Amazing "like living crature" anomaly on martian surface in Curiosity sol 173?, page 17

Pages: << 14 15 16 17 18 19 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 90 times

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 10:19 AM by Arken

reply to post by ArMaP

You really want that I upload all the "out of focus" and "low resolution" and sand images ? Really ArMaP?

Is this your question?

Frankly, I'm very surprised by your behavior recently.

Better to think that Someone has stolen the ArMaP account.

edit on 12-2-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 11:41 AM by Soylent Green Is People

reply to post by Arken

If you mean images such as this one...:

...then these images do not need to be crisp and sharp to do their job. The ChemCam has a spectrometer that can analyze the chemical make-up of the materials in the image.

Yes -- that image is blurry, but geologists don't care (even though you care), because science is not only about looking at pictures. There is a lot of science being done by Curiosity that has nothing to do with images.

The instrument that took that image does not rely on visual data; the visual component of that instrument is for context purposes only, and the science is done by the spectrometer. Geologists have other instruments for getting sharp visual images, such as this image of sand:

Plus, you may not care about images of sand, but geologists working on the Curiosity team certainly care.

edit on 2/12/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:02 PM by arianna

Originally posted by wildespace
Here's the official release about this by JPL:
www.nasa.gov...
www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Basically, they say it's a hard and fine-grained rock that got exposed by wind erosion. Also note that only the top part of it is shiny, the lower part is similar to the base rock.
edit on 12-2-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

Well, that is exactly the type of reply I would expect from NASA/JPL. I honestly do not think they really know what they are looking at in these images from Curiosity. When are they going to learn that there are objects of great interest on the surface besides the many geological features.

The image below is a cropped greyscale version of the anomalous object. The image has been darkened.

I do not think for one minute the objects in question are geological features.

Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:23 PM by Phage

reply to post by arianna

I do not think for one minute the objects in question are geological features.

Yes. We know you think they are huge tiny cities.

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:38 PM by ArMaP

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Arken
You really want that I upload all the "out of focus" and "low resolution" and sand images ? Really ArMaP?

No need for that. If, as you said, 80% of the photos are out of focus, I guess you can pick a Sol as an example.

Frankly, I'm very surprised by your behavior recently.

I'm surprised that you are surprised, you should know me by now.

Better to think that Someone has stolen the ArMaP account.

Hmm, after all it looks like some people can't handle the truth.

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

reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 03:32 AM by impaired

Originally posted by Arken
And what make me sick is that 8/10 of the entire Curiosity images are OUT of FOCUS and the other part are with a very LOW resolution.

What a WASTE of money. Billions of Dollars for sand images......
Another huge fail!

Stay at home Nasa.

Our last Hope is CHINA!

No they're not blurry or out of focus - not no 80% of them! And are you talking about ChemCam images? Please say you aren't.

You complain, but you use their images. Astounding...

You need to learn your cameras, focal points, field of views, resolutions - the whole nine, because it's obvious that you're grasping at straws. Who are you to complain about "low resolutions" when you can't even acknowledge that the rover has the best cameras Mars has ever had or when you don't even know the fundamentals of a camera? Do you? Tell me and I'll eat my words.

Once again - whatever happened to humility? ArMap knows what he is talking about. I think I do, too. But if we're wrong about something, the correct thing to do is to acknowledge and move on.

We all know it's an interesting rock. That's fine and cool.

But why complain about their cameras but still use images from them?

And these resolutions are the highest they have EVER been - plus these cameras are true color.

So please - don't get mad. Just deny ignorance. Simple.

edit on 2/13/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 02:20 AM by sk0rpi0n

The "living crature" is being reported by Yahoo as well.

news.yahoo.com...

Except they are calling it a "hood ornament".

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 02:31 AM by wildespace

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The "living crature" is being reported by Yahoo as well.

news.yahoo.com...

Except they are calling it a "hood ornament".

I does look like one! Maybe is the fossilised remains of a martian cadillac.

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 05:09 AM by Aleister

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The "living crature" is being reported by Yahoo as well.

news.yahoo.com...

Except they are calling it a "hood ornament".

Good. At least it's getting "out there" and allowing more people to get interested in not only Hugo, but in the Mars Rover and its accomplishments as well. I said in another thread that Hugo should be ATS's mascot, but ATS has no voting page as far as I can tell, so he could be our unofficial mascot.

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 09:39 AM by jeep3r

Originally posted by wildespace
Here's the official release about this by JPL:
www.nasa.gov...
www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Basically, they say it's a hard and fine-grained rock that got exposed by wind erosion. Also note that only the top part of it is shiny, the lower part is similar to the base rock.
edit on 12-2-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

In my view, the official explanation from NASA/JPL reads a bit like: "Don't waste your time on that, it's just erosion and, apart from that, it happens everywhere, just look at similar geological features on earth ...". Then they post some images of artifacts that don't even closely resemble what we can see (especially when taking into account the surroundings, which are quite different) and I don't even "feel" that the science team could be interested in examining this closer. Whereas that should be their natural interest, I thought the name of the rover was "Curiosity", not?!

It's like quickly activating the "scientific firewall", in order to prevent any doubts about their competence in the first place. And to avoid any further speculation. Instead they could have just said "We don't know what it is, maybe we'll find out later throughout this mission!". Or, if it's too dangerous for MSL to get into that rocky terrain (in order to not get stuck), why not just say that? Obviously, I find this "quick reaction" annoying, and to some degree even not very scientific at all ... but hey, who am I to say that!?

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 10:19 AM by Soylent Green Is People

reply to post by jeep3r

Whether or not NASA says it looks like the uneven eroding of two materials of differing densities does not change the fact that I think it looks like uneven eroding of two materials of differing densities, just like I have been saying in this thread all along (even before NASA weighed in on the matter).

You can distrust NASA all you want, but the fact still remains that even ignoring what NASA said, this could still be a denser material (finer grained rock, some sort of metal ore, maybe an ancient meteorite that became part of the sedimentary rock, etc) that erodes at a different rate than the surrounding rock matrix.

I mean, the fact that it appeared in the same place in different photographs taken over a 10-day period makes it quite clear that it is part of the landscape -- and I think it looks attached to the rock. Being attached to the rock makes me think it is part of the rock.

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 10:26 AM by manmental

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

I mean, the fact that it appeared in the same place in different photographs taken over a 10-day period makes it quite clear that it is part of the landscape

Unless it is a creature with an incredibly slow metabolism, so that on our timescale it seems like it doesn't move. Like these bacteria at the bottom of our oceans...

Ancient bacteria living in deep-sea sediments are alive—but with metabolisms so slow that it’s hard to tell.

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 12:35 PM by jeep3r

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by jeep3r

I mean, the fact that it appeared in the same place in different photographs taken over a 10-day period makes it quite clear that it is part of the landscape -- and I think it looks attached to the rock. Being attached to the rock makes me think it is part of the rock.

I share this view and also see this particular artifact as part of the rock. But it could still be something interesting, perhaps even 'out of the ordinary', who knows at this stage? I don't, and the mission team probably neither. Concerning the official statement relating to different states of erosion on different materials: all that does make sense, in a 'general' way. But to react with something like that as an explanation for this particular case, more or less ignoring the context of that area and other potentially interesting artifacts (eg. from the rocknest area), seems a bit premature to me.

I would have expected a more careful approach in this case, also leaving some room for potentially other reasons for this object to be in this place with that shiny look and that exposure/position etc. So while the NASA/JPL statement is generally acceptable, it is too generic for this case ... IMHO

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 01:07 PM by IntelRetard

At the "very least" this is molten debris from previous missions to Mars.

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 01:42 PM by GaryN

This seems to be the second feature they have found that they are going to not look closely at, and I believe it is because it could destroy the whole wind/water erosion model for surface features. First were the riverbed pebbles. Pebbles on Earth are supposed to be worn round by tumbling for long distances in rivers, but on Mars that seems highly unlikely, that river would only have been within the crater, not enough distance for hard rock to be rounded so well.
The hood ornament looks more like a fulgarite-type thing, which would indicate lightning, and lightning would mean they would have to consider that much, if not all of the surface modifications on Mars are from electrical forces, and any wind would be ionic, which can strip material off the surface and appear to be from a mechanical cause, but happen much more quickly.
NASA has been denying the role of electricity in shaping or modifying the planets and moons and asteroids for ever, and they don't want to be shown to have been wrong. So, if something looks interestingly different, ignore it. Nothing to see here, move along.

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 02:45 PM by ArMaP

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by jeep3r
In my view, the official explanation from NASA/JPL reads a bit like: "Don't waste your time on that, it's just erosion and, apart from that, it happens everywhere, just look at similar geological features on earth ...". Then they post some images of artifacts that don't even closely resemble what we can see (especially when taking into account the surroundings, which are quite different) and I don't even "feel" that the science team could be interested in examining this closer. Whereas that should be their natural interest, I thought the name of the rover was "Curiosity", not?!

I agree.

This is one of those cases in which I think NASA could use the opportunity (pun intended

) to look at that object.

OK, I agree that it's probably a harder rock that is sticking out of the other rock, but in that case I think it's a type of rock different from those that have already been photographed in that area.

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

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 05:55 PM by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by jeep3r

I mean, the fact that it appeared in the same place in different photographs taken over a 10-day period makes it quite clear that it is part of the landscape -- and I think it looks attached to the rock. Being attached to the rock makes me think it is part of the rock.

I share this view and also see this particular artifact as part of the rock. But it could still be something interesting, perhaps even 'out of the ordinary', who knows at this stage? I don't, and the mission team probably neither. Concerning the official statement relating to different states of erosion on different materials: all that does make sense, in a 'general' way. But to react with something like that as an explanation for this particular case, more or less ignoring the context of that area and other potentially interesting artifacts (eg. from the rocknest area), seems a bit premature to me.

I would have expected a more careful approach in this case, also leaving some room for potentially other reasons for this object to be in this place with that shiny look and that exposure/position etc. So while the NASA/JPL statement is generally acceptable, it is too generic for this case ... IMHO

I agree that if they can get to it relatively easily and safely, they should look at it more closely.

reply posted on 14-2-2013 @ 09:13 PM by jeep3r

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I agree that if they can get to it relatively easily and safely, they should look at it more closely.

Actually, I think there is a very good reason why they're not providing even better close-ups of such images. I will get back to what I mean later on, once I got my 20 posts together that are required to create a new thread.

reply posted on 15-2-2013 @ 08:40 AM by arianna

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by arianna

I do not think for one minute the objects in question are geological features.

Yes. We know you think they are huge tiny cities.

Phage, it's not a question of thinking there are huge tiny cities on the planet, it's knowing there are.

Take a look at the following image and you will see something extraordinary. You may have to zoom in a little to see the extensive number of structural objects and other surface features. 'Hugo' shows up very well and I think you will find that the anomalous objects are not related to geology in any way despite the recent explanation from NASA.

There are many features in the mastcam images that are 'hidden' from view.

See if you can spot a capped pyramid. It's in the upper part of the image.

Click on the Direct link below to view the full image.