Mars Curiosity Raw Image Anomaly

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MamaJ

 

You know the "silver ball" is the heat shield, right?

Hahaha.... Yeah, of course. :-)

I do now. When it reads above the falling heat shield I actually thought it was separate from the falling heat shield. Now I get it though.... Thanks!

This picture (in the OP) validates what Mythi says in his videos (well as told to a Brazilian), that Mars is being terraformed, the atmosphere is coming along, elite humans and their workers are there.

These structures in the OP could be the terraforming factories, they are obvioulsy factories of some type.

Here is the video where Mars is talked about and specifically this mission, you can also search the Youtube channel and the PDF there for more info on Mars:

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


i got both apps off the google play app store for free.

why are there loads of black patches covering bits up?

reply to post by SkuzzleButt

The mosaic consists of 130 images.
Those are areas in which no images were taken.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


Yah man, for sure. Here ya go.

And just incase you don't know, what your basically doing when you invert an image, is simulating what that picture would look like under the opposite spectrum of light. So if this image was in color it would appear to be under black light since the sun emits white light, but since this is just a black and white image all you are seeing is what it would look like if what is absorbing light in the picture now reflects it and what reflects light is now absorbing it. The amount of light being reflected and absorbed stays relative to the original, just " inverted ".

Originally posted by twistedlogic
you sir have officially been debunked.

some random guy on the net comes in and inverts the photo claiming this as evidence and your are officially debunked. Isn't it interesting in your attempt to hide the image it is still visible in the pictures, only a far lighter color... yeah ok.

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by optimus primal

 

here's a post by nasa on google+ talking about it linky linky

But look at some curiosity pictures that they didn't take down. some of them look clear as day. Fk I hate nasa, its one thing we know that they are actually covering stuff up, and they still continue to release false photos or photos that dont have any relevance

reply to post by FreeMindedMason


they didn't take any pictures down. all the raw images taken in the last three Sols are available for download on nasa.gov.

reply to post by jaysbot


In my attempt to hide the image? I used the exact photos you used. Please read the explanation above your comment that explains what inverting and image does.

I inverted the image to show contrast that is otherwise more difficult to view with the human eye. Differences between black and grey are naturally easier to see than differences between white and grey.

I assumed you did not know much about what's going on when a photo is taken, which is why I explained it in laymen's terms. The same color blotches in your anomaly are also present within the circle of light produced by the sun. It can be inferred that since they are reflecting the same spectrum of light they are made out of the same material. ( slight variations in color can be attributed to density )

This is where knowing how an image is captured and how light acts comes into play.

Take a piece of glass or plastic, just something clear. Hold it against a dark colored background. Can't to see any of the smudges or scratches on it huh? Now hold it up to a light. Every scratch, smudge, or spec of something is now totally visible. Seeing as though the anomalies appear only on the horizon where there is no background ( allowing the light to pass through the material, like the glass experiment ) we can now deduce that these anomalies are not a solid structure and in fact in the air. And given the range in heights and color variations ( density ) the most logical explanation is dirt kicked up by the landing. Therefore, debunked.

Originally posted by jaysbot

Originally posted by twistedlogic
you sir have officially been debunked.

some random guy on the net comes in and inverts the photo claiming this as evidence and your are officially debunked. Isn't it interesting in your attempt to hide the image it is still visible in the pictures, only a far lighter color... yeah ok.

The Puff on Mars: Mystery solved?

The puff was a mysterious smudge that popped up on images taken by Curiosity's front-facing hazard avoidance cameras. The smudge could be seen in the first round of pictures, but was missing in a later round that was sent back two hours later. Was the puff just dirt on the lens? A dust devil that happened to be passing through the field of view when the image was taken? Or was it debris thrown up by an interplanetary crash? That last option is now the leading hypothesis

more: cosmiclog.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by Pauligirl

Leading hypothesis? Who's?

Was the puff actually the cloud of debris thrown up into the air by the crash? "I don't think you can rule it out," mission manager Mike Watkins said Tuesday.

cosmiclog.nbcnews.com...
From not being able to rule it out to "leading hypothesis"?

But the puff almost certainly wasn't just a smudge of dirt on the lens cover, because it was picked up by two different cameras, left and right.

The lenses of the hazcams are close together and have overlapping fields of view. I'd like to know the configuration of the lens cover(s).

A pretty amazing coincidence if it was the crash of the skycrane. Hazcam pointed in the right direction, image taken at the right time.

reply to post by Phage


Apparently it's NASA's leading hypothesis:

Now You See an Impact Plume, Now You Don't
These alternating views taken by the Hazard-Avoidance cameras on NASA's Curiosity rover show evidence for an impact plume created when the rover's sky crane fell to the Martian surface. The sky crane helped the rover gently land on Mars before flying away and crashing in a planned maneuver.

The view flips between images taken about 45 minutes apart. The image taken earlier shows evidence for the "blob" thought to be the impact plume; by the time the later image was taken, the blob had disappeared.

These images are from the rover's rear Hazard-Avoidance cameras. They are one-quarter of full resolution (256 by 256 pixels).

www.nasa.gov...

This whole thing is getting weirder and weirder. The article linked the above post is the first mention I've heard of the 'anomaly' appearing in two photos. When I look at the 'before and after' pics on the NASA site it looks even more like dust/a smudge, and yet the explanation by NASA seems to be that they've, as you say Phage, very coincidentally captured the impact plume.

Interesting though that in the second picture much of the dust on the lens is still visible despite the picture itself being much clearer. Obviously this 'anomaly' is gone, but much of the dust remains - which leads me to believe (perhaps erroneously) that this smudge is not something on the lens.

Does anyone have any more info about the second pic in which this anomaly appears?

Now You See an Impact Plume, Now You Don't
These alternating views taken by the Hazard-Avoidance cameras on NASA's Curiosity rover show evidence for an impact plume created when the rover's sky crane fell to the Martian surface. The sky crane helped the rover gently land on Mars before flying away and crashing in a planned maneuver.

The view flips between images taken about 45 minutes apart. The image taken earlier shows evidence for the "blob" thought to be the impact plume; by the time the later image was taken, the blob had disappeared.

These images are from the rover's rear Hazard-Avoidance cameras. They are one-quarter of full resolution (256 by 256 pixels).

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

While i never was 100% certain of the anomaly being something, isn't it interesting that NASA has come out with an explanation. I was expecting this..... first came the extensive aerial map from NASA highlighting where everything landed, impacted on mars after the landing. I call it an 'orgy' of evidence. Now indeed NASA has come out highlighting look, see it's a dust cloud from the impact of the sky crane... i'm not saying they are wrong or lying i'm leaving an open mind.

Now to all those who came in this thread, saying you are debunked, you are this you are wrong. I'm not telling you i told you so but you sure as better have all your facts right before putting everything into a square box and claiming it is mere dust, or you are imagining things, or see i knew these rumours would come out with the first photos... Learn to have an open mind, not the mind of a closed skeptic.

As for NASA's findings it's hard to get the real answers because they are NASA. I'm sure if anything is off here or something not right someone will find something, as for me i am still not convinced and i already have a reason for this, more to come

oh.. now we have nasa's pic here isn't it interesting... take a good look.


edit - If you go back to my orig thread and zoom the 1st photo on the left (orig raw) using CTRL +- yourself they now look like 2 different photos, comparing that to this new evidence photo from NASA. try it.

Originally posted by jaysbot

.... first came the extensive aerial map from NASA highlighting where everything landed, impacted on mars after the landing. I call it an 'orgy' of evidence.

I don't know what you were expecting? Perhaps you expected NASA to release the aerial maps of where everything landed, prior to the landing?

Originally posted by jaysbot
claiming it is mere dust

I guess a dust cloud doesn't count as dust? Anyway, I am man enough to admit I was wrong. I really did think it was just dust on the dust cover. A plume of dust from the crash landing didn't even cross my mind. I didn't for one minute think it was an artificial structure though. Especially one with smoke stacks and a domed roof.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


ya ok thanks that is a rarity these days... atleast you are close to what they are claiming, just dust in the air not on the cam.

Like i said as soon as i saw the aerial map of the mars landing site detailing where everything landed / fell.. i know something was up and i had a feeling it was going to lead back to this.

It's interesting how the image has been converted to a gif, because now obvious details have changed around the anomaly and they can say hey man it's just in the conversion we lost some more pixels.

Steve Sell, a member of the JPL team that monitored Curiosity's entry, descent and landing, confirmed that view on Friday. He noted that the puff did indeed occur at just the right place and time to match up with the sky crane's impact at 100 miles an hour (160 kilometers per hour). "We're fairly certain that that is the impact plume. ... We expected it to kick up a lot of dust," he told reporters.

Update: cosmiclog.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by jaysbot


so it wasn't completely dust on the cover, but dust on the cover combined with the crash plume. cool. it's still not a building.

very cool that they accidentally caught the crash in the first few pictures after landing. curiosity is so awesome so far, and it's only sol 3.

Some people just won't let go. It's not dust on the lens!!! You can clearly see that plenty of dust remains on the lens in the second pic, but the anomaly disappears.

What I don't understand is that there's so much dust in the air from the landing of curiosity that the mountain in the background is not visible, and yet a plume of dust is visible in the dust. It seems unlikely to me that a dust plume would be visible in a dusty environment.

I'm definitely not saying it's a structure, and I'm not saying it's not a dust plume. I honestly don't know. The shape certainly seems pretty odd for a dust cloud, I would expect a column or a mushroom plume. Not a shape that tapers in at the top like a pyramid.

It's not just 'cool' it's a highly unlikely coincidence. Coincidences happen, and maybe this one did too - but there's definitely some strangeness surrounding it.

Are we sure the dust covers have come off? Some of the posts at the start of this thread mentioned a week before the dust covers would come off. There was mention of the fact that the dust kicked up by the landing would obscure the first few pics. The fact that so must dust remains even on the clearer pic makes me think the dust covers are still on, but the dust from the landing has settled so the pic is clearer.