Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

reply to post by Aleister


is there a separate thread for skulls? , I sence another sudden influx of pictures coming from jpl

another oddity from sol 494


funBox

Aleister

 

Here's an informed post on the original Spine thread, by a former lunar cartographer:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for referencing those posts, Aleister! Here's one of the replies you linked, taken from Arken's original thread:

Reply by Rimjaja

As someone who works with spines on a daily basis, the first pics truly look like articulated bones, complete with spiny processes and facet joints. I can write off some of the other pics as wishful thinking, but I don't know what else the first photo could be other than skeletal remains.

Spine or not, ventifact or not: when looking at all of the images in this thread's OP, we should appreciate the amount of pronounced shapes featuring a variety of regular and repetitive elements.

IMO it would be too much of a generalization to say it's all natural without looking closer and putting all of it into perspective. Also, let's not forget that Curiosity was located very close to those features over an extended period of time. Taking high resolution images of these formations wouldn't have delayed the mission or put the rover at risk in any way, but might have provided 100% certainty about whether it's just rocks or not.

jeep3r

Aleister

 

Here's an informed post on the original Spine thread, by a former lunar cartographer:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for referencing those posts, Aleister! Here's one of the replies you linked, taken from Arken's original thread:

Reply by Rimjaja

As someone who works with spines on a daily basis, the first pics truly look like articulated bones, complete with spiny processes and facet joints. I can write off some of the other pics as wishful thinking, but I don't know what else the first photo could be other than skeletal remains.

Spine or not, ventifact or not: when looking at all of the images in this thread's OP, we should appreciate the amount of pronounced shapes featuring a variety of regular and repetitive elements.

IMO it would be too much of a generalization to say it's all natural without looking closer and putting all of it into perspective. Also, let's not forget that Curiosity was located very close to those features over an extended period of time. Taking high resolution images of these formations wouldn't have delayed the mission or put the rover at risk in any way, but might have provided 100% certainty about whether it's just rocks or not.

edit on 5-1-2014 by jeep3r because: text

YET you cannot look closer by making the classic mistake that some people base their threads on zoomed in images which show NO MORE DETAIL .

There are many pictures of ventifacts on Earth with repeating features here is one

Ventifact Cliff

Imagine how that may look when the cliff face breaks up.

The ROCK that looks like a spine could quite easily be a larger rock with holes through it that broke up.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yes, it could very well be a windworn rock, and is very likely just that. But the point of some of the posters, including myself, is that this and maybe a few other pictures should be purposely made available to further professionals in their fields for comments. I would enjoy reading detailed analysis by experts who think it may be a spinal fossil and exact descriptions of why they may think so, with details and medical/biological back-up. I u2u'ed the Doctor who has posted on this thread in hopes of having a more detailed description, but haven't heard back as yet and am hoping they come by this way again.

wmd_2008

 

YET you cannot look closer by making the classic mistake that some people base their threads on zoomed in images which show NO MORE DETAIL .

There are many pictures of ventifacts on Earth with repeating features here is one
Ventifact Cliff

Imagine how that may look when the cliff face breaks up. The ROCK that looks like a spine could quite easily be a larger rock with holes through it that broke up.

Your arguments are all valid and your interpretation is absolutely rational, no question. A wind eroded cliff split in half (and buried) could look a bit similar, I guess. But then there probably wouldn't be so much discussion going on as is the case in threads like these...

Others on here and myself obviously think that a variety of features in this thread could possibly be more than just rocks. And therefore, I'd again like to emphasize my main arguments:

- when spotting such formations, in an otherwise homogeneous landscape, would you not take a closer look?
- there was enough time to image these formations up-close, yet it didn't happen (at least officially not)
- even a very distinctively shaped ventifact on Mars(!) could and should be something of interest
- some formations do not only display repetitive elements, but also seemingly functional and geometric properties
- the surface shows impact debris and possibly other materials intermingled & encrusted in certain formations


Add in the layer of dust on top of most of the martian landscape and it becomes almost impossible to certainly conclude something is just a rock. And even if they turn out to be natural formations, some more specialist opinion would really be helpful in order to not generalize too much when interpreting the overall situation.

reply to post by jeep3r

MARS CURIOS
Target Image = Mast Camera (Mastcam)
2013-12-26 18 04 06 UTC 0494ML1967055000E1_DXXX
SOL = 494
Zoom/Magnify for these specific targets are 375%.

"Mars Curios" X-Y Pixel Coordinates within this image are;
a) 934X - 388Y
b) 923X - 331Y
c) 880X - 499Y
d) 790X - 339Y
e) 1092X - 652Y
f) 980X - 696Y
g) 1061X - 649Y
h) 815X - 192Y
I) 627X - 229Y
j) 679X - 241Y

MSL "Mars Curio" Viewing procedure...
1) Connect a computer capable of HDMI output to at least a 32 inch widescreen monitor/television at 1080P or greater resolution.

2) Go to mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
and go to "Science Cameras" and locate the section for "Mast Camera (Mastcam)".

3) In the "Mast Camera (Mastcam)" section, choose the SOL that corresponds to the target image needed.

4) Under the section of "SUBFRAME Data Product" find the target image via the date-timestamp under the images... do NOT choose "THUMBNAIL Data Product".

5) Select "Full Resolution" directly under the target date and save to your pictures folder.

6) Open your image viewer of choice and load the target image (I use Irfanview, which is free). IMPORTANT - Set the zoom/magnify setting to the referenced level.

7) With your image viewer software find the pixel target within the target image (the pixel X-Y coordinates) and you will be at the referenced "Mars Curio" to view for yourself & think for yourself..

reply to post by BuzzDengue


Is this the image you're talking about in your post?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Checked some of the coordinates you indicated but didn't see anything out of the ordinary at first glance. In case I missed it, could you perhaps post a snapshot instead of coordinates?

reply to post by jeep3r


I am using a VERY large panel TV monitor for my purposes. Connect your computer that is capable of HDMI output to at least a 32 inch widescreen monitor/television at 1080P or greater resolution. I am using IrfanView (free) as my viewer. Make sure that you adjust your zoom level to the shown level.

The point in not posting the actual pic is that when you go through the effort using only the source data to view, you have inherently verified the item... otherwise you (and everyone else) have to go through viewing it twice to avoid adulterated images, thereby, Denying Ignorance... or at least in my feeble mind...

reply to post by jeep3r


... sorry, I owe you more of an answer...

This is the source image for my 2014-1-6 posting...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

This is the source image for my 2014-1-7 posting...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

jeep3r
reply to post by BuzzDengue

 

Is this the image you're talking about in your post?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Checked some of the coordinates you indicated but didn't see anything out of the ordinary at first glance. In case I missed it, could you perhaps post a snapshot instead of coordinates?

Yes, jeep3r the image is:
0494ML1967055000E1_DXXX
for my post on 2014-01-06
Here are pics...
(can somebody help me with how to get these pics in a more presentable format when inserting to forum posts? Sorry this looks messy, but I think the content is good... imo)

reply to post by BuzzDengue


Thanks for posting those images, Buzz.

Although I can see why some of the snapshots look interesting to you, I think the resolution is much too low to conclude anything based on these cropped images. Also, most of the features you are referencing are too far away IMO.

This is not to say that the things you highlighted may not be something else than rocks, but we are dealing with compressed JPG images and some of what we see above may well be compression artifacts. Even if I'd go ahead and zoom in on those images, we wouldn't get more detail out of them. It would look much smoother (eg. via bicubic sampling) but there would be no additional information in such enlarged images. Accordingly, we can't get anymore details out of the source material, unfortunately.

The above explains why, in my OP on page one, I only presented formations with a minimum resolution that allows for clearly recognizing shapes that are different from the surrounding rocks. If you come across anything that's large enough but not too far away, yet clearly different from the rest of the terrain, then let me know ... in any case, thanks again for your post and contribution!

reply to post by BuzzDengue


Interesting photos I think. I am using a good 10" tablet and saw some interesting things by enlarging the image a little and moving around the screen, the right hand side of image 1 is interesting and I liked the top of image 2.

reply to post by jeep3r


Thanks for the feedback.... I will stay on safari, as time allows, and keep you all posted... working on a good one tonight

reply to post by jeep3r

Sol 506
Right Navigation Cameras (Navcams)
Navcam: Right B
2014-01-08 1-57-38 UTC NRB_442417707EDR_F0250242NCAM00280M_

Targets 156X 240Y 1000+Zoom


...Frame in


Mars Curios...


XBox on Mars?... (too bad, I'm a PS4 kinda guy...)

I think what ever happened on Mars was instant. Things/life/buildings were turned to carbon much like pompeii

Some of these things are just to symmetrical and out of place to be rocks.

But if you imagine large statues or perhaps building pillars turning to carbon then falling down and eroding over the years, its very possible.


Lastly, It disgusts me how everyone simply says '' its rocks '' and criticizes the poster.

If you don't agree, you can still be decent & polite. Someones putting in a bit of time to give us this enjoyment.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


I agree...

=================

Sol 506
Right Navigation Cameras (Navcams)
Navcam: Right B

2014-01-08 1-57-07 UTC NRB_442417676EDR_F0250242NCAM00280M_ 573X 191Y Standpipe Elbow

Original


Annotated


=================

2014-01-10 01_54_45-Navcam_2014-01-08 1-57-07 UTC SOL 506 Dude 741X 187Y Highlighted

Original
Doonesbury with Hose... mildly amusing...


Annotated

reply to post by jeep3r


jeep3r, Will this process work better?... it is an downloadable annotated version as best available resolution...
I think I am having trouble affixing URL's within my posts, however.

Subject of file,
SOL 508
Mastcam Left
2014-01-10
04:06:31 UTC
0508ML1999000000E1_DXXX Annotated

DropBox File URL (Download TIF and zoom to markers:
www.dropbox.com...

reply to post by BuzzDengue


Yes, that works better ... and as you say: that's the best resolution available for the features you highlighted, but it's still too low. IMO they are too far away to recognize anything substantial. Those distant formations could be anything, really. There's not enough detail there to distinguish them from the rocks in that area.

That's why I think a minimum resolution is important. You'll only get a discussion going, if you find something that's in the nearfield of Curiosity's MastCams or something imaged up-close.

reply to post by BuzzDengue


Buzz, look at your last two pics, near the top left hand corner. You've got what looks like an entire human or martian skeleton in there. Happy Halloween??? (I tinted it just because I've learned how):



And look at it on your original. Looks like a darn crime scene, awaiting Bones and Booth to come by.

It seems to have short leg bones, and maybe only four or five quite defined vertebrae, so they must have made them squatty on Mars. You've got your child bearing hips in there, if she's female, and nice skull formation too, with room for those big alien eyes we see starring in movies --- wait, could this be one of Paul's relatives? Left on Mars? (a shout out to the fun movie, "Paul". If you haven't seen it, please do, you'll thank me later).

From you original pic, with no color touch up:



From your original pic, with 3-D moving-around tech:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov... from this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also ,the amazingly balanced cube mars.jpl.nasa.gov...