Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (2015)

a reply to: funbox

What was that last image you put up before the boom fell?

a reply to: Aleister

obviously things were not allowed to see ,, not sure what though it was all relatively innocuous

ill not try that again though

funbox

Attention.

Posting images of a trashed thread is considered editing Staff Action.

That's a SERIOUS violation of the Terms and Conditions, and in many cases can lead to an automatic Post Ban.

Please refrain from posting images of any thread that has been removed.

If you have questions about a thread being removed, contact the staff by either using the Complain button, or by sending a U2U to the staff member that removed the thread.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: Aleister
Very good. This one may be a potential history maker. I've said that before, and meant it, and mean it this time as well.

Well, it is interesting in that if you just showed somebody the image and asked them what they thought of it, they would say, "Oh, well, that looks like a fossil of some kind." But then if you tell them image is of a rock on Mars, then the tendency is for them (and me) to try to come up with explanations as to why it isn't a fossil. Of course, just because something looks like something doesn't mean that's what it is. But again, if it was of a rock on Earth, you wouldn't give it another thought.

a reply to: Blue Shift

On the other thread (which I learned was deep-sevened because you can't start a thread about another thread) an editor posted what he or she called a 'sharpened' image of the same area, and when zoomed in on at 300 percent the image-as-sea-fossil did break down quite a bit. Have you got a good sharp image of the rock section where the radiates and segments hold up (I'm wondering what 'sharpened' means in terms of posting an image)? Thanks.

funbox also found something he posted there which I didn't get a look at before the God of War (and by God of War, I mean Mars) thrashed the thread (or, as it is known on ATS, TTT, or "M" for short). funbox, can you maybe post that last image again, just out of curiosity (that's a pun, fun).

a reply to: Blue Shift

The feature would certainly demand a close-up view. I also think we need to see it without the shadow that may emphasize the shapes to some extent. But that would probably not make a big difference for the C shapes and the circular impressions we see.

So far, there's nothing new under the sun ... as of sol 935 (MAHLI archive). In the latest images, the particular section we're talking about is slightly outside the camera's viewport. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer.

a reply to: Aleister

in regards to the picture I posted in that thread , it was in reply to the amateur geologist, he droped up a picture of fossil that was as close as you could get , the picture was in excess of 2000 x 2000 (cannot check atm ) and was nearly 3 meg

I only adjusted it so it looked like your average JPL jpg



funbox

a reply to: funbox

Oh, that's what it was, I thought it was one of your Mars finds. I remember that picture, of an earth fossil of a spiral shell or something. He or she was saying that the Blue Shift picture bore little resemblance to a traditional earth shell fossil. Looks like all earth fossils are bright yellow, or are submerged in urine, one or the other.

originally posted by: Aleister
On the other thread (which I learned was deep-sevened because you can't start a thread about another thread) an editor posted what he or she called a 'sharpened' image of the same area, and when zoomed in on at 300 percent the image-as-sea-fossil did break down quite a bit. Have you got a good sharp image of the rock section where the radiates and segments hold up (I'm wondering what 'sharpened' means in terms of posting an image)? Thanks.

I don't have anything better than the one I posted. Of course, I try to stick to my policy of not enlarging anything, and only using enhancements to call attention to the area, not to add any additional nonsense to the image. The image to look at is the non-enhanced one, which I provided. So what is there is what was imaged, but there was something there enough to call my attention to it. I also understand that changes in lighting will affect the details, but that applies to everything from Mars fossils to Egyptian carvings.

Either way, the rover was really zoomed in on a tiny area, and the thing itself is obviously very small.

a reply to: funbox

Wow that is a bright picture!

a reply to: Aleister

in reflection it may have been a bit of an exaggeration , I may have overdone the red just a tad , but I felt it was an amusing ironic way to to make the point and just couldn't resist

woe to me when the thread self combusted
maybe there was just a tad much too red

funbox

a reply to: Char-Lee

a twist on the old Viking pics

they always appeared like they had extra colour added

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
in reflection it may have been a bit of an exaggeration , I may have overdone the red just a tad , but I felt it was an amusing ironic way to to make the point and just couldn't resist

I didn't think it was amusing or ironic, I thought it was distracting and could make people think it was something it was not, that's why I don't like supposed jokes being mixed with real information without making it clear that's a joke.

Judging by Aleister's post, I wasn't that wrong.

a reply to: funbox

Maybe they had, this is how that image looks when using the raw files (one for each colour) from the PDS archive.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Maybe they had, this is how that image looks when using the raw files (one for each colour) from the PDS archive

It's a little on the orange side, however, I suppose not all areas of Mars are the same color, just like not all areas of Earth are the same color. Amount of iron in the local soil, and all that.

a reply to: ArMaP

there was no joke , it was a picture used in another thread that doesn't exist, created to illustrate a point that was never reached..

funbox

a reply to: Blue Shift

exactly , but the discussion on the other thread never had time to reach those points,- RAW files, compression ratios , and all the old hat stuff that ill not patronise you guys with further, as im sure you've heard enough of it over the last 16 months

funbox

a reply to: ArMaP

ahh that would be the punchline

here's the original picture proffered up by the junior geologist for comparison to BlueShift's potential

Dimensions 4128 x 2322
24 bit sRGB 72 dpi
focal 4mm



comparative?

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
here's the original picture proffered up by the junior geologist for comparison to BlueShift's potential
comparative?

I think it might be a bit more like this one (but teeny tiny):

a reply to: Blue Shift

indeed , Akin to CharLees spots earlier , maybe Aleister should have posted up the Fossil Chart , we might be discussing this in the now limbo

watch

funbox