Hard evidence of life on Mars that NASA doesn’t want to discuss

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Upon careful inspection, you'll notice that the 'object' in question would move to the left, not the right. A consideration of the angle of some of the flat rocks will show this to be true.

I do understand the confusion, though.

ETA: Yes, I considered the topography before my intial post. The 'object' seems to be on a declining slope behind our group of rocks.

a reply to: tsingtao

why is it so hard to post a pic?

a reply to: tsingtao


lol, ok. i stumbled onto the secret. (to post pics?)

check out the little buggers peeking behind the "shell" and the snake over the right shoulder.

besides what i circled, they are everywhere.

tell me what rocks have a stem and oriented in different directions.

evolution. protection, camo.

u people looking for butterfly's?

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
a reply to: Arbitrageur

One of the images phage uses for his top animation in his reply uses a partial photo of SOL 1836. I provide the full image, showing the object is NOT in that particular photo.

I'll forgive you for not knowing what a parallax is.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Parallax also affects optical instruments such as rifle scopes, binoculars, microscopes, and twin-lens reflex cameras that view objects from slightly different angles."

As I pointed out, using a referenced landmark in both photos, the reason it's not visible in 1836 is because it's not there.

If you still don't understand the simplicity of this proof, please accept my condolences.

I hate to tell you this, but you apparently do not understand what parallax is either.

Parallax is the different line of sight angle of two different objects pointing at the same target.

In the US Navy, we aligned our radar and weapons systems, accounting for parallax error (meaning that one antenna is located at a different place and height than either the missile or gun system, but have to point at the same target. Their angles both in bearing and elevation will be different. This difference in angles is called a parallax error, and fire control computers have to compensate for that).

The images in the posting for Spirit are from the navigational camera, and are not a stereo pair, meaning: it's a single camera.

Meaning: there is NO parallax.

Now.....there would be parallax if you compare the line of sight between say the navigational camera and the panoramic camera as they are on two different places on the rover.

But, instead, what we have is two different images taken by the same camera on Spirit (and the camera did not change places). However, the rover itself moved.

Parallax would be if there were two different cameras taking the same image at the same time from different angles (like Curiosity does with it's stereo pair cameras). This isn't the case with the navigational camera on Spirit.

There is only one navigational camera on Spirit. It took images on Sol 1836 and then moved. Nine days later, on Sol 1843 it took images of the same area again.

In other words: the camera's perspective angle towards the same area changed.

like this from that eel pic.

tell me again how rocks mimic life.

I bet the people at NASA are rolling around now on the floor in fit's of laughter at this thread some of them might even have wet themselves laughing so hard

yeah, carbon steel eye hook.

very rocky.

lol!!

how stupid can people be?

if you lived/evolved on mars, you would look like a friggin rock too.

originally posted by: douglas5
I bet the people at NASA are rolling around now on the floor in fit's of laughter at this thread some of them might even have wet themselves laughing so hard

yeah, you would lose he rent, dude.

JohnTheSmith, Thanks for the photos 1836 and 1843. They actually kinda confirmed Phage’s explanation for me.

Notice the rover’s tracks in the lower right of both of your pics. To me they indicate the rover had moved from somewhere in the direction to the right of the pics and was moving in the direction to the left (from right to left). Looking at it from that perspective, it made sense to me that it was just a matter of the rover taking shots from different positions/angles.

Just my 2 cents...

originally posted by: netbound
JohnTheSmith, Thanks for the photos 1836 and 1843. They actually kinda confirmed Phage’s explanation for me.

Notice the rover’s tracks in the lower right of both of your pics. To me they indicate the rover had moved from somewhere in the direction to the right of the pics and was moving in the direction to the left (from right to left). Looking at it from that perspective, it made sense to me that it was just a matter of the rover taking shots from different positions/angles.

Just my 2 cents...

yeah, 2 cents.

everyone is entitled to an opinion.

originally posted by: netbound
JohnTheSmith, Thanks for the photos 1836 and 1843. They actually kinda confirmed Phage’s explanation for me.

Notice the rover’s tracks in the lower right of both of your pics. To me they indicate the rover had moved from somewhere in the direction to the right of the pics and was moving in the direction to the left (from right to left). Looking at it from that perspective, it made sense to me that it was just a matter of the rover taking shots from different positions/angles.

Just my 2 cents...

explain the "tail" moving. the split of the shell?

a reply to: eriktheawful

I don't even know why I'm replying, because I originally stated it was NOT a case of parallax as well. lol....

Anyways, I implore you to fully investigate my first post. It's clear for all to see, and I hope you can appreciate the purpose of the reference point i set.

ETA: a reply to: netbound

That's okay, I don't mind if you're of a different opinion. You're right, it IS a matter of perspective and angle. But you guys seem to have the direction the rock would move in reversed. Using the angles of the flat rocks, it is easy to infer which way an object in a background would appear to move. Also, I provide a reference point to judge depth (distance). In SOL 1836, the 'object' should be over to the left more, not to the right and behind one of our original rocks. Hope that makes sense.

I'll be going to bed now. I look forward to reading my replies.

a reply to: tsingtao

if you lived/evolved on mars, you would look like a friggin rock too.

I can't tell if you're being snarky or speaking what you really believe.

Do you Really mean that and your other posts, or are they all for laughs??

explain the "tail" moving. the split of the shell?

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: douglas5
I bet the people at NASA are rolling around now on the floor in fit's of laughter at this thread some of them might even have wet themselves laughing so hard

yeah, you would lose he rent, dude.

what was that in English please Google translate has gone to sleep

a reply to: douglas5

It could be the dormant language of beings who once lived under bridges.

originally posted by: douglas5

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: douglas5
I bet the people at NASA are rolling around now on the floor in fit's of laughter at this thread some of them might even have wet themselves laughing so hard

yeah, you would lose he rent, dude.

what was that in English please Google translate has gone to sleep

u pretend not to understand english? are you a forefinger?

have you learned from common core?

or you spew so much BS that you have no idea what people responding to you are talking about.

or, you have a limited grasp of english.

none of the above bodes well for anyone.

did you catch all that?>

your avi suggests that you are some euro dude.

a reply to: douglas5

Ok, I double down on my post

It could be the dormant language of beings who once lived under bridges.

Oh...just some random guy who might have posted Directly above me....

some completely random guy somewhere directly above this post who could be anyone who knows maybe it's not even them maybe this is the kind of language and speaking that will get through who knows

you have a limited grasp of english.

none of the above bodes well for anyone.

did you catch all that?>

your avi suggests that you are some euro dude

Wow. Gosh, if Eddie Haskell wants to go there, like in avatar insults 'n all... Ward and June used Wally's nickname for me and, ya'know? It reminds me of yr avi, Mr discount fake Japanese beer, Sir.

Since nobody can go and see one in a zoo, then it's automatically deemed 'fantasy' or worse.

I try to take in all things, think about it and see if I agree. There are animals here than look like other things, like plants as the one poster had supplied an image of. So why not a rock?

I'm not sure what to make of it. I do believe there is life outside the planet earth, even though I've never seen it myself. To think we're alone in the universe is very presumptuous and maybe even a little egotistical - who really knows?

I'd love to see video of this thing...but I know not one of us can hop in our own personal spaceship/shuttle/rocket and head over for a field trip with a camera.

originally posted by: Chamberf=6
a reply to: tsingtao

if you lived/evolved on mars, you would look like a friggin rock too.

I can't tell if you're being snarky or speaking what you really believe.

Do you Really mean that and your other posts, or are they all for laughs??

explain the "tail" moving. the split of the shell?

yeah, laffs mate.

just like all yours.

a reply to: tsingtao

Ok so you have been tr...tr...tr...
Sorry having a Fonzie moment here.

As shown by Phage and common sense these are rocks.