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: 23
319
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Why the need to highlight them??
Perhaps because, as already stated numerous times before, these photos are not indicative of what the true landscape looks like. These are black and white photos that are arbitrarily colored by filters at NASA. Those rocks could be any combination of colors in reality and we would have NO IDEA. I see no problem with arken highlighting these things. I am frankly surprised that you do.




posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
He just colored it to highlight the pattern and make it more visible. I mean, it looks pretty strange to a lot of people here and I don't believe it is a natural rock formation, even though most of the threads on Mars and whatever in my view is *just rocks*

This to me looks different.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by baburak
 


Highlighting/selectively colouring is altering. Perhaps it is just perception like you say, but it doesn't sit well with me.

I've made my opinion clear anyway, so I'll let it go now. For the record, I would love these to be fossils, but I don't see it.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


If I took an artifact that resembled a lizard and changed the colour to bright green, and said "Look, a lizard on Mars!", implying that was the original appearance of the object, you'd be fine with that too, I suppose? Even if in the original it's coloured just like the surrounding rocks, and resembles a lizard a lot less than in my altered image?

And the difference between an arbitrary colouring using filters by NASA is completely different to selectively and deliberately colouring bits of rock you think look like fossils. One is colouring, the other is clear doctoring/manipulating in a biased fashion.
edit on 20-2-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



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


Again, fossils ARE rocks.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Yes, that has been established, now why didn't you answer my question?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


From when the bones are YELLOW LEMON?
Even a child can recognize that it was highlighted in yellow lemon.
But I'm agree with you: In this case the colorization was not necessary at all: Clear Enough in NASA colors!
edit on 20-2-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Because you ate comparing apples and oranges. Fossils, being rocks themselves, are EXPECTED to have a similar color as the rocks around them. Green lizards on the other hand? Not so much.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Yet many people here were unsure if they were highlighted, or simply assumed (incorrectly) you were providing the originals. A child can see but adults on ATS cannot?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


Where you guys get this whole would throw the church in a craze thing from? That is totally a myth. I have ran sound at a big church for 11 years and I can assure you announcing what you call Alien life just confirms the faith. One mans Angel is one mans Alien is another mans demon.

That's about as far as the whole thing goes. some will say Angel others demon and the rest Aliens!
I myself say there is Good and Evil everywhere and this is no exception. It does seem that the good guys stay a bit more hidden and anything coming into your room at night to mess with you isn't very respectful of your freewill if you ask me but that's another topic.

No I assure that announcing that there is Alien life will have no effect on the faithful. Heck we ALL already believe in life outside the planet don't you guys ever stop to think about what the bible teaches for goodness sake? We all believe in Angels and last I checked they were not from Earth right?

Sure maybe a few people that had a weak faith will want to call belief in God bunk because of some alien discovery but that would have to be someone that really wasn't strong in the faith at all. If anything it strengthens are resolve that these beings exist just as we have been saying for century's now!

Discovering life outside earth should have no bearing what so ever on ones faith in a living creator of the universe. If there is life out there then the same Creator that is responsible for the entire universe obviously created the aliens as well.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


That's not the point. When people see something coloured differently to its surroundings the mind can tag it as an "anomaly", or an "unnatural" occurance, and the stage is set to manipulate the audience into believing something out of the ordinary is present.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


I've post the original image, official NASA source, in the Opening Post: Page ONE of this Thread, FIRST post.



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


I both understand and reject your premise...with respect.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


I am guessing from the responses and the questions that most people didn't go to the external link, as they assumed it was just provided for reference.

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept you were not deliberately misleading anyone, but the fact remains that people were misled nonetheless.

May I suggest a simple ring around the anomaly next time? Or better yet, just tell people what you believe is present and see if they can locate it themselves, and see if their perception agrees with your own - this way it takes any potential tainting out of the question. Just a thought.
edit on 20-2-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
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.


I would not be so sure that is true. What is 'size' in this context.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


The external link shows spinal bones!

Repeat pattern, well preserved shape intact, and the texture is harder than the dirt around it. I know NASA likes to try and train people to believe that rocks take on real shapes and repeat patterns. But the odds mathematically against one pattern, one eye, one thing is rather large. Againt an entire pattern, well, you'd win thousands of big lotteries first.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

The external link shows spinal bones!

Repeat pattern, well preserved shape intact, and the texture is harder than the dirt around it. I know NASA likes to try and train people to believe that rocks take on real shapes and repeat patterns. But the odds mathematically against one pattern, one eye, one thing is rather large. Againt an entire pattern, well, you'd win thousands of big lotteries first.


And yet, a simple google image search shows hundreds of examples of repeatable patterns.

Things like this:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tessellated_Pavement_Sunrise_Landscape.jpg"

(I'm having trouble with linking the image, but you can copy paste the URL to see it)
edit on 20-2-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Thanks for your Tips.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Unity_99

The external link shows spinal bones!

Repeat pattern, well preserved shape intact, and the texture is harder than the dirt around it. I know NASA likes to try and train people to believe that rocks take on real shapes and repeat patterns. But the odds mathematically against one pattern, one eye, one thing is rather large. Againt an entire pattern, well, you'd win thousands of big lotteries first.


And yet, a simple google image search shows hundreds of examples of repeatable patterns.

Things like this: en.wikipedia.org...:Tessellated_Pavement_Sunrise_Landscape.jpg


This isn't a wave. Take a closer look and stop pretending you don't see.

Look at the spines. No wave. And google has nothing that resembles spinal in rock form. Don't pretend and try to mix evidence.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Does anyone here know why marsanomalyresearch is not loading, it says page not found.

There are many examples there.




top topics



 
319
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join