Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mars Curiosity Raw Image Anomaly

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Why you feel the need to try hijack this thread?... Yes everyone who has half a clue knows about pixelation which can be clearly seen in the zoomed image. The point is to highlight the object/structure on the horizon and by the way the right angle and two vertical lines can be seen in the non-zoomed raw image if you look close enough.
edit on 7-8-2012 by jaysbot because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaysbot
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Why you feel the need to try hijack this thread?... Yes everyone who has half a clue knows about pixelation which can be clearly seen in the zoomed image. The point is to highlight the object/structure on the horizon and by the way the right angle and two vertical lines can be seen in the non-zoomed raw image if you look close enough, i external linked the images for a reason it would be nice ATS allowed them to be displayed in my post tho.


i'm not hijacking anything. we're having a discussion. my counterpoint is there is no object. it's pixelation from extreme zoom and dust on the dust cover.

ETA: here's some more background info for you on curiosity as well as other rovers and mars projects.
MSL pdf
MSL NASA link
edit on 7-8-2012 by optimus primal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
And as i said before the right angles and two vertical lines can be seen without zooming if you look close enough, i have a 32" monitor so maybe i can see it more clearly but it's there if you look hard enough. As for the dust like i said the dust is a different entity to the object/structure in the background which can be more clearly seen by adjusting contrast and brightness. As for it being real i feel the chances are high but not 100% at this stage.
edit on 7-8-2012 by jaysbot because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   



here's a comparison between what it looks like with the dust cover on, and with it off.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal



here's a comparison between what it looks like with the dust cover on, and with it off.


Thanks for showing me that extreme comparison, isn't it interesting the mountain can still be seen through all the dust.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jaysbot
 


isn't it also interesting , how your supposed building with smokestacks and all!, is the exact same shade as the dust spots surrounding it?

think about it.




eta: it is amazing though the difference the dust screen makes. i'm glad they aren't taking them off the main cameras, only opening them and closing them when needed. will keep them taking crisp pictures for some time! exciting!
edit on 7-8-2012 by optimus primal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by jaysbot
 


isn't it also interesting , how your supposed building with smokestacks and all!, is the exact same shade as the dust spots surrounding it?

think about it.


Nice theory until you adjust the contrast and brightness revealing the dust particles to be a slight different color, and you did take into account these new photos have far superior lighting conditions and are of a higher res. Like i said it would be hard to see the difference with a small screen.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jaysbot
 


my screen is a 27" 1080 lcd. it's not small at all, and very nice. i believe you're seeing what you want to see. pareidolia. you don't even have a clear image of that section with the dust screen off. the object you think you see is the same color as the dust on the lens. you have to futz with it in photoshop so others can see it. then you ultra zoom in on a digital picture.


do you see why i'm skeptical of the supposed structure? i've even shown you how dirty the dust screen really is. yet you say " notice how the mountain is still there", when it's clearly visible even in the dusty picture and is a totally different color and texture than the dust spots. yet your object is not. this is the problem with using crappy(from an evidence standpoint) pictures and then zooming in on them for your "anomalies". it's like a lot of mike singh's old threads(don't get me wrong i love mike) using crappy low rez pictures then zooming and claiming there's all sorts of bases in the pictures and faces. it's your mind playing tricks on you.

if, however, they take a picture of that same general area with the dust cover off and we can see a structure then, then i will give you the benefit of the doubt. untill then, it's just another case of see what you want, to me.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Nice to hear you have a good screen


The problem is you can only work with what you get and this image i believe was the 3rd raw photo they sent around the 5min mark after landing, it has very dark lighting conditions making alot of things seem to have the same color, you need to dig deeper by playing with contrast and brightness. The dust in general is not the same color as the object/structure but i may be seeing things like you say. Everyone is entitled to there opinion and i respect that.

As for NASA revealing an actual structure on Mars, i sincerely doubt that for alot of reasons.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jaysbot
 


why do you doubt that? you don't think NASA would jump at the opportunity to grab more than a measly 12 billion in funding a year? that's like less than 1 percent of the total budget of the country. if they found structures, that were clearly artificial, after some recon to double check, they'd be plastering it all over the world.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Maybe that's exactly how they keep getting alot of money injected into these missions?


I'd say you need go back in history to around the 60's and work up to see the governments mentality on concealing things. If you want to be truthful it is a well known fact.

There have been countless secret government departments over the years where released documents have proven that yes they did infact exist.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Because you are being very impatient and have not bothered to read up on what is going on with the rover right now:

It has 17 cameras, right now the main mast and high resolution cameras are not being used and still have dust covers on them.

The Hazard Avoidance cams are low resolution cameras used to help the rover navigate and avoid objects in the way.

Curiosity isn't a fast food place where you can demand your food in less than 5 minutes. It's a fine dining establishment where your food takes longer to prepare....
edit on 7-8-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

keep your pants on there, buddy

i have better things to do than follow every breaking movement of the rover, i simply watched its descent live and put the question out there. Besides, many a fine-dining establishment has served turds on a plate from time to time.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by jaysbot
 


why do you doubt that? you don't think NASA would jump at the opportunity to grab more than a measly 12 billion in funding a year? that's like less than 1 percent of the total budget of the country. if they found structures, that were clearly artificial, after some recon to double check, they'd be plastering it all over the world.
there could be alot of reasons why they might want to keep people in the dark, for example maybe they want to keep the existence of extraterrestrial life to themselves because they plan on revealing the it at the time of a fake invasion so we won't have time to adjust to the idea and more chaos would ensue, or that they believe if every one found out they existed it would destroy religious beliefs,beliefs which they may see as a mechanism of control. Mind you i'm not saying these things are real for sure, only that there could be reasons for hiding E.T. that some people may not think about. Just my two cents



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
If NASA has known about there being life on Mars for some time and we have to assume they have then the Curiosity probe makes a lot of sense. The Viking probe revealed a few anomalies but what it nor the consequent probes did not do is establish any meaningful contact or communication as far as we know. Hence the Curiosity probe, a very large vehicle with a long life and a dramatic and noisy entry landed not at an obvious site of ET interest but at a probable neutral area (non confrontational) so that if there is to be any contact it will be on their terms. But the culture has a number of differences, noteably a great deal of post manufacture debris scattered in the deserts, which isn't too surprising given the state of ecological degeneration of Mars. What is altogether different is finding the occasional skeletal remain which absolutely never happens here except during periods of sustained warfare and is abhorent to our culture. So, so far the ET presence has ignored the probes, I wonder what they are thinking? "Hey, its the special kids from the 3rd planet again?" but its probably "Don't bug me Terra we've got trouble here!"
What greeting can 'NASA' expect anyway? This isn't Columbus discovering America, rather its the Indians dicovering Europe, hardly front page of the Mars Herald. Will the ET recognise it as off-world? a few departments will have to be woken up before that is established. Lavish art work on the sides of the probe might have helped there, ah well, maybe next probe.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
is this not just an image pointing at the ground...and is that not part of curiousity on the right....this is not a horizon shot from what i can see.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Probability of successfully landing on Mars: Good
Probability of successfully system start up including low resolution camera: Good
Probability of land on surface of Mars in the exact area, facing the correct direction, observing a supposed industrial building and NASA allowing the image to be made public: Not Likely
edit on 8-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
The higher resolution shots have already been published by NASA, and there is no evidence of the anomaly in it:





Of course the OP knew this before he opened this thread, as it's already been discussed in another thread. Obfuscation is the keyword of the day me thinks.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by outsidethesquare
can anyone explain to me why in late 2012, we can't get REAL high res brilliant colour photos of the surface? Not something that i took with a pin hole camera in 1992 and developed myself?


Can anyone explain to why in late 2012, people can't READ about the mission's capabilities? Not weigh in with their ill-informed opinions they they formed with no knowledge themselves?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
The higher resolution shots have already been published by NASA, and there is no evidence of the anomaly in it:





Of course the OP knew this before he opened this thread, as it's already been discussed in another thread. Obfuscation is the keyword of the day me thinks.


It seems like the shots are not from the same camera/angle.

What were you saying again?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DjangoPhat
 


They are the same camera angle. The rear haz cams to be exact.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join