Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

There have been so many posts & threads about potential anomalies at Gale Crater that IMO it's sometimes difficult to find certain images or threads using the search function.

In order to keep track of things, I decided to post a small image compilation that links interesting formations and their related threads here on ATS. In that way, it'll be easier to keep an overview without the need to sift through each and every thread posted on such topics. So here goes an updated version of the mosaic that I already used in one of my previous threads:



Click on the number for related posts/threads with more information:
01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16


New images and additions are always inserted in the bottom row(s), as is the case here with Arken's newest find(s). In case you'd like me to add something to this compilation, please just let me know and I'll try to include it in the next update (in a few weeks or months) ...

I'm not including any opinion of mine right here, because I have done so in many previous threads and most of you know what I think about the formations in question. But that (of course) shouldn't prevent you from discussing or commenting on these images, if you wish to do so.

Enjoy & I hope you find this overview useful ... !


P.S.: Thanks to all of you who keep scanning the JPL image archives and, of course, the folks that make these threads come alive. Keep 'em comin', don't stop looking and Happy New Year, ATS!

reply to post by jeep3r


A really good idea and thread, thanks. I particularly like Arken's Spine (number 1 on your list), which actually has the potential to be something more than just a rock. More professionals should look at that one for sure, and as far as I know no major or even minor media has picked up on it. Where did all the good journalists go? Long time thrashing.

reply to post by jeep3r


Great work jeep3r.
Great work. As usual....

S&F.

oh... and Happy New Year to all of you and your families.

Aleister

 

A really good idea and thread, thanks. I particularly like Arken's Spine (number 1 on your list), which actually has the potential to be something more than just a rock. More professionals should look at that one for sure, and as far as I know no major or even minor media has picked up on it. Where did all the good journalists go? Long time thrashing.

edit on 1-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

Thanks, Aleister!

I agree, the first image really is one of the best finds so far. But apart from that, I think that such a mosaic (using thumbnails) with many interesting terrain features really puts things into perspective. IMO, I then start asking myself even more questions as to what exactly we're looking at ...

I really appreciate all the efforts you put in this thread (S&F for that).

However, as interesting as these pictures can be, each time I see mankind willing to put so much energy in searching for possible form or lifes outside of Earth's atmosphere, I can't stop but think to myself:

'Sigh, we can't even cherish and protect life we already have on this planet and within ourselves, but still, we put billions of money and joules just to try and prove we aren't alone in the Universe. If only we weren't in denial of our most profound deeper truth, which is we are immortal beings living through a mortal experience, then we could realize we have never been alone and willl never be.'

Number 11 could be a ventilator.

Or outlook.

reply to post by Arken


Much appreciated, Arken ... thanks a lot for that! But you also deserve a lot of merit due to the time you spend on analyzing all those images and due to the many threads you created so far.

Let's hope that 2014 will bring even more intriguing imagery and perhaps even that one final pic that will - beyond all doubts - prove that there's more at Gale Crater than just rocks!

reply to post by jeep3r


Everytime I see these images I keep thinking, "pareidolia? Yeah right, what bullsh*t."

Maybe i have troubles seeing these images right as still they look like rocks.
One suggestions if i may.. i would really like to see actual scales in these images, how do i know how big the rock really is ? There is a big difference if rock is 15 meters high or 15 cm high.. now im only guessing...

Curiosity images.. its a normal lens size.. so these are 15 cm in high ???

reply to post by jeep3r


Here's one that was missed. Start here and go down a few posts to see that a user (not me, I missed an earlier post by Stremmos80 and made the correction) found an actual little green Martian standing on a rock ledge and phoning home! (the thread is one of Arken's finds)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

dollukka
Maybe i have troubles seeing these images right as still they look like rocks.
One suggestions if i may.. i would really like to see actual scales in these images, how do i know how big the rock really is ? There is a big difference if rock is 15 meters high or 15 cm high.. now im only guessing...

Curiosity images.. its a normal lens size.. so these are 15 cm in high ???

edit on 1-1-2014 by dollukka because: (no reason given)

Scale is difficult on these, I agree. But if you go into the threads where the original JPL images are referenced in fullsize, you'll get a better sense for scale (based on the context).

I guess most of these features are indeed in the cm/inch range, but some definitely also go up to a few feet in size/length. Hope that helps ...

Aleister

 

Here's one that was missed. Start here and go down a few posts to see that a user (not me, I missed an earlier post by Stremmos80 and made the correction) found an actual little green Martian standing on a rock ledge and phoning home! (the thread is one of Arken's finds)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yep, that's a real cutie!
Heavily pixelated, but cute ... wish we could have gotten a close-up of that one!

reply to post by jeep3r


Yes, the pixilated pic was too much of a zoom, but someone can grab another pic with it at just the right distance (it looks good at 300 percent). That really is a nice one, with a head, face, body, and many little white feet, and the "Martian" seems to be in front of the rocks behind it, which can't be seen.

reply to post by jeep3r



I replied to this on the linked thread, but image #1 is a thoracic spine.

A thoracic spinal column, spinous processes and lamina and all, on Mars.

(credentials: academic neuro-radiologist M.D. with B.Sci in Bio)

drphilxr
reply to post by jeep3r

 

I replied to this on the linked thread, but image #1 is a thoracic spine.

A thoracic spinal column, spinous processes and lamina and all, on Mars.

(credentials: academic neuro-radiologist M.D. with B.Sci in Bio)

Can you explain more about what exactly the terms you use mean? I could look them up but would rather read a first-hand description. "Thoracic", "spinous processes" and "lamina" in particular. Thanks!

drphilxr
reply to post by jeep3r

 

I replied to this on the linked thread, but image #1 is a thoracic spine.
A thoracic spinal column, spinous processes and lamina and all, on Mars.
(credentials: academic neuro-radiologist M.D. with B.Sci in Bio)

Thanks a lot for adding this info, drphilxr. That's really useful IMO ... I think it would be good if we compared Curiosity's image with a photo of fossilized spines found on Earth. Putting those images side by side would allow for cross-referencing / labeling all the elements they have in common (especially the details).

reply to post by jeep3r


I find it rather odd, that all these photos from mars are never close-ups nor are they sharp enough images that show detail. Surely the technology for camera lenses and sharp close-up technology has exceeded the times since the 70's when we used film for images.

There are times where some of these photos look just like rocks and other times the geometric shapes and repetition of the shapes make me wonder if they are shaped by an alien intelligence.

I'm sure NASA is in control of maneuvering Curiosity in a way to get much closer to these objects to prove they are just rocks. You have to question why they have never taken closer shots of the "tubes" that have received so much attention.

If NASA is really looking for signs of life on Mars, why would they take only one or two distant photos instead of getting right on top of the thing to capture more detail and put all these conspiracy questions to rest?

How many more photos are they going to release that will add more fuel to the fire that these are not just rocks? I feel they are intentionally avoiding to show detail. If you or I were controlling Curiosities movements and camera, don't you think we wouldn't want to put the camera lens just a foot away just to make sure we were looking at a fossil or manufactured part instead of a rock?

Something is fishy.

reply to post by WeRpeons


interesting you should say that , is this the accumulative thread then?.. at the rate the pictures are being released would surely warrant a forum unto itself

one I found kinda odd



funBox

drphilxr
reply to post by jeep3r

 

I replied to this on the linked thread, but image #1 is a thoracic spine.

A thoracic spinal column, spinous processes and lamina and all, on Mars.

(credentials: academic neuro-radiologist M.D. with B.Sci in Bio)

Too bad your credentials aren't enough here

Hugo still blows my mind...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Every voice counts and should be heard IMO. Credentials from some anonymous person on the internet are not much, but it's more than we can expect from a forum like this.

As I mentioned before, if we managed to highlight a few of the more obvious features while labeling and explaining everything to the most accurate degree possible, then perhaps we can make a good case. To achieve that, we'd need some more input from specialists like drphilxr ...