Ancient stone head on Mars?

reply to post by 0bserver1


I don't see anything other than rocks and more rocks, of course their surroundings and meteorological events will influnce their final exterior appearance, that is logical enough, as for those in the image being part of statues or maybe the ones with holes being a part of a large block of martian cheese, I don't know. but we seem to be comparing how these rocks look as opposed to how earth rocks look, a bit like comparing how we look and how and alien looks, of course we are going to be different, both looking strange to the other..just like the rocks.. as far as I can see I would be happy to cut em up and examine their content and determine their age etc... I don't think we will find a martian picasso....

Originally posted by flipflop
reply to post by 0bserver1

 

I don't see anything other than rocks and more rocks, of course their surroundings and meteorological events will influnce their final exterior appearance, that is logical enough, as for those in the image being part of statues or maybe the ones with holes being a part of a large block of martian cheese, I don't know. but we seem to be comparing how these rocks look as opposed to how earth rocks look, a bit like comparing how we look and how and alien looks, of course we are going to be different, both looking strange to the other..just like the rocks.. as far as I can see I would be happy to cut em up and examine their content and determine their age etc... I don't think we will find a martian picasso....

Well it's obvious you have not been observing what is really in the images. You will not find any evidence of martians that are similar to our size. The martian population is a millimeter-sized race of beings. They cannot be spotted in the mastcam views due to the resolution but some of their structures can be observed, but only if you look closely.

Their tiny size should be of great interest to anthropologists and biologists but I do not see any comments from these communities. They have left a record of their appearance which can be seen carved and sculpted on some of the rock faces. The big question is how did they become so small? Were they always like this or did they reduce in size over millions of years due to the changing conditions on the planet?

I can actually see a face in that photo, it's amazing, I have often dismissed these sort of crazy ideas out of hand but this is truly amazing.
If I hold my ipad at the right angle it looks like a face wearing glasses with maybe a window behind it, possibly a brown tshirt on.


It's just rocks.

reply to post by arianna


I thought we believed they were into genetics, if so wouldn't that account for thier smaller size now, as opposed their original sizes, or is that theory not feasible. I am sure I have observed those images pretty well, and I am sorry but I am not convinced they were created by anything other than natural envoirnmental circumstances. and I do believe in et;s as well as other forms of entities, of course that does not mean you are wrong, its your opinion on those images and this is mine,,, and I do find it interesting, I think we should discuss all aspects or oddities we come across, because the worlds governments sure as hell wont enlighten us, cept maybe Japan who seem to be more open if we believe what we are told that is...

Many members are of the opinion that the large objects showing in the OP are rocks and you are all correct although what is showing on the terrain is of much more interest.

Here is a cropped section from the downloaded image. There are many objects and other fearures to view. If you are having problems finding them I will post another image pointing to them. A larger view is available at the Direct link below.





Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...

arianna
Here is a cropped section from the downloaded image.

If that's from the original NASA image then you did something more than just cropping, you made some changes, the image looks worse.

reply to post by ArMaP


That's exactly what I expected you to say ArMaP.

The OP used some enhanced sectional crops to highlight detail, so what's the problem.

If you can do any better with the image, I would be grateful if you would present your version.

At least my version shows up some interesting detail that cannot be seen clearly in the downloaded original.

I find it quite amazing that some people do not seem prepared to accept the truth of what is actually on the martian surface. We've had images from the Phoenix, the two MER's and now Curiosity that have displayed plenty of tiny-sized civilization evidence. As another member has said on ATS, people will not believe what is really there until it is in their face, so to speak. Even then, there will still be deniers.

Here is an animation of the view posted in the OP showing the difference between the downloaded original and my sharpened version. I have made some adjustments to the image to give it a more natural appearance.

There are many tiny structures showing in the sharpened version that are unable to be realized in the downloaded NASA original. See if you can spot any of them.

arianna
That's exactly what I expected you to say ArMaP.

As long as you post images and say that they were cropped but not that you changed them, I will say things like that.

The OP used some enhanced sectional crops to highlight detail, so what's the problem.

The "enhanced" sections on the image posted in OP were obvious, the changes you made may not be obvious for all people, mostly to those that do not have a properly calibrated monitor and, because of that, may not notice the difference to the original.

Also, the OP posted a link to the original; you, as usual, only posted a link to your version of the image.

If you can do any better with the image, I would be grateful if you would present your version.

It depends on what you want to see better. Do you want to see better what's in the shadows or what's in the brighter areas?

At least my version shows up some interesting detail that cannot be seen clearly in the downloaded original.

How many of those "interesting details" are the result of your "enhancement"?

I find it quite amazing that some people do not seem prepared to accept the truth of what is actually on the martian surface.

I find it amusing that some people think that what they think is the truth and all other people must be wrong, even when they know that they can "see" those "interesting details" in unrelated photos.

You have an opinion, that doesn't make it the truth, in the same way my opinion or anyone else's doesn't make it the truth either.

The real truth is not related to what anyone thinks, although what some people think may be closer to the truth than others.

We've had images from the Phoenix, the two MER's and now Curiosity that have displayed plenty of tiny-sized civilization evidence.

As far as I remember, of all ATS members that have posted about those thousands of photos, only two people see those signs of "tiny-sized civilizations", while all other members do not see it. We may be all wrong, but I don't think that's the case.

As another member has said on ATS, people will not believe what is really there until it is in their face, so to speak. Even then, there will still be deniers.

While other people only believe in their preconceived opinions and are unable to change their minds, even when they are proved wrong.

PS: I will try to get a better version of that photo.

Here is the link for the image I downloaded from the MSL site.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

ArMaP, All I ask is that you produce an improved image of the same sectional crop that I posted above and include your version in an animation so that comparison can be made with the downloaded version.

The image I produced, as you can see from the animation, is a vast improvement on what we are being led to believe is the real deal, when it isn't. There seems to be a policy within NASA and the people who deal with the image handling of the Curiosity images to visually confuse the viewing public. In other words, something is being covered up in plain sight but what could it be? I think I know the answer and you made reference to it in your post above.

What many genuine researchers want to see are the changes in the colour of the geology and the terrain in general. Also, what colour is the sky where Curiosity is located? Are there any signs of grass or any other vegetable matter on the terrain? The current selection of released images do not give viewers the opportunity to make that determination.

It's also obvious that many of the Curiosity images are slightly out of focus. Now, whether that is a fault during the image capture or the result of software modification after the images are received back on earth is unknown but the sharpness of many of the images leaves room for improvement.

arianna
ArMaP, All I ask is that you produce an improved image of the same sectional crop that I posted above and include your version in an animation so that comparison can be made with the downloaded version.

As I asked before, what do you want me to try to improve, the darker or the brighter areas? And I suppose you know that an animated GIF is limited to just 256 colours, so it cannot really show the difference between colours, just an approximation.

The image I produced, as you can see from the animation, is a vast improvement on what we are being led to believe is the real deal, when it isn't.

The image you produced also looks resized in some way, did you resized it? And while it shows better some areas it shows some other areas worse.

What many genuine researchers want to see are the changes in the colour of the geology and the terrain in general. Also, what colour is the sky where Curiosity is located? Are there any signs of grass or any other vegetable matter on the terrain? The current selection of released images do not give viewers the opportunity to make that determination.

The images do give viewers the opportunity to make that determination, but those "genuine researchers" ignore what is shown because it does not show what they want to see, something that, apparently, isn't there.

It's also obvious that many of the Curiosity images are slightly out of focus.

Could you give us an example of one or two of those many images? Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yes, I know the colour range of gif's is limited.

All I ask is for you to produce an image that is sharper than the downloaded image if that particular NASA image is indeed the original version.

The downloaded image is 1344 pixels wide. After making the crop the width was 1065 pixels. The image was then resized using bicubic interpolation from 1065 pixels to 1000 pixels. The 580 pixels smaller image was obtained from the 1000 pixels image which was then softened and then sharpened. The same aspect ratio was maintained for this process. No other changes or adjustments were made to the 580 pixels image.

The focus of the downlaoded image is terrible, like many of the other Curiosity images. Could it possibly be that the sharpness of these images is being changed by the image handlers to visually confuse the viewer?

Some threads on this subject are very interesting, and show odd things in the images. This isn't one of them, no offense. I just see rocks.

arianna
Yes, I know the colour range of gif's is limited.

Good, I was just checking.

All I ask is for you to produce an image that is sharper than the downloaded image if that particular NASA image is indeed the original version.

As far as I know that's the original version (at least the unprocessed version, without using the camera and environment parameters to make corrections), as posted on the NASA site.

I will post a sharper version of the image.

The downloaded image is 1344 pixels wide. After making the crop the width was 1065 pixels. The image was then resized using bicubic interpolation from 1065 pixels to 1000 pixels. The 580 pixels smaller image was obtained from the 1000 pixels image which was then softened and then sharpened. The same aspect ratio was maintained for this process. No other changes or adjustments were made to the 580 pixels image.

"No other changes or adjustments" after all those things.

I asked because I noticed that the JPEG artefacts were "dissolved" into the rest of the image, and that usually happens as the result of resampling or softening.

The focus of the downlaoded image is terrible, like many of the other Curiosity images.

The focus is good, the only problem I have with those images is the excessive compression, with many compression artefacts.

Could it possibly be that the sharpness of these images is being changed by the image handlers to visually confuse the viewer?

No need for that, the viewers confuse themselves without any external help.

Here are two sharpened versions of that image.

In this image I used the "unsharp mask" tool in Gimp.


In this one I used a method that I usually use to make the edges more noticeable. I just called it "ArMaP's edge enhancement" because it's easier to give it a name.


As expected, both image gained a little (I never make large adjustments) in detail (including the detail in the JPEG artefacts) but lost a little quality.

I hope this helps.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thank you ArMaP, I am very grateful for your contribution and your time.

I think the GIMP version is the better of the two and comes close to the image I produced. I think both versions, yours and mine, show that the images we are downloading may not be the true originals.

Our modified images are definitely sharper without any degradation of the finer detail. I think the image I produced shows a little more detail. I will post an image pointing to the objects that I think are tiny structures. If I am right in thinking that there is a tiny-sized existence living on Mars we have to align our understanding of what we would expect to see if we were their size. Obviously, what we as humans regard as small to medium sized rocks on the surface to a tiny-sized species would be very huge and heavy objects.

arianna
I think both versions, yours and mine, show that the images we are downloading may not be the true originals.

There's no way of showing if an image is an original or not.

Our modified images are definitely sharper without any degradation of the finer detail.

There's degradation of the finer detail. If you use the processed image in a layer and the unprocessed in another and change the viewing mode (or whatever is called) to "difference" you will see the differences between the two images.

Thank you NASA for satisfying my curiosity about this rock....if it's the right one?



But it's weird those egg like holes , wonder how those were formed?

Originally posted by arianna
Here is an animation of the view posted in the OP showing the difference between the downloaded original and my sharpened version. I have made some adjustments to the image to give it a more natural appearance.

There are many tiny structures showing in the sharpened version that are unable to be realized in the downloaded NASA original. See if you can spot any of them.

Take the ORIGINAL image and use lightzone,lightroom,photo ninja or dxo optics pro load the picture and use the listed software's detail option and I can see what you claim, it a local contrast adjustment to the image NOTHING to do with tiny martians!!!

reply to post by 0bserver1


Do you have a reference for the image posted above?

Thanks in advance.