Some more 'intriguing' MSL images and 2 Opportunity pics that got me thinking!

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 

LOL ... that's exactly where my single most important thread ended up, too, some time ago ... but, perhaps, if you present it in the right way, they may leave it in "Space Exploration"?!

In any case, I keep my fingers crossed and I'll be checking the forums frequently!!




posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Pareidolia is a natural response to an item or shape that spurs the human mind to associate it with something else... something familiar. That's not the official definition but pretty much covers the tag.

Mars is, by all definition, an alien world. And likewise, all that is normal here is... well, alien there.

Commonalities exist in the way planets form and rocks are made but... still, there's no way to know that the exact same things happened there as they did there. So, from that point, pareidolia can run rampant.

*sigh*

Okee dokee, that now said, let's confess to a few things.

1. Between MERs Spirit and Opportunity, we've seen years of imagery that would have drawn fossil hunters from far and wide had they been taken here on earth.

2. MSL Curiosity has already passed by two unique anomalies without a closer look, just as MER Opportunity ground at least one into dust immediately after discovery.

3. The MSL was originally designed to possibly carry equipment capable of detecting life. This (of course) did not happen.

4. While many people blame various religions for a fear of discovery of life in the universe, it has been, to date, more science that has shown the cold feet. The fiasco following the Viking missions seems to have scared them into doing everything... ANYTHING but looking for life, past or present. (Most people of faith don't have issues with aliens as much as they do human dumbassery.)

5. If and/or when we should ever mount the stones to send a probe to Europa or Titan, there are a few things you can be sure of:
a) It will not be capable of looking for life, past or present.
b) It will spend more time taking pictures of itself and playing music than digging.

6. Pareidolia: The imagination of the human mind of an American seeing an American flag on either a manned spacecraft or a robotic mission of any importance before 2017.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


To me, the heat sink is the most interesting, although from a geological point of view.


I noticed that there are several rocks with marks like that one, so, if they are rocks (they look like rocks), I would like to know how did they get those "fins".

PS: I didn't forget your other thread, I'm looking for ways of getting more data from MSL.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Anyone remember ATS member "Mike Singh"from years back-He made threads about ancient ruins on Mars.
I remember some of his images were amazing.

But his titles were too "tabloid style" for my taste, with too many exclamation points.



One showed approx 7 black domes,which protruded from the surface of Mars-and the objects were exactly the same distance apart-suggesting something other than natural rock forms.

If that's what I am thinking about, those "domes" were the places where the rover stopped, turned a little to one side, and then kept going in the direction it was going before.


I wish he was still active here so I could ask him where he found those images.

All the images he posted were taken from official NASA (or other organisations related to some space mission) sites.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMistro81
I actually thought it would be another thread that got alot of angry responses, but as it turns out this has been a good one. Thanks OP.

From what I have seen, the responses depend more on the way things are presented than people think, that's one of the reasons Mikesingh's threads usually had few of those angry responses.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TheMistro81
I actually thought it would be another thread that got alot of angry responses, but as it turns out this has been a good one. Thanks OP.

From what I have seen, the responses depend more on the way things are presented than people think, that's one of the reasons Mikesingh's threads usually had few of those angry responses.


Exactly. And at that times, "the good old times", ATS was not so infiltrated...



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I'd say there's a chance the rock could have formed naturally by wind abrasion. Look at the lines in the sand behind them. Across them etc. They suggest a dominant wind direction. So it would only take a piece of rock that was sedimentary and formed in layers over time. Parts snap off and shear over the years etc, then wind erodes it at a 90 degree angle.
All possiblle in my mind. The acr could be a result of the wind eroding a step in the rocks,along the cliff edge part of the rock so to speak, the wind could possibly erode it fairly evenly and through varying pressures of abbrasion form a curve. Look at rivers viewed from above, they always erode in curves, so thy not here ?
edit on 14-3-2013 by pot8er because: grammar error



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by jeep3r
 

5. If and/or when we should ever mount the stones to send a probe to Europa or Titan, there are a few things you can be sure of:

a) It will not be capable of looking for life, past or present.
b) It will spend more time taking pictures of itself and playing music than digging.


I couldn't have found better words to describe the situation. Thanks for that, redoubt!

And I've had my big laugh when reading this ... whereas it's actually sad: they're still debating the results of the VIKING experiments up to this day, and they're also still debating what they found in ALH 84001 (the Alan Hills Mars meteorite). And on top, the previous missions were not really able to provide information beyond of what we already know for such a long time.

But answering the fundamental question of whether life could have developed elsewhere seems to be extremely difficult. Either that, or some institutions and governmental organizations are really making fools of us all! Choose your favorite answer!



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pot8er

I'd say there's a chance the rock could have formed naturally by wind abrasion. Look at the lines in the sand behind them. Across them etc. They suggest a dominant wind direction. So it would only take a piece of rock that was sedimentary and formed in layers over time. Parts snap off and shear over the years etc, then wind erodes it at a 90 degree angle.


Natural erosion certainly is a possibility, I've also seen some images of extremely strange ventifacts on earth yielding sheer incredible results.

What bothers me in the MSL footage is the sheer amount of pieces and shapes that display rather clear geometrical features within an area of just a few hundred square-meters. And even though they have different inclinations, positions and sizes, what they still have in common are those 'familiar' proportions and angles. A lot of these features even have a slightly different coloring than the surrounding rocks.

All in all, this raises a lot of intriguing questions, as far as I'm concerned. And I wonder when sombody at NASA will come forward with an explanation for some of these interesting shapes, that were in close-reach of Curiosity, but were never investigated in detail. Instead MSL always moved on to destinations that were more uniform and almost 'feature-less'. And this happened more than once. Actually, it always happened when Curiosity was near to something that was really distinct from its surroundings.

But probably that's just coincidence!



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by jeep3r
 

To me, the heat sink is the most interesting, although from a geological point of view.


I noticed that there are several rocks with marks like that one, so, if they are rocks (they look like rocks), I would like to know how did they get those "fins".


Same here, I also noticed some similar rocks in that area with almost the same features. Whereas this one had (by far) the most distinct pattern of fin-like features.



PS: I didn't forget your other thread, I'm looking for ways of getting more data from MSL.

Thanks for that, ArMaP, and no worries: It'll be very difficult to get a clearer picture or overview of that particular area, I'm aware of that. But in case you find something, I'd be more than happy to discuss all of that more in detail!

Also, in one of my next threads, I'll probably address that issue again in a slightly different context. I made out an area beyond Rocknest (more to the east) with some peculiar features that might shed more light on my initial claim ... but we'll see what comes out of that, I'll keep you posted!



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The "Sculpture" is very odd indeed!
In the "Triangular Plate" close- up there is something odd about the rock at the other end of the arrow, it has parallel raised edges with similar features.
There's something odd on the right/far/upper side of the large rock camera-side of the plate too.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Regarding #5 The Hexagon

There is a faint circle beneath your hexagon... In the first image. I opened it in paint and just drew a circle and overlapped it. The circle fit perfectly. (well, maybe it is an oval)



Almost looks like a focus circle on some older cameras... There is even a small circle in the center of the larger circle. or maybe like a wagon wheel without spokes...

You can see it right below your hexagon, and then straight below the light colored sand. It is a black circle.

Probably nothing, but I was impressed that my circle in paint overlapped the circle in the image perfectly.
edit on 15-3-2013 by ByteChanger because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-3-2013 by ByteChanger because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
It is pretty much becoming common knowledge that life flourished on Mars a long time ago, but no one really knows for sure what processes were at work that compare to those we know about on earth. Given however that there are many features on mars that mimic those found on earth, there were probably many of the same geological processes at work on mars, when its core was still producing a magnetic field that protected it from the sun.

If there was intelligent life on mars at some point when it was alive, evidence of that life will NOT be found on the surface. Mars has constant sandstorms, for one, and given how long mars has been dead, there have not been any living creatures running around on the surface for a very long time. And it has been so long that any artificial structures on the surface would be gone by now, not to mention any biological evidence of life, as that would have gone first.

Any life found on mars today is probably going to be sub-surface. If there is anything living on the surface, it is probably very small, and would look strange because it would have to have a shield from the vast amounts of radiation that are constantly blasting the planet. And anything that evolved to thrive despite the radiation is not going to look like any animals we know about on earth.

So whatever anyone sees in these pictures, which are usually rover pics and therefore relatively small objects, are rocks. There are rocks on earth that look even more manmade than those in these pictures, but most of us know they are not. This pattern recognition is well known, and is called pareidolia/matrixing. You should research how well the human brain is at pattern recognition, especially regarding faces, and you will begin to understand why you find and believe these things to be artificial, despite the fact that all known and current science points in the direction of these being rocks.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
The 1st one and the 4th one are really interesting and very odd. The 4th one also has a smaller arch inside the 90 degree curve.

As for them looking like rocks, of course they do, they could be insanely old. Old things turn into fossils which are...rocks. So just because they look like rocks, people shouldn't dismiss them lol. Otherwise no point in going to a museum and seeing dinosaur bones or eggs because they all must all be fake cause they're rocks



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger
reply to post by jeep3r
 

There is a faint circle beneath your hexagon... In the first image. I opened it in paint and just drew a circle and overlapped it. The circle fit perfectly. (well, maybe it is an oval)

Probably nothing, but I was impressed that my circle in paint overlapped the circle in the image perfectly.



This is incredible! At first I thought you were kidding me, but it's actually there ... and it's a darn perfect circle!!
Here goes a quick A/B comparison:


P.S.: Great find! Thanks, ByteChanger ...
edit on 16-3-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Otherwise no point in going to a museum and seeing dinosaur bones or eggs because they all must all be fake cause they're rocks

Not all ancient skeletons are fossils, some bones are preserved instead of having their molecules replaced by minerals, so they are not rocks.

But yes, fossils, by definition, are rocks.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Thanks for your detailed thoughts on this!



Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
If there was intelligent life on mars at some point when it was alive, evidence of that life will NOT be found on the surface. Mars has constant sandstorms, for one, and given how long mars has been dead, there have not been any living creatures running around on the surface for a very long time. And it has been so long that any artificial structures on the surface would be gone by now, not to mention any biological evidence of life, as that would have gone first.

From a logical standpoint, I would have to agree with you!

However, I feel deeply challenged by what I see on the surface of Mars. There are so many geometrical features (that actually look manufactured) in such a small area that it becomes increasingly difficult to explain all of it just with natural processes, at least in my view. And as of yet, nobody has been able to show me images of earthly ventifacts or other geological features that resemble (in such detail) what I see lying directly on the surface of Mars.



Any life found on mars today is probably going to be sub-surface.

Probably, yes. But when thinking about ancient life on Mars (as a possibility), I don't know of any data that suggests that such lifeforms must necessarily have followed different patterns of biological evolution than those we know from earth. I could imagine that, in the early phase of Mars, they might have actually evolved in a very similar way, with similar biological processes involved.



So whatever anyone sees in these pictures, which are usually rover pics and therefore relatively small objects, are rocks.

That is a conclusion for which you don't have sufficient evidence. Fact is: we simply don't know!



There are rocks on earth that look even more manmade than those in these pictures, but most of us know they are not.

... would be great to see some of those!




This pattern recognition is well known, and is called pareidolia/matrixing. You should research how well the human brain is at pattern recognition, especially regarding faces, and you will begin to understand why you find and believe these things to be artificial, despite the fact that all known and current science points in the direction of these being rocks.

Yes, we are very good at pattern recognition, no doubt about it. Yet, nothing in any previous missions caught my attention in the way the MSL imagery does. And I think that completely excluding visual evidence from our analysis is wrong, especially if that kind of evidence is so overwhelming (in terms of amount & detail) as is the case regarding the MSL footage.
edit on 17-3-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
good work. i have to thank you for keeping this misguided hope going. if you like your misguided hope, you can keep you misguided hope! it's stuff like this reasonable people will use to drive a stake thru the heart of NASA. NASA the MOST useless and MOST mismanaged government agency there ever was or ever will be. Why do we have no manned space flight capability? NASA. why do we have a cool space bomber already on orbit, the air force. see how that works. give the air force money to build a spacecraft and you get the B-37B. give the money to nasa and what do you get? an autonomous lawn mower with a digital camera on it! what gives you the most bang for the buck? B-37B, hands down. nasa - the poster child for failure! besides, how can we justify spending money on nasa when the privte sector DOES have manned spaceflight capability ?
edit on 1162014 by tencap77 because: spelling and the fact nasa is led by criminals anyway !



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by tencap77
 

I think money spent in any lawn mower capable of increasing our knowledge is better than money spent in any bomber.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   

tencap77
good work. i have to thank you for keeping this misguided hope going. if you like your misguided hope, you can keep you misguided hope! it's stuff like this reasonable people will use to drive a stake thru the heart of NASA. NASA the MOST useless and MOST mismanaged government agency there ever was or ever will be.


Actually this is false. The General Accounting Office found NASA to be one of the most efficiently run and least wasteful agencies of the federal government. Probably because its very life depends on it.



Why do we have no manned space flight capability? NASA.


Nope. You can blame that on the Congress, specifically the House of Representatives and the taxpayers who voted them in on a 'cut the budget at all cost' mandate.

I studied space policy a little bit. I can refer you to articles going back to 2002 when they began talk of phasing out the Shuttle once the ISS was completed.


why do we have a cool space bomber already on orbit, the air force.


A cool space bomber? WTF are you talking about?


see how that works. give the air force money to build a spacecraft and you get the B-37B.


Are you talking about the X-37B?

Omg you are misinformed.

In the interest of denying ignorance let me inform you that:

#1 The X-37B is -NOT- a "space bomber". It's a mini, unmanned space shuttle.

#2 The X-37B was NOT developed by the Air Force. It was developed by NASA as the X-37


In 1999, NASA selected Boeing Integrated Defense Systems to design and develop an orbital vehicle, built by the California branch of Boeing's Phantom Works. Over a four-year period, a total of $192 million was contributed to the project, with NASA contributing $109 million, the U.S. Air Force $16 million, and Boeing $67 million. In late 2002, a new $301-million contract was awarded to Boeing as part of NASA's Space Launch Initiative framework.

The X-37 was transferred from NASA to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on 13 September 2004. Thereafter, the program became a classified project, although it is not known whether DARPA will maintain this status indefinitely. DARPA promoted the X-37 as part of the independent space policy that the United States Department of Defense has pursued since the 1986 Challenger disaster.

The X-37 was originally designed to be carried into orbit in the Space Shuttle's cargo bay, but underwent redesign for launch on a Delta IV or comparable rocket after it was determined that a shuttle flight would be uneconomical.[9] The X-37's aerodynamic design was derived from the Space Shuttle, hence the X-37 has a similar lift-to-drag ratio, and a lower cross range at higher altitudes and Mach numbers compared to DARPA's Hypersonic Technology Vehicle.

As part of its mission goals, the X-37 was designed to rendezvous with friendly satellites to refuel them, or to replace failed solar arrays using a robotic arm. Its payload could also support Space Control (Defensive Counter-Space, Offensive Counter-Space), Force Enhancement and Force Application systems. An early requirement for the spacecraft called for a delta-v of 7,000 mph (3.1 km/s) to change its orbit.




give the money to nasa and what do you get?


An X-37 duh..

Also...

The Orion spacecraft which will have its first test flight around the moon in September of this year..... duh....


an autonomous lawn mower with a digital camera on it!


If that's all you see Curiosity as you truly are misinformed...

Add to all that the missions to Jupiter (Juno), Mercury (Messenger), Pluto and the Kuiper Belt (New Horizons), not to mention Cassini (Still at Saturn doing its work), several space telescopes including Kepler which has found Earthlike planets and some candidates which are possibly identical to the Earth in size and temperature not to mention its other astrophysics programs. None of which the Air Force or other military and intelligence agencies would have ANY interest in.

Then there is that whole tracking near Earth asteroid program and the Commercial Crew program to help companies like Space-X develop transportation for supplies and soon crews to the ISS.....

All for a TINY fraction of the budget the US Air Force has.

NASA's budget is about 0.5 percent of the federal budget.
The US Air Force's budget is 5.5 percent of the federal budget (not including whatever black budget money they get which is unaccounted for).

So, in terms of "coolness" in terms of things we're doing in space I think NASA wins that in terms of doing more with less.


what gives you the most bang for the buck? B-37B, hands down. nasa - the poster child for failure!


The only failure I see here is your comprehension of reality.



besides, how can we justify spending money on nasa when the privte sector DOES have manned spaceflight capability ?


Because NASA does MORE THAN JUST MANNED SPACEFLIGHT. Its mandate is exploration of the universe.

And those private sector spaceships? Who do you think is helping to fund the ones that will actually you know, go into orbit and take crews to the space station????

Oh look...it's NASA.....And it's called Commercial Crew...

NASA Astronaut-Taxi Program Would Get Boost in 2014 Spending Bill


WASHINGTON — NASA’s Commercial Crew Program would get up to $696 million — its highest annual budget yet — under an omnibus spending bill drafted by Congress to fund the federal government for the remainder of 2014.

But the allocation is still considerably less than the $821 million sought by U.S. President Barack Obama and also comes with a string attached: $171 million of the funds would be held in reserve until NASA completes an independent cost-benefit analysis of the program. That would temporarily keep the program funded at about $525 million, the same level it got in 2013.

NASA would receive $17.6 billion in total under the plan, or about $100 million below the White House’s request and roughly $700 million more than the agency’s sequestered 2013 budget.

- See more at: www.space.com...


Lastly, the transition from the Shuttle to Orion would have been gapless had people actually decided to fund the agency at a decent level. You have yourself to blame for that by being a misinformed taxpayer who probably voted for people who cut NASA's budget.

NASA has been on a shoestring budget since 1974 compared to where we were during the Apollo days, the people who actually work there should be praised for doing the amazing things they have with so little compared to the Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA, NSA, BDMO, NRO, NGIA and agencies whose names and waste YOU'LL NEVER KNOW because they are hidden in the black budget.

Denying ignorance... one person at a time.
edit on 17-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join