Curiosity Has Landed!!

reply to post by jaysbot


Interesting observation, and you obviously put some work into it and I respect that, but that picture in my opinion could not be used as even probable evidence of a structure, there is simply too much dust floating around fcaused by the lander's engines and dust on the camera.

Dick Hoagland believes its a structure, I'm waiting for the evidence. It does seem that it was particularly interesting that NASA spent 10 years preparing for this mission and picked this particular "mountain to investigate.

REBEL V

Originally posted by rebelv
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

The statement was released by NASA on July 31st, 1976. Does everyone here have to prove already established facts? or is possible someone can use Google, or is that not an accepted form of research. I was 11 years old at the time and I remember it very well. My date could be off, but only by a day or two.

REBEL V

I wasn't born then, so I cannot verify or deny what you claim. I googled " intelligent life 1976 viking mission", and came back with nothing.

reply to post by ZIPMATT


Yeah i can see it now, a giant 42 scrawled in the sand. That would be awesome,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

It appears in both the right and left cameras so it's not likely to be dust on the lens covers. More likely a distant peak. Or perhaps a boulder on the other side of a rise.

edit on 8/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So where is it at?

reply to post by Phage


So it could be a peak? Hmmmm now this gets interesting!

reply to post by RSF77


Contrast Watson, contrast.

reply to post by rebelv

I was 11 years old at the time and I remember it very well.

I was older than that and I don't remember it at all. But do I remember the Viking landing quite well and how disappointed I was at the images of rocks....just rocks.

reply to post by RSF77

Lost in the glare I think.
I also think the dust cover is still in place in that image.

We'll find out before too long.

reply to post by crazyguy2012


Sorry, got Rum confused with Bourbon. I don't drink myself.

Yes, I agree with you little pebbles and rocks are getting a bit boring to look at now and hardly deserves the funding that this mission got since we've already gotten very good pictures of Martian rocks.

I agree with your last comment as well. Curiosity does have headlights, they would work very nicely under ground, so would its power source.

REBEL V

Originally posted by rebelv
Curiosity does have headlights, they would work very nicely under ground,

It does? Where?

LATEST....................... 1 HOUR AGO

Originally posted by Dyzan
reply to post by ZIPMATT

 

Yeah i can see it now, a giant 42 scrawled in the sand. That would be awesome,

And then we find out that the Mayans were the only ones to receive notice that the Vogons are planning to built an intergalactic highway and earth is smack dab in the middle and is due to be demolished on Dec 21, 2012... Just remember "Don't Panic" and also don't forget to bring your towel...

SEEMS IT WAS A PEAK PHAGE.

reply to post by crazyguy2012


and a star for you my friend

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Maybe I spoke too soon when I said pictures of rocks are boring. That is awesome. Just throw in a lake with some Martian Fish give me a nice fishing pole and I am on the first flight there...

reply to post by Phage



It took me less than one minute to confirm the date is correct, and to verify it. Wow, some of you guys type one search phrase into Google, say you come up with nothing and call that research... interesting.

REBEL V

reply to post by CaptainBeno

No. The image you posted is from the front hazcam. The peak (or pyramid) is from the rear.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
LATEST....................... 1 HOUR AGO

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
SEEMS IT WAS A PEAK PHAGE.

I hate to rain on your parade, but it looks like that is from a different angle. Look at the wheels, it looks like the rover turned to the right. Is that the same mountain that is visible in the first pictures?

reply to post by rebelv

Care to help us poor researchers out a bit and provide a link?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

It appears in both the right and left cameras so it's not likely to be dust on the lens covers. More likely a distant peak. Or perhaps a boulder on the other side of a rise.

edit on 8/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Oooh interesting. I haven't seen the other image with the 'object' of interest yet. You have a link for that one? Have you (or anyone else) got a link for the most up to date images?