It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

page: 66
85
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

lewviathanx
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


has there been any new photos from the mars mission in the last two weeks?
yeah too many heres a link curiosityrover.com...




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


think its a bit beaky do you Aleister ?, amazing
I cant see Donald but it looks like a shell and a rocky oozy type slug/extremophile , it slithers like the landscape , and create s layers wherever it goes , *funBox inserts more ten pences into the imagination/speculation slot*

it'll probably turn out to be the crack that runs adjacent to it, creating the shadow undulation



ArMaP

funbox
do not dismiss this as a tool to be used ArMaP , it can be helpful in saying what's what at times

Usually, I don't dismiss any thing that can help us to get better data, but something that only gives us "prettier" data is not what I want.


ahh, the aesthetics snobbery of an artist eh
in the blood unfortunately , I hate looking at scrubby pictures, and I do fight the urge to tinker , which fails miserably at times


but asides from that I still don't see how you can say blurring could not be used to destroy an anomalies asserted appearance, to destroy the illusion , sending asserted anomaly to anomaly heaven? that place were all bad anomalies go to rest


to be fair though very few of the anomalies so far have been comprised of jpg artefacts, and have been made mostly of real geometry's , rock or otherwise

funBox



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

funbox
but asides from that I still don't see how you can say blurring could not be used to destroy an anomalies asserted appearance, to destroy the illusion , sending asserted anomaly to anomaly heaven? that place were all bad anomalies go to rest

To me, the most important thing is the quality of the data (that's probably the result of working for 20 years with databases), so, even with JPEG artefacts, the real data is more important to me than removing any data to get a "cleaner" view. The best way of doing that is creating a new image that shows the parts we want to point to.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


great comparison , a seaslug in a half shell , but how rough would that skin be in such a harsh and arid environment? an enamoured mars slug
battled hardened for the blue it tribes sand food foraging attacks

what kind of creature was that spiral thing ?

funBox



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


does look a bit ruinuis , what are them two block shaped objects ? kind of similar and a little equidistant to me , or at least share similar parallels



funBox



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I think we should put it to the test, the next anomaly that comes along that looks like its heavily influenced by jpg compression artefacts, we should do a a side by side comparison to see if the anomaly looses its anomalousness ,after blurring .dare I say it , a debunking tool ?


but like I said , most that have come into this thread have been comprised of real geometry's , so we could be waiting a while

funBox



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

funbox
I think we should put it to the test, the next anomaly that comes along that looks like its heavily influenced by jpg compression artefacts, we should do a a side by side comparison to see if the anomaly looses its anomalousness ,after blurring .dare I say it , a debunking tool ?

I see I was not clear about what I think.

A "debunking tool" that changes the image, to me, it's no use, as any debunking should be done with the real data.

So, if an anomaly loses its anomalousness because of any tool that changes also the non-anomalous areas, to me, that means nothing.

Any image, with or without anomalies, should "stand" or "fall" just by itself, as that's the real data we have, and I think we should work only with real data (unless we are testing something, but even then we should use real data after we get positive results from our tests).



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


kind of a paradox really, the artifacts we get are not real , and the files we get are jpg, so what does it matter if they are blurred a little to improve their look, they're essentially false to begin with

its all very grey , but tested it will be


funBox
edit on 19-2-2014 by funbox because: w



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

funbox
kind of a paradox really, the artifacts we get are not real , and the files we get are jpg, so what does it matter if they are blurred a little to improve their look, they're essentially false to begin with

Removing the artefacts with blurring is like removing a stain from a shirt by making a hole where the stain is: it removes the stain but the result is still a bad shirt.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I think you might be making a comparison to the eraser or cut tool there


heres some usefull information and equations ( if your into that ;0 for the blur I have been using
gaussian blur



funBox
edit on 19-2-2014 by funbox because: add link



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

funbox
I think you might be making a comparison to the eraser or cut tool there

No, I know how all of those tools works, I was making a reference to a Betty Boop cartoon.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ah ok
I think my all time cartoon fav was droopy , that little dog had the wickedest sense of humour





funBox



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by funbox
 


The goddess of Mars, who would that be? The only one that comes to mind in Dejah Thoris, the one from the books, not the recent movie.

Those two square things looking very similar, lined up next to each other (we should do an analysis of how close they may be, what the angle of alignment is, things with geometry involved which leaves me out), seem quite interesting. At least I'm interested in seeing them. Good find, aye.

The slugrock, which is actually a ways from the rover and so the details of its shell-crack seem to be hard to differentiate from image artifacts (I thought it was closer), but the undulations of its slug feature seem to be there.

The way I was looking at it was from the other end - that Donald Duck's head was the shell, eyes set up in there, and the long beak, and what I was seeing was his body, hip, and flipper feet down below. Sooooo, changing perspective, seeing it as a slug coming out of a shell, I catch an entire section of the object which I thought was sand, and see that it's connected. Very interesting, and like you said, the undulations along the side of the crawling thing, quite remarkable. I agree on its rough skin, it would have to have an underbelly of sandpaper consistency. And then the shell with the shell-like undulations along its mouth, but even without those being unclear as to if they are photo artifacts or not, nice shell-undulation "illusion" (?). Will post it again and see if I forgot things about it, I'm not looking at it as I write. By the way, this is me taking the point of view of it being alive, or close to it. For the "it's rocks" point of view, I can say it's rocks. So describing it as a lifeform is both more fun and longer to do ("rocks" is one word, doesn't take up much space), especially if there is a small percentage that it actually is. For visitors to this thread, see how fun that is? Please, if we have any anatomy folks reading these things, there are lots of objects to have a good time describing now.






edit on 19-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

ArMaP
reply to post by funbox
 


This is how it looks on the image available on the PDS, converted from the IMG files.


(the image above was made in Pain.NET, to see if it works as advertised)

And here's an animation, as we have the two photos from the left and right camera.


(this one was made with Animation Shop, Paint.NET doesn't make GIFs)


Great post. The pixel size, when I zoomed in at 300 percent, was quite evident. The other white pixel blanks showing up on the one camera, does it have hundreds of pixels which were damaged (on this picture alone there are more than a dozen)?

The object Blue Shift found to its right is maybe more interesting than Perry, as it too is a nicely shaped thing with an interesting shadow.

Perry, at a minimum, would be a bunch or one or two rocks which are arranged in such a way that they would be included in a calendar of our 12 best "optical illusions" (or the swimsuit edition of the rock creatures of Mars). At a maximum...



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

funbox
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


great comparison , a seaslug in a half shell , but how rough would that skin be in such a harsh and arid environment? an enamoured mars slug
battled hardened for the blue it tribes sand food foraging attacks

what kind of creature was that spiral thing ?

funBox


I love it because the spiral was a mystery for a long while, it was neither animal not plant! it was a burrow, fossilized! Cool!



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   

symptomoftheuniverse
While looking for better pics of the harpoon i found this image mars.jpl.nasa.gov... top right corner it looks awfully geometric ,artificial?
Hope nasa does not avoid.
Still looking for better pics of the rod.


Look at the shadow on the object I marked in the front...I used a magnifying glass hope you can see it.




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


there appears to be some "building" or construction in the upper right corner of that pic.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


I know, that's an interesting arrangement of rocks and things in back. funbox pointed out the two white square structures in an earlier post, and over to the left of those there looks to be a very interesting rock formation shaped like a pyramid, steps, etc. I tried to grab close-ups, but it's way too far back and is too pixulated for me to get a good image from.

And what's with the almost-circular channel in the sand right on the front left of the entire picture. I haven't been able to get a close look at Char-Lee's shadow on the front object/rock.

Here's the circle (may it be unbroken, by and by):



edit on 20-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


yes , interesting area, it would good to see a panorama of that circular sand feature ,, in the same area , theres also a trench.. a trench , how is this not filled with sand , is there a huge cavern area underneath its pouring into ? weird



sol546 mast

funBox
edit on 20-2-2014 by funbox because: wo



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by funbox
 

Good find, that trench. That's why we need to hire a geologist to come to this thread and stay here, always ready to answer questions. The trench is well formed, straight, and is not filled in with sand anywhere along its length. I say this is one for the head scratchers. (we also need to hire an Indian food chef for this thread, so there is a good Indian buffet awaiting when we come to it).

edit on 20-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join