Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

AnomalysMonaLysa
reply to post by ArMaP

 

I've just recently joined ATS in the hopes of getting some input on the "anomalies" I've found while viewing certain images (Moon landing, Mars Rover) on the nasa.gov website. These discoveries are really bothering me, and I need your help either corroborating that what I'm seeing is indeed real, or to let my know, in the kindest language possible please, that I'm off my rocker!
The reason I was looking at the Mars images in the first place is that I was hoping, like many of us here I'm sure, to discover some small relic, proof of a previous Martian civilization, that the airbrushers and photoshoppers over at the NSA....oops....um...I mean NASA overlooked.
However, to my chagrin, when poring over a recent image entitled: PIA17931: Martian Valley May Be Curiosity's Route photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
I seem to have stumbled upon evidence that the Curiosity Rover never made it to the red planet, and is, in fact, located somewhere here on Earth!! This is literally one of the last things I expected to come across in my exploration of the "Martian surface":

The kindly Mr funBox made and enlargement of this area for me on page 37 this thread, many interesting finds in the pages around that area in those pages 35ish-40

reply to post by Char-Lee


I've enlarged the image for you. Also, does anyone see a faint drawing on the light colored object?

AnomalysMonaLysa
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

I've enlarged the image for you. Also, does anyone see a faint drawing on the light colored object?

Impossible with the present pictures to be sure. But i do feel there are many things in this area that do not seem natural.

I was saving the images from the Mastcam, Sol 580, to make a panorama, when I found this:


Sol 580

Is it me or does it looks like something flowed downhill not long ago?

Edit: there are more things like that on Sol 850.

PS: as this is close to the rover, it's not a large feature.
PPS: When the panorama is made we may get a better idea of the scene.

Edit 2: Sol 850 is turning into one of the most interesting ones, as some photos show a small scale version of those down hill flows that appear darker than the surrounding areas that were posted some weeks ago.

reply to post by ArMaP


Great find. If you can find the exact areas in darker and lighter shades, you deserve the Martian Peace Prize.

reply to post by Char-Lee


Found this last night, and it piqued my interest. Any thoughts?

reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa


This is a really big find. I'm thinking it is undeniable that those are carved, written language of someone's doing.. I wonder what people will say. I'll bet it might be entertaining..

Oh, I forgot to say welcome to the site! A few days late, but having as many eyes on these images has only made it better in my opinion..

great find with this image..

alienreality
reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa

 

This is a really big find. I'm thinking it is undeniable that those are carved, written language of someone's doing.. I wonder what people will say. I'll bet it might be entertaining..

Oh, I forgot to say welcome to the site! A few days late, but having as many eyes on these images has only made it better in my opinion..

great find with this image..

Thanks! I'm really glad you see it to! I also think that spot that looks like a concave depression is unusual.

Actually, it kind of reminds me of something...hm... Oh crap!

reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa


i can see the first concrete depression , but where's the other ?. could you point it out please?
sorry , im usually so good with seeing through others eyes ,this new pair from the mortuary are itching a bit

funBox

reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa


I don't see anything unusual, just common geological features.

What are you seeing?

funbox
reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa

 

i can see the first concrete depression , but where's the other ?. could you point it out please?

sorry , im usually so good with seeing through others eyes ,this new pair from the mortuary are itching a bit

funBox

Well, there's your problem, funBox! Everyone knows that to function properly, replacement eyeballs must be plucked directly from the socket of a LIVING vict...er...donor.

There's only one depression as far as I can make out. On the opposite side of the structure, there appears to be something carved/written on the side.

reply to post by ArMaP


evidence of liquid Flow ArMaP ?

a good chance , if not liquid then why are there no small accumulation's of sand behind the little stones ?



surely if it was a wind driven feature , there would be sign of build up of sand , looks like a path has been cut ,and pooling has taken place by the look

funBOx

reply to post by AnomalysMonaLysa


shame Dr Frankenstein didn't

what do you know about dead eyes anyhow? , have you experience in seeing through them ? ;D

do you hang out down the mortuary much? ,

*Sniff sniff*

writing you say ? I don't read Martian unfortunately

funBOx

Blue Shift
Just shows you how imaging artifacts can creep in.
Interesting "cap" layer, though.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I just saw this post (missed a few as the speed went up, keeping track of this thread is like that logging-caused mudslide, it goes by dark and sticky sometimes).

So why would an image show up looking like the one below, with a distinct rounded texture containing a distinct although faded center area with spokes, with the camera not too far away from it (you can see the original imaget over on the left of the background real-size pic), but come out clean (above) with just the slightest hint of a rounded edge on the right when NASA "walked" the rover over to image it up close? If this one is smooth as silk, then the spoke things are likely all image artifacts, except for Buzz's first unique find, which is of a different kind.

Does anyone know the technical terms of why one object in a pic looks so much different than a sunlit close up of the same object? If it's because of the JPEG feature, where is the person who invented JPEG, for I have to give a good talking to him or her, wags of finger, raised voice, and the lot.

Char-Lee, good to see you scrounging around in the sand again.

Is anyone else here going to "talk" to Jesse Ventura tomorrow? I've got one question thought over, not about Mars though.

Does anyone know the technical terms of why one object in a pic looks so much different than a sunlit close up of the same object? If it's because of the JPEG feature, where is the person who invented JPEG, for I have to give a good talking to him or her, wags of finger, raised voice, and the lot.

theres so much going on betwwen each picture I doubt theres a catchall,
ones black and white , contast is more stark , the colours photo is closer ,
but the features are more or less the same in both, you can see how the artefacts in the black and white are interpreted in the photo, they're still there , just a little blockier

the top of that rock is getting to me , why is the crack going all along and looks to be a crack in the rock , but then as it turn to the left it becomes highly irregular and chaotic,, as if it wasn't a crack at all, but is sand turning into rock .. so

sand that accumulates hardens irregularly , then conforms to a hard edge and merges into solid rock.. odd

almost like watching a 3d printer in action

Is anyone else here going to "talk" to Jesse Ventura tomorrow? I've got one question thought over, not about Mars though.

is this a new Q&A ?
I might have a pop at it ;d

funBox

reply to post by funbox


Jesse Ventra is coming around for a day or two (he's selling a new book just about now, which has nothing to do with him coming here, nothing at all, says the elf on the shelf), and the site should be loaded with questions, so we have to get in early.

The black and white image is very different in shapes, the spokes and inner circle are quite distinct while on the close-up they are totally gone. Mars lies like a dog. And yes, the sand turning to stone on "top" (looks like the image is on the ground) is clear as all the grains of sand on all the beaches on all the worlds. The gray part and the sandy-sand part each have those tiny lumps and bumps.

reply to post by Aleister

Jesse Ventra is coming around for a day or two (he's selling a new book just about now, which has nothing to do with him coming here, nothing at all, says the elf on the shelf), and the site should be loaded with questions, so we have to get in early.

The black and white image is very different in shapes, the spokes and inner circle are quite distinct while on the close-up they are totally gone. Mars lies like a dog. And yes, the sand turning to stone on "top" (looks like the image is on the ground) is clear as all the grains of sand on all the beaches on all the worlds.

I might put up a overlay gif for comparison, although its now a lot clearer to what is there, we can see how the to pictures and their features correlate .. and to think that I used to think sand needed a lot of heat and compression and time to form into rock , I was so naïve before mars came along to put me right

Jesse Ventura on ATS ? plugging books , written in all CAPS ROAR .. sounds like an intimidating read .. whats it about ?

funBOx

funbox
evidence of liquid Flow ArMaP ?

On that photo, yes, in another one it's a "sand slide".

I am waiting for Microsoft ICE to make the panorama (it takes more than a hour on my computer for a panorama with 242 images), I will post the panorama and the things I found interesting in the images used to make it when I can.

funbox
theres so much going on betwwen each picture I doubt theres a catchall,
ones black and white , contast is more stark , the colours photo is closer ,
but the features are more or less the same in both, you can see how the artefacts in the black and white are interpreted in the photo, they're still there , just a little blockier

Contrast is worse than most people think, increasing contrast in a photo may make some things easier to see but it makes the more subtle tone changes disappear.

Another difference between those photos is the lens used, as the photos were not geometrically corrected to compensate the different lens distortion.

the top of that rock is getting to me , why is the crack going all along and looks to be a crack in the rock , but then as it turn to the left it becomes highly irregular and chaotic,, as if it wasn't a crack at all, but is sand turning into rock .. so

It reminds me of when I went to the beach (I have been to the beach in more than 20 years), in some situations, a thin layer of sand got wet and, when it dried, it would look like that over the sand that didn't get any moisture.

reply to post by funbox


He'll probably plug the book but not dwell on it, he won't have time with the questions we'll have.

An idea: when you think of your question maybe you can do one of your patented fb gifs, one pertaining to the question. He'll either laugh and hire you for his show, or hunt you down like a dog and.....ask for more gifs.