Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

a reply to: symptomoftheuniverse

Ah , I see it , cheers, the missing piece .. we have a whole , almost



now , just to find a semi buried restaurant foundations

funBox

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: symptomoftheuniverse

Ah , I see it , cheers, the missing piece .. we have a whole , almost

now , just to find a semi buried restaurant foundations

funBox

A big mcdonalds sign perhaps? I think jeeper found a light fitting,
Lace curtains etc etc

originally posted by: symptomoftheuniverse
A big mcdonalds sign perhaps?

Well, in that case I'll have a large McKimberly menu with fried ammonites and a box of BBQ crinoids to go!

a reply to: jeep3r

sounds like a good hearty meal ,,

one from that what's up in the sky' frood again

sol620mast

are these the rover tracks he asks?

what were the whereabouts of curiosity prior to these photos taken on sol620? something odd or curiositys mars graffiti ?

from this pic


blow up and contrast adjust



to me it looks more ridge like than track like, and if its not the tracks it sure is odd looking

funBox

What a strange photo.
That doesn't look like Curiosity's tracks at all, to me.a reply to: funbox

a reply to: lambros56

It doesn't?
Really?
www.wired.com...

a reply to: funbox

to me it looks more ridge like than track like,

Well it clearly isn't a ridge - look at the shadow and compare to the light direction shown by all other shadows in the picture. It is a depression, not a protrusion. A depression caused by the rover's wheels.

a reply to: funbox

what were the whereabouts of curiosity prior to these photos taken on sol620? something odd or curiositys mars graffiti ?

Didn't move from 609 until 630 but made a pretty sharp turn between 606 and 609. That would be when those tracks were layed.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: funbox

Look at this photo.

a reply to: ArMaP

great investigative teamwork folks all inconclusive of course , especially your picture ArMaP , shame on you .. where's the other track ? did it hit a ramp and one track roll to the spot of non description, returning on the same wheel? and if so why aren't we seeing that reflected in the camera frames pre-shot before the currently discussed, they'd be skewiff wouldn't they ?

one of those expansive panoramas would be useful in clearly establishing the track mark theory

one track is just not enough or even one picture

funBox

originally posted by: funbox
one track is just not enough

or even one picture

Well, what about part of a panorama?

(click for full size)

Is it better?
PS: the change in colours is a side effect of using Microsoft ICE to make the panorama.

a reply to: ArMaP

quick work

what do you think ?, can you see where the tracks come and go ?

..

maybe



funBox

a reply to: Phage

its an interesting comparison ,certainly. scale and distance from the camera may obscure and distort the zigzag pattern to the apparent hexagonal looking shapes on the color photo

from your presented picture



side by side they sit



hmmm im still unconvinced , and after looking at ArMaP's panorama I'm inclined to plumb for skellington of an ancient mars worm, resurfaced for a little sun bleaching

funBox

a reply to: funbox

Nice work on these missing "tracks", funbox.

a reply to: funbox

These are all the tracks I see.

(click for full size)

Naturally, on the more rocky areas the tracks are much harder to see.

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: jeep3r

sol620mast
are these the rover tracks he asks?

It's always a good idea to keep an eye on our favorite mars rover (and her tracks). We wouldn't want her to get "off track" unnoticed, right? And what a feat it would have been if they suddenly sent her up that stunt ramp! Disappearing tracks? Certainly the smoking gun when it comes to uncovering a potential "simulation".

At this point, however, I'm sure we'd rather stumble across a well preserved ammonite shell sitting somewhere on the edge of a chunk that's been protected from harsh erosional forces in the martian past. Can't await the anticipated influx of pics following up on recent sols where Curiosity was drilling into that sandstone slab!

I am very stupid when it come to some imagination. I can not reference size on the images as that would have help a lot. things that look like house size might be small or even bigger.

a reply to: neversaynever

Below are some links with additional scale information from different waypoints:

1. Point Lake & Sheepbed Mudstone
2. John Klein Drill Site
3. Shaler Outcrop
4. Dingo Gap
5. Terrestial Comparison

In general, the scale depends on the inclination of the MastCam as well as focal length (34mm and 100mm) and distance to the terrain features in question. Nevertheless, the above images should give you a general 'feel' for scale in different situations.

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: Phage

its an interesting comparison ,certainly. scale and distance from the camera may obscure and distort the zigzag pattern to the apparent hexagonal looking shapes on the color photo

from your presented picture

side by side they sit

hmmm im still unconvinced , and after looking at ArMaP's panorama I'm inclined to plumb for skellington of an ancient mars worm, resurfaced for a little sun bleaching

funBox

The shape of the tracks do look quite different, when looking at the pictures anyway. Is this lens distortion, the angle of the tracks as compared to the camera, or a parallel universe Curiosity Rover with just a little different cut of the jib on the tires?

originally posted by: Aleister
The shape of the tracks do look quite different, when looking at the pictures anyway. Is this lens distortion, the angle of the tracks as compared to the camera, or a parallel universe Curiosity Rover with just a little different cut of the jib on the tires?

I think it's mostly perspective.