Wires on mars...., page 15

Pages: << 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 10:12 AM by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by senselessness
reply to post by arianna

If you are being serious, and you expect people to believe there are micro beings on Mars building little human-like cities out of the rocks no larger than 12 inches tall... I think you just might need to see a mental health specialist. I am really being sincere.

OH arianna has been told that before

After I have posted the image referred to in the above post maybe you will start to change your tune.

NO because it will done using your usual process of butchery and then your delusion takes over, and you see what you want to see so post it and see if I am wrong......I can't wait!!!

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 10:16 AM by gavron

I thought this whole thing was resolved with senselessness's post on 9/2, showing the "hole" as not even being in that rock.

Originally posted by senselessness

The cool thing about having a Left and Right Navigation Cameras side by side is that you can put the images it takes together and create stereoscopic images. By using the parallax effect to our advantage we can even estimate the distance of the objects. In this case we can easily use the wiggle stereoscopy effect.

If you get the Left NavCam image taken at 19:42:53, and the Right NavCam image taken at 19:42:53, and you combine them together, and align the object in question, and alternate the images, this is what you get:

If you combine the Left NavCam image taken at 19:43:27, and the Right NavCam image taken at 19:43:27, this is what you get:

As you can see in both of the "wigglegrams", the dark spot that the OP's video claims is a "hole", denies it is a shadow, and claims "there is nothing there to cast a shadow", is actually not even a part of the object in question!

The dark spot is moving independently from the rest of the object because it is further BEHIND the object. The dark spot seems to be the shadow of a smaller rock that is behind the main object.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 10:27 AM by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by arianna
No, I do not need to see a mental health specialist.

I do agree with this. But I disagree that you are seeing an actual tiny city. I am actually quite impressed with how you handle the onslaught negative remarks. I would venture to guess that some of your harshest critics believe in some UFO or another and when confronted with the possibility that they might be mistaken or deluded, they cary on like little children.

Even though there is that evil part of me that wants to crush this city with an army of mechanized Godzillas, I am very curious as to what you do actually see. Is there any way you could illustrate more clearly what you see?

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 10:42 AM by arianna

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by arianna
No, I do not need to see a mental health specialist.

I do agree with this. But I disagree that you are seeing an actual tiny city. I am actually quite impressed with how you handle the onslaught negative remarks. I would venture to guess that some of your harshest critics believe in some UFO or another and when confronted with the possibility that they might be mistaken or deluded, they cary on like little children.

Even though there is that evil part of me that wants to crush this city with an army of mechanized Godzillas, I am very curious as to what you do actually see. Is there any way you could illustrate more clearly what you see?

You are quite right ZetaRediculian, some members are carrying on like children and seem to have no interest in the real scientific aspects. Personally, I will not influenced by their snide comments and remarks because I know that what I am finding in some of the images is real and genuine.

As to what I see, if you are able have a look at the pseudo 3-D image I posted above. It is very revealing I can assure you. If you are unable to view in 3-D I will try to produce a clearer close-up image of the OP's view

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 10:46 AM by senselessness

Originally posted by arianna
What you are discussing in relation to image artifacts is off-topic and should be discussed in another thread.

No, it is not off-topic. Half the "structures" you think you see in the image are formed of the artificial lines created not only by pixels but by compression algorithms that operate in blocks of pixels sometimes 16x16.

Originally posted by arianna
Anyway, I say again, the images I posted above contain no compression artifacts. The artifacts were removed from the source image. Now I expect that you will tell me that removing artifacts cannot be achieved.

You are wrong! You can't remove compression artifacts from an image. You can only completely distort the image and hide the artifacts by highly manipulating the image into something it is not.

Lossy compression removes data form an image. The Mar Curiosity images clearly where compressed with lossy compression because you can see the block chunks the compression algorithm created. There is NO WAY you can put the correct data back into the image to remove the compression artifacts. Anyone saying they can is highly uneducated and wrong.

I am a software engineer and have created lossy and lossless compression algorithms... I know for a fact it is impossible to remove compression artifacts without having the original image before it was compressed!

So you have nothing but ignorance and lies.

edit on 7-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 10:59 AM by gavron

reply to post by senselessness

I think what some people are forgetting is that the camera on board is only capturing 2mb images. Many phones nowadays have better cameras in them...but at the time Curiosity was built, it was pretty good. So, some are expecting quality images that are equivalent to what todays cameras will take...and that's not going to happen.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 11:11 AM by arianna

reply to post by senselessness

I suppose I will have to post some examples of how compression artifacts can be removed. You are calling me a liar on a public forum and that is totally unacceptable. A warning - you should watch the words yo post. Whoever you are, you do not seem to have knowledge of how an image can be 'cleaned' of compression artifacts irrespective of what save format is used.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 11:19 AM by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by gavron
I thought this whole thing was resolved with senselessness's post on 9/2, showing the "hole" as not even being in that rock.

Perhaps gavron, but it is not nearly as interesting. Showing that a "hole" is not a "hole" and that a rock was mistaken for a muffler on Mars is abslutely meaningless when faced with a whole miniaturized martian city thing. Just think about it. Right now I have 2 lizards in a 4 X 8 vivarium. How many tiny martians could survive in that?

edit on 7-9-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 11:33 AM by eriktheawful

reply to post by arianna

Out of curiosity, I was wondering if you might take a look at this picture here:

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 11:34 AM by senselessness

reply to post by arianna

I am 100% certain you have no idea what you are talking about.

Lossy compression, which creates artifacts, removes data from an image. There is no way you can put that data back into the image to remove the artifacts. All you can do is highly manipulate the image to hide the artifacts... The resulting image would be completely computer generated and FAKE.

Your ignorance of data compression and digital image manipulation is astounding.

edit on 7-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 11:41 AM by arianna

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by arianna

Out of curiosity, I was wondering if you might take a look at this picture here:

Please provide a reference for the image and if a genuine Mars or moon image I will take a look at it.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 11:44 AM by arianna

Originally posted by senselessness
reply to post by arianna

I am 100% certain you have no idea what you are talking about.

Lossy compression, which creates artifacts, removes data from an image. There is no way you can put that data back into the image to remove the artifacts. All you can do is highly manipulate the image to hide the artifacts... The resulting image would be completely computer generated and FAKE.

Your ignorance of data compression and digital image manipulation is astounding.

edit on 7-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)

If you feel that way then there is no requirement for me to reply or carry on a discussion with you.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 12:13 PM by butcherguy

reply to post by arianna

There has never been a requirement to reply.

You might want to just accept that a lot of members don't see what you do there (myself included) and keep on researching your theory.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 12:47 PM by eriktheawful

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by arianna

Out of curiosity, I was wondering if you might take a look at this picture here:

Please provide a reference for the image and if a genuine Mars or moon image I will take a look at it.

Ahhhhh.

Now you are back pedaling.

You have claimed to be an "expert" in many threads in being able to "find" things in photos that no one else can see. You have also claimed to be an expert in manipulating pictures and are able to 'bring out that which is hidden."

I've given you a picture. There should be NO need for you to have a reference as to where it has come from. There is either something there that you see, or not, using the same processes that you insist "work" to bring out things that only you seem to be able to see.

So again, I'm challenging you to do the same with this photo, only without knowing where it came from..

Could be the moon. Could be Mars. might be Mercury, Venus, Titan..........or Earth.

Does not mater. The real question is: what is in the picture? Rocks? Or other things?

Again, you have insisted time and time again in this thread and in others that you can see things that the vast majority of people on here at ATS don't see at all (and that is even people who have extreme views about life or artifacts on other planets who have told you they are not seeing what you see).

So either stand by your claims of being able to do this with pictures, or don't accept this challenge.

Your call.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 12:47 PM by arianna

Originally posted by senselessness
reply to post by arianna

I am 100% certain you have no idea what you are talking about.

Lossy compression, which creates artifacts, removes data from an image. There is no way you can put that data back into the image to remove the artifacts. All you can do is highly manipulate the image to hide the artifacts... The resulting image would be completely computer generated and FAKE.

Your ignorance of data compression and digital image manipulation is astounding.

edit on 7-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)

I have found the images that relate to the removal of compression artifacts. The left image is the original view with compression artifacts showing, the center image shows the artifacts removed and the right image shows the improved image. A larger version is available at the Direct link below.

Direct link:

i228.photobucket.com...

edit on 7-9-2012 by arianna because: code

edit on 7-9-2012 by arianna because: text

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 12:52 PM by arianna

reply to post by eriktheawful

I will accept the challenge if you provide me with a valid reference so that I can access and download the image myself then I will know if it is genuine or you are just trying to trick me. I cannot be fairer than that.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 01:11 PM by eriktheawful

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

I will accept the challenge if you provide me with a valid reference so that I can access and download the image myself then I will know if it is genuine or you are just trying to trick me. I cannot be fairer than that.

See?

You have just debunked yourself.

IF you are the expert you claim to be, then you do NOT NEED the original photos, nor do you NEED a reference point.

It is a genuine photograph. A genuine picture of something taken with a camera.

Considering how much you have touted about being able to remove compression artifacts, zooming without adding pixels that alter the photo, and that you have this ability to find "artifacts" that no one else can see, then it means you do NOT need a reference at all with those abilities you claim to have.

Instead, the picture I posted should be more than enough for you to determine if there is anything there or not.

I'm not trying to "trick" you. I'm challenging you to do the same thing with this picture that you do with many other photos of the moon (mostly 40 year old blurry Apollo pictures, instead of the very detailed LROC pictures) and with photos from Mars.

If you showed a photo of a actual circuit board to where the electronic components are visible and the traces, a electronics engineer can tell you what that circuit does, and even what it came out of, with out having to know where it came from.

According to your claims that you have made here on ATS, you should be able to do the same thing with this photo.

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 01:23 PM by EsSeeEye

reply to post by arianna

What process do you use to achieve this?

reply posted on 7-9-2012 @ 01:31 PM by HIWATT

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by AmberLeaf

Thank you!!

You know both the wires andthe tank could be old junk just like we see in our deserts.
edit on 31-8-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)