Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Why are people still feeding the OBVIOUS troll?

No trolling here. I think you have the incorrect thread.

Somehow I envisioned Martians as a bit taller. Hummm

reply to post by arianna


I don't want to ruffle your feathers, OP, but I think you just showed ATS a good number of martian rocks.

i think it was a yahoo users comment i read the other day which had me thinking; said something in response to that shiny object "what if that is a city?". wouldnt that be something else? if there was intelligent society on mars, it was just so ridiculously small, and having our rover there is the most devastating alien attack to them? lil pocket aliens or something. you ever watch those ghost shows where they have those little orbs flying around? what if those are their spaceships haha, just a thought. but for this pic, looks like just a rock for pete's sake.

arianna --

Could you please respond to my earlier assertion that your "tower" isn't a tower at all, but merely the broken face of a large rock (as shown here):



Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
Take a look at the objects showing in the third image that I have rectangled in yellow.

They look like rocks.

Do any members have any views about the color content of the mastcam images?

To me, the color content of the mastcam images does not seem to be correct when making comparisons with the MER PanCam color images.

They look as I was expecting, not as red as the official NASA images of how things look on Mars, not as blue as the images made by just using the images from the red, green and blue filters.

ArMaP, The features showing in the rectangles may appear as rocks to you, but not to me. Maybe I'm lucky in being able to see the very tiny detail in images that others cannot see.

Of course, I may be completely incorrect in my assumption that the main object of interest is a stand-alone tower structure. It may be that the feature is part of the large rock formation that appears to be very close but behind it. The only way that I know of to determine if the feature is a tower structure would be to produce a true 3-D version. Unfortunately, at the present time, only the captures from one mastcam eye are available so the production of an anaglyph is out of the question.

You say the color of the Curiosity mastcam images look as you expected. If that is the case then why are these images not showing colors as seen in the Viking images or the MER color composites?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Please see the reply I made to ArMaP above.

reply to post by arianna

I clarified my question to you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Any response?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

arianna --

Could you please respond to my earlier assertion that your "tower" isn't a tower at all, but merely the broken face of a large rock (as shown here):

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain.

edit on 10/15/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Disagree. Its a weather balloon.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Why are people still feeding the OBVIOUS troll?

No trolling here. I think you have the incorrect thread.

OP, I think you need to explain why it is not a rock?

If you can't, there are two things you need to consider:
1) You present what appears to be a rock as proof of something anormal, as an artificial or sculpted object. But it's not an extraordinary rock to others, neither is its position. You found a boring rock, so it's not even that interesting in a geological sense.
If you go hiking in rocky terrain you'll stumble (pun intended) on rocks like these all the time. You can do that on Earth.

2) If this is a recurring event, it seems you have trouble differentiating between natural and unnatural shapes in nature. I am not saying this to single you out. But if everyone else suggests that it is an ordinary rock, you need to consider why you think otherwise. Otherwise people will call you a troll.

So, the challenge for you is to find out for yourself why this isn't just an ordinary rock jutting from the ground?
Why is it not an ordinary rock as a result of ordinary natural events? E.g. a splintered rock as a cause of the extremely variable temperatures on Mars?

Some facts: www.space.com...
- A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator, but at night the temperature can plummet to about minus 100 degrees F (minus 73 C).

Once you get a better grip on how to distinguish the phenomena, or learn where the pitfalls lie for you in this type of investigation, you might be able to get more productive results, and get better reception on your posts.

So that is my challenge for you.

reply to post by arianna


Without a microscope and slide in hand you make these miniature civilization claims on multiple threads from NASA images you look at and not even those that are from the camera's that show microscopic details on the rover tool package.

You assume that from mastcam and navigation camera's the res is great enough to see these micro-aliens and their structures. You claim to study photographs for many years but offer no credibility just like the scientist that you can't seem to produce to back your claims.

What kind of architecture and biology degree can you get from a reputable bastion of higher learning by looking at NASA images and making biological and architectural claims as fact?

And as far as the atmosphere of Mars is concerned this is from the past rovers.

Composition of the Martian atmosphere
gas percentage by weight
carbon dioxide (CO2) 95.32
molecular nitrogen (N2) 2.7
argon (Ar) 1.6
molecular oxygen (O2) 0.13
carbon monoxide (CO) 0.07
water vapour (H2O) 0.03
neon (Ne) 0.00025
krypton (Kr) 0.00003
xenon (Xe) 0.000008

Doesn't mean much as here on Earth organisms can live in harsh conditions but Mars is thought to have only had surface water for around 5000 years and has been very arid every since unlike the Earth which took millions of years to evolve. 5000 is not a very long time in the make up of the universe and doubt seriously it had time to produce intelligent life but maybe it did produce some type of simple life forms

Source: www.msnbc.msn.com...

I shall reply to the above comments later.

Here is the close view that I said I would post. I have reduced the brightness and color saturation and slightly increased the contrast level. This was done purposely to improve clarity. The image was saved as a .png.

Note: The anomalous tower object would appear to be at a higher elevation than the other surface objects that are showing in the upper part of the image.





Larger view.

i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
I shall reply to the above comments later.

Here is the close view that I said I would post. I have reduced the brightness and color saturation and slightly increased the contrast level. This was done purposely to improve clarity. The image was saved as a .png.

Note: The anomalous tower object would appear to be at a higher elevation than the other surface objects that are showing in the upper part of the image.

Larger view.

i985.photobucket.com...

If this is the "object" you are talking about:



Then your darkened image makes it seem even more likely that the "object" is not a separate object at all, but is really just the flat face at one end of a larger rock:

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Soylent, you may be correct but you cannot be sure. As I have said in a post above an anaglyph would have to be produced to clarify whether the object is a stand-alone object or is part of something else.

The other reason I posted the close view was to show the many tiny objects on the surface that would appear to be structural formations and are only millimeters in height.

Originally posted by arianna
I shall reply to the above comments later.
...


..

You were already challenged by another poster, I can't see how you can continue posting without replying to that first:

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

arianna --

Could you please respond to my earlier assertion that your "tower" isn't a tower at all, but merely the broken face of a large rock (as shown here):

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain.

I think you are obliged to respond to that and other posters before going on with your arguments.

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

 

Soylent, you may be correct but you cannot be sure. As I have said in a post above an anaglyph would have to be produced to clarify whether the object is a stand-alone object or is part of something else.

The other reason I posted the close view was to show the many tiny objects on the surface that would appear to be structural formations and are only millimeters in height.

OMG, I should have updated the page before replying, you're still not convinced?

It is a trick of the eyes. I saw the "tower" first, but then realized it was just my eyes focusing on the darker shaded part of the rock. When you look at the entire picture, you can clearly see it is the side of the rock, broken off, and just shaded from illumination.

It's just an optical illusion, like this:




Do you see a beautiful girl, or old hag?

This snippet is from earlier today and the commands have already been sent. The Curiosity rover will do a third scoop and hopefully analyze the soil. I don't know if they will test for radiation but am interested in learning what a miniature civilization could possibly survive on.

October 15, 2012 Commands will be sent to Curiosity today instructing the rover to collect a third scoop of soil from the "Rocknest" site of windblown Martian sand and dust. Pending evaluation of this Sol 69 (Oct. 15, 2012) scooping, a sample from the scoopful is planned as the first sample for delivery -- later this week -- to one of the rover's internal analytical instruments, the Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) instrument. A later scoopful will become the first solid sample for delivery to the rover's other internal analytical instrument, the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument.

Maybe it will answer some questions about the possibility of life.

Originally posted by arianna
Your reasoning makes a great deal of sense for as the air pressure and oxygen level decreases any living inteligent species would tend to get smaller and smaller over time and would adjust to the new conditions.

I think that the best option would be to learn how to extract the oxygen from all that O2 in the CO2.

I'm going with "it's an Obelisk" until proven otherwise. I mean there is a chance...right?

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...
Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*