Another too symetrical object mars?

reply to post by mikesingh


Well as long as we're on the same page. I don't mean to say that I can prove it is one piece using photoshop, I only mean to say that I don't think we can prove it's two pieces using photoshop. Looking at the photo, it looks like one piece - and I know from being on this site a little while that you know; once you start really looking at images, you begin to realize how often the way an image looks can be far from what it's actually an image of. At the same time, anybody who uses photoshop on a regular basis knows that it's ability to detect and separate contrasts are amazing but far from perfect.

As I touched on before and will elaborate more upon now, photoshop does indeed like to separate the two pieces with nearly every single filter at the most basic of levels. However, I feel that's only because of the two dark shadows and a shadowed or simply darker region that (on the 2d image) connects the two truly shadowed areas. Photoshop, as I've seen it wrongly do a million times says "It's dark over here, and it's dark over there - and it's somewhat similar in between, so I'll just assume they all bleed together" - that is, of course, a paraphrase - Photoshop says it much better than that.

Perhaps we're only talking semantics here and my choice of 'claim to bust' came across too strong. Also, taking into consideration the fact that you're far more the expert on this forum than I, I'm not going to disagree too much (going by a persons point value and what tags are associated with their avatar ). I don't mean that entirely sarcastically.

So, suffice it to say, I value your opinion and don't mean to undermine your work contributed to this thread. I think photoshop is going to lead us to the wrong conclusion on this piece.

Of course, all those bits and bytes potentially wasted as I still don't see any symmetry.

reply to post by captiva


Did I understand you right there captiva, that you suggest Nasa has edited the picture placing this object into the picture before they uploaded it to their server?
And btw thanks for your analysis of the picture too..for me it brings out even more the unnatural aspect of the object.

What Im saying, in my opinion is that, the rock is not part of the original photograph that was taken. I didnt analyse the pic by sharpening, or using levels or saturation. I scanned the tonality of the shadow. Shadows of objects on the same plane should be the same count +or_ 5. Again in my opinion, the photograph that it originally belonged in has a darker shadow. Look at the other boulders, rocks. There shadows are lighter. Its the same sun, refelection on all objects. Its a plant.

reply to post by captiva


Wow, since this is in the original picture taken from Nasa server, it's quite a daring statement.
There's another aspect, as Infraredman pointed out, that holds a high value of strangeness with the object, being that the soil around it appears of a different consistency aswell. It's a lighter color and reminds a bit of sand/soil being thrown up or disturbed.


[edit on 2/4/08 by icblue]

It seems PIA09091 holds some more surprises, I found 2 more intruiging items/objects/rocks that remind me more of pottery remains than of anything else.



item 1



and item 2



(i'm not saying they actually are pottery remains but they remind me of it)

Comments welcome

Looks a an alien centaur shoe...

Probably a rock eroded by wind. I mean look at our planet, we got rocks looking like Noah's Ark.

Originally posted by memoir
I think photoshop is going to lead us to the wrong conclusion on this piece.

Spot on!! Is there a choice? I could have tried some good enhancements with ENVI, but the darn package costs $6000 including tax!! I'm thinking of passing around my Mexican hat! Till then, Photoshop it is!!

Cheers!

If anyone could post a picture of an anomalous geological structure on Mars that could be CLEARLY identified as anything other than the relic of someone's fertile imagination I would be HIGHLY impressed.

Originally posted by Threadfall
If anyone could post a picture of an anomalous geological structure on Mars that could be CLEARLY identified as anything other than the relic of someone's fertile imagination I would be HIGHLY impressed.

That's exactly what we've been trying to do for eons!! No luck there. Either NASA/ESA etc are hiding things from the public by releasing doctored/tampered images and those without any anomalies, or there's really nothing there to see and just peoples imagination!

Whatever it be, have a peek at some objects in this thread of mine. (Link below). Call it imagination or hallucination, but some stuff doesn't seem natural.....But yes, that's NO proof of any alien civilization on Mars, because as you say there's nothing clearly defined with the available resolutions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


reply to post by icblue


Another good find iceblue! Check out that mask like object too. Looks pretty intriguing!!

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Threadfall
If anyone could post a picture of an anomalous geological structure on Mars that could be CLEARLY identified as anything other than the relic of someone's fertile imagination I would be HIGHLY impressed.

That's exactly what we've been trying to do for eons!! No luck there. Either NASA/ESA etc are hiding things from the public by releasing doctored/tampered images and those without any anomalies, or there's really nothing there to see and just peoples imagination!

And there is also the third possibility, that there's something to find with enough spot-on attention to an item. Yes, people's imagination will ever see things where there might be nothing but that shouldn't stop us from looking.

What are the rules that define wether something in an image is the real thing or just an illusion?

- singularity of the item versus the immediate surrounding?
- unexpected shape/form compared to the overall scenery?
- associative functionnal caracteristics to known items?
- etc.

the list can go on and on, but where is there such a list that we could check off, if or if not it fullfills the criteria?

(PS. the three criteria above were what me single out these items)

reply to post by Threadfall


Come on, you know that's never going to happen. You know as well as I do that NASA has hundreds of people who work for the New World Order sitting around photoshopping every single picture ever released by them so that no one on ATS can identify all the artifacts from the current and past civilizations on mars and the moon. Just ask a few of the subject matter experts here and a few who have been forced away from here.

For anyone still interested in the items present in the picture, I applied some solarisation and contrast enhance on the item1 picture.



It brings out more of it's caracteristics and you see a flat, polished like middle surface with an equidistand rim enhancement and a roundish end.
It may be that nature produces such things, but it could also aswell be a fragment of some pottery with primitive art design.
You to judge

reply to post by icblue

icblue, i'm glad to see that every now and then someone posts something that actually IS interesting (no matter what it turns out to be).
Lastly, i've noticed that there was an insane trend here on ATS: to post random images from both rovers and outlining random shapes and claiming "this is a dinosaur" "this id a dog" "this is a serpent":
but this thread is SERIOUS and it deseves, if not attention, at least respect from everyone.
Now, the first image that you have posted, in my opinion shows an object too far from the camera. It's also part of McMurdo's Panorama:
www.nasa.gov...
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

In my opinion, we'd need some closer shots: but the find is already interesting

reply to post by icblue


Yep! This was the image I was interested in. Looks like a rimmed object that's cut in half!! Doesn't look like its a naturally formed stone. The contours are too regular.

But of course, it has to be just a Martian rock as a very educated poster here as mentioned. I mean how can anything artificial be found on the Martian surface? We are the only form of life in the entire universe. In other words, this huge universe is dead and the only piece of real estate that spawned life by a freak accident of nature is planet Earth. Therefore even proposing that Mars may have had ancient life (or has) is pure blasphemy, illogical, incredulous, dubious, and the rant of madmen who need to be put away!

Cheers!

reply to post by internos


My thanks go out to you, Internos, for the kind words and links you posted. More matrial to grind through
Do you have any take on the white substance that was brought in the rover tracks? It was mentionned a couple of times, but sofar no-one has been able to give an explanation for it.

reply to post by icblue

Not sure, but it recalls me this find

A patch of martian soil analyzed by NASA’s rover Spirit is so rich in silica that it may provide some of the strongest evidence yet that ancient Mars was much wetter than it is now. The processes that could have produced such a concentrated deposit of silica require the presence of water.

Members of the rover science team heard from a colleague during a recent teleconference that the alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, a chemical analyzer at the end of Spirit’s arm, had measured a composition of about 90% pure silica for this soil.

“You could hear people gasp in astonishment,” said Steve Squyres of Cornell University, principal investigator for the Mars rovers’ science instruments. “This is a remarkable discovery. And the fact that we found something this new and different after nearly 1200 days on Mars makes it even more remarkable. It makes you wonder what else is still out there.”

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here’s another explanation – Sulphur and water. Now that’s interesting. If that’s water, then it points to the probability of microbial life that started millions of years ago. If it did, then is there a possibility that it could have evolved into some 'intelligent' species, by natural evolution? After all, like Earth, there was perhaps plenty of time to do so!


Mars Daily

"This material could have been left behind by water that dissolved these minerals underground, then came to the surface and evaporated, or it could be a volcanic deposit formed around ancient gas vents," said Dr. Ray Arvidson of Washington University, St. Louis. He is the deputy principal investigator for NASA's twin Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity.

"These salts could have been concentrated by hydrothermal liquid or vapor moving through the local rocks," said rover science team member Dr. Albert Yen, a geochemist at JPL. Two other patches of bright soil uncovered by Spirit before Tyrone were also sulfur-rich, but each had similarities to local rock compositions that were different at the three sites, suggesting localized origins.
www.marsdaily.com...

reply to post by internos

Wow, you ARE fast!
Yes that's most likely it!! Would corrobate the moist aspect of soil around the tracks aswell. Thanks again.

To mikesingh - often enough on dig sites, where one piece of pottery turns up there are more to find within a certain radius, item2 is within such an expected radius and tho it presents itself in a more rugged aspect it shows a cup like, concave aspect. I didn't point out the item near it because it leaves too much free running to mind as to what it is. (yes, it reminds a bit of half of a mask)

Here's another interesting zoom of an item, that although a highly probable natural origin, presents an unexpected and wonderous form.
It's from the picture PIA01907: 'McMurdo' Panorama from Spirit's 'Winter Haven' and shows a wider angle than PIA09091.

PIA01907: 'McMurdo' Panorama
PIA01907.jpg (28.4M)





From the looks of it, it seems as it once was a hollowed out ball or shell that broke open through erosion (maybe the cup like item before is a result of further erosion of this item although there seems to be a difference in the color and make).

I've found a closer shot of the formation, on Spirit Panoramic Camera :: Sol 1087
marsrover.nasa.gov...




It looks like it loses both geometries and simmetries in this one, IMHO: anyway, i'll try to find some better shots .

marsrover.nasa.gov...
marsrover.nasa.gov...
marsrover.nasa.gov...
marsrover.nasa.gov...

[edit on 5/4/2008 by internos]