out there.

Mmm yeah

Can i just refer you to my original post:

Quotes like

So what could it be guys?

and

Is it possible that something fell off the Rover? Anyone got the FOGGIEST what this might be

Might give you the idea that I am not stating outright, that i think this is alien.

What i am saying though is, that the object is NOT attached in anyway to that larger bolder behind it.

I trust you're not trying to 'project' on to me what you would like me to be stating, so as to have something more solid to argue against

You seriously think that object is connected? Even though the top of the object appears to lift clearly off the top.

I think you're just seeing things to explain it BEING A ROCK, in the same way you would tell someone else they were 'seeing things' trying to explain it NOT BEING A ROCK!

Without expert analysis, or actually being able to TOUCH the damn thing; we'll proberbly never know! But its the investigation along the way thats importent Helps 'free the mind' up to new possibilities. And you ALWAYS end up LEARNING something along the way

So here's my 'three pictures' arguement for it being a STAND ALONE object.







All from my post on page 11.

Cheers

AoN

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism


What is so ironic about this particular image, is that it is a mere 256 gray scale image to which there is absolutely no scientific data within it. There is no way to determine the compositions of the rocks or this object, no way to define the differences of the compositions between the rocks and this object, no way to even begin to catalogue what the composition is of anything in the image much less say that object is a rock.

Without the geologic data, this is simply a 256 gray scale image. Human vision can only see so much of the gray scale anyway, that further limits what is actually in that scene.

It "looks" like this or that. And that assumption, including "its just an unusual shaped rock", is all it is...assumptions. Simply because we do not have the geologic data from the geologic filters on those pan cams.

The filter image that was published by NASA is the simple L7 and R1 filter. That filter is the UV Blue filter. The L and R is the Left camera, and the Right camera for stereo vision, or 3D vision. The filter is not enough to tell us what the compositional makeup of the material within the image.

Some of those "rocks" nearby could be comprised of something other than your typical martian rock...the same with the object in question. But without the geologic filters, R2 through R7, plus the L1 thru L6 filters, we have no way of definatively saying this is a rock, or a fossilzed martian eel, or a piece of metal, or whatever.

I love the naysayers presistant stance on this even when there is not enough data to support their point that its just a rock. There isnt enough data to support the side of belief that its a "wrench" or remains of some martian eel or other.

Until NASA publishes those other datasets to this scene, no one from either side can definatively prove its one or the other.



Cheers!!!!

Yep AoN, some true gullibility in a lot of the statements here. Like the statement; “this clearly shows that the object is indeed a 'stand alone' object”. I don’t see that your comment clearly shows that what you want to be a stand alone object is that at all. The shadows verifiably cast on that image make it very questionable that what you are trying to call a stand alone object; is in fact that. So if it cannot be proven true, how in the world can you emphatically state that anything is “clearly” shown? Besides, I’m not too concerned if there is just one rock there or more than one rock that everyone is trying to decipher. My comments are to the discussion as a whole.

Thank you for making my point though AoN, the vanity of all this conjecture. BTW, just for the record; I don’t see putting faith in theory helps “free the mind” if it’s purpose is to shut out other possibilities like Intelligent Design. All the supposed designs to have intelligence are just the same ole beating a dead horse arguments and who learns from those? Sorry I can't accomodate you.

And, oh yes; thank you for admitting that there are “rocks” in this photo. I’m actually not interested in the naysayer’s persistent stance on trying to decipher something without being able to have all the definitive data necessary to make any kind of sound conclusion. Especially a lot of banter that ignores one of the only provable things we can all agree on, the measurement of the light and how it’s cast on all the objects the same. I’m completely not into what theory lovers love to do; make a big much ado about nothing.

RFBurns asks; “Who is everyone?” Let me ask anyone here; are you trying to tell me that you deny that you see many many rocks in this one photo? I rest my case. You and every single other person that has commented on this blog GENERALLY ACCEPTS that there are many many rocks in this one photo and that was my simple yet profound point. I think if you weren’t being so smug you could have been able to not overlook that one seemingly insignificant FACT. Those who leave out such simple facts are the ones caught up in a “my way or the highway” box and thank you for making it so painfully evident to all.

Your provable datasets are just flash cards you keep pushing here that are nothing but theory interpretations RFB and all your fuss and muss to contend some kind of interpretation of this photo of rocks; is just you trying to be pushy with your personal opinion. That they’ve found nothing but rocks there is the cold hard fact and I’m sorry if that bursts your bubble/box.

I never argued that everyone generally accepts my conclusion about that rock/rocks in question and your argument calling mine a tiny box is the perfect illustration that demonstrates that your perception sees things from a confine that is square shaped and closed minded. If it could be proven that the object/objects in question is just a rock/rocks, then all your speculation, no matter how haughty you presented it; is just hogwash. On the other hand, if it could be proven that the makeup is not rock; then praise be to actual scientific evidence that proved object/objects in the midst of many many rocks was not a rock. Until then, speculation should be labeled as such.

My speculation is that the object/objects are the same as the other 99.5% of the rest of the photo; rocks.

I’ll always stand amazed how evolutionists/UFOians interpret this universe with their preconceived desires. Two hundred years ago, some entertained the idea of kissing a frog and the frog becoming a man was a fairytale; today its evolution.

The Answer might be behind the blurry pixel...

the one that is shown near the beginning of this thread

Originally posted by mi2sense

RFBurns asks; “Who is everyone?” Let me ask anyone here; are you trying to tell me that you deny that you see many many rocks in this one photo?

Oh boy a new one that has the same demeanor and post structure as three others I know of here.

Does anywhere in my posts say that I deny there are rocks in that image????

Find it and post it.

Originally posted by mi2sense
I rest my case. You and every single other person that has commented on this blog GENERALLY ACCEPTS that there are many many rocks in this one photo and that was my simple yet profound point. I think if you weren’t being so smug you could have been able to not overlook that one seemingly insignificant FACT. Those who leave out such simple facts are the ones caught up in a “my way or the highway” box and thank you for making it so painfully evident to all.

I believe I pointed out that what is missing is the other datasets that will tell us the compositional makeup of these rocks and "object"....so who is inside a box here...certianly is not me. I am stating scientific facts friend...your just attacking me and what I post.

Originally posted by mi2sense
Your provable datasets are just flash cards you keep pushing here that are nothing but theory interpretations RFB and all your fuss and muss to contend some kind of interpretation of this photo of rocks; is just you trying to be pushy with your personal opinion. That they’ve found nothing but rocks there is the cold hard fact and I’m sorry if that bursts your bubble/box.

Those "flash cards" as you call it are what the NASA planitary geologists use to determine the compositional makeup of whatever they take a photograph of. Now if you knew anything about planitary geology, you will know that there is a reason for the various gological filters put onto those filter wheels on the pan cam. They are not there just to make pretty pictures. They are there for scientific reasons, and those reasons I have already pointed out several times across this thread.

Nice of you to chime in so late in the game and take the stance that I dont have any idea what this is all about.

Originally posted by mi2sense
I never argued that everyone generally accepts my conclusion about that rock/rocks in question and your argument calling mine a tiny box is the perfect illustration that demonstrates that your perception sees things from a confine that is square shaped and closed minded. If it could be proven that the object/objects in question is just a rock/rocks, then all your speculation, no matter how haughty you presented it; is just hogwash. On the other hand, if it could be proven that the makeup is not rock; then praise be to actual scientific evidence that proved object/objects in the midst of many many rocks was not a rock. Until then, speculation should be labeled as such.

And I suppose you can give us the compositional makeup of those rocks or object by a simple 256 gray scale image? By all means, please enlighten us. BTW, the little box contains many, not just you.

Originally posted by mi2sense
My speculation is that the object/objects are the same as the other 99.5% of the rest of the photo; rocks.

Great! A speculation. Now others speculate that the object is not a rock. Wondeful...isnt it?!!!

Originally posted by mi2sense
I’ll always stand amazed how evolutionists/UFOians interpret this universe with their preconceived desires. Two hundred years ago, some entertained the idea of kissing a frog and the frog becoming a man was a fairytale; today its evolution.

I always stand amazed at how those use these same lame dame fairy tale examples to thwart outside the box thinking...ie your kissing of a frog..some have used leaving a penny under the pillow and the fairy god mother leaves a dollar, all the same...lame...dame..mudane and insane responses.

Bet them pages of that reference book are as faded and flaking apart as the story is of the kissed frog turning into a prince.


Now if you got some magical miracle method of determining rock compositions vs metal compositions vs plastic, mud, whatever, out of a 256 gray scale image...you dont need to be here at ATS, you need to be in the NASA planitary geologist lecture hall describing and detailing your scientific procedure on how compositional differences are determined by a 256 gray scale image.

That I would definately LOVE to witness.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-2-2009 by RFBurns]

For your reading/learning enjoyment.

PDS Instrument Profile.

Pancam: A Multispectral Imaging Investigation PDF

High Resolution Multispectral CCD Imaging from the
Mars Exploration Rover Pancam Instruments PDF

I think that is plenty of information that clearly defines the purpose of the use of geology filters on the PanCam.

From 1st linked article (NASA):

The scientific goals of the Pancam
investigation are to assess the high resolution morphology,
topography, and geologic context of each MER landing site; to obtain
color images to constrain the mineralogic, photometric, and physical
properties of surface materials; and to determine dust and aerosol
opacity and physical properties from direct imaging of the Sun and
sky.

The right tool...for the right reason...for the right job.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


It's true, the only data we have about that area is geometric data (from the stereo pair), not geological data.

And I think you can stop waiting for NASA to publish other datasets from that scene, that photo was taken while the rover was moving from one place to the next, only those two photos were taken of that specific area.

(click for full size)

PS: while I was looking looking at above image I noticed that the information about the site and position is not what I was expecting from the file name of the photos. I will "investigate" about it.

reply to post by ArMaP


Im sure NASA has the other datasets. I mean you dont send a multi million dollar rover on a geological scientific mission and not get geological data of interesting geological areas....logical?

Given NASA history about hiding data in a drawer for months and years, I believe that there is the geological datasets hidden in their "goodies" drawer and all we got were the L and R stereo pair with the L7 and R1 filter, which is the UV Blue filter. Even that filter alone doesnt permit us to analyze mineral makeup or compositional makeup of everything in the image.

It may have been on its way to somewhere else, but that image was not taken when the rover was in motion, otherwise that image would contain motion blur. The surface isnt exactly a smooth paved roadway.



Cheers!!!!

Do you really think that you can portray me as chiming in late in the game when I have read and considered this whole thread RFB? It’s pretty obvious that my comments are not ignorant of your dismissals.

Everyone should take a look at the sites you posted. They claim nothing more than investigatory research tools; not claims to absolute determinations; only the offer to lend to the research. This by no means belittles their enhancement to science; just the proper perspective that organic proof will never be totally confirmed by imaging. Too many substances resemble other substances; demanding additional proof. More often than not, the proof has to be in the pudding. Voila; speculation. The way you mock my speculation seemed like it was hard for you to fess up to your own. I’m not in the least ashamed of the fact that my position is mere speculation. I’m comfortable that the law of averages is on my side that the object in question is much much more likely what I conclude than what you do.

I must say though, it takes premeditated intent to twist with efforts to go back and forth with who said what; only based on your comments about what you said. You remind me of a vast amount of egocentric worldly dismissive yo-yo’s that can’t hear what another says, because you are too busy being drowned out by the admiration for your own subjective thinking. Now get a hold of yourself while you consider that my original point was simply about the fact that I was talking about the overwhelming evidence that no one disputes the consensus that 99.5% of that photo is of rocks sitting on a planet’s surface. The likelihood that the object of discussion is of a different substance is HIGHLY unlikely, so the speculations you have provided in this thread are also postulated by NASA planetary geologists where?

Your grey scale imaging contention demonstrates that the object under consideration is significantly different than the other rocks in the same image how? Subjective reasoning seeks data to support one’s desired theory, but the question is what are they evading? What would actually make their study objective and not subjective in this instance? Subjective reasoning is discounted by all honest geologists as just that and scientific methods that seek to give equal consideration in study to the image as a whole, applies their investigatory efforts equally to all the rocks in that image; proving them different in the sphere of the limitations of the equipment only; thus the importance of any study that seeks to distinguish an object from its surroundings. Just because the object looks comically like a wrench does nothing to distinguish it from the other 99.5% of observably identical matter in the same image.

I guess that if you thought about what I was saying (if that isn’t too hard for you) you might have understood that you can’t deny, not only that there are rocks in that photo; but that 99.5% of the images in that shot are undisputedly all rocks. So, sorry; I don’t need to find what no one is looking for in the first place and post it for you.

The silliness really comes across when you stated scientific fact is proven by what is missing. Who taught you that type of sciencese double talk? In other words, I have half of what is needed to prove the truth and that’s a fact? Big deal. Many scientists have a lot of what they need to prove a truth, but are missing one very significant missing link. The only fact you have proven, is that a theory exists.

You mock, but you rightly note what all too easily people dismiss; the fact that common sense does require a miracle to be understanding; a miracle of the heart. Heart knowledge in concert with head knowledge doesn’t let one outweigh the other.

In this case here, imaging is not the ONE RIGHT TOOL for the job. As ArMaP correctly noted; seems geological data is a must.

I find cydonia and the face on mars compelling but recently when I heard about the photographs taken by NASA of alleged alien beings and statues on Mars, which I heard about on Exopolitics Radio with Alfred Webre, I couldn't see it.

I checked out all the photos and all I saw was a bunch of rock formations, although there was one photo of a figure which was compelling.

Apparently you need to re-size the images with certain software to make out what is there, and although I have a pretty recent high powered computer it didn't pick anything up.

reply to post by mi2sense


Stick to the topic and not individual members. You began that mess, and I replied to it. Now please...do you have something to contribute to the subject being discussed?

Like for example, tell us how we determine compositional differences from one object to another in that image from the mere 256 gray scale stereo pair we got from NASA.

Without knowing the mineralogical makeup of these things, which is why we need the other filter datasets, a piece of fossilized bone or carcus can very much look like a rock in the 256 gray scale image. A rock can look like a fossilized bone of a carcus in the 256 gray scale image.

You see how that works? There is no definative proof either way....which if you had read this entire thread since you joined on 2-16-09 or watched this in anonymous mode, you will know that I have repeated that statement several times.




Cheers!!!!