Curiosity Rover Photo BEST yet

reply to post by coolcatt


Another oddly shaped rock? That must be a shark tooth on right too, lol.

Listen, until you find an alien posing for the camera, can you please cut it out with all these bullsh*t threads? Why do you guys insist on seeing something that isn't there?

More pareidolia....

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by JohnnySasaki



Now Now Now jonny be cool...

Am not a big fan of the Mars Photo's but thought what the hay. Did search on here to see if it had been posted but It harder on here to find a existing thread Then a crazy looking rock on mars

Reminds me of my cat, Mr. Bigglesworth...

People didn't understand. He was killed because of luck...or a lack of.


Think this pic is a mars tribute to him IMO..

reply to post by Riffrafter


Tanks to you !
I also thanks the canadian website who accept editing one of my articles two days ago and you can have some (rare) links in my threads on ATS. Always possible to use a search engine with my pseudo on.

One of the most uninteresting rocks by the curiosity.

And I'm not "it's a rock" people.

I don't understand the OP. Maybe you should check out the Hugo "rock". It's far more interesting.

reply to post by florentb


One thing apart, how to say that in English... Some people, they think they are different, each from the others, but in reality there is a link between us, not important where they are coming from, this link is : They read threads about topics (they say) have no interest for them ! Why coming on these threads ? They are expecting a Martian on a bike saying hello ? But Alien says : We come regularly on Earth with our brand new models and they do not believe us, why take the time to go on Mars with our old bikes as there are only three robots ? Time lost !

That was the humorous minute !

Regards.

STOP THE PRESS!!!

"Rock found next to other rocks on Mars World rejoices"....

Its a rock.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


You are absolutely right, this is not a very interesting image. A bit funny, that's all.

All taxpayers in the U.S. are paying for these rovers. Sure, we want good science, but when one of these rovers photographs something that really looks weird, there should be a rover policy that humors the public, and occasionally goes and simply checks it out. Sure, they will probably turn out to be rocks, but at least it will make us feel like we are part of the project, not to mention some excellent entertainment. I think it would be great PR for NASA as well.

There should be a volunteer public citizen assigned to coordinate that effort. I vote for Arkin for that role. A representative from the public sector to decide what would be the top weird object to investigate.

charlyv
All taxpayers in the U.S. are paying for these rovers. Sure, we want good science, but when one of these rovers photographs something that really looks weird, there should be a rover policy that humors the public, and occasionally goes and simply checks it out. Sure, they will probably turn out to be rocks, but at least it will make us feel like we are part of the project, not to mention some excellent entertainment. I think it would be great PR for NASA as well.

There should be a volunteer public citizen assigned to coordinate that effort. I vote for Arkin for that role. A representative from the public sector to decide what would be the top weird object to investigate.

edit on 11-11-2013 by charlyv because: added content

Are you this naive? What you're asking for is for actual real scientists to jeopardize a 2 billion dollar mission by driving a rover somewhere just because someone thinks they saw something 'weird'.

Meanwhile real stuff of scientific interest would have to be dropped from the observation list. I'm all for them putting a telescopic, camera and microphone installation that could be pointed for the public independent of the science that may be going on but that's as far as I would go on this.

That would be controversial enough as every instrument added to a mission drives up the cost of said mission.

Until the average person is willing to fund these missions to a greater extent than they have then science should never take a back seat to the curiosity of a mostly science illiterate public.

You don't ask to perform heart surgery. Don't ask to drive a Mars rover.

Even if they did what you propose there would always be charges that they "airbrushed it out" or otherwise covered up the pareidolia driven interpretation of rocks and other Martian terrain example is the: "They nuked the face on Mars" nonsense.

JadeStar

charlyv
All taxpayers in the U.S. are paying for these rovers. Sure, we want good science, but when one of these rovers photographs something that really looks weird, there should be a rover policy that humors the public, and occasionally goes and simply checks it out. Sure, they will probably turn out to be rocks, but at least it will make us feel like we are part of the project, not to mention some excellent entertainment. I think it would be great PR for NASA as well.

There should be a volunteer public citizen assigned to coordinate that effort. I vote for Arkin for that role. A representative from the public sector to decide what would be the top weird object to investigate.

edit on 11-11-2013 by charlyv because: added content

Are you this naive? What you're asking for is for actual real scientists to jeopardize a 2 billion dollar mission by driving a rover somewhere just because someone thinks they saw something 'weird'.

Meanwhile real stuff of scientific interest would have to be dropped from the observation list. I'm all for them putting a telescopic, camera and microphone installation that could be pointed for the public independent of the science that may be going on but that's as far as I would go on this.

That would be controversial enough as every instrument added to a mission drives up the cost of said mission.

Until the average person is willing to fund these missions to a greater extent than they have then science should never take a back seat to the curiosity of a mostly science illiterate public.

You don't ask to perform heart surgery. Don't ask to drive a Mars rover.

Even if they did what you propose there would always be charges that they "airbrushed it out" or otherwise covered up the pareidolia driven interpretation of rocks and other Martian terrain example is the: "They nuked the face on Mars" nonsense.

edit on 11-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Yes, I am afraid I am that naive. That's 2 billion bucks that we all payed for. The world needs to lighten up a bit and take some of the strict prejudice that some scientists have and try a little empathy for the public that is paying for all of that stuff. Please tell me , that you are not curious about some of the things you have seen. Perhaps you might even feel better if it turned out to be a simple rock, then you are vindicated in your believe and it puts a stop on all of the wild speculation that continues forever. It is about people and human nature, as well as science. My life revolves around science, but I really like a mystery to be challenged, even if it is for the sake of entertainment.

There is a conundrum in science that states that if you keep looking for something with the same methods, you will eventually find only the things that those methods can reveal.

SecretKnowledge
Never mind that, what about the blue rock at the front?

Just a old pair of jeans

charlyv

Yes, I am afraid I am that naive. That's 2 billion bucks that we all payed for.

That 2 billion bucks was paid for what was recommended by good scientists to do good science. Joyriding on Mars to satisfy the curiosity of Joe Six-Pack who thought he saw absurd things like "rat" or "ammo" case on Mars, is -NOT- good science.

The world needs to lighten up a bit and take some of the strict prejudice that some scientists have and try a little empathy for the public that is paying for all of that stuff.

Was this not enough?

Please tell me , that you are not curious about some of the things you have seen.

I'm not, because they all are pretty mundane and aren't what you think they are. Most of us just laugh at this stuff because it shows how easily fooled our minds can become when we throw rationality out the window.

"Is Mars Infested With Pareidolia Rats?"
news.discovery.com...

Perhaps you might even feel better if it turned out to be a simple rock,

You don't need to go and examine it to determine it's a simple rock. Most everyone on the science team already knows it's a rock. If it was something truly strange like the bright object they scooped up they'd examine it more closely. That bright object BTW turned out to be a piece of plastic off of the rover.

then you are vindicated in your believe

Vindicated? Because it turns out to be exactly what I said it was all along? You're the one making the outlandish claim it is anything other than a normal rock. You're the only one who would stand to be "vindicated" in the reverse scenario.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove it's not a rat. It's on YOU to prove that it is. Your evidence doesn't rise to any level other than "uh well that's how I see it. Look, it has eyes, herp derp."

In other words: Pareidolia. Or our brains tendency to see faces and familiar structures in when faced with unfamiliar shapes.

and it puts a stop on all of the wild speculation that continues forever.

No it doesn't. Look at the Face on Mars for example. The area was re-photographerd and the same old Viking photos keep being trotted out on programs like "Conspiracy Files" and "Ancient Aliens" as "proof of some ancient Martian civilization with a link to Egypt".

And when they show the recent, higher resolution pictures of the same area the same crowd you'd have driving 2 billion dollar Mars rovers on Mars says "Well they nuked it from orbit. You know, to hide TRUTH!".

SMH.

And you wonder why serious scientists stay as far away from this crowd as possible? No good can come from it. Either you agree with their bizarre theories and risk your credibility on nonsense or you refute them and are called part of the cover-up.

I mean, most people still have no idea how color pictures of Mars are put together or "why does NASA send Black & White cameras to Mars when my blah blah blah iphone camera is better..."

That shows the level of ignorance most of the public you'd have directing a 2 billion dollar science instrument has. Do you REALLY want your local butcher doing heart surgery on one of your relatives? Well then why would you want your local conspiracy theorist driving a Mars rover?

(Answer here BTW: "Why Does Curiosity Take Black & White Images? (VIDEO) www.space.com... )

It is about people and human nature, as well as science.

Going to Mars with missions such as these are about science first and foremost.

If you want to go on a rockhunt yourself sign up for Mars One. That mission is ALL about "people and human nature" from what I read. And very little if any science, I might add.

My life revolves around science,

Really? How so? What do you do?

but I really like a mystery to be challenged, even if it is for the sake of entertainment.

Going to Mars with scientific missions are not for entertainment.

There is a conundrum in science that states that if you keep looking for something with the same methods, you will eventually find only the things that those methods can reveal.

Which is why real scientists think of new ways to look for things which most certainly don't involve pareidolia.

Hey there little fella...

JohnnySasaki
reply to post by coolcatt

 

Another oddly shaped rock? That must be a shark tooth on right too, lol.

Listen, until you find an alien posing for the camera, can you please cut it out with all these bullsh*t threads? Why do you guys insist on seeing something that isn't there?

Hang on if it looks like a rodent?, its either a Rock or a Rodent maybe a prairie dog? if its a Rodent then the picture might not have been taken on Mars but in the indoor/ outdoor Studio that has thrown up a few unedited mistakes like clouds around Olympus Mons, Stone huts, and some other strange stuff. The camera man might have just got bored with it all. I always wondered how the heck a parachute would slow the decent in a virtually airless world. The terminal velocity of the lander would have been to fast for a few seconds of rocket thrusters to slow the decent. They pretended to go to mars and we pretended to believe them. They pretended to go to the Moon and we pretended to believe them. Its been a great series so far!

anonentity

Studio that has thrown up a few unedited mistakes like clouds around Olympus Mons.

Mount Sharpe not Olympus Mons. And seriously you believe a whole Mars mission was hoaxed? smh.


"the camera man might have just got bored with it all. I always wondered how the heck a parachute would slow the decent in a virtually airless world."

Because Mars is not "a virtually airless world".

The terminal velocity of the lander would have been to fast for a few seconds of rocket thrusters to slow the decent.

And you would be wrong. It doesn't even take rocket science to understand why you're wrong.

They pretended to go to mars and we pretended to believe them. They pretended to go to the Moon and we pretended to believe them. Its been a great series so far!

You realize how illogical all of that sounds right?

What would be the purpose of faking missions? Who benefits? How do you keep hundreds of thousands of scientists who handle the data from finding out its all a hoax?

Answer, 1) None. 2) No one. 3) You can't.

JadeStar

anonentity

Studio that has thrown up a few unedited mistakes like clouds around Olympus Mons.

Mount Sharpe not Olympus Mons. And seriously you believe a whole Mars mission was hoaxed? smh.


"the camera man might have just got bored with it all. I always wondered how the heck a parachute would slow the decent in a virtually airless world."

Because Mars is not "a virtually airless world".

The terminal velocity of the lander would have been to fast for a few seconds of rocket thrusters to slow the decent.

And you would be wrong. It doesn't even take rocket science to understand why you're wrong.

They pretended to go to mars and we pretended to believe them. They pretended to go to the Moon and we pretended to believe them. Its been a great series so far!

You realize how illogical all of that sounds right?

What would be the purpose of faking missions? Who benefits? How do you keep hundreds of thousands of scientists who handle the data from finding out its all a hoax?

Answer, 1) None. 2) No one. 3) You can't.

How big was the parachute they deployed to slow it down. If it was coming down on earth it would be about twice as big as a parachute jumper would use right? If the density of the Mars atmosphere is 1/100 that of earth it would have to be a hundred times as big to create enough drag. It would also need atmosphere to fill the thing, and have one heck of a velocity. That's impossible because if the rocket thrusters cut in when the parachute was jettisoned it could have come down and smothered the vehicle. Not a lot makes sense, unless there is a thicker atmosphere on Mars than what we are led to believe.

The rover crashed, these pictures are from a rocky desert location on earth. Notice that that rover didn't send any good undeniable pictures of the comet back.

reply to post by anonentity

How big was the parachute they deployed to slow it down.

Big , the largest super sonic parachute ever designed no less .

If the density of the Mars atmosphere is 1/100 that of earth it would have to be a hundred times as big to create enough drag.

Your questions are answered in this video ...


NASA gets some stick and rightly so in some cases but some times you need to give credit where credits due Curiosity rover is one such time .