Curiosity/MSL: My take on the discoveries at GALE CRATER so far (video)

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Not that 'my view' is so important
, but I thought I'd share a self-made video with you to 'heat up' the discussion about life on mars (past or present) even more. So, here it goes:



This is sort of a summary of my previous posts, while going way more into the 'visual' details using a much higher resolution of the Curiosity/MSL footage. It's also a 'walk-through' regarding interesting features at Rocknest while I explain what's been intriguing to me in that particular area (I know that my findings up to now were not really self-explanatory)!

I also tried to put things into perspective, a view - of course - which only represents my personal opinion. Obviously (as you'll see), I'm definitely not a video-pro, but it should be sufficient to 'convey' the message. So, if you could spare about 10 minutes for this, I'd be more than happy. Hope you'll like it ...

And just in case: here's also the direct link to the video on YouTube..

Enjoy!



P.S.: Go fullscreen and watch it in HD (1080p), if you can ...
edit on 21-2-2013 by jeep3r because: Text




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by jeep3r
 


Couldn't you make a written version of the video? I think most videos are a waste of time, as we are being forced to wait for things to happen instead of reading at out own speed.

If you do I promise I will read everything and post a comment.



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 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by jeep3r
 

Couldn't you make a written version of the video?

Hey, thanks for the quick reply, ArMaP! I didn't know that videos were a rather 'tricky' thing on this forum. I'll try to work out a more detailed 'written' presentation as well, but that'll take some time!



If you do I promise I will read everything and post a comment.


Highly appreciated, I take your word for it!!



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Take a look at an in-depth analysis of the Rocknest imagery revealing that an intelligent species potentially existed on Mars in the remote past.
reply to post by ArMaP
 


There is part of the description above, probably would have to watch the video though as it is his analysis on the images of the rocks/bones.
edit on 21-2-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
The video covers these ATS threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

While your effort can be commended, I think you underestimate just how weird and strange eroded rocks can look. It would be more credible if a geology expert looked at those images.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
The video covers these ATS threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

While your effort can be commended, I think you underestimate just how weird and strange eroded rocks can look. It would be more credible if a geology expert looked at those images.


Do you maybe have some photographic evidence of these? As I'd be interested to see this, as I have seen many examples with strange rock formations but never seen anything like this before. Apart from fossils.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Gildenel
 


Look up pseudofossils and concretions. And of course there's a plethora of images of wind-eroded rocks, some of which look like creatures.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.fallsoftheohio.org...
www.fallsoftheohio.org...




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by Gildenel
 


Look up pseudofossils and concretions. And of course there's a plethora of images of wind-eroded rocks, some of which look like creatures.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.fallsoftheohio.org...
www.fallsoftheohio.org...



I have seen rock shapes like these before, (i like the face structure in your 3rd link) but they are not as uniform or obviously shaped as the ship anomaly,



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
While your effort can be commended, I think you underestimate just how weird and strange eroded rocks can look. It would be more credible if a geology expert looked at those images.


Thanks for your replies, Wildspace and Gildenel. And you're right, Wildspace, I'm not a geologist or 'expert' on erosion or geological processes. I'm just trying to point things out and make aware of the fact that these rock formations perhaps justify a closer look. It would be a pity if it were something else than strangely eroded rocks ... left behind at Rocknest, more or less 'unnoticed'.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


I enjoyed your video. Thank you for creating it. It's difficult to determine the size of the area in the photo. Is there any way to figure this out to help support your theory?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by papajake
reply to post by jeep3r
 

I enjoyed your video. Thank you for creating it. It's difficult to determine the size of the area in the photo. Is there any way to figure this out to help support your theory?

Hey, papajake, thanks for the pointers! Other people also asked me about scale and it's true that, on the far left of the panorama, you can see the rover tracks - which are rather 'huge' in comparison. So this led people to believe that 'if those artifacts are not rocks', it's something very very small or tiny. On the other hand, the artifacts lie in some sort of 'valley' (and on a ridge) so it's difficult to estimate the dimensions. As you can see in this image by NASA/JPL (unrelated), distances are not always what they seem to be.

We do, however, know where Curiosity was standing during that time, based on the traversemaps (see here). And if I can make out our landmark 'edgy hill' on the HIRISE images, it should be possible to calculate the dimensions & distances, at least roughly. I'd have to use HIVIEW to look into the HIRISE imagery at the best resolution available. There's also a .TIF panorama (by NASA/JPL) available at the JPL website. Unfortunately, there's no scale information on it either. So I'll try to figure that out and post the results as a follow-up in this thread. But that, too, will take some time!



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
OK, it's me again and I did the math as best as I could. I found a way to determine the rough dimensions of the 'objects' in question. And this is how I went about:

- located Curiosity's position on Sol 64 according to NASA/JPL

- scanned all available HIRISE images in the area using HIVIEW

- found out that a 3D view of Glenelg by NASA/JPL offers the most details

- identified a HIRISE map showing Curiosity on SOl 157 close to Rocknest (Resolution: 27.1 cm/pixel, on JP2 format, greyscale, HIVIEW required)

- identified 'Edgy Hill Landmark' (as point of ref.) on both the HIRISE map and the 3D map of GLENELG

- did a visual comparison of the panorama and the above mentioned maps in order to locate the objects

- identified the objects based on features that 'could' possibly be resolved on the HIRISE imagery (triangular front as well as the back section of the objects), while taking into account that the location of the objects is 'roughly' known due to the landmark and Curiosity's position on Sol 64 as references

- identified these features on the 3D map of GLENELG first (reason: more visual details, better contrast)

- copied the positions to the HIRISE map on which Curiosity is shown (Sol 157)

- imported the full resolution HIRISE map into Google Sketchup (SU)

- measured Curiosity as 'size of reference' and the dimensions of the objects as well
using the measuring tool within Sketchup (SU)

- calculated the sizefactor/multiplicator of the objects in comparison to the rover. NASA/JPL indicate the size of Curiosity with 10 feet (3 meter). When applying the sizefactor to the objects also measured within SU, approximate 'real' dimensions can be calculated/derived


And here go the screenshots/results:
(note: all values/measurements are approximations!)

This is the traversemap of Sol 123 by NASA/JPL:
Please click here for a full resolution of the (cropped) image above.


This is the 'corresponding' 3D view of Glenelg (NASA Photojournal, PIA 16210):
Note when viewing this with 3D anaglyphs: for scientific purposes, the height profiles have been greatly 'exaggerated' by NASA/JPL)
Please click here for a full resolution of the (cropped) image above.


These are the 'estimated' locations of the objects based on a comparison with the Rocknest panorama:


Here goes the Sol 157 Highrise image (same area) with Curiosity as 'size reference':
Please click here for a full resolution of the (cropped) image above.


These are the measurements applied within Google SketchUp (SU), based on sizefactor (MSL), whereas Sizefactor = length of object on map divided by length of rover (in SU 'metrics') estimated 'real size' = sizefactor of object multiplied by the 'real' length of rover (10 feet/~3 meter)
Please click here for a full resolution of the (cropped) image above.


This is the projection of the estimated dimensions onto the Rocknest panorama:
Please click here for a full resolution of the (cropped) image above.


And below, you'll find the pure estimates without any imagery:

Dimensions in Google SketchUp
(projected on MRO/HIRISE Map ESP_030313_1755, JP2 Greyscale)

Roversize (length indicated by NASA/JPL): 10 foot or ~ 3m
Roversize in SketchUp (SU): 0,68 m

OBJECT 1: 3,57 m (Sizefactor relative to Roversize: ~5.25)
Estimated 'real' size (in meter): 15,75 m

OBJECT 2: 1,80 m (Sizefactor relative to Roversize: ~2.64)
Estimated 'real' size (in meter): 7,92 m

OBJECT 3: 3,13 m (Sizefactor relative to Roversize: ~4.60)
Estimated 'real' size (in meter): 13,8 m

OBJECT 4: 3,27 m (Sizefactor relative to Roversize: ~4.80)
Estimated 'real' size (in meter): 14,4 m

OBJECT 5: 1,08 m (Sizefactor relative to Roversize: ~1.58)
Estimated 'real' size (in meter): 4,74 m


I admit: it was difficult to identify the shapes, inspite of a ~30 cm/pixel resolution. But let's not forget that (a) the obj. locations are known (-->panorama) and (b) we're talking about 'something' petrified, embedded into the rock. With all the F/X of erosion over the eons. Yet, the triangular front sections and the back sections can 'roughly' be seen.

Finally, the 'objects' are not huge, but -if the measures are correct- they're larger than I thought. I'm curious about your thoughts on this & thanks for reading all this!!



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


So the largest structure or "boat" would be about 50 feet long. Interesting. Excellent analysis and truly out-of-the-box thinking. Obviously we may never know whether you are correct, but it's certainly fun to think of the possibilities. When I examine closely the details of the high-res panorama—and the odd looking structures—I can't help but to think it looks like an area once brimming with life and deteriorated over thousands, if not millions, of years, possibly due to some catastrophic event.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by papajake
reply to post by jeep3r
 

Excellent analysis and truly out-of-the-box thinking. Obviously we may never know whether you are correct, but it's certainly fun to think of the possibilities.


Thanks! And indeed: maybe we'll never know what exactly we're looking at, or, perhaps we will one day. Who can tell? In any case, there are a few more things that came to my mind in this context:

- it took Curiosity ~50 (!) sols to drive down that slope to Yellowknife Bay (~Sols 72-122)

- coincidentally, Curiosity's traverse-path leads exactly through the area with the 'objects'
(the rover tracks can be seen in the Sol 157 images in my previous post)

- yet not a single close-up image of the artifacts is available, not even of one of them

- nor are there any images looking westward up the slope (no different perspective available)

- is the stuff we see 'so boring' that it's not even worth a MAHLI snapshot?


And one last aspect: doesn't that slope look a bit steep & dangerous, perhaps even too 'rocky'? Curiosity could have gotten stuck, not? It must have been around Sol 72, that Curiosity was sent down there. This, to me, seems to be quite a risky decision at that point in time, when there are numerous less risky (and flatter) paths available. Unless, of course, there was a very, very important reason for doing exactly that at this early stage of the mission!

... just some food for thought!



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeep3r
- yet not a single close-up image of the artifacts is available, not even of one


Or no close up images that they are sharing.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
When discussing objects on other planets, always refer to this link and ask yourself if what you are seeing is a lot better than this montage of "artifacts" from Mars.

The other test is this link.

If you can see the dolphins then you are rational and objective. See anything else and you're view of reality is driven by your desire to see stuff that isn't there and is distorted.

HTH



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by nomadros
If you can see the dolphins then you are rational and objective. See anything else and you're view of reality is driven by your desire to see stuff that isn't there and is distorted.HTH

And if we see both?



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



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
If you can see the dolphins you are rational and objective??! Haha!
Bogus! There is definitely other stuff there!



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

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


Originally posted by nomadros
If you can see the dolphins then you are rational and objective. See anything else and you're view of reality is driven by your desire to see stuff that isn't there and is distorted.HTH

And if we see both?



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



I've got the same problem...dolphins, sex, dolphins, sex...just hope I don't end up wanting sex with dolphins



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Bogus! There is definitely other stuff there!


Thanks ArMaP and JayinAR!

I'm still quite intrigued by the thought of Curiosity not having imaged these distinct features/artifacts inspite of actually having been right next to them. I will develop this idea further and post the results in a new thread later this week.

Thanks again for all your inputs and comments up to now!





top topics
 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join