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.

 

Yet Another Martian Anomaly

page: 5
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

What I have here is a simple MS Paint picture showing how percpective might have created this effect. The black lines represent the Field of vision of the rovers, with the oval connecting them representing the lens on the rover. The green filled circle represents the "moving rock" while the other shapes represent the other rocks. The Red line represents the line of vision between the rover and the moving rock. I think this should be pretty self explanitory and straight forward.
Obviously this is not very accurate. My placement of the rover is clearly off. My placement of the Rocks also could easily be way off. What is important is that this proves in principle that perspective change could easily explain this phenomenon, though I'm not saying it does. I'm still open-minded to an alternative explanation. Such as crab people.
Also I uploaded this to my myspace... so excuse my lameness.




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeloser


What I have here is a simple MS Paint picture showing how percpective might have created this effect. The black lines represent the Field of vision of the rovers, with the oval connecting them representing the lens on the rover. The green filled circle represents the "moving rock" while the other shapes represent the other rocks. The Red line represents the line of vision between the rover and the moving rock. I think this should be pretty self explanitory and straight forward.
Obviously this is not very accurate. My placement of the rover is clearly off. My placement of the Rocks also could easily be way off. What is important is that this proves in principle that perspective change could easily explain this phenomenon, though I'm not saying it does. I'm still open-minded to an alternative explanation. Such as crab people.
Also I uploaded this to my myspace... so excuse my lameness.

Your drawing is wrong. There is a small triangular white rock between the two rocks that are close to each other as a reference point. Most of the shots have angle nearest to clip 1 of your drawing. There is no clip 3 shot.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Fascinating stuff Zorgon keep us up to date will you? I truly believe there is much that lies beneath the surface of mars. That helmet or skull thing is plain as day. Why do we keep seeing these supposed rocks the shape of a human skull? Almost looks like a robot head of some kind.

S&F



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What if something like what happens in Death Valley and other places in California and Nevada is happening at Mars too? That water is involved.....




edit on 11-9-2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Edited the first sentance for it to make sense



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DOADOA
you guys don't find it weird that these pics are in black and white?

No, colour may make photos look nice to us, but it's not as important as it may look.

Infrared and ultraviolet (and from different wavelengths for each) photos are more important than colour photos, they show different materials easier than colour photos, like when they show on CSI people using ultraviolet light to find organic traces.

Things that look the same in normal light may look different when seen in ultraviolet or infrared.

If they want colour photos they just have to join three photos from the right channels.


matter fact, why aren't they making HD videos instead of black and white camera?

Video is a waste of bandwidth, specially when the subject is not moving, like rocks.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Nice work ArMaP
even though Phage and Maybe stole some of your stars


Seems that does explain the motion in this case

Maybe we should send Skipper those gifs, see what he thinks





posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Its so entertaining to see people debate about a camera changing perspective and whats more funny is people willing to see aliens out of something some simple. Start doing something more productive for you life, or refocus your energy in something else that actually matters like ancient aliens or UFO (not necessary ET) in the NASA footages

May I rephrase: this forum is for discussing serious matters not where you go to get your sci-fi fix.


edit on 11-9-2010 by vinunleaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColonelSF

Originally posted by spacevisitor
And if it (the rock) really has disappeared, then the question arises, what/who was/could be responsible for that and for what reason then?

Just my two eurocents.



What rocks? Zorgon can move mountains!! And there never are any reasons for doing so!


Because I do think I understand you’re saying here correct, I have to say the following to you.

Would you please cut that BS, because let me tell you this, zorgon is no doubt in my mind one of the members here at ATS for whom I have personally the greatest respect and that is because of his really marvelous threads, his views and thoughts and his opinions here.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Ok, moving on from the topic of moving rocks which is just no depth perception in a flat image... let's talk about the skull!

first and foremost the skull looks humanoid, that's grounds for a massive topic!

I wonder if the skull is mayan or sumerian!!!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I'm surprised that no one else has seen what I see in this image. In the third original image on the first page, if it is scrolled to the right, I see what really appears to be footprints. That's what I actually thought the thread was going to be about. Not rocks.

Here is what I see. I have circled the "prints."



For comparison, I will also add an image of Buzz Aldrin's print from the Apollo 11 Moon landing:



It's probably nothing, but I wanted to present it since everyone else seems to have missed it.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooks

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I did not flush the baby with the bathwater.
I do not consider myself as a skeptic as you probably mean here, and I am also not an expert in cases like this.
But after really take a good look to it all it looks to me as if it is just one stone block, which is seen from its left side in this picture.

Just my two eurocents.



so no comment on the "tail"?

very obvious here in your stills.

not just you but anyone?




I did see that, but because I said, I am also not an expert in cases like this, so I made a post about those things as how I see them.

And because you obviously seem to know why they are there and what is/could be the cause for them, would you be so kind to give your explanation for that "tail" then here?



edit on 11/9/10 by spacevisitor because: made some corrections



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 

Not footprints. Rover tracks.
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
I'm surprised that no one else has seen what I see in this image. In the third original image on the first page, if it is scrolled to the right, I see what really appears to be footprints. That's what I actually thought the thread was going to be about. Not rocks.


Don't worry. I'm sure that Phage can provide a down-to-earth explanation that will garner him many stars.


In all seriousness, it's nothing too important. There would be no way people who believe in conspiracies about Mars would let it go if they were footprints.

EDIT: I should probably refresh the page before posting.


edit on 9/11/2010 by SonicInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
seems to me the most important thing in these photos is the nice blue sky in the color images.. its the only thing that couldnt be said to just be shadows and tricks of perspective.. looks awful blue to me...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by akira131
seems to me the most important thing in these photos is the nice blue sky in the color images.. its the only thing that couldnt be said to just be shadows and tricks of perspective.. looks awful blue to me...


The image was probably done in false color. NASA does this because "This view is presented in false color, which is used to emphasize differences in surface materials. It combines three exposures taken through filters admitting wavelengths of 750 nanometers, 530 nanometers and 430 nanometers."

Here's another example from the rover site: marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

The false color images are awesome to look at though



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Very interesting pictures of the "helmet" but it looks like there are 3 artifacts in the picture. I'd hazard a guess at 2 helmets and a larger artifact towards the top and right. Thats if no one else noticed them. Love these photos S+F.
edit...as in toward the top left the dyslexic right lol sorry.



4 Artifacts??


edit on 11-9-2010 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


The moving object is odd- Lens dirt? But it appears to be behind the rock.(bottom right of the object)
Marsquake? on a hill? Might move the unstable rocks around. (down hill)

Would they take the the 45 min. to navigate to the "skull or get a few more angles?"
Hell ya- we just don't get to see that kind of stuff.

J.P., if your reading this: nice find



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

some marsquakes, perhaps.. helmet is only game of shadows.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
I'm surprised that no one else has seen what I see in this image. In the third original image on the first page, if it is scrolled to the right, I see what really appears to be footprints. That's what I actually thought the thread was going to be about. Not rocks.

Here is what I see. I have circled the "prints."



wah, where did you get this photo with footprints? link, please



edit on 11-9-2010 by SarK0Y because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join