Amazing "like living crature" anomaly on martian surface in Curiosity sol 173?

page: 15
92
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It's on Universe Today now
www.universetoday.com...

I hope the Curiosity team say something about it, but I'm pretty sure it's a mineral formation exposed by erosion. Just because it looks like a creature to some people doesn't mean it can't be a rock.

P.S. a funny comment to that article: "thats richard hoaglands bycicle"


P.P.S. It may be gypsum crystals: www.southampton.ac.uk... Now this picture was taken in Qatar. Had such a picture been taken on Mars, you'd all be screaming "omg they are fossils!"
edit on 7-2-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by 0bserver1
I'm bored already , you will not see me there in respect of the science ofcourse .
I like threads like these and others that put in some excitement ,that maybe the possibility exists Mars has life or past life. It keeps one dreaming the answer lies within our grasp.

I agree, that's why I only go there to read about the more technical stuff, it gets boring even for me.


thanx armap your an educated person, and we need that around here to keep the balance!

Thanks.




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ausername
Yep, I agree, it is a "crature"

Whatever that is.

a creature that lives in a crater of course ;--)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by baddmove
I thought we had HD cameras on the rover..

Nice pic Arken, can't really tell what it is..

Interesting,hmmmmmmm


It's just a shame that the worlds most advanced and certainly the most expensive exo-planetary rover is only equipped with a 2mp CCD camera, apparently because NASA engineers 'are familiar with it'. (is it beyond the abilities of NASA engineers to get familiar with a better quality, higher res array for a future mission perhaps?)

The object does look odd.

In the absence of firm evidence of anomalous artifacts, this could be an example of a Martian fulgurite.

A fulgurite forms in the ground as a result of a powerful electrical discharge, like lightning or plasma strike.

The energy literally melts the ground, fusing silica together with any metalic compounds into glassy, sometimes metalic tubes that are shaped like the bolt of energy that hit.

Sometimes these things can stretch down tens of feet into the ground, and being harder than the looser surrounding material, remain standing when erosion wears down the ground around it.

Fulgurites

edit on 8-2-2013 by MysterX because: error



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Arken
The "Viking" resolution images was only a bit lower than Curiosity, and of course the "old vikings missions" were not true color at all (I know, and I do not say so). The image resolution 40 years later its quite similar...

This one took me more time to get the information, but here you have it.

                         Angular resolution
                            (mrad/pixel)

Viking                          0.70
MER Pancam                      0.28
Mastcam-34                      0.22
Mastcam-100                     0.074


The Mastcam-100 camera has 10 times the resolution of the Viking camera and it's a 24 bit (8 bits per channel) colour camera while Viking's camera was only a 6 bit monochromatic camera.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 8/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Congratulations!



This topic and thread has been chosen to be discussed by the ATS LIVE crew this Saturday night between 6-9pm pst (9-12 est), as part of this weeks exciting "Turbo Topics" segment.



We are running 256kbps through the ATS Player but we now run a 32kbps stream for those of you with slower connections and there are also options to listen via other players on our relay site at Illustrial Website. You can also connect to the low bandwidth stream by clicking here to listen to the ATSLive Radio Show on ShoutCast
 


For more information and past shows, be sure to check out the ATSLive Show Threads Here.

Hope you'll listen in to the show!
Johnny



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


Thank you very much.
I'm honored.

I've called "officially" this martian lizard/metallic/rock anomaly: "HUGO" like my wonderful dog!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here an impressive sketch of "HUGO" anomaly... www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 9-2-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


Im sure it has more than one camera onboard. But the shots you see are not from the other better one.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by MysterX
It's just a shame that the worlds most advanced and certainly the most expensive exo-planetary rover is only equipped with a 2mp CCD camera, apparently because NASA engineers 'are familiar with it'. (is it beyond the abilities of NASA engineers to get familiar with a better quality, higher res array for a future mission perhaps?)

It's not a question of being familiar with the cameras, it's a question of reliability of the cameras, and that can only be known after the technology has been used for some years in similar conditions.

Would you prefer a newly made camera to be put on the rover at the last minute just to have it not working when it reached Mars?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Correct.

And besides the fact that this camera began the testing and development phase several years ago (when 2 MP was a pretty advanced camera), the Mastcam also has a maximum of a 15° angle of view. That means the pictures taken are much smaller than a normal camera.

A standard lens on a standard camera has about a 45° angle of view. So a picture from a normal camera is 3 times wider than the Mastcam, and considering aspect ratios, is about 1-1/2 times taller than the Mastcam....

...So, lets be conservative and say a regular consumer camera image is 5 times larger than a Mastcam image. That would equate the 2 MP Mastcam image to an image from a 10 MP consumer camera.

One other thing to consider is bandwidth and data transmission. It already could take up to an hour (although usually less time) to download a single image. Having huge amounts of data to transmit would mean the data transmission would very quickly back up in a bottleneck.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Yeah. This whole site's motto is "Deny Ignorance", but all I see are people complaining about things they don't know about (technically).

Once you learn these things, it makes sense. Most of it.

But for people to slam the cameras when they don't know about how cameras work is definitely not denying ignorance.

Phage has a great signature, and I see why he has kept out of this thread. His signature:

"Get facts straight first - then feel free to distort them" - Mark Twain

I used to hate Phage because when he proved me wrong, I would get upset. Now I get it.

What is the point of science if you can't admit where you went wrong and then move on from there?

Where is everyone's humility and ability to admit their wrongs? I do it if I am. Why is it only me?

Deny ignorance. Google things. Learn about something before you bash something. It only makes the person look bad.

And Arken - This post wasn't directed at you, but I am curious: Why did you stop responding to my posts? Am I saying something that you don't want to hear or what? Do you still think it's a living thing?

I've went through a lot of work to post my GigaPan where it shows 3 different shots of Hugo (love the name
), but you seem to be ignoring me. What's up?
edit on 2/9/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Back to Hugo, here are two 3D views of that area.


"Cross eye" version.
(click for full size)


Red/Green anaglyph
(click for full size)



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 





And Arken - This post wasn't directed at you, but I am curious: Why did you stop responding to my posts? Am I saying something that you don't want to hear or what? Do you still think it's a living thing?

I've went through a lot of work to post my GigaPan where it shows 3 different shots of Hugo (love the name ), but you seem to be ignoring me. What's up?


Hi impaired.
I've already admitted the presence of the "shadow" in your shots.
But, however, I think that is necessary a deeper analisys on this Lizard/Rock /Metallic anomaly.


Thanks for your contribution and hard work.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Great thread. I've read every post and really enjoyed it.
I think the strange looking 'rock' is well worth further research.

I'm inclined in thinking its not a living creature because it has remained static in photos taken at different times... BUT... say if any living creature on Mars had to move incredibly slowly... maybe to last in the extreme conditions and conserve its energy.

We don't know. As a hypothetical I think it's valid.
Maybe 'Hugo's' movements may even be on a time scale we find impossible to fathom... maybe it moves inches in a year... maybe it stays in the same place for weeks hoping to catch a passing alien bug.
Who could know?

I think the people on here saying 'it's just another rock' are missing the point. It looks completely different to all the rocks in the surrounding area and therefore it is an anomaly and worth our curiousity. I do wonder why these people come to threads like this and keep saying 'it's just a rock' with a strength of conviction like they know better and we are all silly for discussing rocks for so long.

So I'm pleased to see this thread will be discussed by ATS live... congratulations to the OP.

One thing I'd like to throw into the mix is a link to the great Mars Anomaly Research Site by J.P.Skipper.
It hasn't had a mention in this thread yet and I thought anyone unfamiliar with it who enjoys hypothesizing about 'odd' Mars photographs will love it. Maybe it will inspire more great threads like this that show that conspiracy beliefs can be fun and educational.

To the person that boldly stated that Mars doesn't have an ecosystem I think you should take a look at some of the interesting and varied anomalies that Mr.Skipper has discovered that point to Mars having, at least at one time, if not now, a thriving eco system. (Edit to Add: I don't buy all his 'logic' and would never buy his book... but the photos are great fun to think about!)

And here's a good ATS thread Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

edit on 10-2-2013 by manmental because: punct
edit on 10-2-2013 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Are you sure he's a dog? He might be a martian rock!!! Parading as a dog, on earth.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
So what is there to see in this particular view? The answer is - plenty.

I have maintained for many years that a tiny-sized intelligent species exists on Mars although you probably will not get any confirmation from NASA of this.

The object under discussion is a very interesting anomaly..... but there is much more to observe on the surface.

Here is a rough black and white enhancement which shows evidence of some very small structures and other constructions. See if you can spot any of them as many can be discerned in the original colour image.

I have placed an ellipse around some of the structural features.





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by manmental
To the person that boldly stated that Mars doesn't have an ecosystem I think you should take a look at some of the interesting and varied anomalies that Mr.Skipper has discovered that point to Mars having, at least at one time, if not now, a thriving eco system.

The problem with Skipper is that I once read in his site that he wouldn't use the higher resolution photos available because most people will not see those on the internet, so he would keep on using low resolution photos.
How can anyone trust someone that is supposedly looking for the truth but decides to work with the worst data available and ignore the best?


And here's a good ATS thread Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

One of the famous (compression artefacts) + (low bit depth images) = (alien city) cases.


That's another case where people were talking about things they didn't understand or know and using their imagination to compensate for their ignorance. Higher resolution photos show that they were wrong, again. In that case, even the original photos were enough, as the "city" only exists in the composite image, not in the original photo.

Too bad most people, apparently, don't learn from their mistakes or are to proud to admit that they make mistakes.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I didn't say I 'trust' anyone.... let alone Mr.Skipper. I just find many of the images he finds interesting. Much like the image posted in the OP. I edited to add that I don't subscribe to his logic.

I also used that other thread as a good example of a thread about Mars anomalies (not that it shows a city on Mars ).. and I include learning about JPEG compression (which I'm very familiar with in my work) in that interest.

Do you find any of the Skipper images intriguing at all? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by manmental
Do you find any of the Skipper images intriguing at all? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point I am trying to make is that Skipper's site, to me, looks more like a place where he tries to fool people to believe in what he presents so they can get them more "clients" that will bring him more money.

To help him get more visitors he ignores new information that shows that he was wrong and he ignores better quality data that shows that he may be wrong.

Truth be told about one thing, he does point to the original photos.

My problem with his site is that it does not help people think for themselves, he presents pre-packaged information that points the viewer/reader in just one direction, when someone interested in the truth should point to the data and, at most, present his/her own theory/hypothesis as such, not as a definite truth or as something that is being "hidden" by whoever is supposed to be the bogeyman (in this case, NASA).



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
reply to post by MysterX
 


Im sure it has more than one camera onboard. But the shots you see are not from the other better one.



Yes, it has several cameras...but the highest resolution is only 2MP...this isn't me relaying a suspicion, this is actually a fact.

NASA 'stitches' together a series of 2MP quality shots, to make a larger image.

They argue that back in 2004, when the mission specs were being finalised the 2MP CCD array was already chosen and being integrated.

Which is odd, when it's widely known that back in 2002, Nikon had a CONSUMER level DSR which incorporated a 6MP CCD array...3 X as many pixels, two years earlier.

When asked about this, NASA's official response was to claim that the much lower pixel array was used for Curiosity, 'Because the engineers working with the arrays, were familiar with them...'.

I wonder if 'being familiar' with a model T ford, would be a good enough reason to put one in an Indy 500 race...you could do it, but the results would be dissapointing.





new topics
top topics
 
92
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join