Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure.

So the author of this thread still can't tell that his "object" is simply the flat broken surface that is on the shady side of the rock? ....This has seriously gone on for 6 pages? LMAOWTF!

Yeah they are curious images alright, but I think its just a case of wanting to see something so bad you see it. The are probably natural formations but always love to see any images from beyond the blue marble we live on. Good post

reply to post by arianna


I see interesting photos showing what we consider unusual but still natural features. You can't look at these photos and posit a silly theory that they are more than natural features. As usual, the detail does not support anything else than Mother Nature approximately 140 million miles away (average distance).

reply to post by rhynouk


What he said! if it was something other than a rock, Nasa would not show it to the public.

Unfortunatly I Agree with The Majority. Looks to be the side of a Rock. But I HAVE seen pictures from Mars that looked Suspicious..Like the crouching Man.

Originally posted by ParanormalJessy
Unfortunatly I Agree with The Majority. Looks to be the side of a Rock. But I HAVE seen pictures from Mars that looked Suspicious..Like the crouching Man.

Actually, and fortunately, NASA has released photos that do show mysterious shapes and possible structures but they're always at a distance and no amount of magnification takes them out of the "guess" category. Photos showing huge land rectangles or lines delineating rectangles. What looks like a (petrified?) wood beam.
"Things" on hills. But I don't buy claims of skulls, bones or bone fragments, graveyard, results of an imagined war, etc. The photo details always fall short of seeing a real, full-blown anomaly. I also enjoy the photos showing what look like aerial objects, Earth UFOs.

The raw images for sol 70 have not yet been released, only the thumbnail mages.

This is a reprocessed view of one of the thumbnails.

It would appear that we may be in for a real treat when the raw images become available, that is if they are released.

Image #0070MR0494012000I1_DXXX

Should the raw verson of the above image become available here are some of the interesting shapes to look out for.

Originally posted by arianna
Should the raw verson of the above image become available here are some of the interesting shapes to look out for.

I have a feeling that when the higher resolution image becomes available, most of the pixelated "shapes" you see here will not be look the same on that higher resolution version.

In the meantime, here are some of the things pareidolia is causing me to see in this very low resolution version:

reply to post by arianna


Arianna, why do you answer questions of why you think there are tiny little being making "structures" with the answer "I have experience" and then you post more images?

You give NO concrete answers even on your own qualifications of identifying "tiny civilizations" on the moon or Mars.

You just expect us to take your word for it...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


VINDICATED!

I never DID trust the Pillsbury Doughboy!

He's right up there with the StayPuff Marshmallow Man and the Michelin Man!

I searched miniature cities and hey they are all over the world.



My own conclusions.

Our model makers are better than their rocks.

Interesting video I found on youtube showing Copied & Pasted images.

If you haven't already seen this, you might want to check it out.

reply to post by NaeBabii

Your link doesn't work but are you talking about the video about the rover simulator? Pretty silly.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or this one.



I just ran across them.

reply to post by NaeBabii


As Phage pointed out, this was a SIMULATION TOOL made before Curiosity ever got to Mars. It is NOT actual mars images from Curiosity's landing.

Here is a post from that other thread that Phage linked that points this out :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again -- that is a simulation tool only -- basically an advanced animation, albeit one that uses some actual imagery. It is NOT meant to be a 100% accurate representation of the Martin surface, so I see no reason why a few cloned areas would raise eyebrows.

The uncloned imagery is freely available for anyone to view on NASA's/NASA partner websites.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Got you.

I knew it was only a simulation, I just thought the copied and pasted images even in the simulation was strange.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna

 

Arianna, why do you answer questions of why you think there are tiny little being making "structures" with the answer "I have experience" and then you post more images?

You give NO concrete answers even on your own qualifications of identifying "tiny civilizations" on the moon or Mars.

You just expect us to take your word for it...

Have I stated that there are tiny-sized civilizations on the moon?

Personally, I don't think there are but I do think there is the possibility that mature-sized beings are in residence there. Still, that's just my opinion and I would not expect anyone to endorse that particular theory.

Yes, I do believe there are many tiny-sized civilizations on Mars but I do not expect members or vistors to take my word for it. I am quite sure that members are capable of doing their own research. When I post an image I do so as there may be some members who may be interested in the content showing in the image.

The question of tiny beings and tiny structures being on Mars is a very contraversial subject but if at some time the scientific communities confirm what I am finding as fact I would be more than pleased. Of course, I could be completely incorrect but from viewing and researching the images from Curiosity I do not think that is a possibility.

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
So the author of this thread still can't tell that his "object" is simply the flat broken surface that is on the shady side of the rock? ....This has seriously gone on for 6 pages? LMAOWTF!

You just made it 7

I have a feeling this will continue for some time yet, the OP does seem confident in his analysis

Originally posted by NaeBabii
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Got you.

I knew it was only a simulation, I just thought the copied and pasted images even in the simulation was strange.

OK -- I understand.

It just seems to me that the people putting the simulation together would not spend an inordinate amount of time making sure the surface imagery display generator has no overlap flaws. There are much better tools for studying the surface of Mars, and this landing simulation does not need to be one of them.

The purpose of this tool was to show a simulated landing, NOT to show a detailed map of the surface. Therefore the overlapping/stitching errors in the display of the surface imagery shouldn't really bother anyone.