12 Things Curiosity Forgot to Inspect & Some Concerns About NASA's Information Policy

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by jeep3r

 

I know you are not against NASA that's why I said "they know who they are" also as you pointed out there are locations on Earth with many weird shaped rocks

Which doesn't exclude the possibility that NASA might well be subject to higher command in terms of public information guidelines!

To many on here with no real understanding of digital images zoom and zoom and join the dot's of the things they WANT to see and not what is actually there that is the real problem.

I know we've had some intense & inspiring discussions over those rocks and the overall image quality of various features. And while your arguments undoubtedly hold water in technical terms (especially regarding overzoomed pics etc.), I stick to my opinion that a lot of formations had sufficient details to justify further investigation. That's why I'm pretty sure NASA indeed took a good look while leaving 'us' behind with all those frustrating questions as to what the heck we saw on those images ...

But if Mars rocks conform to what's known here on the pale blue dot why waste time looking at them when a hidden gem may be on it's planned route.

Don't be disappointed, but I fear there won't be any hidden gems on the planned route ... and if there were, we wouldn't get to see 'em! I really hope for the contrary, but I have my doubts. There'll probably be further images of interesting formations, but they'll be vague & out of clear range.

I just can't fight the feeling that the scheme of exploration they've officially shown us at Glenelg will be the general scheme for the rest of this mission. Should I be wrong in this regard, I'd be very surprised and shall never bother anyone again with this topic!

P.S.: Taking a few more close-ups wouldn't have taken too much time, honestly ...

Originally posted by charlyv

 

Thanks OP, this is an excellent post. It does not matter what those images are. The important thing is that they are interesting, and I bet that most of us, if we were hiking along a trail in the desert, or mountains, and noticed some of those objects, even if we had the pre-conceived notion that they were rocks, we would check them out anyway and most likely pick a few up.

Thanks for getting back to one of the major aspects with such clarity. The 'wording' is perfect which is why I'd like to repeat that one sentence again: "It does not matter what those images are, the important thing is that they are interesting."

There's hardly a better way of putting it!

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by charlyv

 

Thanks OP, this is an excellent post. It does not matter what those images are. The important thing is that they are interesting, and I bet that most of us, if we were hiking along a trail in the desert, or mountains, and noticed some of those objects, even if we had the pre-conceived notion that they were rocks, we would check them out anyway and most likely pick a few up.

Thanks for getting back to one of the major aspects with such clarity. The 'wording' is perfect which is why I'd like to repeat that one sentence again: "It does not matter what those images are, the important thing is that they are interesting."

There's hardly a better way of putting it!

edit on 18-7-2013 by jeep3r because: text

They are ONLY interesting if you haven't seen something similar or don't have a good idea how they were formed!

Originally posted by jeep3r
"It does not matter what those images are, the important thing is that they are interesting."

Interesting to whom? Some random on the internet, or a geologist who has looked at them and decided they are not worth a closer examination....

Originally posted by hellobruce

 

Interesting to whom? Some random on the internet, or a geologist who has looked at them and decided they are not worth a closer examination ...

If you're happy with the information provided by NASA/JPL, that's fine.

As you can see, though, there are others on here and elsewhere who still have some questions incl. geo's and academics from various fields, by the way.

Call them 'randoms on the internet' or what you like: the questions they brought up, however, point to a considerbale lack of information with regards to certain formations as well as some questionable contradictions in the way imaging priorities are defined.

reply to post by Arken


Just wanted to say I love it when the first person to answer to a thread is an appropriate person who is known for the subject at hand. Like that one time when monkeyboy was the first to reply to a thread titled monkey...oh man that was classic...

Also, I'm pissed off that they didn't walk up and poke at some of that stuff!! This was probably just the "recon" rover and the real one will come later to check out all the cool stuff but they won't show us! :/ if you shake the dirt and dust off of that stuff you might see what it is. Or maybe it was all done on earth and they used some advanced form of Photoshop to cover up all the trash, bones, etc out in the desert. I dont know what to think anymore...

In all honesty here what did you all think of that video I posted a couple pages back? The photo analyzing in the provided picture was thorough and concise. Common sense tells me when I see a photo like that there is obviously different ranges of sigh line.

For the simple fact that the dunes/hills of sand in the distance seem to hold such an emmensly large presence I'm going to agree with the gentleman in the video. Those things that look like 6" rocks could easily dwarf your sense of awareness in the photo.


Who knows what kind of technology and lens/optics that rover is equipped with.

Originally posted by DieSektor
In all honesty here what did you all think of that video I posted a couple pages back?

In all honesty? One of the biggest and silliest misinterpretation of seeing small rocks and calling them

security personnel, armored vehicles, a space craft, tank, and a small vehicle with a gun turret pointed at the rover

reply to post by jeep3r


Please, pretty please, link to a source where a geologist, or a professional in a similar field, raises any questions or concerns about what they see in Curiosity images, and is calling for further examination. So far, I've only seen the "random Internet" people do it (not counting the cranks who present themselves as professional but really aren't).

Originally posted by jeep3r
who still have some questions incl. geo's and academics from various fields, by the way.

Care to name them? Unless.......

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
They took time to photograph the 'face' on Mars a few years ago. Don't forget that NASA is funded by the public, so it's not unreasonable that they should make some attempt to answer the public questions, even if the scientists themselves see little value in it. mmm

After waiting thirty years they did apparently accidentally take ( or at least release) new data from the Cydonia region, yes. As for NASA being funded by the public it's aim has always been primarily military ( hence the directors, etc) in nature and given the cold war we really should not have expected it to be otherwise. Having said that oversight over most arms of government is sorely lacking ( if one would believe the GOA) so basically the state spends money in it's self propagating interest and we should probably be thankful that we have managed over the years to get as much as we did out of NASA. NASA scientist should certainly not be blamed for what they are ordered to investigate or what equipment probes and rovers are outfitted with!

What's more if they did take more interest in these kind of 'anomalies' then they may find that people get more interested in the mission as a whole. It would also provide a valuable 'debunking' exercise (assuming these are just rocks).

I think they believe that they is already too much interest in their Mars and Moon missions so they do what they can to diminish it; their funding is not dependent on the public mood any more than the Pentagon budget is.

I don't see how looking at anything on Mars could be a waste of time, especially if it demonstrates unusual features. Are the scientists really so jaded that they won't inspect a rock that looks like a lizard because they already know everything there is to know about lizard-shaped rocks?

We do sometimes get hints of what they really think and discuss amongst themselves but what they are allowed to look at, research or investigate is simply not up to them. Any publicly or privately funded corporation who would keep something as ridiculously inefficient as the space shuttle flying for so many years ( the only surprise is how few times it blew up) should not be trusted with public money and certainly not with the task of deciding what is and what is not in the public interest.

Stellar

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by jeep3r

 

Please, pretty please, link to a source where a geologist, or a professional in a similar field, raises any questions or concerns about what they see in Curiosity images, and is calling for further examination.

So far, I've only seen the "random Internet" people do it (not counting the cranks who present themselves as professional but really aren't).

Of course, we're talking about random people on the internet but from some replies (eg. here & here) you can tell where they are coming from. Their contributions are thoughtful and relevant to the subject. That said, I wouldn't want to underestimate the community - especially when it comes to conspiracy topics.

Moreover, no professional scientist pursuing a serious career would even dare to officially challenge NASA/JPL & the science team. They've got the data, the measurements, and yes: I'm sure they also got the close-ups which they don't share with us ... what can your average scientist and armchair explorer do apart from accepting that?

And while those people - and the knowledgable crowd over at UMSF - might think 'hmmm ... some strange formations out there!", they won't take that extra step to officially question the public information policy. They'll be arguing to infinity about which geological processes formed the stuff we see. Unless of course, they would one day stumble across something like this:



But even then, they couldn't talk about it because it's forbidden via their T&Cs to discuss anything relating to astrobiolgy (incl. fossils) or other anomalies such as those discussed here on ATS. Ironic isn't it?!

Originally posted by jeep3r
Of course, we're talking about random people on the internet but from some replies (eg. here & here) you can tell where they are coming from. Their contributions are thoughtful and relevant to the subject.

By the looks of it, the two posts are by the same person, and the spelling and grammar leave a lot to be desired. Anyone can say "I'm an environmental scientist, and there's something fishy about NASA/JPL" but that doesn't carry any credibility.

How can you be so sure that no scientist, even from another country like Russia or India, would say anything contrary to NASA/JPL? And I'm talking about simply saying "that feature is strange and requires closer examination", which is perfectly reasonable when coming from a scientist.

UMSF isn't the only forum to discuss science from Curiosity; they actually link to several forums where talking about astrobiology and other topics is allowed. I haven't explored many forums and blogs about Curiosity results, but I'm pretty sure the situation isn't what you're trying to paint it as: armchair enthusiasts versus NASA/JPL, with professional scientist quivering in their chairs afraid to say anything.

Originally posted by wildespace

 

UMSF isn't the only forum to discuss science from Curiosity; they actually link to several forums where talking about astrobiology and other topics is allowed. I haven't explored many forums and blogs about Curiosity results, but I'm pretty sure the situation isn't what you're trying to paint it as: armchair enthusiasts versus NASA/JPL, with professional scientist quivering in their chairs afraid to say anything.

I really like how you never give in and keep comin' back to certain threads!

Perhaps others haven't seen or found those details, can't be entirely ruled out either. I guess the only way to find out would be to create an account on one of those other sites and let 'them' have a descent discussion about it. But I'd not be suprised if even that led to different results with opposing views and some uncertainty.

However, when looking at the points brought up in the OP, I also think we have reached a stage where we don't need to discuss every single image anymore. It's more about the psychology behind NASA's information policy, the institutional power that also affects NASA/JPL as well as the desire for opinion control & secrecy - by whomever. While you & others on here are still discussing whether or not it's legit to assume everything we saw are rocks/anomalies, I think the sole fact that all this keeps us busy with endless discussions actually proves that we're looking at something that is 'noteworthy' (at the very least) or sufficiently distinctive to justify further investigation.

And that's what I think NASA/JPL did, because:

- it certainly isn't a waste of time to get those close-ups
- hundreds of other rocks have been imaged 'close-up', so why not these?
- image file transfers to Earth wouldn't increase dramatically
- Curiosity was RIGHT NEXT to most of the features over weeks
- the features DID stand out compared to the rest
- the potential gain of new information justifies the effort


Factor in the buzz back then when Grotzinger revised his initial statement as well as the quick dismissal of the 'hugo feature' without further investigation ... and you've got what?! Right, a conspiracy! Accordingly, the above list is a chain of arguments that cannot be dismissed so easily. Especially when taking into account the amount of images and details we got from other formations & rocks in comparison.

reply to post by jeep3r

All I see are rocks. I see no issues. The only issue I have is how Gilbert Levin was swept under the rug. Even today he thinks they discovered life in the viking life experiment. Perhaps he's wrong and cannot face his own failure to admit his error, but it's still suspicious to me.

For my perspective, it looks like NASA is dragging its feet. It has had over 30 years to send a return mission to Mars with a life detection unit onboard. That I know of, the spacecraft sent to Mars that could have narrowed the possibilities all have failed to land successfully and carry on. One of them was the Mars Express spacecraft which had hte Beagle 2 lander. That could have told us a lot.

Keep in mind that the reason NASA threw out the life detection experiment on the viking lander was because one of hte units failed to detect organics. The experiments on hte Beagle 2 could have been able to detect organics and more. That could have added a lot of confidence to the "life positive" viking experiment results. Gilvert Levin might have had his experiment vindicated. Instead he's been pushed into the shadows and made to look like lunatic trying to con everybody else.

Also remember it's not just Gilbert Levin. He had others working with him. He's not alone.

Look at this:
phys.org - Viking landers did detect organics on Mars...

Look here:
www.space.com - Curiosity Rover Finds Organic Signal on Mars, But Not Definitive: NASA...

NASA.... Haven't you had enough time to make it more definitive.

This looks like the answer NASA is settling on:
www.wired.com - Mars Rover Finds Good News for Past Life, Bad News for Current Life on Mars...

reply to post by jonnywhite


Just want to point out that the Mars Express and Beagle 2 was a European Space Agency project, not NASA/JPL.

Mars express was launched from Russia:

The spacecraft was launched on June 2, 2003 at 23:45 local time (17:45 UT, 1:45 p.m. EDT) from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, using a Soyuz-FG/Fregat rocket.

Beagle 2 was to be controlled by the National Space Center located in the UK.

If you go and look, you'll see that the US and NASA didn't not have much involvement with that project at all.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Look here:
en.wikipedia.org - Beagle 2...

I'm led to believe Beagle 2 was part of the ESA's Mars Express mission.

I already knew Beagle 2 is not NASA.

My point was that NASA seemed to drag its feet. It could have confirmed this one way or another sooner, but it seemed to focus on other things rather than smashing this bug early. People can use whatever argument they want, but Pathfinder, for example, did not have a life detection experiment. The pheonix lander did not. How many other attempts did not?

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Look here:
en.wikipedia.org - Beagle 2...

I'm led to believe Beagle 2 was part of the ESA's Mars Express mission.

edit on 21-7-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Yes it was. And both, Mars Express and Beagle 2 were ESA.....NOT NASA/JPL.

Click on the Mars Express in in my post above.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Reread what I wrote. I never stated Beagle 2 was NASA. Where're you reading that?

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Reread what I wrote. I never stated Beagle 2 was NASA. Where're you reading that?

Sorry, misread your last post.

I made my original post on this because in this post here, you lumped the Mars Express and Beagle 2 mission with other NASA/JPL missions.

Mars has a rep for being hard to get to. If you look at all the missions sent by all countries since the 1960's you see a huge amount of failures.

As for getting to Mars and settling the question of if life is there or not, or if life at least existed in the past there or not:

NASA is controlled by our government by their budget. They have and have had many, many different project missions that never make it, or have made it out of the planning stages. Administrators have to decide what missions get priority and funds to make them into a reality. These missions spend years in the planning and development stages.

After Viking, NASA turned it's attention more on two things really: the space shuttle, and Voyagers 1 and 2. Viking's results were inconclusive to anyone at that time. There was more that they could do (send even more probes, etc), But there were two general thoughts going on:

Making Voyagers work and going because of how the outer planets would be lining up in such a way to maximize getting close to those planets and do science on them up close (it wasn't just about taking wonderful pictures).
The second thought was this:

Mars wasn't going anywhere. The planet would still be there for later exploration.

It's like wanting to explore somewhere. We decide we're going to take a trip across the US. We have to decide where we want to go, and what we want to explore, based up on whatever our budget for that trip is. So we make decisions on how to do that. We can't see everything at once.
Even if we decide to make the trip each year, it would take many decades for us to explore all of the US.

I know many don't want to believe that. Easier to think NASA/JPL is hiding things, or keeping the public in the dark. People love conspiracies, and of course this is a site for that. I understand people wanting to think that.

Because the truth tends to be a lot more boring.