NASA Explination of the "Mars Crab"

"Our team believes that this odd-looking feature is a piece of soft material that definitely came from our vehicle," said Rob Manning, lead engineer for entry, descent and landing.

NASA Explination

Thanks for posting, I had hoped they would get round to talking about this. It does make sense.

What a load of garbage, my unborn child can make a .gif file better than that.

I don't buy it at all, look how dark the GIF animation gets and notice also that the SHADOW does not move at all.

I smell a stinky pile of NASA dung.

Originally posted by 29MV29
What a load of garbage, my unborn child can make a .gif file better than that.

I don't buy it at all, look how dark the GIF animation gets and notice also that the SHADOW does not move at all.

I smell a stinky pile of NASA dung.

It looks dark cause its the different specrtums.

It doesn't move cause they were all taken at the same time, its not a time lapse.

Read the Article.

Can your kid make a better .gif of Mars?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Quest]

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

sorry, but i don't buy it. does this look like movement from a light wind to you?



notice how only the "ear" on the right moves, and the shadow beneath it stays stationary. do we even know if the wind was blowing when these movements were recorded? also, i find it hard to believe that this thing left no tracks when it moved.

besides, NASA must think we are all very ignorant to believe that this is the same object.



does anyone looking at the picture above think the object under the landing bears any resemblance to the "bunny"?

Originally posted by Quest
It looks dark cause its the different specrtums.

It doesn't move cause they were all taken at the same time, its not a time lapse.

Read the Article.

Can your kid make a better .gif of Mars?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Quest]

Huh?

taken from site:
This movie of the "bunny ears," compiled from three panoramic camera images taken about two minutes apart, indicates that the object can move in a light wind.

Not a time lapse, then what does this mean?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by dunkleskates
does anyone looking at the picture above think the object under the landing bears any resemblance to the "bunny"?

No...

I think the only important info is that it match part of the lander in spectra.

As for trying to figure out where it went, I think thats just silly on NASA's part.

Originally posted by 29MV29
Huh?

taken from site:
This movie of the "bunny ears," compiled from three panoramic camera images taken about two minutes apart, indicates that the object can move in a light wind.

Not a time lapse, then what does this mean?

My appoligies... Apparently I need to reread the article.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by Quest
It looks dark cause its the different specrtums.

It doesn't move cause they were all taken at the same time, its not a time lapse.

Read the Article.

Can your kid make a better .gif of Mars?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Quest]

read my post, I said unborn child. And read the captioning on the site under the GIF animation. HELLO?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by Quest
It looks dark cause its the different specrtums.

It doesn't move cause they were all taken at the same time, its not a time lapse.

Read the Article.

Can your kid make a better .gif of Mars?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Quest]

it does move, slightly, and according to the caption under that animation on nasa's site, it is a time lapse with about two minutes between pics. ZZub, you seem to be pretty educated when it comes to computer imagery, is there a technical explanation for why the "ear" and the face of the object would move slightly while the shadow remains stationary?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

I think Zzub pointed out earlier, that the object is on top of the tracks, therefore lending credence to NASA's explaination, as if it was there before, it wouldn't be on top of the rover's tracks.....

Originally posted by dunkleskates
sorry, but i don't buy it. does this look like movement from a light wind to you?
NOPE, not at all. NASA is full of crap on this one.


notice how only the "ear" on the right moves, and the shadow beneath it stays stationary. do we even know if the wind was blowing when these movements were recorded? also, i find it hard to believe that this thing left no tracks when it moved.

besides, NASA must think we are all very ignorant to believe that this is the same object.

To bad 75% of the American people will take NASA's word, such silly sheeple.



does anyone looking at the picture above think the object under the landing bears any resemblance to the "bunny"?

Nope

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Again, my appoligies....

ALL,

See the thread New warning category, One-Liners and Big Quotes

I have edited most of the posts here because we are all talking about the same image. We don't need to quote over and over and over. Some of you were using the quote and it have 3 people's comments in it.
I really didn't want to hit everyone with warnings.

Please, just watch the big quotes.

-------------------------------------------------------------

As for the image....to me it didn't look like it moved much at all. I don't know that I buy it yet. I would like to see if they have any other images that show more change.

i would really like to know if there is a technical explanation for the movement of the "ear", and what appears to be a shifting of the "face", but no change in the position of the shadow.

Where are ZZub and Kano when ya need them?

If it is nothing, as NASA states, then why did the rover run over this object and crush it? This can be seen in the rear cam after it reached the rocks on the other side of it.

if this is true, do you have a link to a picture?

Yeah, great point God. They also say in the article that it blew away leaving no 'footprints'. But then they show a pic of it looking as if it's embedded in the soil, what gives? Did it blow away or did they run it over?

Another question I have now is if it did fall during the landers descent, why is there not even a tiny crater mark or look as if it�s embedded in the sand?

These people at NASA should know every single component attached to their crafts and they can�t make a positive ID, something�s really up in my opinion.

EDIT:

I just did some more digging and am using a picture that Zzub made.





[Edited on 5-3-2004 by 29MV29]

what a bunch of crap.

Do you all remember what I posted that every body chuckled at ?

That when questioned where did the "crab" go I said maybe its under the lander taking advantage of the "shade"

and this is what NASA said, when they said they found it

'After looking at pictures of Opportunity's lander up-close, I think we might have, again, spotted the bunny," said Johnson. "It looks as if the object has been blown under the north-facing egress ramp."

What if the "ears" are not ears and that normally they lay flat against the surface or are stretched out. Thus the "crab" went under the lander and now the "ears/arms" are laying flat against the soil in that photo.

I dont buy the Visual Spectrum being the same as the airbag sample material one bit. The "crab" is deffinatly closer to the soil and rock coloring then anything else.

Plus when you really look at the "crab" it has three maybe four orange colored spikes on each side (only one side visable) NASA leaves out the other photos that show a different "arm" orientation on one arm.

As well as if this thing was so light to be picked up and blown around the landing site. Then why hasnt the lander and lander ramps been covered fine fine martian sand/ soil/ dust by now ????? You would think that the dust particles are smaller then the proposed 2 inch length of the "crab" right ? So if the wind is strong enough to blow the "crab" around then it should be strong enough to lay a nice fat pile of dust on the lander as well

NASA BS. Shame on you for once again LYING to the public.

I don't buy it either....It's just the NASA theory of what it is...but they don't know either.....they are just responding to keep our emails silent.