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: 8
81
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MR1159
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Very erudite RF.

But how could a lack of data show us that the underside of the "handle" is actually solid? Or, put another way, aren't filters designed to remove certain elements/frequencies, so what you are left with is less information, not more.

In the original pic, the handle looks like a handle, but the filtered version shows us that it has a solid underside. I don't see what you are getting at?


The reason for the various filters on the cameras is to detect composition, geologic makeup because different elements of even the most basic rock, those varying elements will show up using different spectral filters. That is why those rovers have those filters. It tells the geologists what the material makeup is of a rock, object whatever.

They dont put those filters on there just to have filters on there. They are there for a reason.

Someone posted about the 3d. 3d is nice, we can see it in more prospective, but it is still in 256 gray scale. It does not tell us the compositional differences in the rock, object whatever, it also does not give us those definatives looking at it in 3d. 3d gives us visual depth prospective, and when its in a 256 gray scale image, we are limited to 256 gray scale information.

If thats all it took to detrmine what is what in geology, there would be no need for these various filters to look at things. But that is not the case.

Scan the Spirit and Opportunity raw datasets. There are a ton of them where they are looking at certian things with a combination of these filters.

And there are also alot of those datasets where all we got is 1 left filter and 1 right filter, esepcially on the really interesting stuff like this wrench/hocky stick object. Now doesnt that raise any suspicion even to the hard core skeptic? It should.

Here we have rovers sent out on a pure scientific mission to discover the gological makeup of a planet, and in some image datasets we get 3 or 4 filter datasets, mostly on the obvious rocks, yet in images where there is something special, something different, such as this wrench/hocky stick object, we only get 1 filter used? Doesnt matter if its the L7 or R1 filter, same filter on two cameras to provide 3d as if you were standing there looking at it. But where are the other scientific filter datasets in those interesting images eh?

I wont accept the lame dame excuse either of limited bandwidth BS, so skeptics dont even try to throw that worn out bent playing card on the table.

We do not have those other filter datasets because those will let us see exactly what we have in that image, and allow us to examine it in far more detail and in a wider spectral sense.

Right now with just that 1 image without the filter applied your seeing only this much.... |..|.

With the other filter datasets, including all of the geology filters, we would see it with this much information.... |...................|.

(not to scale but an analogy)

Its like trying to see the world through a narrow slit in the wall versus a nice wide window. Obviously we want the wide window to see things instead of just a slit where we can barely see anything.

Also if people will note the filter chart I posted. They have one slot where it has no filter, the L1 slot. This is to provide the clearest, sharpest gray scale image possible. Why did they not take a picture of this area with the empty slot for the sharpest gray scale image possible either?

Its obvious. They dont want us to be able to analyze what that is.

I dont think its anything artifical. But thats just based on the available data, which I dont care who or what says what, you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip when the turnip doesnt even exsist. All we have is a single filter image presented in gray scale and no matter what kind of processing or sharpening or radiometric equalization you apply to that one single 256 gray scale image, you still end up with 256 gray scale information...period.

Thats why we need the other filter data. But unfortunately, NASA did not publish those datasets. And for a hundred million dollar rover and mission, you can bet your monkey wrench or martian hocky puck they DO have those other filter datasets, and are simply keeping it from us.




Cheers!!!!


[edit on 10-2-2009 by RFBurns]




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


It would be nice if you and your star exchanging buddy DOF there would contribute something else besides the same old lines seen all over this forum.

Do you guys have some rolodex of responses and just ad-lib them as you go, patting each other on the back along the way with stars and phrases of "well said" and "great post" BS??

Tell us WHY that object cannot be something else. Tell us WHY it is byond possiblilty that it is not anything but a rock. Tell us WHY you believe that and with all due respect to you both, can you give us something more scientific to support your stance other than the hot air out the backside??

How about providing something like I did and where I explained why we cannot say either way what this is based only on 1 256 gray scale and 1 UV Blue filter image.

I like a good debate, especially with skeptics cuz Ive danced with the best of the best over the last 15 years of paranormal/space anomaly forums across this wild west we call the internet. I would certianly enjoy a good one with you guys, only if you can provide some scientific data to debate with..not your personal status quo comfy cozy zone opinions.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Thrashee, regardless of the veracity of what you post, you still come across as pompous and arrogant.

It's all in the delivery; and yours needs work.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mungodave
 


I thought the same thing about the skull rock? Annunaki skeleton perhaps?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
It would be nice if you and your star exchanging buddy DOF there would contribute something else besides the same old lines seen all over this forum.


Funny, look at how many stars this amazingly vapid OP has generated, and then come back to our 1 or 2.



Do you guys have some rolodex of responses and just ad-lib them as you go, patting each other on the back along the way with stars and phrases of "well said" and "great post" BS??


We do. It's opposite the rolodex believers use to proclaim "OMG!!! ABSOLUTELY AMAZING STUNNING BESTEST OF THE BEST CONCLUSIVE INDISPUTABLE PROOF THAT FORD IS MAKING CARS ON MARS!!!".



Tell us WHY that object cannot be something else. Tell us WHY it is byond possiblilty that it is not anything but a rock. Tell us WHY you believe that and with all due respect to you both, can you give us something more scientific to support your stance other than the hot air out the backside??


Speaking of the same old lines....it's amazing how many times this very same point gets made here. I even devoted a series of threads addressing this:

The OP made a claim (and a rather emphatic one, at that). Thus, the burden of proof lies on him. It's just as simple as that. This isn't something I'm making up, by the way; it's elementary logic. Furthermore, the more fantastic the claim, the more evidence required to support the claim.

So when you ask why we don't support our own positions with contrary evidence, you are committing a logical fallacy that's formally called shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to us to disprove the OPs claims, but rather, it's up to the OP to support them. If he can't support them (and you and I and everyone under the sun knows he cannot), then quite frankly, he should think twice before creating another BS thread that definitively makes a claim.

I've been over this tons of times here. If he's simply said "Hey, this is interesting, take a look", then he's not really making a claim, and has nothing to really back up. But he didn't, did he?

So you'll find those like me popping up to destroy such nonsense like pretty football-play drawings imposed on photographs of dirt, and incessantly asking where is the support for this?

Tired of it? Then start rallying against those who make exorbitant claims like this. Coach them. Coddle them. Teach them. Smack them upside the head and say "stop it!" Help them understand the difference between an opinion and a stated claim.



How about providing something like I did and where I explained why we cannot say either way what this is based only on 1 256 gray scale and 1 UV Blue filter image.


Ok...how about this? Rationally, we KNOW Mars has rocks on it. We KNOW rocks can sometimes make odd formations that look like recognizable things.

So. Let's consider the relevant options here: 1) This is something AMAZING, or 2) it's yet another rock formation or something similar that is entirely natural.

Rationally, we are downright obligated to assume #2, because #1 requires a TON of supporting evidence, since the claim is extraordinary and we have no knowledge of such things. And I'm sorry, but diagrams is not evidence of anything other than the EXACT SAME phenomena that explains how you can see things in virtually any picture.



I would certianly enjoy a good one with you guys, only if you can provide some scientific data to debate with..not your personal status quo comfy cozy zone opinions.


Appreciated. But understand that scientifically we don't have to provide squat. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It's not our claim. The moment I open a thread entitled ("ABSOLUTE PROOF NOTHING IS ON MARS"), then you can come in and attack me just as validly. However, I hope the rational explanation above suffices.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Appreciated. But understand that scientifically we don't have to provide squat. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It's not our claim. The moment I open a thread entitled ("ABSOLUTE PROOF NOTHING IS ON MARS"), then you can come in and attack me just as validly. However, I hope the rational explanation above suffices.



Neither does the believer. Its known as a two way street. If you expect people to at least listen to your side of the discussion, and you want the one who says "look here is a wrench on Mars" to provide some scientific evidence that can be proven, then it would be expected of you to do the same, provide something that clearly shows that it is not, or at the very least, provide something that expands on the available data that would make someone think on a wider scale.

If you attitude is that you dont have to provide squat..well neither does the believer. Dont expect them to when you wont. Thats how its played.

Ive seen the best skeptics get shot down so fast simply because they have that attitude of their word is God and that is that, never providing anything "relevant" to the data other than their opinion. The believers however, do go to the extent of providing something to show, to read, to think about..ie data.

So in light of what we do know what is there on Mars, this is one instance where we are seeing something that is definately different from your relevant rock. It might be just an odd shaped rock. It might not be. Without that other DATA that I spoke about in over 3 posts in this thread, we wont know.

Without data, or without enough conclusive data, it cannot be proven either way.


ps...Its not shifting the burden of proof. Its simply asking you to provide evidence to support your position. Using that old worn out excuse is just that, an old worn out excuse that is nothing more than a copout, an easy way for you to escape the task of providing something more than just an opinion.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 10-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I'm definitely a skeptic and want scientific proof above anything else...

..but I will admit that's a VERY interesting pic!


There are examples (as someone has posted) of natural rock formations that look very 'unnatural' due to their position and natural erosion.

But yes, that is a very odd and very strange pic. Good find!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 


Even if you are the author of that text, if it comes from a published book, as it looks like, you should post it as external text.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Looks to me like part of that uk wind farm blade maybe it fell off the craft that hit it hehehe (yeh i already know investigators have debunked ufo crashing into that in todays news) im gonna go with space debris but for sure it aint a rock! good spot though!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism
 


does someone have an explanation for what appears to be 2 cube type attachments to the base of the "wrench handle"? Both appear to have a circular hole in the middle, the lower one far more defined.

Rock or wrench, I don't like the idea of cubes on distant planets so perhaps my eyes are seeing what I want them to see.

Not much point finding out how to circle a photo as they stick out like a sore thumb.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
I'm definitely a skeptic and want scientific proof above anything else...

There are examples (as someone has posted) of natural rock formations that look very 'unnatural' due to their position and natural erosion.



Indeed! That is what I am pointing out. That member provided some data, examples of strange shaped natural rock formations. That poster is a fine example of a skeptic with merit. He/she provided data, provided something other than rant and repetitive rambling text.

THAT is TRUE skepticism. Something that is seriously lacking lately from alot of the skeptics here. Not all of them, but there are quite a few who just throw out hot air and nothing contributing or constructive to the discussion.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Neither does the believer. Its known as a two way street. If you expect people to at least listen to your side of the discussion, and you want the one who says "look here is a wrench on Mars" to provide some scientific evidence that can be proven, then it would be expected of you to do the same, provide something that clearly shows that it is not, or at the very least, provide something that expands on the available data that would make someone think on a wider scale.


You understand that you're asking for a negative proof, right? This is nothing short of "God exists", "Prove it", "Well, prove that he doesn't."

Granted, I understand that you are addressing a more casual environment where such things can merely be discussed rather than debated. But that's why I stated that if the OP presented the info while making no particular claims, or simply stating beliefs, then the situation is entirely different. This OP clearly did not do that, and thus here we come wanting proof.

Finally, what wider scale are you expecting? Are there not two categories of explanations here? (Either it's intelligently made, or it's a natural formation of some sort.)



If you attitude is that you dont have to provide squat..well neither does the believer. Dont expect them to when you wont. Thats how its played.


I know it is. And it's patently absurd to play it that way. It's the reason why I am so strong in my demands for proof. The burden of proof is not magically absolved simply because you think your audience to which you're presenting your own claim isn't reciprocating. They don't have to. Imagine being a scientist and walking into a conference with this stuff, and then turning around pouting, "Well I don't have to back up my claim because you guys won't give me alternative theories!"



Ive seen the best skeptics get shot down so fast simply because they have that attitude of their word is God and that is that, never providing anything "relevant" to the data other than their opinion. The believers however, do go to the extent of providing something to show, to read, to think about..ie data.


Where is all this shooting down? Any skeptic worth his or her salt understands this most simplest of principles regarding burden of proof. And it's not just a logical construct, but a scientific one as well. You don't march around making hypotheses and then state you don't need to support them because no better theory has been proven. Doesn't work that way. Maybe you think it does here on ATS, but that's simply allowing for and encouraging stupendously ignorant OPs.




Without data, or without enough conclusive data, it cannot be proven either way.


It doesn't have to be, primarily because of the burden of proof issue, and secondly because while you may not be able to definitely prove an answer, you CAN rationally examine the possibilities in order to determine which is more likely.



ps...Its not shifting the burden of proof. Its simply asking you to provide evidence to support your position. Using that old worn out excuse is just that, an old worn out excuse that is nothing more than a copout, an easy way for you to escape the task of providing something more than just an opinion.


Hehe, burden of proof is not an excuse; it's a logical construct for debates and discussions, as well as a fundamental part of the scientific method. You can view it as a cop out if you wish, but this only demonstrates that you're not really grasping the entire concept of claims, evidence, and proof.

And I've presented far more than an opinion here. I've given you a free lesson in logic and rational thought



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Indeed! That is what I am pointing out. That member provided some data, examples of strange shaped natural rock formations. That poster is a fine example of a skeptic with merit. He/she provided data, provided something other than rant and repetitive rambling text.


Ahh, I see. So if I'd simply said, "Hey, it could be a rock instead", that would be a vast contribution to the thread? Gotcha.



THAT is TRUE skepticism. Something that is seriously lacking lately from alot of the skeptics here. Not all of them, but there are quite a few who just throw out hot air and nothing contributing or constructive to the discussion.


Hey now. No more free lessons for you!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


No, I completely agree. Statistics, probabilities, Occam's Razor, etc -- there's so much against it due to our lack of knowledge and hi res imagery.

But the thing is, I *want* it to be true!!! And that image is definitely a keeper, IMO.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Those raw images are not really raw, the rovers do not take photos in JPEG format (although they use a JPEG algorithm to compress the photos).

From what I have seen, they apply a generic contrast to all photos posted on that site, that is why I prefer to use the images available on the Planetary Data System, because those are closer to the true images sent from Mars.

This is that image as it is available on the PDS, I only converted it from IMG to GIF.

(click for full size)

 

If anyone is interested, here is an anaglyph made with the two images available.


(click for full size)



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I don't know, wind and water can do some amazing things.

Just look at the American West or even your own back yard. Order a truckload of rocks from your local landscaper and watch as all kinds of amazing look-a-likes pour out.

Still I would love to pick that snake thing up and look at it.

Darn Martians are always playing with our heads.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Yeah, I think its a rock. Sitting on a rock. Surrounded by rocks. On a rocky little planet. In a solar system full of rocky planets full of rocks. In a galaxy full of solar systems full of rocky planets full of rocks. In a universe full of galaxies full of solar systems full of rocky planets full of rocks. Anyone want to buy my rock?


ROCK ON!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Scare quotes and the word, "AMAZING", check. Multiple exclamation points, check. An underwhelming poorly resolved picture of...well no idea really, but yawn, check.

I do not know what that is but of the possible hypotheses, from the quality of the picture, alien artifact runs a very poor second to unusual, but interesting rock among, to paraphrase a previous poster, a field of rocks, on a rocky planet.

Before I read any of the posts my first thought was liquid rock (lava) after hitting liquid water. As we know both existed there at some time. Even extruded rock from seismic activity.

However 'alien artifact" is possible but considering Occam's Razor it is not an hypothesis I would waste much time on.


xul

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I see a rock.
Odd shaped rock and great find anway, but still it's just a rock.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   


If you attitude is that you dont have to provide squat..well neither does the believer. Dont expect them to when you wont. Thats how its played.


Sorry RFBUrns but it is not a game, and Thrashee is correct. If you wish to properly debate then the hypothesis that the thing in this poorly resolved picture surrounded by rocks is probably a rock requires no more evidence than that. It is not an extraordinary claim, in fact it is not a claim at all, and so requires no evidence.

If you make a claim that it is an ET artifact, well that is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence.

Sadly this is one of those circumstances where there is no possibility (for the time being) of any further evidence becoming available so the extraordinary claim is merely a weak, but possible, hypothesis.



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join