Something is definitely up. They DID take down those Mars Curiosity thumbnails. Proof:

reply to post by impaired


Whoooaaaa!!! I'm only pointing out some facts that may HELP you!

I'm sure that NASA has every right to smash your back doors in, take your tackle and use whatever other sodomising laws they have at their disposal should they wish, as you have not adhered to their t+c's.

I think you did a good, accurate job of stitching their pics together and have enjoyed looking at it in fine detail.
No need to be so defensive, you're losing respect dude!

IF you go to this pic and look in the lower left hand corner you see what looks like some type of spine vertebrae. Or I could be insane.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by impaired

 

I can't tell from that screenshot whether or not the full res is on that page as well (just like both the full res and the thumbnail appear on the same raw image page right now).

I mean, maybe it was down for a time, but I do remember scanning around the full resolution (1200 x 1200) versions of those images prior to yesterday. I think I found them by clicking on them while in the raw image page. Although I think the full-res and the thumbnail version of each photo were side-by-side at the time, and now they are not -- all the full-res versions are at the top of the page, and all the thumbnails are below...

...So maybe you went to the site while they were re-arranging it, and there was a time the full-res images were temporarily taken down while they re-arranged.

Exactly, just because a screenshot shows a hyperlink circled does not mean it is a hyperlink we can all click on, which is the purpose of hyperlinks.

NASA asked for credit for their pictures. Just because they put them in Public Domain does not mean they are required to keep them there. They can remove the pictures at any time they wish. When using a picture from NASA, you are to credit NASA, not the website you found them on, because they are still NASA pictures.

From the viewpoint of a person who has dealt with finding copyrighted material and copyrighting my own material, I think legally the pictures should individually be credited to NASA, as they asked. One can post several pictures from NASA, but say the pictures, plural, are courtesy of NASA. It would have been better if the OP just had no screenshot from Wikipedia.

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Whatever you say. I'm not going to argue. Believe what you want.

Well, I'm not sure what to believe, and that's why I asked you the clarify.


This screenshot image you posted doesn't quite show the entire page:



I can't tell by looking at that screenshot if the full-res was ALSO on that page, near the top of the page (if you would have scrolled up or down), while the thumbnail is where you show it. The screenshot is not of the entire page.

This is what the page looks like now, with the clickable full-res image near the top of the page, and the clickable thumbnail image further down:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I still remember viewing the full-res images prior to the 16th, so I think they must have been there (somewhere), and I know they are there now, one day later. Maybe there was a short time yesterday that they weren't there (maybe?), but that doesn't necessarily mean the "something is up".

However, like I said before, the page I remember viewing was arranged differently, so maybe it was a different page than what is there now. I remember each clickable full-res was next to its thumbnail version (they were both small images until you clicked them). I don't see that page arrangement anymore.

Originally posted by Iam'___'
reply to post by impaired

 

Whoooaaaa!!! I'm only pointing out some facts that may HELP you!

I'm sure that NASA has every right to smash your back doors in, take your tackle and use whatever other sodomising laws they have at their disposal should they wish, as you have not adhered to their t+c's.

I think you did a good, accurate job of stitching their pics together and have enjoyed looking at it in fine detail.
No need to be so defensive, you're losing respect dude!

And then it becomes a violation of the terms and conditions of ATS to misrepresent material. Perhaps the OP was not aware or realized this had happened.

reply to post by Iam'___'


Sorry man. People are just hammering me left and right. I'm cranky. My stomach hurts. I did not sleep because I'm working on these images.

Sorry.

reply to post by WarminIndy


This isn't about Wikipedia. Wikipedia was just in the equation. I was stumbling and I saw that image and that's why I made this thread.

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by Iam'___'

 

Sorry man. People are just hammering me left and right. I'm cranky. My stomach hurts. I did not sleep because I'm working on these images.

Sorry.

edit on 8/17/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)

I think they updated the sol 3 images today with one more full-res (there were 337 images this morning, and now there are 338). This image (mars.jpl.nasa.gov...) is labeled as an updated image.


Also, have you seen this panorama?:
Mars - 360cities.net

It's fun to explore, but I don't think it is as high-res as a mosaic of the 1200 x 1200 px images would be.

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by braydenf

 

This is the LAST time I will explain myself about it, and I would love to see your answer.

NASA released a panoramic image 7 days ago with missing images. Those images were on their servers the whole time - they just weren't clickable. We had to find them. I bet you did NOT read this thread because if you did, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

So why is it that my latest panorama has only ONE missing image (working on it right now) when they could of had their panorama more complete a week ago?

Before you come into this thread acting all ignorant, I suggest you actually 1: Read the OP, and 2: Read the thread.

But some people are just lazy...

Originally posted by braydenf
lolol yeahhh all the small ones, just change the I to and E and they are full res. what a conspiracy

And once again - WE (us ATS'ers) found that out. If we didn't, we wouldn't have had the data.

So? What do you have to say about that? Probably no response and if there is one, it won't have anything to do with this post.

Surprise me.

edit on 8/17/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)

hahah i read both your threads, you are making a big deal out of nothing. more than likely there has been some errors with whoever is uploading and doing the HTML.
Why hasnt nasa made a more complete one? Maybe they have something of more importance going on, maybe who ever is in charge, appointed his teenage son to do the website. who knows. Regardless its nothing overly weird. you may have not said it was a conspiracy but by the two threads you made, it appears you are making it out like someone is up to something and trying to hide what they are doing..

Chilllllll.

reply to post by impaired


No probs, been there and done that.

Get yourself some well earned sleep!

Originally posted by Doodle19815
I see a human finger on the left side of the pic! I can't get it out of my head. Finger nail and all.

Wow... it looks like one doesn't it? Trippy!!!!! I get so tired of tptb hiding things from us!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by OnionHead

Originally posted by OutonaLimb


It is not a finger.
It is a Penis (as seen from the under-side).

Agreed its clearly a Martian finger penis beast that has just assaulted curiosity. Ironically curiosity goes probing on a foreign land and gets probed back. Curiosity killed the cat

To be serious though, no one has a finger that fat at the base and skinny at the tips, same goes for your chap, and no one makes a statue with out of proportion fingers surely. In other words its just a rock that looks like a finger penis hybrid, a clear case of finger penis hybrid.

Curiosity got fingered by a penis

Actually anyone who has grown up doing manual labor, like on a farm, or done masonry all their life, or even just older generation people that just have big sausage finger hands.....they all have fingers that look like that. Hey, the famous old paint of "God" reaching down and touching fingers with someone....I'm not religious, I don't know the specifics of the painting. I just call it the "God finger painting", looks like that finger.

Basically anyone with big hands with big fat sausage fingers, their fore-finger looks like that. Fat at the base and skinnier near the tip. Even if you don't have sausage fingers, you right now can just make a fist and casually point your fore-finger where it's just kinda relaxed and slightly bent (just like that "god finger painting) and you can see it's the same thing. Even a guy with little girly hands like mine, it's the same shape, even slightly thicker at the base.

People can just go ahead and say that's "not a finger, it's a random rock" all you want. But IMO that just shows how many people are either A) in complete denial because their minds can't handle the idea of an ancient human civilization on another planet, or B) or are just lying and not admitting what's literally pointing it's finger in their face because again, their minds can't handle that reality. Or perhaps you just think everyone ELSE can't handle it, or don't deserve to know it, so you lie for that reason.

But either way, or even if it's some other reason......anyone saying that's not a finger carved from stone, is COMPLETELY full of you know what. It's like people are convinced there's just no need for archeology on other planets, even though there's been evidence that's it's should be the main science being employed on Mars since the very first time we've had close up images and data before even 1976.

NASA, and these people intend on never admitting that there's obviously ancient and destroyed artificial stuff that looks kinda "man made" as in human, all over the place on Mars (and our moon for that matter), they just seem to want to focus on, and talk about the smallest possible signs of ancient life.....carbon isotopes and ****. Yet seem to have absolutely no macro-vision what-so-ever. No ability to again.....see what's pointing it's sausage finger directly in their face.

We, as people looking at these images (and by the way PAID for them as well), we only have the option of looking at these images through archeologist's eyes. It's our only option, and in fact I think our DUTY when looking at NASA pictures from the surface of other planets. The only real data in a picture is what you can see in the picture. ANd to me, it seems like an aweful lot of people aren't really looking (or as I said, are in denial or lying).

In the top left of the original image which is now blurred, I see what looks like a fossil/snail shape

Interesting.

Originally posted by Larry L
People can just go ahead and say that's "not a finger, it's a random rock" all you want. But IMO that just shows how many people are either A) in complete denial because their minds can't handle the idea of an ancient human civilization on another planet, or B) or are just lying and not admitting what's literally pointing it's finger in their face because again, their minds can't handle that reality. Or perhaps you just think everyone ELSE can't handle it, or don't deserve to know it, so you lie for that reason.

Quite frankly, it could very well be a natural rock. For a person to just go ahead and say that "it's not a rock -- it's definitely a finger" would also mean that person is in a form of denial.

What evidence do you have (besides the fact that it looks like a finger-shaped rock) that it really IS (or was) a finger?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Larry L
People can just go ahead and say that's "not a finger, it's a random rock" all you want. But IMO that just shows how many people are either A) in complete denial because their minds can't handle the idea of an ancient human civilization on another planet, or B) or are just lying and not admitting what's literally pointing it's finger in their face because again, their minds can't handle that reality. Or perhaps you just think everyone ELSE can't handle it, or don't deserve to know it, so you lie for that reason.

Quite frankly, it could very well be a natural rock. For a person to just go ahead and say that "it's not a rock -- it's definitely a finger" would also mean that person is in a form of denial.

What evidence do you have (besides the fact that it looks like a finger-shaped rock) that it really IS (or was) a finger?

Yes sir, and I'm with your point 100%. And the only evidence is what we can see in the picture. You know full well there is no other evidence to talk about as yet. Maybe we can get this rock from another angle, and then we'll have some more evidence to chat about.

But here's the thing you said, that makes me respect your angle and opinion more so than I would, or do someone who didn't use a very key word you used. And it's a very key word that looking back to my post I should have also used. That word is "could". And you even emboldened it bebcause of how key it is.

It very well COULD be a random rock that just happens to look EXACTLY like a human finger. But it's the people who say "that IS nothing but a rock" end of., this is the kind of thinking that I think is holding us back as a species. If someone is just saying "no no, it's Mars, so that can't be a finger so therefore it looks nothing like a finger", then there's certainly SOME kind of denial there.

My point is not that this IS a finger, (you'd need pics from other angles to determine that), but that it sure as hell LOOKS exactly like a finger, and to me anyone saying that it just flat out DOESN'T look like a finger is lying for some reason or in denial. It's not just perodoilia making that look like a finger, it really does.......at least from the angle of this image.

My friend,

Originally posted by impaired

*I* created a panoramic image.

From images that belonged to NASA

I can copyright THAT image and sell it.

No, you can't. I am a Photographer and upload my images to a public domain for people to view. I own all my images through copyright protection. If someone came along and took my image, tampered with them and then sold them as their own, It would be classed as stealing.

That's how this works.

It is not, sorry. It is theft, stealing.

So it's my work in the fact that I put it together.

Fine for your desktop however, not for claiming they are your own.

I didn't TAKE the raw images. THEY are not mine

They belong to NASA, NASA own the copyright.

But they were GIVEN to us.

For viewing purposes only. NASA own the copyright.

Do I have to keep explaining this?

Probably best not to, it could turn out embarrassing for you because your incorrect. You are in breach of international copyright infringement my friend.

Can we get to the topic of the bloody thread?

Interesting theory you have here and it's great to see the research you have put in. I'm a believer off NASA cover ups and I believe your on to something here. It will be interesting how it all pans out.

Be safe be well,

Spiro

reply to post by Hellas


Wow you sir or mam are a genius....or you read about this tip somewhere else..I will try before I give you the infamous star...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


WOW

The mars 360 link is stunning...thanks

reply to post by Spiro

Read it, OP nicely explained copyright issue, I'll re-post:

NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA-sponsored.

NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material except in cases of advertising. See NASA Advertising Guidelines

nasa.gov

reply to post by Spiro


Hey Spiro. Hey folks. Got a few hours of rest.

Since I believe myself to be humble, I will post this from the NASA site. We will see I was wrong about some things. I "should" give NASA credit for the images. Good work guys on being tenacious as to getting this into my skull (hey - I'm only human! I have a damned ego too!)

As a government entity, NASA does not "license" the use of NASA materials or sign license agreements. The Agency generally has no objection to the reproduction and use of these materials (audio transmissions and recordings; video transmissions and recording; or still and motion picture photography), subject to the following conditions:

NASA material may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by NASA or by any NASA employee of a commercial product, service, or activity, or used in any manner that might mislead.

NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material.

It is unlawful to falsely claim copyright or other rights in NASA material.

NASA shall in no way be liable for any costs, expenses, claims, or demands arising out of the use of NASA material by a recipient or a recipient's distributees.

NASA does not indemnify nor hold harmless users of NASA material, nor release such users from copyright infringement, nor grant exclusive use rights with respect to NASA material.

NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.

If a recognizable person, or talent (e.g., an astronaut or a noted personality engaged to narrate a film) appears in NASA material, use for commercial purposes may infringe a right of privacy or publicity. Therefore, permission should be obtained from the recognizable person or talent. If the proposed use of the NASA material could be viewed as a commercial exploitation of that person. However, if the intended use of NASA material is primarily for communicative purposes, i.e., books, newspapers, and magazines reporting facts of historical significance (constitutionally protected media uses), then such uses will generally be considered not to infringe such personal rights.

Some NASA audiovisual material may incorporate music or footage, which is copyrighted and licensed for the particular NASA work. Any editing or otherwise altering of the work may not be covered under the original license, and therefore would require permission of the copyright owner.

NASA audiovisual material may include visible NASA identifiers (e.g., the name of the vehicle and the NASA Insignia or Logotype in photographs or film footage of Space Shuttle vehicles). Use of such materials is generally non-objectionable, provided the NASA identifiers appear in their factual context.

www.nasa.gov...

#'s 2 and 3.

See, now this is what I'm talking about. We're all working together here, see?

Thanks to all of you for helping us all get the facts straight.

Now, I'll give the credit to NASA in words at the images and panos. Just give me a little.

And I don't see anything about selling - unless I missed it.

But I won't sell even if I can, which I really think you can. But I've been wrong before and if *I* can see I'm wrong (once again - only human), I will happily admit in front of the world. I just want us all to enjoy these images and the MARDI descender video I made:

www.youtube.com...

IMAGES PROPERTY OF NASA!
All I did was sequence them and release it as a video! I did not film the rover landing! I swear!

Ok, I'm feeling better now.

But seriously, thanks guys.