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.

 

Gigapan of SOL 3 (Curiosity rover) with "missing" images!

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Soloro

Originally posted by impaired
Guys - get on the missing images - they're at the bottom: the rover wheel, to the left of that, etc...

Cool stuff.


Are you talking about the most exposed wheel in the 360? And if so, are you referring to the two dark spots that look sandier than rocky, where the depth looks screwed up, and also almost looks like a sandy path leading to the left where there is a white missing image?


This is ALL I am saying.

Yes - The rover wheel is new and so are all of the images from there to the left - and there may be more. And go look at NASA's version, come back and tell me which one has more images and which one was stitched better.

The white blocks are still missing images that are still not available. I did my best to get a high resolution panorama of Mars for you folks and so I can have something to do. I do not see any stitching problems on mine.

NASA still has not released a SOL 3 panorama that has the missing images. They were hidden on their server.

So that's it - I'm just saying check out the extra images. I didn't say or imply there is anything there.

Is that ok?
edit on 8/16/2012 by impaired because: Spelling.




I was helping clarify for you. Yea I see some oddness here and there for sure, despite the fact that the stitiching is spot on. Leads to more questions. Thanks for putting it together btw!
edit on 17-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 


ha. "Where in the world is this gigapan?"

...this gigapan has no location information.

I think you broke the intermanets.

Thanks for your work on this. It's so amazing to see Mars!



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247


Verifiable facts: 1)NASA has lied 2)People are easily fooled

When you have a photo that you can PROVE to me was taken on the martian surface, I'll gladly consider, until then throw some ice in your kool aid bro, it helps!


lol, that seems a little vague.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

What's the story on the previous failed Mars missions? Was that a lie, or....?
edit on 17-8-2012 by BrutalDictator because: freedom



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by starchaser
Isn't the light visible spectrum hitting Mars the same as of Earth?

Yes, but the light is not as strong as on Earth.


Unless Mars is lighted by a red dwarf sun, I can't see why all Mars pictures have faked reddish colors.

Dust. Have you ever been in a dust storm? We got the end of a Sahara dust storm here in Portugal some years ago, and my sister took some photos. On the next day she took more photos on the same place, and it looked completely different, as any dust in the air will act as a filter (the same reason why sunsets are red) and the light will become reddish.


AWB should work as on Earth and should produce non-reddish pictures.

It does work as on Earth, that's why the white balanced photos are not red.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Great work, love the gigapan. Say, have you noticed the amount of trash lying around there
.. I just found an oil-can, a lost credit card, there is 'Roswell like' debris all over the place..


Shows that the human brain is very good at making up pictures - or NASA/TPTB/Aliens very bad at cleaning up after themselves

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



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Hey guys - check it out:



They're talking about how 6 ballasts from the lander were expelled and they landed all over the place. That could explain SOME things.

And remember - The rover is in a crater where they think there was water.

NASA is there because they suspect life.

So now I ask the experts - is it really too crazy to think there could be fossils there? IF there were artifacts or fossils buried by the crust before the planet geologically died, then perhaps the crater impact (which put a 14,000 foot hole in the ground) dug for us?

Too far fetched?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
So now I ask the experts - is it really too crazy to think there could be fossils there? IF there were artifacts or fossils buried by the crust before the planet geologically died, then perhaps the crater impact (which put a 14,000 foot hole in the ground) dug for us?


I'm not an expert, but I have dug some fossils some 35 years ago, and, to me, that area doesn't look the best for fossils, unless they are below ground, as that area looks too "stable", with no great signs of erosion, so if there were conditions for fossilization a long time ago in that area, it doesn't look like it changed much, so the fossils are probably still (if they exist) covered by what created the fossilization.

The above sounds a little confusing, but I hope you understand what I mean.


PS: as it's off-topic I will not post the photo of my carcharodon megalodon (a giant prehistoric shark) tooth.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by impaired
So now I ask the experts - is it really too crazy to think there could be fossils there? IF there were artifacts or fossils buried by the crust before the planet geologically died, then perhaps the crater impact (which put a 14,000 foot hole in the ground) dug for us?


I'm not an expert, but I have dug some fossils some 35 years ago, and, to me, that area doesn't look the best for fossils, unless they are below ground, as that area looks too "stable", with no great signs of erosion, so if there were conditions for fossilization a long time ago in that area, it doesn't look like it changed much, so the fossils are probably still (if they exist) covered by what created the fossilization.

The above sounds a little confusing, but I hope you understand what I mean.


PS: as it's off-topic I will not post the photo of my carcharodon megalodon (a giant prehistoric shark) tooth.


Thanks for the post.


Damn. I wish we could see that tooth. Sounds awesome. And I didn't know you were a geologist. Good stuff!



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
Damn. I wish we could see that tooth. Sounds awesome.

Click here.

(the size on the photo is more or less the real size)


And I didn't know you were a geologist. Good stuff!

I'm not a geologist, only a fan of geology. Maybe that's why I only see rocks on the photos from Mars and the Moon.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by impaired
Damn. I wish we could see that tooth. Sounds awesome.

Click here.

(the size on the photo is more or less the real size)


And I didn't know you were a geologist. Good stuff!

I'm not a geologist, only a fan of geology. Maybe that's why I only see rocks on the photos from Mars and the Moon.


Last paragraph quoted for truth.

But that finger is hysterical. DOES look like one. Definitely not one, though.

Wow, that tooth looks like a rock - it's so old. Good stuff!



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Latest panorama.

Only one image missing in the middle:

gigapan.com...

www.360cities.net...
edit on 8/17/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
this website has some more stitching (70 odd pages of posts). I think "impaired" goes under the name iMPREPREX there and there is some sweet work going on.

BTW, I was watching Hurt Locker last night and boy did the landscape look like Mars, especially when they were pinned down in the desert by a sniper. Even the colours were similar...spooky. Just sayin' and not meaning anything.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
just as in the other post from another user had spotted out two orbs in the distance i did my own searching in the newer post and found a simalr type of sceen.here is a link to a screen shot i took prntscr.com...
edit to my post, i just did an even more thural search and you can spot over 5 of these black orbs in pairs of two or alone over the mountain skys
edit on 18-8-2012 by eye0see0with0my0third0eye because: update



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eye0see0with0my0third0eye
 


and you can spot over 5 of these black orbs in pairs of two or alone over the mountain skys

And you can spot them in the same location in the frame in all of the images. What does that tell you about those "orbs"?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I can spend hours looking at this. Looks like tool marks, or something else not natural.



edit on 18-8-2012 by marymaryg4321 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2012 by marymaryg4321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomadros
this website has some more stitching (70 odd pages of posts). I think "impaired" goes under the name iMPREPREX there and there is some sweet work going on.

BTW, I was watching Hurt Locker last night and boy did the landscape look like Mars, especially when they were pinned down in the desert by a sniper. Even the colours were similar...spooky. Just sayin' and not meaning anything.


Yes, Impaired is IMPREPREX.


But my latest panorama is screwed. I'm missing a whole vertical row on the left.


Hate being a newb. Photo stitching is not easy.

Also - it really does look like a desert over there in the Gale crater. That's why we're so happy they sent the rover there - because we can see the different layers and study them. Can't wait to see what they find.




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join