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.

 

Something is definitely up. They DID take down those Mars Curiosity thumbnails. Proof:

page: 19
77
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Ok so something funny is going on with the pictures - what else is new? This kinda stuff happens all the time.


To me, this looks nothing like snails, slugs, worms, or snakes etc to me - it just looks like a bunch of skinny rocks.
I don't see anything that has to do with moisture or mud, can't see any tracks at all - its just the shadow behind the tire.

Wouldn't it be funny though, if the whole Mars rover thing was a hoax? You know, kinda like how there are people out there who don't think we ever even made it to the moon? One thing's for sure, it totally looks like its out in the middle of the desert... somewhere.




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


To his credit he has linked the source on previous threads although maybe from a legal aspect he should also be doing that on his Gigaplan post.

Link: mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Umm. I posted links everywhere to the site. And Google is your friend. But here. Again:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Iam'___'
 


My panoramas are free. There is no need for that.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Just so we are clear here, that picture IS in the NASA/JPL website, and I don't think it was ever taken down.

There are two versions of that image (a full res version and a thumbnail version) that were downloaded from Curiosity at different times -- the thumbnail first, and the full-resolution some time later -- so maybe that's what is confusing the OP.

Anyway, here is the 1200 x 1200 image on the JPL website:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

and here is the sol 3 page that includes all of the raw images (both the thumbnails and the full resolution images):
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
edit on 8/17/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by Spotless
reply to post by hp1229
 

Yep. I'm sure all the images aren't uploaded by hand. Their own mass uploader does it, some piece of software has to make low-res thumbnails as well. Basicly its just a little glitch in their system



I am quite sure they review them all before anything gets posted... you also have photos that have captions at times.. I'm sure JPL / NASA has a team to maintain the site =) so it's not beyond reason that they are posted manually... They wouldn't post something without reviewing it because what IF a mother ship landed =) never going to happen.. but you get the idea
That would be a strue statement. However it would most likely housed on a different server and not necessarily on the Web Server which we all access
However during the transfer of content to the webserver (NRT or not), the IT process (I can go into detail but there are many) could be flawed as it transfers or renames objects.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
...And the proof:

So Wikipedia has the full resolution image of that thumbnail, but when you try to click the direct link, the thumbnail comes up:






It seems that the wikipedia page simply linked to the wrong file.
The 1200 x 1200 was still there (it didn't go anywhere, as far as i know) but the wikipedia article linked to the thumbnail instead.


Wikipedia's link was to the thumbnail:
"mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0003ML0000125000I1_DXXX&s=3"

While the 1200 x 1200 image (which was still there) had a different address:
"mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0003ML0000125000E1_DXXX&s=3"

Notice the thumbnail has an "l1" in the file name, whereas the 1200 x 1200 full resolution image has "E1" in the file name. The wikipedia "Source" link was simply pointing to the wrong file.



If the OP went to the JPL/NASA sol 3 raw image page, rather than trusting the wikipedia link to take him to the right file, then he could have found the full-resolution image there.


edit on 8/17/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The picture is full of arrowheads. Of course they took it down...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkumaStreak
The picture is full of arrowheads. Of course they took it down...

But the picture wasn't taken down. It was always there.

The problem wasn't with NASA. The problem was with Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia "Source" link had the wrong file name for the image. It linked the OP to the thumbnail image rather than to the full resolution image. BOTH image files are on the NASA/JPL website.


edit on 8/17/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyteeny
what strikes me is this... those square depressions on the tracks of the tyres... they're filled with earth and stones, while the rest of the track is relatively clean. to me this unequivocally indicates moisture, .. mud... if there were no moisture it wouldn't be able to build up in those depressions. or not?



I don't see any dirt or stones stuck in the treads of the rover's wheels. That square hole at the top is just that- a hole, and you can see through it to the dirt on the ground below it. Is that what you were talking about ?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
lolol yeahhh all the small ones, just change the I to and E and they are full res. what a conspiracy



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by braydenf
 


This is the LAST time I will explain myself about it, and I would love to see your answer.


NASA released a panoramic image 7 days ago with missing images. Those images were on their servers the whole time - they just weren't clickable. We had to find them. I bet you did NOT read this thread because if you did, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

So why is it that my latest panorama has only ONE missing image (working on it right now) when they could of had their panorama more complete a week ago?

Before you come into this thread acting all ignorant, I suggest you actually 1: Read the OP, and 2: Read the thread.

But some people are just lazy...



Originally posted by braydenf
lolol yeahhh all the small ones, just change the I to and E and they are full res. what a conspiracy


And once again - WE (us ATS'ers) found that out. If we didn't, we wouldn't have had the data.

So? What do you have to say about that? Probably no response and if there is one, it won't have anything to do with this post.

Surprise me.
edit on 8/17/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
NASA released a panoramic image 7 days ago with missing images. Those images were on their servers the whole time - they just weren't clickable. We had to find them. I bet you did NOT read this thread because if you did, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.



Originally posted by braydenf
lolol yeahhh all the small ones, just change the I to and E and they are full res. what a conspiracy


And once again - WE (us ATS'ers) found that out. If we didn't, we wouldn't have had the data.


I could be wrong, but I think I remember viewing the 1200 x 1200 full resolution images on JPL's/NASA's raw image page all along (about the same time they released the full-res panorama).

Maybe I'm not getting the point of what you are saying here, but when you say it "wasn't clickable", are you referring to the fact that clicking the link in Wikipedia (the link you circled in your OP) took you to a thumbnail rather than the 1200 x 1200 full-res?

If so, then the problem was with wikipedia's link, and nothing else. I think the full resolution image was there on JPL's raw image page for anyone to open and view.


edit on 8/17/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I'm missing something here?

All the pictures are up and running in the NASA website right now in full resolution, so whats the issue here?

I found this picture where the WHEEL picture is also located and they show "river style rocks" and "sand" they are not trying to block those pictures. I really don't understand the issue here.

This picture can be found in NASA's website right now. (I added some paintbrush art to it)

Show me a Jeep Cherokee tire tracks or cactus and then I will believe this pictures were not taken in mars. TRUST ME if Nasa doesn't want you to see a picture YOU WONT SEE IT.


edit on 17-8-2012 by cdesigns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 


As pointed out by WarminIndy from NASA's terms and conditions :


NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material except in cases of advertising.


If you take a look at the 'About This Gigaplan' on your panorama gigapan.com... and compare it with a NASA Gigaplan gigapan.com... you will notice that the pictures are correctly credited in the NASA pic, whereas you credit the images as being taken by yourself.

Now unless you're spawn of Rothchild then I doubt that you took those pictures yourself, so from a legal aspect you have misrepresented the truth.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Negative. Look at the screenshot in the OP. It shows the NASA site with all thumbnails.

That's why I wrote "proof" in the title.

Please read the whole thread. It explains everything.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iam'___'
reply to post by impaired
 


As pointed out by WarminIndy from NASA's terms and conditions :


NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material except in cases of advertising.


If you take a look at the 'About This Gigaplan' on your panorama gigapan.com... and compare it with a NASA Gigaplan gigapan.com... you will notice that the pictures are correctly credited in the NASA pic, whereas you credit the images as being taken by yourself.

Now unless you're spawn of Rothchild then I doubt that you took those pictures yourself, so from a legal aspect you have misrepresented the truth.


I didn't misrepresent the truth.

Ok, here's the deal. I'm done with you guys. This thread is about one thing. And in addition, all I wanted to do was share a high resolution image with everyone FOR FREE. That's right. For free. No money.

But people have to nitpick and make up nonsense.

Here - BAM!




NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA-sponsored.

NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material except in cases of advertising. See NASA Advertising Guidelines.


www.nasa.gov...

Read the last paragraph.

And they were credited because THEY assembled or enhanced the images!!! I could credit mine with my name - But I'm not.

Some of you people are utterly ridiculous.

I have spent HOURS on end to provide a FREE GigaPan and hi rez image so YOU and everyone else can see.

What the HELL did I do wrong?

People like you will be IGNORED for now on. Think and do research before you make yourself look like a fool like the other haters who are mad at what? I don't even know! So kick rocks.
edit on 8/17/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 


I can't tell from that screenshot whether or not the full res is on that page as well (just like both the full res and the thumbnail appear on the same raw image page right now).

I mean, maybe it was down for a time, but I do remember scanning around the full resolution (1200 x 1200) versions of those images prior to yesterday. I think I found them by clicking on them while in the raw image page. Although I think the full-res and the thumbnail version of each photo were side-by-side at the time, and now they are not -- all the full-res versions are at the top of the page, and all the thumbnails are below...

...So maybe you went to the site while they were re-arranging it, and there was a time the full-res images were temporarily taken down while they re-arranged.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Whatever you say. I'm not going to argue. Believe what you want.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Negative. Look at the screenshot in the OP. It shows the NASA site with all thumbnails.

That's why I wrote "proof" in the title.

Please read the whole thread. It explains everything.


Actually in the OP, I saw screenshots of a Wikipedia page with a picture on it, then I saw your ATS pages open in tabs, then I saw a picture from NASA.

Why not just show the picture from NASA apart from Wikipedia? Sure, there is a link circled, but it is still from Wikipedia, so how do we know the original picture was not edited before being posted on Wikipedia? Your OP here and on another thread states you were conspired against until it was pointed out to you that the link on Wikipedia was wrong.

Can you post a link to your panorama with links to NASA? That would make it more reliable for those of us who distrust Wikipedia as a reliable source. Just because you trust Wikipedia does not mean everyone else does.

So technically, you did not credit NASA in the screenshot of Wikipedia, Wikipedia did. You did provide us with a link to the NASA website just as I did. Why not show us, with hyperlinks to NASA, just what picture you are saying they took down. I want to be sure that what you are proposing is something NASA did purposely.

If you have the picture downloaded, then it should be easy to present without the need for Wikipedia. And just so you understand, you should say "photo courtesy of NASA". They are extending you the courtesy to present it, they can remove it any time they want.




top topics



 
77
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join