Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
The features showing in the rectangles may appear as rocks to you, but not to me. Maybe I'm lucky in being able to see the very tiny detail in images that others cannot see.


I don't think you're lucky, I think you have vision problems. Seriously, get your eyes checked by an optometrist. There is no tiny tower there, it's clear to everyone else that it's just the side of a mundane rock.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, The features showing in the rectangles may appear as rocks to you, but not to me. Maybe I'm lucky in being able to see the very tiny detail in images that others cannot see.

Or maybe I'm lucky, as I can see rocks in rocky areas and other shape in new.



You say the color of the Curiosity mastcam images look as you expected. If that is the case then why are these images not showing colors as seen in the Viking images or the MER color composites?

Because the colours on the Viking images were too saturated and the colours in the MER colour composites, when done with the radiometrically corrected images and the radiometric correction values resulted in those famous reddish images while the more common colour composites, made from the non radiometrically corrected photos, show an slightly exaggerated blue. Using the radiometrically correct images without the correction values give us a result that is the closest to the Curiosity photos.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Why are people still feeding the OBVIOUS troll?


No trolling here. I think you have the incorrect thread.

OP, I think you need to explain why it is not a rock?

If you can't, there are two things you need to consider:
1) You present what appears to be a rock as proof of something anormal, as an artificial or sculpted object. But it's not an extraordinary rock to others, neither is its position. You found a boring rock, so it's not even that interesting in a geological sense.

If you go hiking in rocky terrain you'll stumble (pun intended) on rocks like these all the time. You can do that on Earth.

2) If this is a recurring event, it seems you have trouble differentiating between natural and unnatural shapes in nature. I am not saying this to single you out. But if everyone else suggests that it is an ordinary rock, you need to consider why you think otherwise. Otherwise people will call you a troll.

So, the challenge for you is to find out for yourself why this isn't just an ordinary rock jutting from the ground?
Why is it not an ordinary rock as a result of ordinary natural events? E.g. a splintered rock as a cause of the extremely variable temperatures on Mars?

Some facts: www.space.com...
- A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator, but at night the temperature can plummet to about minus 100 degrees F (minus 73 C).

Once you get a better grip on how to distinguish the phenomena, or learn where the pitfalls lie for you in this type of investigation, you might be able to get more productive results, and get better reception on your posts.

So that is my challenge for you.


edit on 15-10-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: layout


I agree with you, except I would have used less harsh words and showed some manners.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist
 


No, I do not have any problems with my eyesight as they are checked yearly.

I find it hard to believe that the more learned people on this forum cannot distiguish between what is small or tiny rock or some other small or tiny feature. It seems that I will have find evidence that is "in your face", so to speak before members will be convinced that what I am finding is genuine..



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The color images from Curiosity may be radiometrical versions but they are definitely not correct. They do not allow the viewer to evaluate the true color of the natural landscape. I believe for some reason the mastcam images are being deliberately colorized before release. Even when checking the four colors at the corners of the calibration dial the reds do not appear as they should. I will try and find some examples of the real colors on Mars so that comparisons can be made with the downloaded mastcam images.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
At any rate, this thread is an improvement on goat-spotting on Crete. And I mean that. I'm not being flippant.
Now, what bother me is that perhaps those reading this material who are of a more fragile state of mind will fall for these absurd claims. That I think is harmful and irresponsible.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
 



You still haven't explained what proof you would like me to provide, perhaps different images of the same object maybe.


You don't get it. I am asking for some sort of proof of this statement you sound so sure of:



If the object is a tower structure then it could only have been constructed by tiny-sized beings to an intelligent design.

edit on 10/15/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


As a matter of interest, I do get it but I fully understand the reasons why the majority of members will question what I am presenting.

As far as proof goes, are you expecting me to provide visual evidence of tiny beings that are less than 2mm in height? If that is what you are expecting then I can provide an image but it is not from the current mission although there is plenty of evidence relating to their artistic capabilities that can even be observed in the images I have posted in this thread. Their artistic handiwork in the form of carvings and land sculptures can be observed in many of the images if you are prepared to look for it.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 

Silly me. I thought when you made the definite statement that:



it could only have been constructed by tiny-sized beings to an intelligent design.


that you had some solid proof to back that up.

You say that is the only explanation for your "tower".

This means you rule out any other explanations. I figured you would have a reason why, and you could share that reason with the rest of us.

So I asked for your proof. You then acted like you didn't understand what I was asking of you.

You don't see how making the leap from what you think looks like an upright rock to saying "it could ONLY have been constructed by tiny-sized being" seems a bit irrational?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I don't know but I am fascinated by the idea of a tiny Martian civilization. I can almost "see" it but that one side of me prevents me from fully realizing this. I would really be interested in understanding exactly what you see. Is it possible for you to sketch out the city and the beings?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I don't know but I am fascinated by the idea of a tiny Martian civilization. I can almost "see" it but that one side of me prevents me from fully realizing this. I would really be interested in understanding exactly what you see. Is it possible for you to sketch out the city and the beings?


I would think 2-mm tall beings would have a difficult time getting around with all of these "boulders" in the way that are two or three times bigger than those tiny beings:



edit on 10/16/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The MRO satellite above Mars has gone into safe mode so it might take awhile to get information from the Curiosity rover. Also new bright objects found and explained.

www.spaceflight101.com...

And this is the panorama from Mars that the alleged tower came from. After enlarging the rock is 3/4 to the right.
It looks like a rock in the panorama.


www.db-prods.net...

So it might be days before we know about the soil analysis.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
The color images from Curiosity may be radiometrical versions but they are definitely not correct.

The radiometrically corrected images are not published on the rovers' site, and I don't remember seeing any site using them.

Here's a colour image made from the images available at the Rovers' site.


An image made with radiometrically corrected images, using a radiometric scale of 10 (don't ask me what that means, as I don't have the answer
)
The famous reddish images from NASA.


An image made with radiometrically corrected images but ignoring the radiometry data.


How do you know if the colours are correct or not, have you ever been to Mars?


Even when checking the four colors at the corners of the calibration dial the reds do not appear as they should.

That's why I make some changes in the colours, I reduce the red 5% and the green 12%, at least in some images it gives a slightly different look, although in other makes them too blue. I have to find a better method.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Chamberf=6 said, "You don't see how making the leap from what you think looks like an upright rock to saying "it could ONLY have been constructed by tiny-sized being" seems a bit irrational?"

I never said the tower shape looks like an upright rock. The title of the thread is 'Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure'. This is the reason I started the thread. Is the tower shape a natural formation or an artificial structure? It could very well be artificial as there are many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations therefore it's quite possible that these objects could have been constructed by tiny-sized beings. Who is able to say conclusively they were not?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
The color images from Curiosity may be radiometrical versions but they are definitely not correct.


How do you know if the colours are correct or not, have you ever been to Mars?


ArMaP, what a comment to make, have I ever been to Mars. Of course I haven't, but the rover camers are on Mars and if they were calibrated correctly in the laboratory here then when they arrived on Mars the imaging and captures within the specified spectural bandwidths should be near 100% correct.

I can accept a very slight reddish-pink hue due to the tainted atmosphere, but some of the mastcam images are definitely over-saturated towards an orange color and this level of coloration is nowhere near natural when making a comparison with the color filter images (L2 to L7) returned from Spirit and Opportunity.
edit on 17-10-2012 by arianna because: code



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, what a comment to make, have I ever been to Mars. Of course I haven't, but the rover camers are on Mars and if they were calibrated correctly in the laboratory here then when they arrived on Mars the imaging and captures within the specified spectural bandwidths should be near 100% correct.

Calibration on Earth can be applied only to the conditions used when they were calibrated, something like what I do when I correct the white point in my camera before taking a photo, it only applies to those (or very similar) conditions.

But as they know all the characteristics of the camera and have information about how things were when the photo was taken (direction of the light, temperature, etc.), so they can use all that information to correct the images and make them look as if the camera was recalibrated for those specific conditions.


I can accept a very slight reddish-pink hue due to the tainted atmosphere, but some of the mastcam images are definitely over-saturated towards an orange color and this level of coloration is nowhere near natural when making a comparison with the color filter images (L2 to L7) returned from Spirit and Opportunity.

I don't think we can make a direct comparison, as the methods are different and the wavelengths of the filters are (I think) also different. A yellow/orange/red image can be just the result of the amount of dust in the air, the same thing happens on Earth. If you compare the Spirit and Opportunity photos with the same photos after the radiometric correction you will see an even stronger red hue.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Below a certain brain size the brain just works on instinct, otherwise ants would be driving tractors and plowing land for crops, shooting other colonies with firearms, and jetting off on holiday to far away places.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 





many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations

Do you mind sharing with us how these are not just rocks, and instead are unnatural?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
 





many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations

Do you mind sharing with us how these are not just rocks, and instead are unnatural?


Please give me a little time and I will accomodate your request.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Chamberf=6 said, "You don't see how making the leap from what you think looks like an upright rock to saying "it could ONLY have been constructed by tiny-sized being" seems a bit irrational?"

I never said the tower shape looks like an upright rock. The title of the thread is 'Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure'. This is the reason I started the thread. Is the tower shape a natural formation or an artificial structure? It could very well be artificial as there are many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations therefore it's quite possible that these objects could have been constructed by tiny-sized beings. Who is able to say conclusively they were not?


I think you have exhausted your straw Martian debating style and I find your curiously "Hal 9000'" writing manner unhelpful.



edit on 17-10-2012 by jamdan because: ...



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
 





many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations

Do you mind sharing with us how these are not just rocks, and instead are unnatural?


Please give me a little time and I will accomodate your request.

It would be fitting if you accomodated that request in your next post. It is sorely lacking.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join