It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by arianna
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.
Originally posted by arianna
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.
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?
Originally posted by ScientificUAPer
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.
edit on 15-10-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: layout
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
You still haven't explained what proof you would like me to provide, perhaps different images of the same object maybe.
You don't get it. I am asking for some sort of proof of this statement you sound so sure of:
If the object is a tower structure then it could only have been constructed by tiny-sized beings to an intelligent design.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)
it could only have been constructed by tiny-sized beings to an intelligent design.
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I don't know but I am fascinated by the idea of a tiny Martian civilization. I can almost "see" it but that one side of me prevents me from fully realizing this. I would really be interested in understanding exactly what you see. Is it possible for you to sketch out the city and the beings?
Originally posted by arianna
The color images from Curiosity may be radiometrical versions but they are definitely not correct.
Even when checking the four colors at the corners of the calibration dial the reds do not appear as they should.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by arianna
The color images from Curiosity may be radiometrical versions but they are definitely not correct.
How do you know if the colours are correct or not, have you ever been to Mars?
Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, what a comment to make, have I ever been to Mars. Of course I haven't, but the rover camers are on Mars and if they were calibrated correctly in the laboratory here then when they arrived on Mars the imaging and captures within the specified spectural bandwidths should be near 100% correct.
I can accept a very slight reddish-pink hue due to the tainted atmosphere, but some of the mastcam images are definitely over-saturated towards an orange color and this level of coloration is nowhere near natural when making a comparison with the color filter images (L2 to L7) returned from Spirit and Opportunity.
many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations
Do you mind sharing with us how these are not just rocks, and instead are unnatural?
Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by Chamberf=6
Chamberf=6 said, "You don't see how making the leap from what you think looks like an upright rock to saying "it could ONLY have been constructed by tiny-sized being" seems a bit irrational?"
I never said the tower shape looks like an upright rock. The title of the thread is 'Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure'. This is the reason I started the thread. Is the tower shape a natural formation or an artificial structure? It could very well be artificial as there are many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations therefore it's quite possible that these objects could have been constructed by tiny-sized beings. Who is able to say conclusively they were not?
Originally posted by arianna
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
many shapes in the views in this particular area that show signs of not being natural formations
Do you mind sharing with us how these are not just rocks, and instead are unnatural?
Please give me a little time and I will accomodate your request.