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.

 

Is this Martian object crystalline, organic or something else? Not another "finger"

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I have seen a few of these, particularly near the MERs. To explain them I would be moving into uncharted territory where most feel uncomfortable. Personally, I think there is an enormous amount of information on Mars which is being withheld. I will try and find the thread over at Alienanomalies where they are documented. If I do, I will post it here. I am not quite ready to out myself as a real kook !




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 

I am not opposed to people doing that; here as I find some of the mental imagery people come up with interesting, perhaps more so in a psychological way than a physical science way. Simply because some do some really hard reaching of the imagination, but the effect of the mind making recognizable form from indeterminate objects, is a fascinating study in itself. Like my mind trying to force me to see a Leopard Gecko...

As mentioned before I have no idea what this is, as the foreground highlight matches nothing I have seen, which makes this object appear to have some translucency(shine through).



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
I'll try to get some up in PNG, unaltered unless the original format from NASA is JPG, then I will keep it native, unless you think PNG would be better.
Some programs re-encode JPEG images even if nothing is changed, so they add even more artefacts. If you do some changes in an image (even if just cropping it), saving it as a PNG (or even GIF, if it's monochromatic) is always better.


I removed the digital camera distortion and it went from grainy sandy to watery from blending with adjacent pixels. Making it a lot clearer in my opinion, but I agree any alteration from original causes more distortion not less...
That's why I think it's always a good idea providing the original along with any altered version, as that way people can see what we are talking about and still look at the original.


On another note I have developed the ability to see 3D from a 2D due to my line of work in engineering, if a top, front, and right hand side isn't available, and it is a 2D isometric representation like this is, you have to rely on light and shadows to see the 2D feature in 3D.

Even in that case you cannot really know what is a shadow and what is just a darker area, as, by definition, one 2D image doesn't have depth information.


Speaking of which does anyone have a direct NASA JPL link to the "Bunny" I'd like to examine it more closely.

I will look for it.


Edit: here's one of the best photos of the "bunny".

And the same from the left camera, so we can get a 3D feel.


And an animation to show the 3D effect.


edit on 25/8/2012 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)


Edit 2: I forgot the images' addresses:
marsrovers.nasa.gov...
marsrovers.nasa.gov...
edit on 25/8/2012 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

The shadow I was referring to, is the cast base shadow from a light source. The darker areas on an object rarely contain any visual information of the objects true shape. If you notice in the step animation you provided the base shadow doesn't really alter, unless it's source is in transit and not stationary, fortunately Mars doesn't rotate fast enough to cause much shadow distortion.

I'm not a digital photo expert in how things translate over, some of my close friends are, so I've gleaned a bit from conversations with them. JPEG is a pretty old and crummy format in my opinion because of data loss in use, so I agree on quality issues. I personally prefer the TIF format, as I mainly deal with raster and graphic images.

I doubt there is really much interest in this post, however; the interest that is here and might arrive deserve the best quality representation of the image as I can give them. So I'll study up on ways to capture images with the least distortion. Fortunately, I'm not exactly a novice to images, so the ones presented are better than average. But there is a lot that goes into it besides right click and save, or screen captures.

Edit: I forgot, thanks for hunting down the "Bunny" although, My personal analysis of it: There's not enough information contained in that photo especially in black and white, if I had to take a stab it it and give an answer? a mineral cluster. Although I understand why perhaps you prefer the B/W, not being fond of dark spots and all, it does make the base shadow very prominent.
edit on 25-8-2012 by BigBrotherDarkness because: extra info, sp



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
The shadow I was referring to, is the cast base shadow from a light source. The darker areas on an object rarely contain any visual information of the objects true shape.

OK, I understand it now, and I agree.



I personally prefer the TIF format, as I mainly deal with raster and graphic images.

TIFF has some advantages over other formats, as it can have several images instead of just one (multipage TIFFs) and it can also have other data (like comments), besides the capability of having several compression methods available, including JPEG.

PNG was created to replace TIFF in most situations.


Although I understand why perhaps you prefer the B/W, not being fond of dark spots and all, it does make the base shadow very prominent.


Greyscale images are better to understand shapes, as colour may be a source of optical illusions, although those also happen in greyscale images.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP, This is a very interesting image from the OP as are some of the others from Curiosity.

The images are starting to confirm that the possiblity of a very tiny-sized civilization living on Mars can no longer be regarded as fictional.

I believe NASA made a great mistake in not looking for life of any description on this mission. The reason I say that is because I wrote to David Morrison, a NASA astrobiologist, years ago explaining what I had found in some of the images from Opportunity. Obviously, the possibility of finding life on this mission is not on the list of priorities - or might it be and NASA/JPL are keeping very quiet about it?

It's a great shame as some of the technolgy on the MSL is more advanced than most people can ever imagine and I'm sure the mounting of a close surface-view camera on the robotic arm to take near views of the surface wouldn't have cost an arm and a leg. Images from the HazCams are just not suitable for very close visual observations of the surface detail.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
If you have looked closely at this image as I have, there appears to be nothing remotely like the kind of ground you would expect on Mars. NASA must surely be pulling our chains to expect us to accept this. There are too many strange shapes and the item you (OP) have circled shows nothing recognizable and I suspect it is made up of shapes placed there to disguise or to make it look good at a distance. I have never seen anything like this before and I have looked at thousands of MER photos of the planet surface. I do not think it is real. Sorry to say.

No-one in their right minds can look closely at that photograph and try to tell us that this is what is really on the surface of Mars.

I am not criticizing you OP at all, since I myself have 'noticed' something also in the photo which looked like a snake but on closer inspection I can see how it is all composed of shapes and not any reality at all - it is absolute rubbish. I feel that they must be laughing their socks off at us trying to make something out of their crude Mars Curiosity creations.

Anyone who wants to shoot me down is welcome. Just look closely at that photo and I defy anyone to make an explanation of those angular geometric ground marks other than to tell us that it is made up or compressed to hell.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by abeverage
 

That's a Mars image? Yeah, I have no idea what those things are wow very odd.


The first image is from an episode of The Outer Limits called "The Sandkings" based off a novella of the same name.

My thoughts were this looked extremely like the Martian bunny.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Here is a crop taken from the OP's image which I have slightly enhanced. I know some members disagree with this practice but sometimes it has to be carried out to discover exactly what is on the surface. There are no compression artifacts on the image.

Have a look all over the image and see if you can spot any recognizable shapes or features.





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UA/MSSS


edit on 27-8-2012 by arianna because: text



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 

Thank you for posting that image, you've helped me come to the conclusion this is just an ordinary rock with too much, camera distortion. I have noticed in your image, that many other rocks gain speckles, I also noticed there is an obvious rock rock with, a highlight on the wrong side that should be in shadow, debunking the shine through, that made it appear crystalline.

That being said...Please feel free to continue to speculate or find other things of interest; in the photos (such as the "snake" that was mentioned) but it is now my opinion that this it just a rock, that has camera distortion.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
There are no compression artifacts on the image.

I wasn't really expecting that. How can you really say it?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join