Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

a reply to: this thread

Semi-circular feature from sol 730, possibly with segmentation (although unlikely):

Source Image

Probably just eroded that way over the eons. Would love to see this up-close, though ...

a reply to: jeep3r

oddly enough I found something similar in the new batch



mast 729

a martian can pullring ?

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: jeep3r

oddly enough I found something similar in the new batch
mast 729

a martian can pullring?

Either that ... or is it already time to get our fossil identification chart out of our pockets?

Source: Kentucky Geological Survey

The link above provides the same chart and you can actually click on one of the shapes to see what kind of organism produces such fossils. May come in handy, once we stumble upon something similar (encrusted in stone) ...

a reply to: ArMaP

scientists , im sure well be waiting till after the prizes have been given out to one or two of them before we get the full lowdown , but then that's nothing new , the approval from the peers must be gained before tiptoeing into uncharted waters

a reply to: jeep3r
great chart Jeep , so interesting to see the mirrors of the gargantuan into the micro/macro .. im sure we've found a few good contenders so far , or at least enough to raise the eyebrows of a bobby watching a line up.

a reply to: Aleister

that's exactly the sort of mental conjugational agility im talking about, er, you are jibbing me aren't you ? if so go out and do it for real * an extremely Gandalf shaped portal appears, the room goes black *,a startled yet curious astro-geologist drops to the floor* .. that was like a good chumping in a densely packed shark pool, with luck the thread could soon be a froth with the juices of confirmatory astro-geologists opinions , all floating on the promise of a noble peace prize

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
scientists , im sure well be waiting till after the prizes have been given out to one or two of them before we get the full lowdown , but then that's nothing new , the approval from the peers must be gained before tiptoeing into uncharted waters

I don't think so, all the times I have sent emails to NASA scientists they appeared happy to talk about their work.

originally posted by: jeep3r
Either that ... or is it already time to get our fossil identification chart out of our pockets?

Those half-circle, C shapes are pretty common. Even more than complete circles. Looking back over the stuff I've posted, they seem to be the most prevalent. I don't know what might make that the best shape for an organism on Mars. Possibly something to do with being able to catch sparse water, or the way they're heated by sunlight?

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

This image has an object that appears to be an assembly from wreckage and shows some interesting details of civilization and technology.


There is also what appears to be a jeep or aircraft looking cowl-fireall-cockpit assembly with a flange surface for the top that is missing. It is in the bottom right of the original image.

This image is an older one posted about and is the same one Arken posted that has the "Anvil" looking object in it.

I see a lot of things in the image that look like metal and I do not take the route as most here that they are all rocks and explainable by nature. NASA lets a lot slip through but much of the rest are carefully airbrushed. (MY OPINION).

All it takes is to be caught only once in a lie, and NASA has lied to the public a lot more than that.

In this image is also a mummified corpse laying face up if you look carefully enough to find it.
Been watching the thread for a long time and thought I would post, but I do not agree that mars images show only rocks.
I am just sure that people are going to spend billions just to take pictures of rocks. (like the recent so called comet that isn't a comet).

a reply to: ArMaP


do we have to wait for your biography to be published ? spill the beans

funbox

a reply to: funbox

I think the first time that happened was six years ago (time flies when we're having fun), because of the following image from a NASA presentation.



I went looking for an email address for the person that made the presentation (James Garvin), found it, and I sent him an email asking about it. He answered back with an explanation that those images were examples of how they would classify the possible outcomes of the exploration of Mars.

I have done the same thing in other cases, and most people answer me.

a reply to: ArMaP

very funny , extraordinarily so even , how long was it before you stopped laughing after reading his email reply ?

funbox

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I see rocks, not machine parts or a mummified corpse. And the zoom is at a percentage that it both blurs the data and adds data to the photograph, photo anomalies account for much of what you may be seeing. Good work though, and nice to meet you. If you have a few minutes or days, please go over some parts of this thread and see how pixel's work with gif and the type of photos NASA and JPL release, and how it's easy to see 'zoomed in' things which aren't there (I had an almost perfect skeleton once, back in the day (month), which turned out to be all pixel distortion).

Another circle thing. Sol 303. I generally don't even post these anymore, because they're too common. Must be a mundane explanation for them.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I see rocks, not machine parts or a mummified corpse. And the zoom is at a percentage that it both blurs the data and adds data to the photograph, photo anomalies account for much of what you may be seeing. Good work though, and nice to meet you. If you have a few minutes or days, please go over some parts of this thread and see how pixel's work with gif and the type of photos NASA and JPL release, and how it's easy to see 'zoomed in' things which aren't there (I had an almost perfect skeleton once, back in the day (month), which turned out to be all pixel distortion).

The corpse is in the larger full version of the original image..
I am sorry you are not able to see what I'm talking about in the blow up, it is plain as can be but you do have to look carefully, not just a nonchalant glance. If still unable to see what I am mentioning, then forensic investigation of images might not be a good career choice. (It doesn't take one to see what I am trying to show here, but obviously not a whole lot of people can see much in any of these mars images, especially in this thread. Those who come out and discuss such things in this thread are dominated by those who "Can't see anything" I find that interesting.

Sure, then they come back and say "well, maybe there isn't anything to see" Not for them, that's for sure.

I did say you have to look carefully for the corpse. It was pointed out to me by someone who usually doesn't see much except rocks, so it takes study, and not just haphazard looks.

originally posted by: funbox
very funny

, extraordinarily so even , how long was it before you stopped laughing after reading his email reply ?

I didn't laugh, I rarely laugh.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Another circle thing. Sol 303. I generally don't even post these anymore, because they're too common. Must be a mundane explanation for them.

nice find, and please post more. On the one-percent chance that these are the same pattern of a fossilized shell type which is pretty common of the extremely tiny-slice of land that the Rover is traveling over, on that one-percent chance, please post as many as you think are good ones. Tedious work, but adds to the data pool. As for a mundane explanation, which may fill as much as 99 percent of the explanations for the commonality of this shape, I don't know one, and I'm not a geologists, who yes, to expand on funbox's idea, a few of us should at least alert the explorers among them who may want to write a paper or two once they put in the time to read and view the entire thread and the growth that many of us have gone through in this thread. In my case at least (look ma, there's these maybe-blueits and maybe-other lifeforms on Mars! and I broke out a few jumping-the-gun threads like a Martian idiot). So if we let them know of the existence of this thread, to give the curious and exploring among them a heads up, we'll need a forum or blog link or eddresses, I don't know any. funbox and I should write them, as we I think are one-percent believers still, and ArMap, who has never committed on any of this stuff as a "maybe" and could thus contact them from that valuable point of view, anyone else? Thanks funbox, for pushing the group to do something on that level, at least a "someone may want to look at these 3,000 plus pages, if you put the time to least jump every 40th or 60th page to see if there is an interesting flow taking place, and slow down in the last hundred pages or so (more? less? tossing out 100 as a rough estimate of a mix of both fun and good finds) to ascertain if a one-percent chance for any of these to be a fossil remnant of past life Mars holds up to professional opinion? thanks.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

And that's cool. This is the thread to post the stuff on. I don't see it, no, but others might and may start up an entire discussion. But the point of this thread is to publish your research. I commented on your research, that's all. I'm gonna bring my perfect skeleton to this post in a few minutes, loved me a skeleton on Mars, which was carefully explained to me by people who knew that I was seeing things in photo-artifacts that it was a photo-artifact and not a skeleton - but the fun thing of the thread is that for a good amount of time I thought there was maybe a one-percent chance I'd discovered a skeleton of a mammal on Mars. That's the fun. I'll go get it, but before I do, there are still lots of things, especially from a handful of people, which I still think exists in that one-percent frame. But that's only my opinion, one poster who's stuck with the thread but haven't explored much in the past two months, so I'm commenting lately one on the good finds of others and sometimes finding a fun face in their pics. Okay, I'll get my skeleton, in a minute.

I actually opened up a break-away thread about this until some kind and wise admin took the thread by the hand and trash-binned it.

But for awhile, boy-o-boy, it sure looked like it could have been a ghost's chance of a money's uncle of being a skeleton. I'll get two pictures, one the full skeleton, another the skull and neck bones with some shoulder bone in there.





here's another hue of it:



this has been the photo-artifact tricky gimmee that I've been caught up in the most, except for blueit (those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end), and it and blueit were simply photo artifacts or camera angles. We all loved ourselves some blueit.

a reply to: funbox
Hi there, under the rock far left in hard to see square I made:-) is that an image artifact?
Still following along with you guys.



mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Char-Lee

Char-Lee! I'm actually tearing up a little, I guess this is my home thread. If you come back and start exploring I'll get back into it too. Is it time for the really good stuff yet? Some of these finds lately seem to be pointing in that direction.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Hi there, under the rock far left in hard to see square I made:-) is that an image artifact?

It looks like one.

a reply to: ArMaP

well with adjectives like exciting and extraordinary I can see why people would need to know the difference , and as usual, your right ArMaP , its no laughing matter , why one could accidently call a robot arm "null".. imagine !

funBox