Yet Another Martian Anomaly

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...

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
The false color images are awesome to look at though

The skies on Mars are blue... They have the same Sun we do on Earth, though its a tad further away and they have the same Rayleigh scattering that makes our sky blue

Since the air is thinner on Mars I expect it would be a darker blue, similar to the deep blue skies we see here in the Nevada high desert. Now I wrote several scientists and they concur that the atmosphere mix on Mars would still scatter blue light... so on a clear day when the dust storms settle... skies on Mars are BLUE

ArMaP agrees on this...

Lockheed Martin agrees on this...
Evaluation Report by Lockheed Martin

Now we will wait for Phage to explain it too us



And no matter how many times people say "It ain't so" that sundial color chart tells no lies




Deep blue skies on Earth at high altitudes where the air is thinner

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9f1b8969641.jpg[/atsimg]

Are you aware that rovers can (i dunno..) MOVE?, it is differnt perpective.

Too many people on ATS are very gulible, oh no the rock is moving ...even though its from differnt angels, if it is moving i would blame wind, but really you are gulible, like real bad.

Do not assume without knowing, use logic in your daily lives, instead of just assuming it is what you want it to be. That is one of the probelms with our species, delusional.

One more note on Color

Here is a picture of Vesicular Basalt on Mars...

Rock Hounding on Mars with Spirit
Vesicular Basalt and Scoria
Sol 732


marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

Now I am 100% sure that is very close to true color..
1) because the scientists tell me so
2) because I have a piece of Vesicular Basalt on my desk...



So go ahead and argue color for the next few pages

Me? I have rock pictures to study

And yes these ARE "Just Rocks"... but I like rocks


marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...


marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...


marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

Ya know... its funny... but one could almost say these were taken near my house

Hmmmm I wonder...

reply to post by Anthony1138


Read the rest of the thread before you slam down a criticism like that. Other people have debunked this more eloquently and more politely.

OP - when I saw this in Skipper's site, I wasn't too convinced. Now that I've seen the gifs and read through some of the responses here, I'm pretty sure it's a perspective issue. However, EnlightenUp's post shortly after Maybe..MaybeNot posted the gif animations made me think again; the angles didn't seem to have changed much on the foreground objects and yet the rock had vastly 'shifted position'. It's very easy to see how this could be considered to be a moving object. In addition, when contemplating what forms of life we might expect to find on a planet where heavy dust-storms throw debris around in a desertified environment, rocky, armadillo skin might be most appropriate. Subconsciously, we expect to see a creature like that, so in combination with the apparent 'movement', it adds up.

reply to post by zorgon


I know for sure that sometimes there are blue skies on Mars, at sunset! The light from the sun has to pass through more of the Martian atmosphere increasing the Rayleigh scattering you mentioned.

Martian blue sunset:





Official NASA link: www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by zorgon



Thank you for this info! Sorry the "camera angle" excuse doesn't fly here-the rock is obviously missing in the second picture. Now I will say this--there could be a natural cause for this, who knows. But obviously something that is beyond our understanding or knowledge moved this rock and it continues to lend to the idea that there is SOMETHING there on Mars--perhaps living.

reply to post by zorgon


Well, I certainly don't think its a rock.
If you look at the first image, it looks very flat, and isn't lit on the light side. It almost looks like a shadow, but that wouldn't explain the movement or direction of light.
Perhaps it is a light weight material that moved with some wind. It could have fallen behind one of the rocks, and then on the 7th day been pushed to the other side of the first rock...
It is very peculiar, but I don't think its a rock. It doesn't seem to even be able to support the position its in in the last picture. I'm going to go with some sort of light weight material... but what, I do not know...

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian Now that I've seen the gifs and read through some of the responses here, I'm pretty sure it's a perspective issue. However, EnlightenUp's post shortly after Maybe..MaybeNot posted the gif animations made me think again; the angles didn't seem to have changed much on the foreground objects and yet the rock had vastly 'shifted position'. It's very easy to see how this could be considered to be a moving object.

I agree... and have added ArMaP's gifs to my data (with his permission). There is only one way to research... look at all sides of an issue. But these ones as you say the movement seemed drastic so it was worth a look and study.

I didn't know ArMaP had done one set a year ago... see what happens when ya take a vacation But hey at least Phage got some great stars on ArMaps work so all is not lost. So... back to the drawing board and see what else I can dig up that is interesting enough to discuss.

Originally posted by Aninonymous
Well, I certainly don't think its a rock.
If you look at the first image, it looks very flat, and isn't lit on the light side. It almost looks like a shadow, but that wouldn't explain the movement or direction of light.

Yes I noticed that at first too... it looked almost 2 dimensional... certainly appears odd. But the stereoscopic gifs that ArMap made from the left and right eye images pretty much confirm its a small hill in front that the Rover is moving around.

I will have to use that technique a lot more now... easy enough to paste the two images together

reply to post by zorgon


yes, sorry, I replied to soon, I just saw those pics and it certainly looks like a case of perspective.
One more reason I love SOME of the people on this site

reply to post by zorgon


Nice to see you back Zorgon.

I'm with Armap on this one. Not only is the rock further away than you seem to realize, the rover is in a different position as he said. You can see the extreme difference in perspective by how much of the top of the adjacent rock is visible in each image. Add to that the camera being so low to the ground. The "missing rock" is also clearly in a ravine behind enhancing the effect of what you see or don't see.

Sorry, but I believe that to be true based on 15 years experience in photography and ten years at 3D modeling and digital photo manipulation.

As far as the stuff on Mars Anomaly Research, it deserves the criticism it gets. Extremely amateurish use of digital photo manipulation. Either that or purposeful manipulation to falsely support wrong minded theory. Bad evidence is far worse than no evidence at all.

I keep looking at this stuff, hoping to one day see a genuine artifact or even evidence of a fossil but I'm always disappointed. Keep looking though and if you find one, I'll be among the first to support it.

I'm responding to your OP, so I'm sure others will have said the same, so forgive for any duplication.

I'm fairly busy with work these days as I've had to lay off employees and do multiple jobs to keep my income up. If you would like however, I could attempt a model to test both sides. I'd need any available photo's of that location from multiple angles and know the dimensions of what I'm looking at and the camera height. If you want, U2U me. It would be interesting to do.

Originally posted by zorgon
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

Sorry, I see Armap has already provided ample proof. I should have read through first.

There is a simple explanation for this but I must go into a lot of scientific detail that some of you undoubtedly will not be able to comprehend but I will try any way.
Follow very closely to my next few words because it might be difficult to understand.......for some.
ROCKS..... DO...... NOT...... MOVE.
Rovers do.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

reply to post by zorgon


I fully believe living things are on Mars; especially the seasonal growth of vegetation. Not sure I can count this "moving rock" as something other than perspective from a moving rover,

Originally posted by zorgon
Here is a picture of Vesicular Basalt on Mars...

Rock Hounding on Mars with Spirit
Vesicular Basalt and Scoria
Sol 732

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

Now I am 100% sure that is very close to true color..
1) because the scientists tell me so
2) because I have a piece of Vesicular Basalt on my desk...

But zorgon, prove to me that's Vesicular Basalt on Mars...

In one thread you claim it's not possible to know if meteorites are from Mars or not because we haven't been there, but yet here you are claiming to be able to determine the type of rock from a photograph. That's some selective reasoning you got there old bean.

Originally posted by space cadet
Very interesting, thanks for posting. This is one I have never seen, I would go for the different veiw as being the reason, only they are missing alltogether in the one pic! Does Nasa give and explaination for this?

If they didn't, or if they give one that still leaves you puzzled, then what?

I'm amused by how quick people look to authorities to explain things they could just sit and think about on their own. I mean something like this is pretty simple to see and it isn't a difference of angles, and I don't see water moving anything along.

I'll shoot from the hip, two possibilities off the top of my head:

1) The photos are faked or altered, and they were sloppy enough to leave rocks in contradictory places.

2) The photos are real but "something" is moving the rocks just to mess with us.

I've just gotta throw my 2c into this...the difference between the 1st and 2nd pictures is (to me) obviously one of shifting perspective and a parallax shift. I looked at the whitish rock in the foreground to help determine the location of the Rover. Here's a comparison:




In the 2nd photo, the Rover has moved back and to the left of the original position. The "object" is now hidden behind another rock. I haven't found a decent reference point yet in the third photo, but I assume it's even further to the left and probably back more.

Originally posted by zorgon
But hey at least Phage got some great stars on ArMaps work so all is not lost.

Originally posted by zorgon
Nice work ArMaP

even though Phage and Maybe stole some of your stars

Do you mean kinda like how you're stealing flags and stars from mikesingh with this duplicate thread of his?



Serioulsy though zorgon, can we just drop all this nonsense about stars and snide remarks about Phage? No one cares about stars, they are useless. This isn't a popularity contest, this is a discussion board.

reply to post by avocadoshag


to be honest, i was completely skeptical of armap's conclusion as presented in THIS thread, until i saw your example here.
now this makes sense. you can measure the difference in angles between the two, visually,
and see there was enough of a shift to the right, for the object to be hidden behind the large rock on the left.

I made my own animation that shows it from a much closer reference point.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14912cab171a.gif[/atsimg]


Check it out.


There is a perspective difference but you can look at the various rocks and see how minor it is yourself.

Enough of a difference to make that whole rock disappear? Your call, but I'm not able to reconcile it.