Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mars Curiosity Raw Image Anomaly

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

there was a massive amount of dust on the cover


Still is


it was logical to point out that it was dust on the cover


It was a 'reasonable guess' that it was dust on the cover. Just a wrong one.


and indeed it was


Actually it wasn't dust on the cover. It was something (probably dust) in the frame of the shot - completely different things.


and know it was dust on the cover


Actually we know that it wasn't dust on the cover. In the next shot the dust remains and the plume is gone.

Just admit it. Everyone in this thread claimed that the 'anomaly' was just something on the lens and/or lens cover (obfuscation was the word that AmateurSkyWatcher used) and was convinced that there was nothing in the frame actually being photographed (after all, it was highly unlikely that curiosity would happen to be facing the exact right direction to capture the impact of the sky crane). This was simply not the case. Yes there was dust on the lens, and there was something in the frame too. Now there's still dust on the lens, and nothing in the frame. It's as simple as that.

It's far too convenient to claim that science is just 'continually adjusting the data' rather than just being wrong and admitting it. Honestly, if there wasn't so much arrogance at the beginning of this thread I wouldn't be so, as you say, bent out of shape. But people here were making out like anyone who doesn't 'realise that it's just dust on the lens and/or cover' is either mentally deficient or seeing what they want to see or whatever. The truth is that it was never dust on the lens and/or cover - it was something captured in the frame.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Here's a new anomoily from Curiosty people can debate and wonder...


www.youtube.com...


Optiumus Prime S



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tracehd1
Here's a new anomoily from Curiosty people can debate and wonder...


www.youtube.com...


Optiumus Prime S


it's the same sequence of photos that include the crash plume. however i can see the white object the guy is talking about. it's interesting. i'm not sure what that is, could be one of the MSL sattelites or one of mars moons or something else. interesting.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Obviously you're considering dust on the cover and an impact plume in the distance as the same thing - simply because they're both made of the same basic matter. I think that's a reductionist argument. Something in the frame is not the same as something on the frame, regardless of whether those two somethings are composed of the same element.

But really, it's as simple as this. A photo showed something. OP suggested one (outlandish) explanation. Replies suggested a different (and more conventional) explanation. Neither explanation was accurate, therefore both the OP and the replies were wrong. The only reason I don't include myself is that I never made a suggestion of what I thought it was. When you're wrong, you're wrong. 'Dust is dust is dust' is hardly a solid argument.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 


If you quote me in future, I'd appreciate if you quote me with the context I was using.

I used the word obfuscation in regard to the OP using low res images, when higher resolution shots of the same image were available, that he conveniently used, when discussion in another thread had already highlighted these shots.

In those shots, the two 'smoke stacks' were not visible, and it was clear that whatever was in frame was partially transparent (i.e not a structure, unless it was a green house).



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


I didn't actually quote you directly, rather recalled a word that you used - but I apologise if I did this unfairly. As the only one to admit that the explanation suggested by early posters in this thread was just as incorrect as the suggestion by the OP, I have a lot of respect for you. It's hardly worth editing my post now, but I do appreciate what you're saying and will keep that in mind when quoting anyone in the future.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by TheStev
 


If you quote me in future, I'd appreciate if you quote me with the context I was using.

I used the word obfuscation in regard to the OP using low res images, when higher resolution shots of the same image were available, that he conveniently used, when discussion in another thread had already highlighted these shots.

In those shots, the two 'smoke stacks' were not visible, and it was clear that whatever was in frame was partially transparent (i.e not a structure, unless it was a green house).


What? please show me where a higher-res version is available of the image i've used to highlight the anomaly. You need to remember this was the only image available at the time i made this observation and the new image NASA released was just made bigger but the same resolution minus the 'smoke stacks' per say and some details.

It is interesting every news site i've seen that grab this story ran with the wrong photos with the two inverted lines gone, and with minor details missing from the main anomaly. The facts are NASA has edited the photo, they have slowly managed to edit away the details... lucky I posted the unedited original, and downloaded the original when it was first released to the public about 10 minutes after landing.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


I didn't actually quote you directly, rather recalled a word that you used - but I apologise if I did this unfairly. As the only one to admit that the explanation suggested by early posters in this thread was just as incorrect as the suggestion by the OP, I have a lot of respect for you. It's hardly worth editing my post now, but I do appreciate what you're saying and will keep that in mind when quoting anyone in the future.


AmatuerSkyWatcher was the only one to admit he was wrong about it just being dust on the cam and i too respect him for that, and i too will admit being wrong when it is 100% proven that NASA's explanation is correct.

My analysis this far is it is inconclusive. You have to ask yourself these questions:

1. Why have details been edited out of the original photo, although subtle it's not the same photo anymore.

2. Why did NASA release aerial details of the landing site a few days before coming to this conclusion, why did they go into such detail, it was almost like we were looking at a crime seen with the pieces of evidence perfectly in place. A tad convenient don't you think.

3. How did the low resolution Haz Cam pickup the details of the dust plume 2kms away but manages to miss out the details of the mountain range to the right side?

4. How did Curiosity happen to land in the exact line of site of the said dust plume, when you look at their evidence their are obvious hills in the line of site and also the line of site is unconvincing.

5. How did Curiosity manage to take this photo at all?.. does is turn on and start taking photos as soon as it hits the martian surface...

And finally i would like to say something about the Haz Cam itself, yes it's a secondary camera just used to make sure Curiosity is safe and to send images back to earth fast. You need to ask yourself the following question:

What if all the main cameras failed for some reason and they were left with the Haz Cams only, you need to ask yourself seriously...

I believe these Haz Cams are capable of a slightly higher resolution and color photos, not the same quality of the main cams of coarse because the image still needs to get back to the earth fast but a certain acceptable quality none the less.

When any one can prove to me without a shadow of a doubt everything is legit then i'll say you know what, i was wrong until then i still think the anomaly is either a object or structure.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by eriktheawful



It has 17 cameras, right now the main mast and high resolution cameras....


I'll stop you right there just to point out that this rover DOES NOT CARRY HIGH RES CAMERAS.

I am seeing this term slotched about all over the internet and it's BS.

No camera on Curiosity is capable of producing images over 2 Megapixels.

HARDLY "high resolution"



edit on 8-8-2012 by HIWATT because: fixed tree


I may be wrong, but sending 2 MP images from 144 million miles away is pretty tremendous!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
[
edit on 13-8-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


You should have posted this as a thread. It's interesting.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 





Just admit it. Everyone in this thread claimed that the 'anomaly' was just something on the lens and/or lens cover


Everyone?



we can now deduce that these anomalies are not a solid structure and in fact in the air. And given the range in heights and color variations ( density ) the most logical explanation is dirt kicked up by the landing. Therefore, debunked.


Not quite. Seems as though through good ole handy dandy observation and analysis I concluded this before the second picture was released.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Here is the latest youtube video from NASA showing a dust plume from the heat shield crashing into mars, yes this video has now mysteriously appeared.

Heat shield hitting mars...
edit on 17-8-2012 by jaysbot because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by twistedlogic
 


thanx for doing that, yah i understand concept, just cant get it to do on my thingy at work cause these computers are like fort knox, lol, still no pyramid or anythign though /cry lol






top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join