Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

Baddogma
reply to post by Aleister

 

Just popping in to subscribe and find this monstrously huge thread again... some neat things you guys have found... but I'm still waiting for the smoking gun... an actual nickle plated Mars version of a .45 with a wisp of smoke curling from the perfectly circular barrel and notches scratched into the ivory handle.

I will say that some of those circular formations/accretions sure could be fossils... so keep up with the searching (as if you guys need any incentive from me).

And "Hi" Al... thanks for the reminder.

Hi Baddogma, me pal. Glad to see you here, a fine thread to both play on and analyze on. The circle things have been good, some really nice possibles in other forms in the thread. Char-Lee alone has kept popping up things which are worth a look, and funbox, and the rest. One I really like was Buzz's original "spoke" which still has me wanting to point that one out. The one that Arken is now working a thread on, that seems very good. It's really a coincidence that one of the best finds of all time was from the Rover in 2004 (I think) right in the small crater where it landed.

The odds I look for, as I've said, are the one-percenters, the ones which maybe could be, ah put some light on it this way, have a one-percent chance of being a Mars fossil. Getting those every once in awhile is why it's worth coming to this thread, and playing alongside the people here is the fun part of coming to this thread. That's my take. I thought we had a few smoking guns and they ended up to be whatever was smoking, and rocks and sand.

Here's a new thread put up about those light sources discussed earlier. The thread, six hours later, has Phage once again calmly explaining the explainable while being pummeled with eggs. funbox, Phage, and ArMap combined here to answer that mystery hours before that thread was born:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

funbox
reply to post by alienreality

 

should be interesting to see the result.. what package is this then ?

funBox

The so called resolution increasing software?
I have used a few, and they all compare fairly well. The older "Eye candy" plugin isn't too bad. A better one is standalone and also plugins for PS, by AKVIS there is a bunch in that package, Enhancer, Magnifier, lightshop, noise buster and refocus.. They seem to work a lot better and the way you want it to when you use it on the best source with the highest existing resolution available, which totally understandable.
There are some new generation ones coming out that aren't public yet that are supposed to dramatically increase an image's quality, but I haven't seen it first hand. I also have some newer cheaper ones that aren't very good. "resolution increasing software" has a few pitfalls but works if it isn't expected to change a horse into a frog or something

The ones I used do take away a layer at 20% reduction in opacity to transparency of whatever NASA is doing to these images, exposing more of the exact same things people find in the original images.. It is a bit odd I give it that. Also, it doesn't add in any false junk, if carefully done a bit at a time until getting used to what it does. that same junk in the original can still be seen, but becomes a bit more transparent after enhancing.

I'll post that car engine block later tonight, gotta run..

reply to post by Aleister

This clearly shows

Actually not much clear about that picture really :-)

reply to post by Aleister


I just read it , , yeah who was it who said that about the campfire like it

and yeah Aleister, whats this about two rocks making the eel head anomaly ? I just see one twisted rock

funBox

Some nice martian art on the stone block running from 9 ish to center mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Aleister
Here's a new thread put up about those light sources discussed earlier. The thread, six hours later, has Phage once again calmly explaining the explainable while being pummeled with eggs. funbox, Phage, and ArMap combined here to answer that mystery hours before that thread was born:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 6-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

From the scientific point of view those lights in images are unexplainable.
Why?
Well, since there is no actual instrument on MSL designed to detect particles hiting the camera sensors in that exact spot, they could be anything.
0.02$

reply to post by alienreality


ahh cool , photoshop plugins , yeah I don't think ive ever used any of those before , could you msg me some links about them ?

ive used most of the eyecandy plugins , along with the alien skin range, the others ive not seen , and I doubt they would be any use as long as we keep getting pictures that are 70% compressed.. ah well would be fun to have a play about though

funBox

Did the rover run over a wheel? mars.jpl.nasa.gov... bad res but its definatly circular

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


well I don't think the cameras have a choice in detecting them, the energy released on the sensors photosite masks the original photons colour.. its not something that's wanted but happens , arnt these the same particles that can take out sensitive electronics too?

funBox

symptomoftheuniverse
Some nice martian art on the stone block running from 9 ish to center mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

indeed almost sarcophagus like



can you read Martian then Symtoms ?

funBox

funbox

symptomoftheuniverse
Some nice martian art on the stone block running from 9 ish to center mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

indeed almost sarcophagus like

can you read Martian then Symtoms ?

funBox

lol yes i can.. the blue planet,our future home, but im staying here where the wild marsimals roam. or something like that

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


I wonder if these things taste chalky ?





stick a knife into them and they explode with a bang

funBox

reply to post by funbox


Never mind, I remember that one for sure, an oldie/goodie.

reply to post by funbox


Not the whole object, but the top part where the piston or whatever people call it is bolted onto the object. From ArMap's gif that piece is, to me, clearly not a part of the object but is behind it, two or more rocks combining (as they tend to do on cold days).

alienreality
The top portion at a perfect 90 degree angle to the wrench, the pivot point is that upper shaft, when you depress the corresponding pedal on the floor of the car, that upper shaft turns on it's own axis and thus activates the clutch, or brake.

I think I understand it now, thanks.

and this is a tad better in resolution..

Sorry, that's useless garbage, it looks nothing like the original image, please use the image I posted, as that's the best available.

zilebeliveunknown
From the scientific point of view those lights in images are unexplainable.
Why?
Well, since there is no actual instrument on MSL designed to detect particles hiting the camera sensors in that exact spot, they could be anything.
0.02$

If you close your eyes and someone hits one of them you will see what is commonly known as "seeing stars". Consider the cosmic ray explanation as an electronic version of that.

0.02€ = 0.027$

reply to post by ArMaP


I got the original image from the NASA site, not the one you posted, as that one is not the same and looks far more blury.. Sorry if that hurts your feelings
My image is indeed not a very good one, but it is higher in res, and I can email it then you can open the damn thing and see what the pixel depth is compared to yours, but now I doubt you even care and are doing your usual "manhandling" of other posters.
Get over it and move forward and stop with the insulting responses to things.

reply to post by alienreality

Sigh, can't we all just get along? Here's something I think we can all agree on: this is one of the worst examples of photoshop/ airbrushing ever. I've seen areas that have been blurred in many of the images I've viewed, but this one is so obvious! Do they not care anymore that we know they intentionally manipulate these images? And what exactly is so secret that they feel compelled to erase any hint of its existence by adding all this faux sand?

ArMaP
If there's something that we all could learn from this thread is that we should never be sure about any thing, specially when our opinion is based in just one image.

To be really sure of what we're looking at, we'll have to wait for the next time a probe is sent to the spot to get a better picture.