What are my chances of going fishing on Mars?

They must do a lot of fishing on Mars 'cos someone has been digging for worms. haha

No, obviously not, but I have found this image of a worm in one of the MER pictures and I wondered if anyone can suggest another explanation. I have also posted it a while ago on the Alien Anomalies forum but I though you may like to see this and give me your thoughts. Maybe it is not a worm, but it looks strange on a remote world where nothing is supposed to live and (officially) there are no trees, or sticks, pointy-things, curved-things, etc either.

The "worm" is in the top right quadrant of this section of the image and shows the "worm" as an 'S-shaped' thing.



If you want more pictures close to this one (in time) then enter 1P317629362EFFAAT1P2365L5M1 in the search program at this link Mars Rover Photo Search program

Data on the image
========================
1P317629362EFFAAT1P2365L5M1
Rover Opportunity
Sol 2134
Site AA
Camera Pancam

This is version 1 of a photograph produced for M - MIPL (OPGS) at JPL on Sun, 24 Jan 2010 GMT at 18:21 which is Sol 2134.

It was taken with the Pancam instrument, through the Left camera, using filter number 5, 535nm (19) on the Mars Rover Opportunity.

It is a Full frame EDR picture which is raw, is NOT liniarised, and is NOT thumbnail sized

This data was captured at site number AA(110) on drive number T1, and the command sequence number P2365 was instructed by PMA & Remote Sensing instr. (Pancam, Navcam, Hazcam, MI, Mini-TES) and belongs to the group 2000 through 2899 - Pancam sequences

Good luck casting out without any gravity

If you look at the left of the picture, same level as the worm, you will see the face of DryBones, from Mario Bros...



EDIT: To answer your question: You have as much chance of going fishing on Mars as finding a picture of a worm, and dry bones, from that same planet...

Catch me some mars pics and we will share some cheeks.....I won't walleye out on either ...just jokin,nice thread.snf

Yes,.it was a (bad) joke.
Maybe there is an undiscovered trout stream somewhere but I am still searching for runnimg water..Maybe I'll post my pictures of running water some day.

But, for now, what do you think the squiggly thing is?

squiggly

reply to post by qmantoo


the rap with a worm wiggly under mars dense atmosphere ....I could not see that cast

For me, the best fishing is when your concentration remains uninterrupted by pesky ichthyes.

Hence, the fishing on Mars, by my own standards, would be most excellent.

Harte

What a waste of a thread you know 100% you have no chance of going fishing in mars ...sorry have to go got to fix a guys ducati on venus

reply to post by qmantoo


It looks more like a photo artefact, as the photo doesn't have enough resolution to show something like that.

We must first find and learn how to operate the alien reactor in order to pump oxygen into the Martian atmosphere. Fishing in a spacesuit might prove to be quite a chore. Just saying.

It looks more like a photo artefact, as the photo doesn't have enough resolution to show something like that.

Like what exactly? How large is this item? So, how do we know it is below the resolution threshold?

If the Rover images produced artifacts like this all over the place, the photos would be totally unuseable for any kind of science at all. Please spend a little time in considering this image rather than just dismissing it as an artifact.

It is obviously not a post-processing hair, but maybe it is a piece of spagetti from a NASA employee's dinner which got stuck to the scanner perhaps?

It is easy to dismiss something as an artifact if you have no other explanation for it, but usually artifacts are square-ish and this one is definitely "wiggly". Any further, more realistic ideas?

The Rover images themselves can easily resolve items of this size. Now, the actual images we get to see may not be very good but I think the originals would be able to.

Fishing on Mars? Killing lifeforms of another planet? No wonder no other society wants to make official contact with humans!

Originally posted by qmantoo
Like what exactly?

Like an interference pattern, for example.

How large is this item? So, how do we know it is below the resolution threshold?

The size of the item is irrelevant, what I'm talking about is that the photo, for some reason, has too much noise, reducing, in practice, the resolution (if you zoom in you can see that some pixels appear rectangular instead of square), but the "worm" appears for some pixels without any sign of noise, as if it was sharper than the rest of the photo. That's why I think it's an artefact, the result of some pixels from the noise getting in the right places to give it a different look.

If the Rover images produced artifacts like this all over the place, the photos would be totally unuseable for any kind of science at all.

I am talking about this photo, not all other photos, obviously.

Please spend a little time in considering this image rather than just dismissing it as an artifact.

I did, as I always do, and I went looking for a better (non JPEG) version of the image, as you can see below.

It is obviously not a post-processing hair, but maybe it is a piece of spagetti from a NASA employee's dinner which got stuck to the scanner perhaps?

Those photos are not scanned, they are digital, so there's no need of scanning them.

It is easy to dismiss something as an artifact if you have no other explanation for it, but usually artifacts are square-ish and this one is definitely "wiggly". Any further, more realistic ideas?

Artefacts can have any shape, it depends on how they were produced.

The Rover images themselves can easily resolve items of this size. Now, the actual images we get to see may not be very good but I think the originals would be able to.

Look above for the original, or at least a version as close to the original as possible.

ArMap, OK, thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. It could be as you say, an artifact, however, it IS strange that the best photos we have from the pds which are supposed to be used by science still contain these kind of anomalies. I could speculate, but I wont bother.

In the past I have been told by somone involved in the design of the Rovers that the originals are gigabyte size when they are downloaded however all we end up with when the pds file is extracted is a pathetic gif of often less than one megabyte.

Although the quality of this one is better than the lossy jpgs posted on sites designed for speed and public viewing, it is still rather sad that all that extra detail is not available to those who wish to study them. No published reason why either.
Q

B.A.S.S Master Classic on Mars.

Now that would be a hoot.

Originally posted by qmantoo
ArMap, OK, thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. It could be as you say, an artifact, however, it IS strange that the best photos we have from the pds which are supposed to be used by science still contain these kind of anomalies.

The photos from the PDS, like the one I posted, do not suffer from all those artefacts, but when there are too much noise they also look bad.

In the past I have been told by somone involved in the design of the Rovers that the originals are gigabyte size when they are downloaded however all we end up with when the pds file is extracted is a pathetic gif of often less than one megabyte.

How could that be when the sensor is only 1024 x 1024?
After being converted to CUB the images can turn into very large files, because they include other informations.

Well, just ask.

You'll only remember bits and pieces of the event though, like it was all a dream..

There are better places to fish though.

reply to post by ChildoftheAnnunaki


Mars does have gravity, about 38% compared to earth...

Perfect for a long cast

I agree that this size seems ridiculous, but that is what I seem to remember he said. Anyway, maybe it is not correct and I remembered it wrongly - that's quite possible too.

I knew that some of the images were 1024x1024 pixels and that they are taken in B & W with filters. This works out to be about 3Mb each image if my math is correct. The MER pds images are still a lot less than this kind of size though so I wonder where the extra details went to. I reckon there is no excuse for denying science the full detailed images.

Originally posted by qmantoo
I knew that some of the images were 1024x1024 pixels and that they are taken in B & W with filters. This works out to be about 3Mb each image if my math is correct.

It's not.

That would be if the images were RGB, but as they are monochromatic they don't need 3 bytes per pixel, only one, so these images are exactly 1 mega bytes images.