Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 29
317
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by impaired
 


To this one. www.unmannedspaceflight.com...


That's it.




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Waldy
 



Then imagine how Your Own brain lie to you....



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by impaired
 


To this one. www.unmannedspaceflight.com...


That's it.


No. Seem that I never send a message to these science guys....




Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Rules and Guidelines - Please Read

1.3 Astrobiology may not be discussed here, even in the context of a mission with those stated goals. This includes other banned topics such as SETI, "Red Rain," alien visitors, exobiology, biosignatures, microorganisms, fossils et cetera. (Amended 19Oct'12 / Updated 21Nov'12)



Damn Bill Nye!





edit on 21-2-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Come on! You know that your presentation is biased and made to support your claim with mind trickery.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Waldy
 


My mind, fortunately, works fine, and so the majority of members here on ATS, skeptics and not...

YOUR?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Arken
 


Except, those real bones were under the Earth for millions of years.

Your mars photos are on the surface....

....That makes them rocks. Fossils do not form on surface dirt. Bones turn to dust if they are exposed.


Look up the dry valleys of antarctic fossils, you will find under different conditions that is not so.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waldy
reply to post by Arken
 


Come on! You know that your presentation is biased and made to support your claim with mind trickery.


Mind trickery, sort of like how the original photos are over-saturated with reds and yellows which gives them the illusion that everything is blended together?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Im not trying to get into an argument about this. Just wanted to point out the lack of scientific method in this post. It is leading and made for those that want to believe. Its only rearranged pixels of a planetary surface and should not be presented as a proof for anything. The op is missing the original data and a disclaimer!

There is not much of critical thinking going on in this topic.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waldy
reply to post by Arken
 


Im not trying to get into an argument about this. Just wanted to point out the lack of scientific method in this post. It is leading and made for those that want to believe. Its only rearranged pixels of a planetary surface and should not be presented as a proof for anything. The op is missing the original data and a disclaimer!

There is not much of critical thinking going on in this topic.


The OP links to the original NASA image in his initial post. I saw his altered images as a way to simply highlight the areas he was looking at.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waldy
reply to post by Arken
 

Just wanted to point out the lack of scientific method in this post. It is leading and made for those that want to believe. Its only rearranged pixels of a planetary surface and should not be presented as a proof for anything. The op is missing the original data and a disclaimer!


Well, that's probably because not everybody here 'is' a scientist, or an academic. And yet, we would be really ahead of ourselves, if we still considered such indications in a serious manner. Participants in this thread actually help to substantiate the initial claim with sources and original material as well as additional findings.

And let's not forget: visual data, or 'observations', are at the very base of natural sciences. That's oftentimes where we start from when discovering new frontiers. Of course, it should be backed by whatever measurements we can apply in order to support (or reject) a theory. But in the end, I think OP came up with quite a strong case which is definitely worth investigating in more detail.



Originally posted by Waldy
There is not much of critical thinking going on in this topic.

I have serious doubts about that particular statement.
edit on 21-2-2013 by jeep3r because: Text



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by papajake
Mind trickery, sort of like how the original photos are over-saturated with reds and yellows which gives them the illusion that everything is blended together?

Only if you have badly regulated monitor, it doesn't look like "everything is blended together".



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



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by papajake
Mind trickery, sort of like how the original photos are over-saturated with reds and yellows which gives them the illusion that everything is blended together?

Only if you have badly regulated monitor, it doesn't look like "everything is blended together".



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


That's true. I did overstate the "everything" part. But to illustrate my point, here's a photo that I desaturated, which looks a lot more natural to me.




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by papajake
That's true. I did overstate the "everything" part. But to illustrate my point, here's a photo that I desaturated, which looks a lot more natural to me.


It may look more natural to you, but is it closer to the true way things look there?

To me, the most important thing is to know how things look there, even if they look too orange (like things look over here during a dust storm).

PS: did you also changed the contrast?


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



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Dont let the naysayers get to you Arken.

They will just say it is rocks.

Bah I say.

They did the same on my "Plumes of Steam on Mars" thread. X

(dont know where all my uploaded images went on that thread, they were stored on ATS servers)

Back then,.. nobody it seems could fathom there might be water there, now we know better.

So hang in there, time will tell.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
"It may look more natural to you, but is it closer to the true way things look there?

To me, the most important thing is to know how things look there, even if they look too orange (like things look over here during a dust storm).

PS: did you also changed the contrast?"

No, just de-satutation. I have a hard time believing that our vision would be changed so drastically just by standing on Mars. In a dust storm, maybe, just like on Earth. But in those photos the ground looks settled so I don't think they were taken during a dust storm. Just non-professional opinion.
edit on 21-2-2013 by papajake because: Wow, I messed those quote up!



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


From the looks of it (and the test I just did in PS) he used Auto Levels and possibly dropped the resultant images saturation down a little bit.

All Auto-Levels does is spread the color range of an image into a more natural spread from lowest to highest values... or at least thats what I think it does. Ive never bothered to find out myself


Adjusting levels manually allows you to constrict or expand our color channels and brightness to specific ranges and auto tends to take an images histogram and spread it evenly across the entire possible range.

Thing is auto levels is spreading it so it matchs the ranges natural to Earth light... so yeah. It isnt possible to use it to get Mar's 'true' color. To do that id simply lower the red channel a little, which will just result in well... browns and yellows, which is pretty much what Nasa says it is.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by papajake
PS: did you also changed the contrast?"

No, just de-satutation.


Bollocks you did, why are the blues in your image still as blue as the blues in the original image? Or do you mean you reduced the saturation of the red and green channels? since a straight reduction in saturation would NOT give that image.

Heck your blues according to my eyedropper tool are higher than in the original image so somewhere saturation went up! So no you didnt just drop the saturation.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Bollocks you did,


I did an auto desaturation and then did a little more de-saturation using the curves tool. But very little to make it feel more natural to me. Oh, and I did it using CMYK mode and then converted it back to RGB, just in case you want to do another follow up test.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by smirkley
(dont know where all my uploaded images went on that thread, they were stored on ATS servers)

The images are visible here.



Back then,.. nobody it seems could fathom there might be water there, now we know better.

Where's the water?



So hang in there, time will tell.

Yes, it will tell, either yes or not, but it will tell. I just hope to still here to know the answer.




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



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by papajake
 


Fair enough, no idea what a an Auto Desaturation does, granted I use a fairly (relatively) antiquated version of PS. Although from what ive seen alot of stuff like that is just another form of histogram control or whats its (ie its all just acts the same as adjusting levels, like how curves do).



Yours on the left mine on the right. I used straight Auto-levels, with slight adjustments to contrast/brightness, saturation and curves in RGB mode. Yours has got a slightly more cyan hint to it i had trouble replicating and mines a little higher contrast.

Apologies on my behalf, that being said, be more specific about how you do stuff... or people like me who get iffy when we think someone is clearly lying might get the wrong end of the stick and go on a moral crusade


That being said I am technically correct given you originally said just some desaturation, which wouldnt give that image with simple manual desaturation... ok now im just being pedantic. **scuttles off stage**

edit:- oh and im aware there are more image editing software out there than just PS

edit on 21-2-2013 by BigfootNZ because: meh meh





new topics

top topics



 
317
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join