Hoagland pic...Mars Curiosity "Pump" Anomaly???? Not a Rock...

wmd_2008
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Have you checked the resolution of the original picture, the circular shape may well look symmetrical due to it's size in the image but if seen closer up or at a higher resolution the symmetry may be lost.

To many of these Mars/Moon pictures on here rely on POOR resolution to provide the illusion of the object being unnatural that and members being desperate to find evidence to back there beliefs.

I mean look at Richard Hoaxlands claim of glass tubes on Mars based on images like this.

Glass Tubes

Then when pictured in hi resolution you see what they really are.

When the picture below loads click on it for full size.

Hi Res Glass Tubes

Hoaxland does that all the time.

That's not totally fair, the glass tube bit was bandied about by many people, and the pictures first available were ambiguous until better stuff comes along. A.C. Clarke was also mystified with the tubes, and he did call them tubes as far as I recall. As I also recall NASA was correct far back then, they called them concave, valleys formed by the wind, and that's what they are, and not convex and tubular.
As a caveat, I'll stick my neck out here and say if you tried to walk along those valley walls or peaks, you'd just disappear, as it would be likely akin to walking on feathers, or talcum powder. The wind on Mars has so much less force, and that only much less dense material could be affected by it, something that is not often mentioned.

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Excellent post. Although I generally loathe Richard Hoagland...this image is extremely interesting. I heard him talking about it during his interview with Art Bell on his new show.

It is hard to see how any known geological process could create something with such complex geometry. To my novice eye it does resemble a piece from some kind of pump.

It would definitley be a good idea for NASA to task their robot to go take a look, I doubt they have anything more interesting to look at than this.

S & F

Here is another pair of pictures, just appeared on the raw images website. One can use them as stereo pair:

left [url=http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=NLB_433192603EDR_F0160328NCAM00398M_&s=402]


and

right [url=http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=NRB_433192603EDR_F0160328NCAM00398M_&s=402]

It looks like the remains of some column to me.

Any comments?

tinyDAWK
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

I wonder how big it is

I have been wondering the same thing....nothing to reference from that I can tell though.

howmuch4another
I find myself posting "rock" on threads in this forum because it is useless to argue with people seeing what they want to see like rodents or boat propellers. That said I think this is very interesting and looks very out of place. Thank you to the OP

I typically find myself doing the same thing on most posts of this sort however I could not do so upon seeing this picture.

sprtpilot
There is more than just the pipe shape in the middle, if you enlarge it, in the upper right there is what looks like a mounting flange with two holes.

I see what you are talking about. I am dumbfounded by the symmetry of the entire object.

Cool!
Definitely does not resemble a rock.
Nice one!

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Very interesting picture. The zoomed in picture shows the upper protusions more, which look like evenly placed screws. I don't know if that's what they are, just saying...interesting.

deadcalm
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Excellent post. Although I generally loathe Richard Hoagland...this image is extremely interesting. I heard him talking about it during his interview with Art Bell on his new show.

It is hard to see how any known geological process could create something with such complex geometry. To my novice eye it does resemble a piece from some kind of pump.

It would definitley be a good idea for NASA to task their robot to go take a look, I doubt they have anything more interesting to look at than this.

S & F

I feel the same about Hoagland and have called him Hoaxland on numerous threads. I have not listened to the interview yet but will try to this weekend.

I think NASA should get a little more in depth with this one.

reply to post by preston2005


Links don't work.....

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Sorry, could not make links working because of some reason. Please, just simply copy them, and paste them into the brawser address field, one by one.

You know, I could have written it all off, but the circle part just about aimed at the camera is kinda supporting the overall object. ANYTHING else I've seen of mars pics can be written off, this one is a bit over the top. I'll have to read the whole thread and see the debunking. Very intriguing.

Vasa Croe

Tardacus
If it`s not a rock than it`s probably a part of one of the many mars explorers that crashed.

NASA isn`t the only ones that have sent explorers to mars,the russians sent a few but they all crashed I think NASA even sent one that crashed.
There isn`t much gravity up there so I think parts from crashed explorers could travel a long way before finally settling down on the martian surface.

My question on that note would be could "corrosion" have done that much damage over a fairly short period of time to a part that was made for space travel? It appears very corroded.

Mars has a mostly nitrogen atmosphere with no oxygen so that things on Mars would decay VERY slowly.
Whatever this is I think we can rule out anything that we left up there.

As for the size of the object , Richard says that it is about the size of an old fashioned telephone.

The thing that makes me say it looks like a end peice on a boster rocket for deceleration is the cylinder looking thing on the side. Rockets generally have a hole like that for a ignition primer.

When I was in the army I once had to destroy a buch of 2.75 rockets because they misfired at a range. We didn't use enough C4 so parts were kicked out everywhere. Those caps were solid brass but I would imagine NASA would use a much lighter material. When I zoom in on the pic though it doesn't look very even so unless it was deformed on impact or from the burn I am kind of stumped.

The other idea would be wind erosion and it once sat on top of a rock cap. Take a look at some pics of the desert in Colorado with boulders siting on top of columns and you will see what I mean.

Rather than sitting around guessing what it might be maybe someone with the knowledge of the other probes that went to Mars could check if that object looks like an external part of one of them so to rule it in or out.

People have said it looks like a wind eroded set of rocks which I would have said fits except there's clearly a pipe shaped object coming out of it which isn't eroded. That and the extremely close dimensions and ratios that define its symmetry are too precise a match all over the object.

My bet is part of a probe...

Well it certainly looks out of place when you view the object in context. Here are some links back to the original NASA images:
Image1
Image2

If I were hiking across an otherwise boring landscape, this would catch my eye and pique my "Curiosity." I think it would have been worthwhile to investigate this further when the MSL was there. But this image was taken last year.

When I first saw it, I thought it looked like a trolley wheel from a crane:


NASA should take advantage of these opportunities to involve the public. Even when it turns out to be a case of pareidolia, the fact that these high and mighty scientists came down from their ivory towers to interact with the people paying for their toys would help to get the public in the spirit for space travel.

Dex

Kaworu

I was trying to figure out what that "thing" reminded me of and it just hit me. It sorta looks like the D.H.D (Dial-Home Device) from the Stargate movies and t.v. series.

So I cant post pics with my phone hmmm. Any member care to post a pic of the Stargate D.H.D for me for those that don't know. Thank you in advance.

Hmmm .... after you say what the object reminds you, definitely a rock.
I believe that if we use our eyes and reason (not imagination or wishes) will probably arrive to the conclusion that it's just a rock. A rock with strange features but a rock. On Earth you are finding them all the time ... it's even a hooby for a lot of folks to go find strange, peculiar rocks ....I already saw pictures here on ATS of rocks from mars that are stranger than this one (e.g. one picture by the phoenix lander ... the one with the helicoidal piece of rock that I think was never explained).
Regards

Vasa Croe

deadcalm
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Excellent post. Although I generally loathe Richard Hoagland...this image is extremely interesting. I heard him talking about it during his interview with Art Bell on his new show.

It is hard to see how any known geological process could create something with such complex geometry. To my novice eye it does resemble a piece from some kind of pump.

It would definitley be a good idea for NASA to task their robot to go take a look, I doubt they have anything more interesting to look at than this.

S & F

I feel the same about Hoagland and have called him Hoaxland on numerous threads. I have not listened to the interview yet but will try to this weekend.

I think NASA should get a little more in depth with this one.

Can I ask why you think NASA should get a little more in depth? Personally I think it is debris either from Curiosity landing or from a previous mission. I understand your need for some closure on this, but the Curiosity mission isn't there to look or check up on such things and it's not as though there is an unlimited timespan for Curiosity to do what it was sent there to do. Now, if there was something NASA didn't expect to see, then I would agree with you. Having said that, have you mailed NASA and asked if, out of interest, it could provide any comment?

uncommitted

Vasa Croe

deadcalm
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Excellent post. Although I generally loathe Richard Hoagland...this image is extremely interesting. I heard him talking about it during his interview with Art Bell on his new show.

It is hard to see how any known geological process could create something with such complex geometry. To my novice eye it does resemble a piece from some kind of pump.

It would definitley be a good idea for NASA to task their robot to go take a look, I doubt they have anything more interesting to look at than this.

S & F

I feel the same about Hoagland and have called him Hoaxland on numerous threads. I have not listened to the interview yet but will try to this weekend.

I think NASA should get a little more in depth with this one.

Can I ask why you think NASA should get a little more in depth? Personally I think it is debris either from Curiosity landing or from a previous mission. I understand your need for some closure on this, but the Curiosity mission isn't there to look or check up on such things and it's not as though there is an unlimited timespan for Curiosity to do what it was sent there to do. Now, if there was something NASA didn't expect to see, then I would agree with you. Having said that, have you mailed NASA and asked if, out of interest, it could provide any comment?

I think for NASA to have taken the time to take a picture of this object lends credence to their thinking it was of significance. I don't really have a need for closure on it but would like to understand what it may be. I would think that if it were a piece of a downed prior mission then they would want to take a closer look too. I can't say I thought NASA expected to see this unless they already knew it was there somehow.

And no...I have not emailed NASA about it....

Mclaneinc
Rather than sitting around guessing what it might be maybe someone with the knowledge of the other probes that went to Mars could check if that object looks like an external part of one of them so to rule it in or out.

People have said it looks like a wind eroded set of rocks which I would have said fits except there's clearly a pipe shaped object coming out of it which isn't eroded. That and the extremely close dimensions and ratios that define its symmetry are too precise a match all over the object.

My bet is part of a probe...

edit on 27-9-2013 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)

Same thoughts here. The symmetry and ratios are too even.

I don't know if we have any members here that could actually identify this but I would guess that it will be identified sometime in the near future as Hoagland will probably get a lot of emails over that picture.