Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

More mars anomalies or just more rocks and shadows?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 



More mars anomalies or just more rocks and shadows?

Rocks and shadows.

Unless you consider rocks and shadows anomalies...




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


I see no shadow from what you call a white "rod". I think it's a glitch.

Also what the hell is a "propella"? Do you mean propeller?


Either way I saw nothing of interest besides rocks in the right corner.

Although I have a feeling you are convinced and no amount of disagreement with you will matter anyway.
edit on 2/22/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)
well i am convinced that there seems to be a shadow under the rod and im convinced that there is a prapellor. Maybe someone can post the pic,without highlighting the anomaly in the bottom right.
You seem to not want an ancient civilisation on mars,i wonder why that is?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I see rocks and shadows.

And please know about the images before you make a thread and say they are unaltered.

Those images are white-balanced.

Edit - And folks aren't even looking at the 3D anaglyph versions. I mean, if you're going to say things are this or that, at least look at them in 3D.


Once you go 3D, you won't want to go back and you'll probably be VERY SURPRISED at what are just shadows and rocks.

www.edtruthan.com...
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
All of the following pictures were cropped from this NASA panoramic image:

www.nasa.gov...

The cropped images have not been manipulated in any way.color, contrast, sharpness etc are all from the original NASA image found at the above link.
The cropped images have been enlarged in order to provide a better view.

In order to not prejudice or guide you in seeing something that may or may not be there I will not yet offer my opinion on any of the images.I am posting the images and will let them speak for themselves.























































edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
the 3rd and 4th from the bottom are my favorites. I challange people to post images on earth with as many natural anomolies as what we have been seeing from curiosity. We humans will be humbled and nasa funding would sky rocket,archeologist would be aboard the first manned mission if these anomolies are real. Me personally is 70percent convinced of ancient advanced civilisation on mars.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 




You seem to not want an ancient civilisation on mars,i wonder why that is?

I said nothing like that.

I just disagreed with you about the white "rod" which I think is a glitch, and also said I see no propeller. (I'm assuming that's what you mean, though you have yet to spell "propeller" correctly)

How does that say anything about my thoughts of ancient goings-on on Mars? Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Microbial life on the other hand I feel is likely.



I challange people to post images on earth with as many natural anomolies as what we have been seeing from curiosity.

How are wind and sand blown rocks anomalies?

Such things are found all over Earth.

And remember the largest volcano in the solar system is on Mars, so that could spew out all sorts of different looking rocks.
edit on 2/22/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
I see rocks and shadows.

And please know about the images before you make a thread and say they are unaltered.

Those images are white-balanced.

Edit - And folks aren't even looking at the 3D anaglyph versions. I mean, if you're going to say things are this or that, at least look at them in 3D.


Once you go 3D, you won't want to go back and you'll probably be VERY SURPRISED at what are just shadows and rocks.

www.edtruthan.com...
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)


I don`t have 3D glasses, I wish i did but i don`t. The original images weren`t white balanced or any other manipulation, they were cropped from the NASA panorama image and enlarged, that`s all.
The black and white images were contrast adjusted, but I never claimed they weren`t manipulated.
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
[mor. Shame.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by Chamberf=6
[mor. Shame.



Is that supposed to make sense?

Is it a shame I don't agree with you?

Is that it?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Congrats.


This is the worst one of these threads I have seen, terrible pictures to boot.


There are plenty of images with better resolution that yu could try and convince people with. Talk about blurry! Good tactic though, use pictures that could be anything and say they're...anything.





posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by impaired
I see rocks and shadows.

And please know about the images before you make a thread and say they are unaltered.

Those images are white-balanced.

Edit - And folks aren't even looking at the 3D anaglyph versions. I mean, if you're going to say things are this or that, at least look at them in 3D.


Once you go 3D, you won't want to go back and you'll probably be VERY SURPRISED at what are just shadows and rocks.

www.edtruthan.com...
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)


I don`t have 3D glasses, I wish i did but i don`t. The original images weren`t white balanced or any other manipulation, they were cropped from the NASA panorama image and enlarged, that`s all.


Yes they are white balanced. Take it from someone who creates mosaics and panoramas from the RAW images (Curiosity). Have you ever seen a raw image from Curiosity? It doesn't sound like it, because you would know:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I know that NASA white-balances them (it's not exactly a secret), and I know a white-balanced Mars image when I see one.

And 3d glasses (anaglyph) are only about $3 USD. I recommend them to ANYONE who wants to look for Mars anomalies.

Looking for them in 2d is almost counterproductive.

And once again - they ARE white balanced. You want to bet, or do I have to do the research for you?

Deny ignorance.
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MmmPie
Congrats.


This is the worst one of these threads I have seen, terrible pictures to boot.


There are plenty of images with better resolution that yu could try and convince people with. Talk about blurry! Good tactic though, use pictures that could be anything and say they're...anything.




I never claimed that they were anything. The details of the pictures weren`t really important to me it was the shadows and the seeming anomalies with the shadows that drew my attention.
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by impaired
I see rocks and shadows.

And please know about the images before you make a thread and say they are unaltered.

Those images are white-balanced.

Edit - And folks aren't even looking at the 3D anaglyph versions. I mean, if you're going to say things are this or that, at least look at them in 3D.


Once you go 3D, you won't want to go back and you'll probably be VERY SURPRISED at what are just shadows and rocks.

www.edtruthan.com...
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)


I don`t have 3D glasses, I wish i did but i don`t. The original images weren`t white balanced or any other manipulation, they were cropped from the NASA panorama image and enlarged, that`s all.


Yes they are white balanced. Take it from someone who creates mosaics and panoramas from the RAW images (Curiosity). Have you ever seen a raw image from Curiosity? It doesn't sound like it, because you would know:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I know that NASA white-balances them (it's not exactly a secret), and I know a white-balanced Mars image when I see one.

And 3d glasses (anaglyph) are only about $3 USD. I recommend them to ANYONE who wants to look for Mars anomalies.

Looking for them in 2d is almost counterproductive.

And once again - they ARE white balanced. You want to bet, or do I have to do the research for you?

Deny ignorance.
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)


well i don`t know what NASA does with the images so i can`t claim that they didn`t white balance them and I would never try to claim that.
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


You claimed that in the OP. That's just not a good way to start. Know what you are saying and posting before you do it.

I've been there before. But we learn and move on. And there should be no hard feelings when someone is found to be wrong. It's happened to me here and I don't try to hide it.

It's part of how Science works. Being objective as much as humanly possible.

So get those glasses, know the specs on the images you are looking at/posting, and try again. No harm, no foul.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
well i don`t know what NASA does with the images so i can`t claim that they didn`t white balance them and I would never try to claim that.
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by Tardacus
The original images weren`t white balanced or any other manipulation, they were cropped from the NASA panorama image and enlarged, that`s all.


From the OP:


Originally posted by Tardacus
The cropped images have not been manipulated in any way.color, contrast, sharpness etc are all from the original NASA image found at the above link.


There you go. That matters.
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: I forgot to add the quote from the OP.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by impaired
I see rocks and shadows.

And please know about the images before you make a thread and say they are unaltered.

Those images are white-balanced.

Edit - And folks aren't even looking at the 3D anaglyph versions. I mean, if you're going to say things are this or that, at least look at them in 3D.


Once you go 3D, you won't want to go back and you'll probably be VERY SURPRISED at what are just shadows and rocks.

www.edtruthan.com...
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)


I don`t have 3D glasses, I wish i did but i don`t. The original images weren`t white balanced or any other manipulation, they were cropped from the NASA panorama image and enlarged, that`s all.


Yes they are white balanced. Take it from someone who creates mosaics and panoramas from the RAW images (Curiosity). Have you ever seen a raw image from Curiosity? It doesn't sound like it, because you would know:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I know that NASA white-balances them (it's not exactly a secret), and I know a white-balanced Mars image when I see one.

And 3d glasses (anaglyph) are only about $3 USD. I recommend them to ANYONE who wants to look for Mars anomalies.

Looking for them in 2d is almost counterproductive.

And once again - they ARE white balanced. You want to bet, or do I have to do the research for you?

Deny ignorance.
edit on 2/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)
so whats the point at looking at 2d?countr productive.have you seen images that are productive?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
let me show you what i meant by the shadows drew my attention:

in this image there is a long rectangular rock on the ground, along the center of that rock are evenly spaced rectangle and square shaped shadows. we see nothing in the image that would be casting those shadows.




This image is interesting because the sun seems to be overhead and all the hills are casting short shadows except for an unseen object in the center of the image. In the center of the image i see a shadow with an arch shaped top and to the left of that shadow is a large triangular shaped shadow on the side of the hill.

i`m curious as to what is casting that large shadow and the arch shaped shadow since all the other objects in that image are casting short shadows.




This image is interesting to me because there is an overhanging rock that is casting a shadow and under that rock overhang and within the shadow are 2 bright objects.The objects aren`t reflecting sunlight because they are under the overhanging rock and are receiving no direct sunlight.We can see the rocks shadow above, below and next to the bright objects so we know that they are completely in the shadow of the overhanging rock and out of the direct sunlight.

The disk shaped rock/object in front of the overhanging rock is also casting a shadow so we know that at least the side that is facing the camera is not contacting the ground.Based on the color difference of the disk shaped /rock object and the ground we can see that none of the edges of the rock/object are buried in the ground.the disk shaped rock/object is resting on the surface.




Another image of an overhanging rock with bright objects under it, we know that those objects are not reflecting sunlight because they are under and in the shadow of the rock overhang, also they are not casting shadows themselves so we know that the sunlight is not hitting and reflecting off of them.




Another image of light objects in the shadow of and under a rock overhang, no sunlight reflecting off of these objects either.




In this image we see an arch shaped shadow near the top of the image but we see no arch shaped object that is casting the shadow, at the bottom left of the image we see a black smudge that has left a trail as it slide down the hill but that black smudge is not casting any shadow. on the NASA image that smudge is also a smudge it has no distinct edges and is not casting a shadow.

We know that the smudge is a solid object because we can see the hole in the wall/berm above it and the trail it made as it slide down the hill so that smudge should be casting a shadow. By looking at the rocks next to the smudge we can see that the shadow of the smudge should be visible since the shadow of the rocks are visible.



Here we see a large flat object that is casting a shadow around the edges that are facing the camera, so we know that those edges are not in contact with the ground which gives a general idea on the thickness of the object.





edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Tardacus
When NASA receives these images from the rover the images are in black and white.

No, the images from Curiosity are colour images.


After NASA receives the images they use color filters on the images to give them the colors that we see.

No. Even with the older rovers (that did return monochromatic images) the colour images were not made by using colour filters, each monochromatic photo was from a specific wavelength, corresponding to a specific colour (or invisible light, like ultraviolet or infrared).

By joining three images from the filters corresponding to red, green and blue NASA (or anyone else, like me
) could make an RGB image.


Lets look at the images the way NASA sees them when they are received from the rover.

Not true.


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



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

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


Originally posted by Tardacus
When NASA receives these images from the rover the images are in black and white.

No, the images from Curiosity are colour images.


After NASA receives the images they use color filters on the images to give them the colors that we see.

No. Even with the older rovers (that did return monochromatic images) the colour images were not made by using colour filters, each monochromatic photo was from a specific wavelength, corresponding to a specific colour (or invisible light, like ultraviolet or infrared).

By joining three images from the filters corresponding to red, green and blue NASA (or anyone else, like me
) could make an RGB image.


Lets look at the images the way NASA sees them when they are received from the rover.

Not true.


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


Thank you for that info i didn`t know that.
I guess I shouldn`t believe everything I read on ATS, i don`t know anything about how they do the images I was repeating what i read on ATS about the images being black and white images.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Tardacus
Thank you for that info i didn`t know that.
I guess I shouldn`t believe everything I read on ATS, i don`t know anything about how they do the images I was repeating what i read on ATS about the images being black and white images.


I guess you shouldn't.


I suggest you do a little search when you see something like that on ATS or any other place. Comparing what other people say or write with how things really are is a good way of learning about those things and about those people.



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



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Actually, there are both Color and Black and White Cameras on Curiosity.

NASA has always made link and sources available to the color photographs.

NASA Mission News on Curiosity


This graphic shows the locations of the cameras on NASA's Curiosity rover. The rover's mast features seven cameras: the Remote Micro Imager, part of the Chemistry and Camera suite; four black-and-white Navigation Cameras (two on the left and two on the right) and two color Mast Cameras (Mastcams). Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech











 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join