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.
originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: wildespace
Why silly? Because you believe something different than someone else?
Your sphere has a hole bored thought the center of it for the mooring line or chain that use to be a part of it nothing natural about that.
What about the astronauts that actually set foot on the moon who verified there are structures there?
We should stick to the original image and not be distracted by pixelated artifacts found after resizing and reshaping. A comparison between these two images has been shown in this thread. I believe the object in question has been found in other images also shown in this thread so we can view it from more than one angle.
originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: Devino
Evidence as you call it is not impericle and can be used to support both sides.
Am I?
Also, your making the assumption that the rover takes pictures on the level.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
You're best off looking at the non-smoothened enlarged image posted earlier. The wiring and second dome are mostly JPEG artifacts.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Interesting photo! Yet another Mars anomaly, to add to all the rest. How many of these, I ask again, do we have to see before everyone stops claiming they can't be anything but rocks?
When they look like they couldn't be rocks.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
What's the point of exploring the planet, anyway, if they can't divert the Rover to look at the more interesting things? Isn't the whole point to find out as much as possible? If they can't divert, we may as well just quit now.
To me, there are two problems with this: first, these "discoveries" usually happen some time after the rover has moved to another location; second, "rocks that look like something" are not unusual, and they are only rocks.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That is a dome. It's way too smooth to be a rock, and too regular on the edges we can see. The smaller bit looks like the edges are sort of squared, but smoothed, and it also looks like it cold have a window. That one bit looks like pipe or covered wiring, or something of the sort. To the right of the smaller bit is a white part that looks very flat for a rock.
It's only that smooth because people resize the image with resampling, making it smoother than the original. This is how the original looks like when resized without resampling.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Instead of assuming that we now everything, perhaps we should start actually looking at all of the evidence. Maybe there is more to learn. Isn't that why we have missions on Mars? To learn? Or just to claim there is nothing more to see?
What evidence, that there are rocks on Mars? We already know that.
originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I agree but people will criticize your drawing because you haven't used the original pixelated version which would cloud your depiction and lend credence to the debunkers...it's unfortunate. Both sides of the debate are simply left to speculation and conjecture based on what NASA feeds us.
originally posted by: wildespace
*snip*
Colour-wise, it's the same reddish as the terrain around it, _not_ grey or silvery metal.
~~~
@LadyGreenEyes the rovers are there do do science, and follow carefully thought-out plans. If they went this way and that way to examine anything that the public deems an anomaly, they would never get anything done.
Ideally, what we should get is a rover with a small drone aircraft that could flutter up to such interesting objects, take pictures, and fly back to the rover. That way, the rover could get on with proper science, while we'd still get a closer look at stuff public finds interesting.
originally posted by: boneoracle
I noticed something back on page 4 I think, in the shot posted by intergalactic fire. If you look further to the right in the shot from further back, there is another pile or structure (depending on what you think). It looks quite similar to the others to the left and is more upright. Can anyone get a closer look at it?
Link: mars.nasa.gov...
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It's still a dome, even zoomed in.
The smaller one and the ling pipe/wire/whatever are not simple JPEG artifacts, either; they are clearly part of the actual scene, whatever they are.
The pipe-looking piece has two basically 90° bends in it. Seems a bit much for something natural.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The smaller one and the ling pipe/wire/whatever are not simple JPEG artifacts, either; they are clearly part of the actual scene, whatever they are.
I disagree, although they are part of the scene, they are partly JPEG artefacts.
It's hard to say, since they didn't get more close-up shots. You'd think something that looks like a collection of domes would garner some attention. They look to be anything but artifacts to me. Stuff like this really makes me miss my software! Gotta replace that one of these days!
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The pipe-looking piece has two basically 90° bends in it. Seems a bit much for something natural.
I think the "pipe" is made of two distinct parts, one closer to the camera and the other farther away, and the JPEG artefacts make it look like one piece.
It's more noticeable on the photo from the left side camera, as you can see below.
Again, all we can do is speculate, since they didn't go in for a closer look. They could gather samples a few yards off the planned track easily enough. That they always seem to be running just far enough from these things to make people wonder is a bit odd, too. It's as though someone looked at the aerial views, and planned routes that avoid anything too interesting.
Believe me, I don't just assume anything like this is anything other than a rock. The "lizard" rocks were cool but were, I believe, just rocks. The "mouse"? I can't really decide there. A view from another angle would help. It sure looks like a rodent, from the one pic! Way different color, too.
In this case, we have what looks like two larger domes, and a smaller structure that looks domed on top, and a pipe. Even the aerial view shows round-looking areas. Some of the closer view of both larger domes, in the pic taken farther away, shows an area that looks like it was graded, and is a bit circular.
link If you hit the "+" for the page once, then zoom in your browser, you can see it a bit below the right-side dome. Even the aerial view has ore interest. The whole area has a sort of "arrow" shape to it, or maybe a wishbone shape. It's odd. As a scientist, I'd be checking it out! Even if it's just geological it's a lot more interesting than the scatter rocks through which the Rover was driving. That it looks like it could be something else is all the more reason to alter course, and take a closer look.
Why they don't can't be explained away as "they'd never get anything done".
This isn't new. Saturn missions were similar. A fascinating moon, and some oddities, and they diverted away from them!! Par for the course for NASA. They could stumble over a roving fleet of Klingons, and we'd never know till they invaded. Yes, a bit facetious on my part, but this is frustrating.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
These do. When you get picture after picture after picture of things that don't look like rocks, it's time to start looking more closely.
When the public can see the pictures, the public discovers the various anomalies. You are asuming that NASA doesn't see anything odd, and that's not a logical assumption. We have no way of knowing what they actually think; we only hear what we they want us to hear.
No, it looks pretty smooth even zoomed, when one allows for pixel size. Zooming in from the NASA image, it's still smooth -
We have picture after picture after picture of things on Mars that do not look like rocks, and yet no investigation into any (save the "face") is ever done.
We are simply told to believe that they somehow know it's all "just rocks", without ever providing more pictures of the areas in question, or them having the Rover ever go in for a closer look. If it's all "just rocks". let them prove it.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Oh, already saw that! The thing is, when I zoom the NASA image myself, it isn't nearly as pixelated as what they show. A little, but not that much, and that's just zoomed in the browser and copied into Paint.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
These do. When you get picture after picture after picture of things that don't look like rocks, it's time to start looking more closely.
I think the thing that looked less like a rock (or part of the rover, like that white piece that looked like plastic) to me was "Hugo". Everything else looks like rocks, mostly sedimentary rocks like the one I have next to me.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
When the public can see the pictures, the public discovers the various anomalies. You are asuming that NASA doesn't see anything odd, and that's not a logical assumption. We have no way of knowing what they actually think; we only hear what we they want us to hear.
No, I know NASA sees them, you just have to look at the description of the activities for the sols to see that are always looking at everything and choosing the next target (if any) for investigation, I am assuming they saw it and, like me, saw nothing special.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No, it looks pretty smooth even zoomed, when one allows for pixel size. Zooming in from the NASA image, it's still smooth -
That resizing has resampling, resize the image without resampling so you can look at the original pixels.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Why should they prove that they are rocks? They look like rocks on a place full of rocks, it's highly likely that they are rocks, assuming that they are rocks is natural.
People that say that those are not rocks should provide their evidence that they aren't rocks.
Why shouldn't they? Why assume there is nothing there but rocks? Why assume anything?? Real science means being open to possibilities that don't fit preconceptions. Why bother to go at all if it's assumed that there is nothing to see but rocks?
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Oh, already saw that! The thing is, when I zoom the NASA image myself, it isn't nearly as pixelated as what they show. A little, but not that much, and that's just zoomed in the browser and copied into Paint.
Resizing the image in the browser uses resampling, and different browsers use different resampling algorithms, you can try if for yourself, resizing the same image on two different browsers and comparing the result.
Any resampling algorithm is going to change the pixels (that's what resampling does), "averaging" the pixels it added to give a better looking (but less real) image.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Not sure what you mean here.
The thing is, I don't assume they see "nothing special" in all of these. The "lizard" rocks? Sure. All of the ics, though? No.
That's from the NASA shot. Any resampling, they did themselves.
Even resampling doesn't mean it's not really smooth, though, and assuming that's the case isn't logical.
What if it really is that smooth? Shouldn't a geologist want a closer look? Again, I would!
Why shouldn't they? Why assume there is nothing there but rocks?
Why assume anything?? Real science means being open to possibilities that don't fit preconceptions.
Why bother to go at all if it's assumed that there is nothing to see but rocks?
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Fair enough. Even so, assuming it isn't smooth, and that only the resampling makes it look smooth, isn't logical.