NASA Curiosity - A Mission Lie? Size of Objects Being Seen.

Originally posted by qmantoo
There is absolutely no reason why a physically small-sized civilisation should not be possible in any alien place since we cannot assume their biology is the same as ours or even carbon-based for that matter.

You're absolutely right. The trick is to find the evidence of such a civilisation. Rocks that might look like machinery to you don't count. Like you said, we can go on conjecturing forever, but it's the evidence that counts.

The features in images in this thread are not anomalies. Have a look at various rock formations on Earth and tell me they are anomalies.

I'm sure there are many geologists, mineralogists and archeologists looking at the Curiosity pics and applying their expert knowledge to what they see. If there were something as remarkable as traces of a civilisation, or even any signs of biological presence, I'm sure we would hear about it from credible sources.

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by qmantoo
There is absolutely no reason why a physically small-sized civilisation should not be possible in any alien place since we cannot assume their biology is the same as ours or even carbon-based for that matter.

You're absolutely right. The trick is to find the evidence of such a civilisation. Rocks that might look like machinery to you don't count. Like you said, we can go on conjecturing forever, but it's the evidence that counts.

The features in images in this thread are not anomalies. Have a look at various rock formations on Earth and tell me they are anomalies.

I'm sure there are many geologists, mineralogists and archeologists looking at the Curiosity pics and applying their expert knowledge to what they see. If there were something as remarkable as traces of a civilisation, or even any signs of biological presence, I'm sure we would hear about it from credible sources.

Take a very close look at the picture in this thread in which I labelled "two parallel bars", which are protruding from the soil. There is NO way you can say that it is not unusual, and if you think it's just natural, then please explain to me how it was done

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Take a very close look at the picture in this thread in which I labelled "two parallel bars", which are protruding from the soil.

Could you point to the original image? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Take a very close look at the picture in this thread in which I labelled "two parallel bars", which are protruding from the soil.

Could you point to the original image? Thanks in advance.

All the close ups are from this image photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov... the bit I'm referring to is far right from the middle upward

Unfortunately, when you zoom in now the image seems to go all pixelated and you can't make anything out, does for me anyway, any suggestions as to why this is the case?

Seahorses and Eagles? you have a very active imagination.

The "Inca City" building-like structures on Google Mars (in Google Mars) are interesting, well worth a look.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
All the close ups are from this image photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov... the bit I'm referring to is far right from the middle upward

Thanks, I always like to look at the originals, and in this case it looked like the "two parallel bars" (and other double features near them) were the results of a bad mosaic.

They are, as you can see in the animation below, comparing that photo with the original.

Unfortunately, when you zoom in now the image seems to go all pixelated and you can't make anything out, does for me anyway, any suggestions as to why this is the case?

The image appeared like that at first, but that's because it's too big and it's a progressive JPEG image, in which the whole image is downloaded in lower resolution and the resolution gets better and better. When it stopped the image was good.

reply to post by ArMaP


Ahhh, I was impatient waiting on the image downloading

Still doesn't look natural to me, whether there is one or two there and also, that image has lots of anomalies imo.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Ahhh, I was impatient waiting on the image downloading

Still doesn't look natural to me, whether there is one or two there and also, that image has lots of anomalies imo.

Care to tell someone else from Scotland what you think is natural when looking at rocks?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Ahhh, I was impatient waiting on the image downloading

Still doesn't look natural to me, whether there is one or two there and also, that image has lots of anomalies imo.

Care to tell someone else from Scotland what you think is natural when looking at rocks?

Why Scotland? I can't help where I was born

I've never seen a rock resemble what's in that image, whether it be from Scotland or Tanzania

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Ahhh, I was impatient waiting on the image downloading

Still doesn't look natural to me, whether there is one or two there and also, that image has lots of anomalies imo.

Care to tell someone else from Scotland what you think is natural when looking at rocks?

Why Scotland? I can't help where I was born

I've never seen a rock resemble what's in that image, whether it be from Scotland or Tanzania

Why Scotland we are both from Scotland now have you seen every possible shape of rock

I've seen rocks shaped naturally in very strange ways, either by wind or water, or even rocks hitting other rocks.

I tumble rocks as a hobby, and when I get done with the first stage grit, I can get some pretty interesting shapes.

Now that's me doing it, however nature can do it too. Just takes a lot longer.

Rocks that do NOT look natural to me are those that have been carved into a statue, rocks that have machine markings on them (rock cores that have been drilled, cut, etc).

So far I've not been too impressed with any of the Mars Rocks that are being shown. Some look interesting, but only as a rock.

Now, if we see any images that are showing rocks cut and stacked together say like a wall, or the base of a pyramid, oh yes, that would get my attention.

A broken obelisk, with the top half jutting from the ground, with a pointed top and writing on the sides, would grab my attention too.

So far however, I've not seen anything like that.

Yet. Who knows? Keep looking.

The original image in question: mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

That place is one big wind erosion pan, there are many unusual shapes due to various types of minerals undergoing different rates of erosion.

Why don't you just accept that it is your vivid imagination that call these features unnatural or anomalous? Get in touch with a geologist and ask them their opinion on what these shapes might be due to. I'm sure they have more expertise as to what might be natural or unnatural than you.

Also, Google the words "rocks erosion strange" and marvel at the images.

reply to post by wildespace


So true imagine the thread this would create if these were found on Mars.




But.... but they are perfect spheres the Martians had to have made them!!!

Oh I forgot nature can't do that

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Still doesn't look natural to me, whether there is one or two there and also, that image has lots of anomalies imo.

Two rocks looking exactly the same would be strange, just one is not.

Imagine the rock from the photo below with just one or more of those jutting points visible above the surface. It would look as strange as the rock from the Mars photo.

I have posted reference images for the curiosity cameras (which also includes distances from the rover) in this ATS thread here.

reply to post by qmantoo


On all the videos I've seen from space I would definitely have to mention that I think the disparity in quality is very strange indeed. I would also tend to think that deliberately released lower quality videos would be ideal in hiding any interesting aspects

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by qmantoo

 

On all the videos I've seen from space I would definitely have to mention that I think the disparity in quality is very strange indeed. I would also tend to think that deliberately released lower quality videos would be ideal in hiding any interesting aspects

You haven't seen any HD videos from the ISS or Kaguya lunar orbiter?



Then there's this (although some technical wizadry was involved)


But in general, transmitting a high-fps video (especially in HD) is very tricky in space, given the restrictions in energy consumption and broadband transmission.