It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fossilized Spines and Vertebrae of Big Creatures in Curiosity Sol 109!

page: 22
319
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Zarniwoop
What I'd really like to know is why they think JPG format is "full resolution"

Because the size of those JPG images is the same size as the photo taken by Curiosity, the format in which they are saved is irrelevant for the resolution.

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




posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elohimsciences
reply to post by misscurious
 

I am interested to hear why you think they are just rocks. How come all the "strangely formed rocks" all seem to have almost the exact color variance from the other rocks and such around them.
Different type of rocks maybe? how come all the rocks of that type are all formed in such an odd shape that just coincidentally makes them all look like bones?


Easy, Arken doctored the colour in. The NASA photos do not show the colour difference.

Case closed.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by masta12d
In case it was missed I will repost it.

I didn't miss it, but it looks like you missed my question about it.


Why do you think it looks tampered?

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



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Gutted.

As always something that initially looks like amazing proof crumbles when you see the source material. Take out the delibetate colorising and you have eroded and windswept rock. There's a place somewhere on Earth that has formations exactly like that and they are huge.

No bones, no fossils just millions of years of erosion.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 

You are completely missing the point here.
The color is not questionable.
If you were following Arken's previous threads, you would see that that's his way of emphasizing parts of the pics where he thinks he sees something interesting.
Case reopen...

edit on 20-2-2013 by zilebeliveunknown because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


For everyone who keeps talking about altering color of the photos:
- original photos are black and white (all digital photos are black and white)
- color is added using filters
- the picture you see from NASA is showing false colors since nobody was on Mars in person to proper adjust filters
- Arken altered the color to highlight te region he was talking about and as far as we know, those could be the real colors we would see if we were there

True color pictures will be available once we send someone there until then there are just false color pictures.
edit on 20-2-2013 by baburak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Lightworth
 


Thanks your reply.
Nothing will ever change the fact that Jesus was The Son of God
and that He died for our sins. So the Bulk majority of Christians,
will not be affected. Whats more Our Gods Glory will all the more be
appreciated



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by baburak
 


The point is simple. Without the colouring, these artifacts look much less like fossils and much more like rocks. I don't care about his other threads. they are not referenced here, the pictures he used as evidence many readers will assume are the originals, but they are not, they are doctored.

Arken refuses to respond to questions about the colouring because he know what he did was disingenuous. Take away the colour and what do you have? Rocks. Just rocks.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Spacespider
 


Thank you for your kind words, Spacespider.


Every paleontologist, even with low skills, can confirm that there are Bones.
It is only a matter of time.

Soon NASA/JPL will give the official announcement.


No doubt! But I don't like being spoon fed their drips of disinfo. Those are bones. But Mars contains ever so much more than creature bones.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown
 


Most people responding do not realize he has coloured them! The doctoring is extremely important, because it is the doctoring which makes them truly look like fossils and bones. How am I missing the point? If you want to make a point about a potential artifact, don't manipulate the photos to make them more supportive of your claim, because that is borderline hoaxing, unless you make it completely clear you changed the image. He did not make that clear at all, and he refuses to respond to questions about colouring.

NASA may colour photos, but they are not doing so selectively to make standard rocks look like fossils. Jeesh.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown
 


And by the way, I was responding to a person's question as to why the fossils all appear the same colour and stand out from the rest of the rocks, if they are just rocks. Well, because they were coloured that way deliberately.

I answered his question, there is no mystery there.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Your point is noted. And dismissed. At least by me. I have looked at the originals and if anything, the shapes are even more evident in the originals. If you mean that they can't be fossils because they are the same color as the other rocks, well that's because FOSSILS ARE ROCKS.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


If they look so much like fossils why would there be any need to highlight anything? Why not just show a picture and say "look at all these fossils", without even need of so much as an arrow? Then we could all look at the images and clearly see the fossils and tell them apart from the rocks, and agree on what are fossils and what are rocks.

But we can't do that now, because our perception has been tainted and manipulated. I can't believe you are fine with being misled.

Let me know when you get a response from the media when they jump all over this...
edit on 20-2-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



Take away the colour and what do you have? Rocks. Just rocks.


No, not really.

You take away the colour and all you have is a 2MP Black & White picture that's been recoloured by NASA.

I also think that Arken has colored his findings for highlighting purposes. His other threads are much the same but it seems you don't seem to care about those so you are basically judging him as disingeuous solely based on this thread, which to me, doesn't reflect exactly how Arken really works.

No offence, humphreysjim, just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


People should at least try to read how the photos are made and what are fossils and what they're made of.

1. All photos are black and white
2. Fossils ARE just rock. They show the skeleton or the shape of the being which was once alive.

The same applies to every celestial body.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonoftheSun

I also think that Arken has colored his findings for highlighting purposes. His other threads are much the same but it seems you don't seem to care about those so you are basically judging him as disingeuous solely based on this thread, which to me, doesn't reflect exactly how Arken really works.

No offence, humphreysjim, just my opinion.


No offense taken, but each thread stands alone and must be judged on its own merits.

As has been mentioned, his other threads show the original alongside the highlighted version, so it is clear what has been highlighted and why. In this thread, he has not done so.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
but the colouring disfigures any shadows and ability to judge perspective accurately. if the pics were that good then the highlighting would be superfluous, and arkens avoidance of the issue doesnt bode well.
the pics are basicly tainted, as stated above



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by baburak
 


All photos are black and white indeed, but they are not selectively coloured to give the appearance of fossils which stand out from their rocky sorroundings. And fossils are rocks, of course, but they are not "just rocks", hence the name "fossil".

It is clear what is meant when people say these are "just rocks" and not fossils specifically.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Very interesting, Arken. Im in the 'usually I think its just rock, but in this case its quite unusual.' camp. Im aware that the bits you highlighted in a different colour were done by you. But as has been pointed out, the original data is black & white then coloured by NASA, so could well be the colours you put up. TBH, even if its the same colour as the surroundings, its the unusual forms we are looking at, so not really worth getting hung up on the colour. If you had been adding shadows or highlights, then that would different.....



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Yeah, but he didn't alter the photo. He just highlighted the region he was talking about and gave the link to the original photo on NASA website. I would have done the same. I guess it's just the matter of perception.




top topics



 
319
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join