Pegasus Research Consortium

Quote from: funbox on August 22, 2015, 10:23:23 PM
a link of course :D

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01080/mcam/1080ML0047530070206637E01_DXXX.jpg

one from the latest mast set, but of course not the original , you know there's no link to that :D

funbox

Quote from: rdunk on August 23, 2015, 02:35:10 AM
(http://s16.postimg.org/a21ec0hx1/W_Locators_Screen_Shot_2015_08_22_at_8_13_26_PM.jpg)

Quote from: rdunk on August 23, 2015, 02:35:10 AM
Hey funbox, some interesting features. I have spent a little time looking at the Rover pic you gave us, and yes there are numerous items of interest over this area. I am posting a pic wherein I have identified 3 similar items that at least look anomalous, plus 1 other item that has some sort of ring-looking end on it.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 23, 2015, 12:57:30 PM
It's hard to say, it's too small when compared with the size of the JPEG blocks (8 x 8 pixels), features that small are usually highly affected by compression.

Quote from: funbox on August 23, 2015, 01:39:17 AM
also this odd collection, is that two moons in a box ?

as for the tentacle turning into three odd shapes .. well :D

(http://i.imgur.com/JgizoKl.jpg)

funbox

Quote from: funbox on August 23, 2015, 01:21:17 PM
so what would you call the features ive highlighted , being well beyond the 8 pixel threshold you seem to draw the line at

Quoteand what do you think about the varying degrees of shadow darkness seen throughout this set ?
some of those shadows look like voids in space :D

Quote from: ArMaP on August 23, 2015, 07:29:29 PM
Rocks. :)

QuoteAlthough the objects are bigger than the 8x8 blocks the details appear smaller. Is that from the other link you posted or from a different photo (as it looks like)? I don't like to comment on altered images. :)
Too much contrast, as in all other occasions when people point to areas that appear too dark but that on the higher quality images posted on the PDS show some detail on those areas.

Quote from: zorgon on August 23, 2015, 08:56:02 PM
Are you QUALIFIED to make that assessment?

QuoteWhat would you call THIS

(http://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/files/2012/09/Imbricated090912.jpg)

QuoteBut being a geologist, rockhound and fossil hunter  I can look at a picture of rocks and point out things in that picture that are NOT 'just rocks'  Those things would be a crystal, a natural formation such as a geode, concreation or basalt formation... and fossils

QuoteYou may be comfortable saying "Rocks" but to me pictures of rocks tell a story.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 23, 2015, 07:29:29 PM
Rocks. :)

Although the objects are bigger than the 8x8 blocks the details appear smaller. Is that from the other link you posted or from a different photo (as it looks like)? I don't like to comment on altered images. :)

Quote from: funbox on August 23, 2015, 10:32:14 PM
jack of clubs part of the anomaly .. how ?

Quotehow does the 'rock' elongate and then branch ?

Quoteare the two moon's representative of Phobos and Diemos ?

Quotealtered image ?, I gave you the link to the original rawjpg

Quotesee there's nothing up my sleeves, and contrast adjustments don't add detail, or, are you now saying Raws are the correct representations , even Nasa rebalances they're pictures.

QuoteI think, if it wasn't for processing not a single true colour picture would ever be seen, unless you manually white balanced before taking shots. nonsense , processing is a necessity for accuracy.

Quotewhat's dishonest is trying to brand it as tampering :D

Quote from: ArMaP on August 23, 2015, 09:13:32 PM
Rocks and a coin. :)

QuoteAlthough not "just rocks", aren't those, even fossils, all rocks?

QuoteThey sure do, that's one of the reasons I prefer to see the whole photo and not just a clipped area showing the "anomaly", to get an idea of how the area looks like.

QuoteThe "spanner" is an interesting case, as it does look a little out of place, but the material looks to be the same as the other rocks.

Quote from: zorgon on August 24, 2015, 02:43:51 AM
At least your honest :P and consistent...  but that defeats the entire purpose of looking at photos to discover what EXACTLY is there to see...

QuoteNo a rock is a combination of two or more minerals... Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms. In the case of a sea shell the actual shell becomes the fossil so it is not a rock... even when in the case pf petrified wood where the original tree is replaced by a mineral like silica

QuoteIn geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of one or more minerals or mineraloids. For example, the common rock granite is a combination of the quartz, feldspar and biotite minerals. The Earth's outer solid layer, the lithosphere, is made of rock.

QuoteSo when looking for evidence of life on other worlds in photos, when you spot one that looks like a fossil... it likely is :P

QuoteHow so? the 'spanner' looks like a curved bent thin piece of metal, not a fractured chunk of rock.

QuoteBut if your just looking for rocks... that is all you will see :P

QuoteAlthough the objects are bigger than the 8x8 blocks the details appear smaller. Is that from the other link you posted or from a different photo (as it looks like)? I don't like to comment on altered images. :)

QuoteWhat two moons? Regardless of being a rock or not, those are obviously not moons. And you misspelled Deimos.

QuoteProcessing done by those that know the characteristics of the camera, to get the best results, yes, processing added to make things look different just to look different, no.

QuoteProcessing done by those that know the characteristics of the camera, to get the best results, yes, processing added to make things look different just to look different, no.

QuoteI didn't use the word "tampering", why are you using it? And you talk about dishonesty? 

Quote from: funbox on August 24, 2015, 12:22:38 PM
you suggested I was tampering with the images, I just cut a word that cuts all the crap out

Quotehow else am I to interpret that

Quoteyou cannot see two crescent moons?

Quoteor did you think I meant two real moons ? Phobos and Deeemoss came down to land :D

Quoteno, look what's on the rock in front of the alien arm that's been severed up by the elbow

Quoteso again you try to discredit me by saying that im tampering with the image

Quotedoes talking about  anomalies make you feel uncomfortable or something? instead , trying to deny it behind a wall of image tampering and artefacts ?

Quote.... are you sure your not saying im tampering with the images

Quotetampering sums up your post to me quite nicely , saves all those unnecessary words

Quote from: ArMaP on August 24, 2015, 12:10:31 PM
I thought a rock could be made of just one mineral, like the definition from Wikipedia.

QuoteIn geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of one or more minerals or mineraloids. For example, the common rock granite is a combination of the quartz, feldspar and biotite minerals. The Earth's outer solid layer, the lithosphere, is made of rock.

QuoteI was thinking of a fossil as the mark left by the shell, not the shell itself, as to me a shell is a shell. :)

QuoteSometimes, yes, but in some cases, not even when we have the object in our hands are we able to know if it's a fossil or not. :)

QuoteWhy do you say it looks like metal? What properties specific to metal and impossible for a rock or mineral does it show?

QuoteMe, I'm just looking. :)

Quote from: funbox on August 24, 2015, 04:44:47 PM
so you don't think that ive altered the image to make the tenticular looking stone, look more tenticular

or

that I've made the crescent shaped dark patches more crescent shaped ?

accentuated the lines of the box ?

Quoteor any image tampering has been done by me ?

Quote from: ArMaP on August 24, 2015, 09:31:45 PM
No, I think you only the usual (and, to me, useless) changes in size, brightness and contrast.

QuoteIn the sense of altering the image to make it look like something different? No.

Quote from: zorgon on August 24, 2015, 09:26:25 PM
But the definition you quoted says "solid aggregate of one or more minerals"

QuoteImpressions are sometimes included in fossils, but any serious study will clarify the difference between and impression and a true fossil/ Example a foot print left by a dinosaur in ancient mud that hardened is not a fossil

QuoteAny one with basic geological knowledge can recognize a fossil in a hand held specimen unless they are micro fossils requiring magnification... but then we are not talking about micro specimens in Mars photos :P

QuoteBecause to ME from having been in the field hunting rocks and minerals all my life since I was 10, I have learned to recognize certain characteristics specific to rocks, minerals and bent old corroded pieces of metal..

QuoteCan I say the spanner is 100% metal? No  that is why I said it LOOKS like metal As for specifics  the upper section that is thin and curved LOOKS like metal. The rocks in that region are basalt  so there would be no fancy curved mineral specimens on the surface

QuoteSo my years of hands on experience allow me to look at THIS image and tell you that the rocks you see are Vesicular Basalt and Scoria  ( a fact that even NASA agrees with :P )

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Spirit_Sol_728_Rocks/Sol_732_2P191347096RADAN00P2555L257C1.JPG)

QuoteWhen I said  'defeats the purpose' I mean what is the point of just LOOKING without looking FOR something special in the photo?

QuoteThe purpose of anomaly hunting is to find anomalies in the available photos

QuoteAnd the photos we have to work with are several levels better than the ones the Air Force anomaly hunters had available to find anomalies on earth to plan their bombing targets :P

QuoteYes I know... but WE are looking FOR anomalies :P

Quote from: zorgon on August 24, 2015, 09:38:36 PM
It may be useless to YOU but just about everyone else recognizes that adding a little color to high light the object in question, zooming it, and adjusting contrast are valid methods to show an object

QuoteNo  in the sense to highlight the object in question so those with poor vision, bad monitors and other vision defects can better see what you are showing

QuoteAs long as the ORIGINAL is also included people like yourself can go look for them selves

Quote from: zorgon on August 24, 2015, 09:38:36 PM
It may be useless to YOU but just about everyone else recognizes that adding a little color to high light the object in question, zooming it, and adjusting contrast are valid methods to show an object

NASA does it all the time

No  in the sense to highlight the object in question so those with poor vision, bad monitors and other vision defects can better see what you are showing

As long as the ORIGINAL is also included people like yourself can go look for them selves

::)

Quote from: funbox on August 24, 2015, 10:40:53 PM
ArMaP at least is a little less strict on the zooming ,, what was it around 300% ArMaP ? :D

Quote from: funbox on August 24, 2015, 11:27:07 PM
the usable zoom that you can use before these 350kilobyte jpgs become mush :D

Quote from: rdunk on August 25, 2015, 12:02:52 AM
I do understand that it might not be intentional - (I say that gracefully), but, as is easiLy seen, the majority of the back and forth here is out there in la la land, going over the endless issues of general photo stuff, and for the most part ignoring the anomalies.

QuoteI know that such discussion is a tool in the "skeptic's bag, but I am not suggesting that is the reason for it here. However, in any event, just one of the things off-anomaly subject discussion like this does, is discourage other parties from actively participating, even if they might want to.

QuoteYes, there is photo tampering by NASA (et al who-evers) all over the place in their photos, covering up stuff, and adding shadows to hid anomalous objects, when the shadows are so obviously wrong in their situational existence.

QuoteThe technical discussion relative to photos, might be better served in a direct on-subject OP??

Quote from: funbox on August 25, 2015, 12:12:46 AM
other times not , with me, I play it by ear , if pixelization or compression artefacts can be removed to take away noise and doesn't interfere in the geometric anomaly being shown. let it ride

Quoteall dependant on the size of the anomaly I guess

Quote from: rdunk on August 25, 2015, 12:02:52 AMI know that such discussion is a tool in the "skeptic's bag, but I am not suggesting that is the reason for it here. However, in any event, just one of the things off-anomaly subject discussion like this does, is discourage other parties from actively participating, even if they might want to.

Quote from: rdunk on August 25, 2015, 12:02:52 AM
Yes, there is photo tampering by NASA (et al whoever) all over the place in their photos, covering up stuff, and adding shadows to hid anomalous objects, when the shadows are so obviously wrong in their situational existence. But, there often do remain objects in the NASA photos that are worthy of discussion, and are obviously anomalous objects that warrant attention directly - very often we can see just enough.............! :)

Quote from: rdunk on August 25, 2015, 03:55:23 AM
I do believe there is a small "crack" in his skeptic thinking,

Quoteand if I can just find that right anomaly that even he "sees", then that will be a day of days!!

Quote:)) For sure, I openly disagree with him most of the time, but he works the details very hard, and one of these days, his details are going to be the " more-clear proof" we need!! :))

Quote from: zorgon on August 25, 2015, 03:49:36 AM
But see there is a problem with that :P

IF NASA is covering up everything and editing all the photos, then there would be no point searching for ANY anomalies other than over lay artifacts :P Because if they were covering stuff then they would not let you find anything

Also if that were true then SOMEWHERE must exist the unedited copies otherwise there would be no point in taking them in the first place. :P

So if we are using NASA public images to seek anomalies  but at the same time say that those images are tampered with... then we are on a fool's errand

Since we cannot get access to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND of images supposedly taken by China India ESA and Japan... I would agree there are things they do not want us to see

Also the Rovers have algorithms that are capable of hiding signs of civilizations in the photos :P Cornell Univ published a paper which I posted way back on ATS about that. At the time it was TREASON to have a copy of those algorithms

NASA then tosses it right in your face :P
::)

Quote from: rdunk on August 25, 2015, 04:16:21 AM
I see what I see, and know what I know about some of these anomalies. And most of what I am referring to absolutely cannot be attributed to "pixelation", nor to "cosmic streak"!!

QuoteAlso, I would say that much of what I have found would not be caught by "civilization algorithms" either!

Quotehttp://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Fossils/Fossil_Field_Detailed.jpg

Quote from: zorgon on August 25, 2015, 03:28:00 AM
Nah ArMaP is just being ArMaP  He wouldn't be here if we didn't have some things that stump him (by his own admission :P )  He tends to be over nit picky and doesn't look at things like we do and 'fill in the blanks between the lines" like we do

QuoteI am also trying to find the HAND that he found on Mars :D

Quote from: rdunk on August 25, 2015, 03:55:23 AM
Thanks Z!! FWIW, I have developed an understanding of ArMaP, and I actually like working with him on some of these things.

QuoteI do believe there is a small "crack" in his skeptic thinking, and if I can just find that right anomaly that even he "sees", then that will be a day of days!! :))

QuoteFor sure, I openly disagree with him most of the time, but he works the details very hard, and one of these days, his details are going to be the " more-clear proof" we need!! :))

QuoteHe definitely tries to help in much of what we do here!!

Quote from: zorgon on August 25, 2015, 04:03:30 AM
Also the greenish methane fog cloud on Mars that was the post where we finally agreed on color as he was able to reproduce the fog using his filters :D  (And that cloud led me to getting the full paper on Mars Methane from NASA's password protected file server

Quote from: rdunk on August 25, 2015, 06:21:59 AM
Yes, the colorized items do have peculiar multi-shapes that seem to reflect the point of not being 'just rocks"! I think it interesting that as much as has been revealed in the raft of Mars photos, NASA an still say, with a straight face, no proof of life on Mars, past or present, fossil or otherwise! One of these days...............!!

Quote from: funbox on August 25, 2015, 12:52:11 AM
ok well do a test here is one ive taken from the thumbnails and enhanced by many methods

(http://i.imgur.com/J2ULwhC.jpg)

lets see what it turns into when we see the full-size jpgraw

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01082/mcam/1082MR0047611100600336I01_DXXX.jpg

funbox

Quote from: ArMaP on September 03, 2015, 09:21:45 AM
Looks like another case of JPEG compression.

Quote from: funbox on September 05, 2015, 11:55:39 AM
visible at 100% , no compression here,,... A triangle? since when have you known a triangle to be created by compression ? let alone a circle next to it

Quote from: funbox on September 06, 2015, 11:59:21 AM
so why does it look like a circle and a triangle at 100 % , no zooming or resampling, as appears in your exploded version no cheating ArMaP

Quote from: ArMaP on September 06, 2015, 04:05:48 PM
Because of the way JPEG works.

Quote from: zorgon on October 28, 2015, 05:26:21 PM
Looks like a piece of rock standing and casting a shadow...

Quote from: zorgon on October 28, 2015, 05:26:21 PM
Looks like a piece of rock standing and casting a shadow...

Quote from: ArMaP on October 29, 2015, 03:07:40 PM
I see a shadow and a darker area under the rock.

Why don't you make an animated GIF to show what you mean, are you out of GIF juice? ;)

Quote from: rdunk on October 29, 2015, 04:11:27 PM
@rdunk plus what ? a darker obscuring material ? :D

funbox
..............................................................

Hey funbox - +1 on forums usually means "I agree" - with Zorgon in this case, as I thought it looked like a rock too. :)

But now, after looking at it more, this small feature does look a little odd. Also, if that is supposed to be a shadow on the flat surface, it seems to bear no resemblance to the outlines of the feature. I have magnified it even more, and there are some odd looking features we can see - at least 3 features that are cylindrical shaped with each having  a hole in its center. And these are there, even when we demagnify, but are just much harder to see with no mag.

Yes, with the shadowing, it has the appearance of a rock, but then the magnified detail looks otherwise?? Here is my slightly different magnification of your image.

(http://s18.postimg.org/rum4xzuk9/Screen_Shot_2015_10_29_at_10_51_14_AM.jpg)

Quote from: Eighthman on December 01, 2015, 01:05:41 AM
Arghh! (frustration). What are the 'barnacles' on the rock?

Quote from: funbox on December 01, 2015, 10:12:17 AM
come now ArMaP , look at the picture and take a wild guess, forewarned though , it has nothing to do with coffee :D

Quote from: ArMaP on December 01, 2015, 01:54:30 PM
I don't like guessing games, never did.

Quote from: funbox on December 01, 2015, 05:18:58 PM
no. all I ask is to use your accumulated knowledge of geology and photographic principles and give me your honest

Quote from: funbox on December 01, 2015, 06:35:04 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/o8PRIxA.gif)

notice anything peculiar ?

Quote from: astr0144 on December 01, 2015, 07:50:41 PM
UFO Hunters Believe NASA's Opportunity Rover Has Found An Alien 'Dome' On Mars


Alien hunters have once again proved that there is no limit to their imagination.

The extraterrestrial enthusiasts believe NASA's Opportunity rover has spotted a dome on Mars, presumably built by an ancient civilisation.

Their theory stems from this rather unassuming photograph, published by NASA.

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3728600/thumbs/o-MARS-DOME-570.jpg?7)

mars dome


If you missed it, here is the the "alien dome" up close:

mars dome

While the raised structure is most likely a rock, self-confessed ufologists have said that it can't be a product of " natural formation."


(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3728628/thumbs/o-MARS-DOME-570.jpg?7)


Conspiracy website, 'The Un-Silent Majority' stated: "The existence of domes on Mars proves that someone or something built them in the past.The existence of domes on Mars proves that someone or something built them in the past.

"... If the structure is observed more closely, it becomes obvious that small dark circles spread all over the base of the structure."

The site also mentioned hardcore UFO fans who believe NASA is operating a secret space program that has already sent astronauts to the red planet. Well, you can't fault them for lack of creativity.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/01/alien-and-ufo-hunters-believe-nasa-opportunity-rover-has-found-a-dome-on-mars_n_8686652.html?NCID=edlinkukhpmg00000182&ref=yfp

Quote from: ArMaP on December 01, 2015, 09:52:41 PM
Yes, part of the image is moving.  :P

Seriously, no, I see nothing peculiar.

Quote from: funbox on December 02, 2015, 01:57:36 AM
not seeing that color recession is not taking place ?

Quoteits the same type of sand in the foreground isn't it ?

Quoteshouldn't it be lighter as it recedes into the middle background ?

Quoteto my understanding it should , even with a wispy, dusty atmosphere. light scattering should be taking place.

Quoteeven these dark patches of sand in this set look artificially created, there's finer detail rippling on some of the dunes that are contrary to other dunes , as if the wind is laying out some random crosshatch pattern ...

Quote from: ArMaP on December 02, 2015, 09:48:46 PM
I see it.

QuoteI think so.

Quote
Not necessarily.

QuoteFrom what I have seen that kind of sand looks brighter when seen from above and darker when seen from a shallow angle

Quotelike when looking at it from some distance,

QuoteI have seen that on many Mars photos,

Quotethat's why I don't think it's unusual.

QuoteYou can see it on this panorama I made with the photos from that camera and that sol.
(http://dc305.4shared.com/img/Z9soBKmUce/s7/15164a8bdd8/NLB_502163328EDR_F0511126NCAM0?async&rand=0.3276491607539356)

QuoteYou can even see how the edges of the dunes look different from the rest.

QuoteThe way dunes are created change with the material with which they are created,

Quoteas the weight and size of the material changes the way the wind blows it

Quoteand the way they fall,

Quotethat's why there are so many types of dunes.

Quote from: funbox on December 02, 2015, 10:18:13 PM
then what physics is taking place ?

Quotebut we're not above in this photo, we're on the ground, making comparatives to satellite photos is not an explanation of what optical/environmental physics is taking place in this photo

Quotestrange , this appears to be a new conversation about the environment with you

Quotenice Panarama :D

QuoteI don't understand

Quote from: ArMaP on December 03, 2015, 12:33:31 AM
Optics. :)
You can look at the ground beneath your feet, can't you? You are not on a satellite but you are seeing the ground from above.
What I meant (and didn't explain well) was that the angle of view from the camera to the ground close to the rover is closer to 90º than the angle of view from the camera to several metres away.
It could be new for you, it's not new to me, but I know myself for a long time. :)
Thanks, they are easy to make with Microsoft's Image Composite Editor. :)
Different materials react to the wind in different ways, heavier materials are not as much affected as light materials, for example, more eroded, rounder, particles will behave in a way that is different from less eroded, sharper, particles, that will tend to lay as if they were shingles, in layers, while the rounder particles will tend to roll down the dune's sloping sides.

Maybe this PDF (http://www.mars.asu.edu/christensen/docs/edgett_dunes_JGR_91.pdf) and this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune) will give you a better idea of what I'm trying to say-

Quote from: funbox on December 04, 2015, 08:01:05 PM
I don't see how we can proceed with an evaluation without wind speed and humidity data .. ive not checked for a while , but im almost 99.525% sure its not available

Quote from: rdunk on December 10, 2015, 05:29:11 PM
Funbox, here is the link to all of the Rover Curiosity Sol 1188 Chem-Cam images, and includes this one that you posted. I believe what is depicted in these images are likely very very small (Chem-Cam is a "micro imager"). LOL, this is my 1st foray into the Chem-Cam stuff, but maybe at least we can now know what we might be looking at with this pic

For a little more detail information on Rover Curiosity's Chem-Cam : http://msl-chemcam.com/index.php?menu=inc&page_consult=textes&rubrique=64&sousrubrique=223&soussousrubrique=0&titre_url=ChemCam

Chem-Cam side show - this does show a few of the small drilled holes in the surface soil/rock:  http://msl-chemcam.com/slide/index.php?u=1&titre_url=Results%20-%20ChemCam%20-%20SlideShow

Sol 1188 images:  http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=1188&camera=CHEMCAM%5F

(http://s24.postimg.org/49xbwnled/Screen_Shot_2015_12_10_at_11_19_53_AM.jpg)

Quote from: SerpUkhovian on December 11, 2015, 12:33:33 AM
This:

(http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag316/SerpUkhovian/MoHawk_zpsxlkxudrt.jpg)

is a picture of Vladimir Lenin:

(http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag316/SerpUkhovian/vladimir-lenin-1_zpsebjd0czt.jpg)

Quote from: ArMaP on December 11, 2015, 01:15:24 AM
Pictures? Ignoring the logos and the US flag, I don't think so, only some writing.

President's Signature On Board Curiosity (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia15883.html)

'Curiosity,' Meet Clara (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=112)

Quote from: Eighthman on December 12, 2015, 11:25:30 PM
Can we get back to the 'ribs/giant clam' stuff?

Quote from: Dyna on December 13, 2015, 08:02:34 PM
I would like that on a chain around my neck!! :)

Quote from: funbox on December 15, 2015, 01:06:53 AM
how's about something almost teardrop shaped from the latest mast set ... also , the area ive highlighted looks like it has some interesting , camera investigatingly worthy features :D

(http://i.imgur.com/PchHpNp.jpg)

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01192/mcam/1192ML0054120040502880E01_DXXX.jpg

lets hope they get right in there

funbox

Quote from: rdunk on December 15, 2015, 07:25:53 AM
So........what do you think the white stuff is in this pic"?? Clouds, fog, billows of white smoke, etc etc?? Since we can view the surface through it in some places, it appears likely that the white stuff is airborne. :)

Quote from: funbox on December 15, 2015, 08:33:09 PM
Indeed rdunk, the wolves have been playing nice of late , gif juice is building, although max2015 is sapping them greatly. I still have droplets left over to spend for attention drawing clouds. it appears the super sargasso sea*  has an apple supply. was a hard job convincing santa to use the stuff he uses for the reindeer. according to him there been a late delivery from Afghanistan, apparently the goats there were playing hard.

*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214192/Scientists-atmospheric-rivers-sky-hit-Britain-1-000-times-water-Thames.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214192/Scientists-atmospheric-rivers-sky-hit-Britain-1-000-times-water-Thames.html)

funbox

Quote from: Dyna on December 16, 2015, 09:14:33 PM
That just does not look right to me at all! No not at all!! :o

it looks like someone took a airbrush or something and painted it on. i live where there are huge dunes I would find those angles impossible on earth.

Quote from: funbox on December 16, 2015, 08:58:45 PM
I neglected to add a link for sheer drop sanddune

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/01194/opgs/edr/ncam/NLB_503501870EDR_F0512704NCAM00271M_.JPG

it looks to me like it could be 3 storeys high , what could possibly cause this ? :D

Quotenotice the ghostly looking fez wearing face on the top pic to the far right on the clifface of the dune

QuoteI don't think it's that high, this camera has a wider lens than the mast cameras.
As for what could cause this, gravity. :)

QuoteMaybe it came from Casablanca. It's looking at you, kid.

Quote from: funbox on December 16, 2015, 10:50:18 PM
ide take that more of an excuse to it's dumbfounding probability, if it had been one of the front or back navs, right and left are nowhere near as prone to fish eye as the aforementioned

Quoteportentous. the joke, so so , but the seeing and agreeing without question ...

QuoteI see what other people see most of the times, the difference is in the interpretation. :)

Quote from: funbox on December 17, 2015, 05:14:58 AM
so you interpret this sand dune as homogenous ?

Quoteis that sand all the way through to unknown x distance , where harder rock gives support and shape or does it reach the other side of the dune just as sand./unknown gritty appearing conglomerate  ?

QuoteIt's probably just sand, on Earth we also have large dunes, the biggest of all is 1230 metres high.

Quote from: ArMaP on December 17, 2015, 09:18:24 PM
From a quick look at the biggest dunes, those huge ones are "lonely" dunes, they probably gathered all the sand available on their area.

This one on Mars may be the only one on that specific place, but the area where Curiosity in entering now is full of dunes.

Quote from: funbox on December 17, 2015, 11:52:25 PM

who are they and why are they gathering sand ?

Quote from: ArMaP on December 17, 2015, 11:55:48 PM
"They", on my previous post, means "the dunes".

Quote from: funbox on December 17, 2015, 11:59:47 PM
so you're saying this colossus sanddune , somehow managed to gather more sand than the surrounding area without having some underlying structure to trap and shape ?

Quote from: ArMaP on December 18, 2015, 12:32:13 AM
Yes, that's how dunes "work".

Quote from: funbox on December 18, 2015, 12:55:57 AM
interesting , I always thought topography had something to do with it , very industrious of them, so how's it done then?

Quotewhat are the driving and cohesive forces at work here?

Quoteseems a bit much for the asthmatic wind to achieve alone, let alone the weak gravity :D

QuoteMostly wind and sand. :)

Wind blows the sand, the sand grains, according to their weight and shape, fly, jump or roll until they find an obstacle. This obstacle doesn't need to be big, only large enough to stop the flow of the sand and make it accumulate on the side of the obstacle that faces the wind.

From that point only wind and sand are needed, as the "new born" dune will act as the obstacle that will gather more and more sand.

When the side of the dune facing the wind has an angle low enough the sand moves over the dune and falls on the other side, and this side is steeper than the other, as it is formed by the falling sand. As the sand keeps on climbing the side facing the wind and falling on the other side, the dune will advance in the direction of the wind, at a speed that depends on force of the wind. Winds that are too strong may destroy the top of the dune and stop if from advancing until the top is recreated by the accumulation of sand.

Quote from: funbox on December 17, 2015, 11:52:25 PM

who are they and why are they gathering sand ?

(http://i.imgur.com/Vj8vwXE.jpg)

funbox

Quote from: funbox on December 18, 2015, 03:24:50 PM
it makes no sense , why such a huge sanddune in comparison to the shorter dunes that are in patches and are of the same material. whats so especial about this one ?

Quotea hulking great construction u8nderneath perchance ?

Quote from: ArMaP on December 18, 2015, 11:07:07 PM
The dune closer to this one has more or less the same size, Curiosity has left the small dunes area, crossed a rock area and finally reached the big dunes area near Mount Sharp.

Look at this image (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/imgs/2015/12/Curiosity_Location_Sol1187-full.jpg).

QuoteWhy?

Quote from: Dyna on December 18, 2015, 06:00:16 PM
;D ;D ;D
Well I needed that morning laugh!! I heard they are lizard people btw ;D

Quote from: funbox on December 19, 2015, 12:19:50 AM
how am I to tell the height of the dunes from the sat ? :D I cant tell one dark patch of indescribableness  from the next

Quote from: funbox on December 19, 2015, 12:36:50 AM
eye eye , there was some odd looking circle and eye of Ra peri on that sat pic though :D

(http://i.imgur.com/WC39dvC.jpg)

funbox

Quote from: Dyna on December 19, 2015, 06:12:10 PM
Far left of your panorama I find this fishy object and parts around it interesting  :)
(http://s20.postimg.org/h683crcrt/fish_broken.jpg?noCache=1450548535)

Quote from: funbox on December 27, 2015, 02:34:14 AM
so this is venus then :D

Quote from: ArMaP on December 27, 2015, 12:38:00 PM
Why do you say that? ???

Quote from: funbox on December 27, 2015, 05:51:09 PM
because certitude is a luxury I don't possess. are you that certain it is ?

Quote from: ArMaP on December 27, 2015, 06:45:51 PM
I cannot be certain of any thing, but you see a photo from a place that looks like Mars, on a site about a Mars mission, and say "so this is venus then". That looks like a certainty, not a question or a doubt.

Quote from: thorfourwinds on December 27, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Just to throw a little gasoline on the fire...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w4xWYDEAA8
Squirrel On Mars HD, How To Find In NASA Photo, May 2014, UFO Sighting News. - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w4xWYDEAA8)



Where On Earth Are NASA's Rovers Sending Pictures From? Devon Island, Canada | Humans Are Free (http://humansarefree.com/2015/12/where-on-earth-are-nasas-rovers-sending.html)

Quote from: funbox on December 27, 2015, 10:09:52 PM
but excluding the absence of squiggly lines and a dot, how does the atmosphere bl;oom so much without , er , an atmosphere ..

QuoteI don't see the sun bloom that much on earth and we supposed to have a thicker atmosphere

Quoteto me it doesn't add up , do you have the answers, I cant say I've seen such a massive falloff in bloom *especially the top* so much so its like light hit a wall , not from the navs or the masts

have you ?

Quote from: Eighthman on December 28, 2015, 01:11:35 AM
http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/2015/08/nasa-posts-fake-mars-photo-as-real.html

These shots are making the rounds on the 'net, perhaps from a site in Spanish. If true, the duplication is the interesting part. Are they hiding something?

QuoteMars has an atmosphere, and lens flare has no relation with atmosphere, that's why it's called "lens flare" and not "atmosphere flare".

QuoteThat's probably because you don't look for them or ignore them when you see them. Also, as that's an unwanted effect, people usually do not publish those photos.

QuoteIt's nothing special.

Quote from: funbox on December 28, 2015, 03:25:51 AM
who mentioned lensflare

Quotebecause the lens flare is giving an impression of a sun that's ten times the size in the sky

Quotedo you see the same in the Martian photo's ?

Quotemaybe you misunderstand me because I talk from the metalanguage of a 3d animator
https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Rendering/LightingAndShadows/LightShafts/index.html#bloommethod

Quoteno, I see.. tis needed to reproduce such effects in 3d environments :D

Quoteyet it still looks disproportionately large in comparison to the known size of the suns disc in the Martian sky

QuoteYou did, here.  ::)

QuoteNot exactly the same, that's why I said "I know it's not exactly the same".  :)
I was expecting that you were able to look at my photos and understand what I meant.

QuoteI misunderstood you because you started talking about lens flare and then changed to bloom, it would be easier if you didn't change the words in the middle of the discussion.

Quote
Different cameras, different results...

Quote from: Eighthman on December 28, 2015, 01:11:46 PM
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01144/mcam/1144ML0051850900501577E01_DXXX.jpg

Thank you for clearing up the pitfalls of the panoramic photos.  Are we saying that the circular 'barnacles' above are merely a JPEG artifact? Or are they real?  I wasn't clear if earlier explanations touched these.

Quote from: funbox on December 28, 2015, 05:17:13 PM
you do realise that bloom is used to describe the radial light scattering that is caused by the sun shining through atmosphere and isn't dependant on there being a lens to capture it, even one attached to the eye ...

Quotesecondary rings and circles are the things that are reflections within the camera

QuoteI used lensflare as a catchall for you..
but a lens flare is made up of many components

Quoteyou misunderstood me because you was unaware of the multifaceted nature of a lensflare

Quoteindeed , later when time permits and I'm not recreating a fireworks display
ill recreate lensflare from all of the lenses on the rover.. will be interesting to see how much atmosphere I have to create to get an identical scattering

Quotebut please don't tell me the look is down to the camera alone .. atmosphere plays an important part

Quotetake light pillars we see from the sun and ground light sources..
ice crystals play a part in there creation .. hazy cloud can create help create some massive blooms..

Quotehow can you say the camera is the culprit alone ?

Quote from: Eighthman on December 28, 2015, 01:11:46 PM
Are we saying that the circular 'barnacles' above are merely a JPEG artifact?

QuoteNo, I do not realise that, and I don't really believe that definition. Do you have a source for it?

QuoteWe are looking at circles on those photos.

QuoteIf you are talking about bloom, light scattering or lens flare, I suggest you use the the right word, otherwise you will only create more confusion.

QuoteNo, I know exactly what a lens flare is. I was not the one using "lens flare" as if it was something else.

QuoteAs I said, I doubt it, can you provide a source for that information?

QuoteNo clouds on those photos.

QuoteIt depends, are we talking about lens flare, bloom, atmospheric scattering, sensor blooming or what?

Quote from: funbox on December 28, 2015, 11:07:00 PM
I already did :D look back

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/vqnrj4A.jpg)

Quotewhich of the most is predominant within the Martian pictures ? :D

Quoterings and rays.. are they lensflares.. the above circles ?.. which part of the effect are we talking about?

Quoteeh you don't think the atmosphere plays a part? lets take my light pillars example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pillar

the blooming effect is used to describe the part of the light sources that I've already given a link to. but here it is again

https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Rendering/LightingAndShadows/LightShafts/index.html

Quoteyet still an atmosphere , are you saying, now, that light doesn't react with atmosphere?, whether that atmosphere's visible or not ?

Quotemainly the most striking features of the pictures *asides from the fake looking ,almost silhouetted dune*

QuoteDid you saw that part where they say "This method is not really emulating anything that happens in the real world"?

Quote from: funbox on December 29, 2015, 12:49:25 AM
indeed , and nor could we . the calculation of atmospheric light scattering, for just one photon amongst the near infinitude of particles in an atmosphere would be impossible , so emulation is a must ,

Quoteyou didn't think they were talking about exacts did you

Quotebut all of those effects illustrated on the page are effects that happen in reality .. look at them , do they ? :D

Quoteis there any point in me answering the rest ? :D

QuoteEmulation is a must? They say it's not an emulation. ???

I know that English is not my natural language, but I think that they are saying that the process is not a replication of a naturally occurring process, meaning that's not the same as a naturally occurring process like lens flare or atmospheric scattering.

QuoteExacts is not the same thing as artificial, things can be an approximation of natural processes, simplified either because we don't know all the parameters or to make things faster. Optics is a science, not a guess.

QuoteThis method is not really emulating anything that happens in the real world

QuoteJudging by your previous answers, I suppose not, as we are getting nowhere.

Quote from: funbox on December 29, 2015, 11:48:49 PM
it means that the method that is used does not emulate any other method in the real world to achieve the effect, read the previous paragraphs for method used...

Quotesay sunlight calculated from space passing through earths atmosphere and landing on the cup in your modelled hand but intervening hazy clouds make int bloom in scene.. no no no

Quotea path is laid a stone at a time :D

Quoteso this is venus then :D

ArMaP says
"Why do you say that? ???"

Quote from: Eighthman on December 30, 2015, 01:22:49 AM
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8636.60

OK, there are three photos (blown up) on page 5 of an odd rock sitting on top of a larger flat rock. That odd rock seems to have 2 or 3 small circular bits on it, that resemble barnacles (to me). I would like to know what these small circular projections might be.  Perhaps these have been explained in some fashion but it has not been clear to me.

Thank You.

Quote from: Eighthman on December 30, 2015, 01:22:49 AM
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8636.60

OK, there are three photos (blown up) on page 5 of an odd rock sitting on top of a larger flat rock. That odd rock seems to have 2 or 3 small circular bits on it, that resemble barnacles (to me). I would like to know what these small circular projections might be.  Perhaps these have been explained in some fashion but it has not been clear to me.

Quote from: ArMaP on December 30, 2015, 11:42:38 AM
At first sight I see only one barnacle-looking thing, but as you can see it occupies a JPEG block.
Because of the way JPEG compression works, sometimes, the edges of a block have the colours slightly changed, so we cannot be sure of what the original object looks like.

(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Marte%209.jpg)

Quote from: thorfourwinds on December 30, 2015, 04:51:20 AM
Typical....crickets.

Take a close look at all the posts after I offered Devon Island as "Mars"...

QuoteArguing minutia again (IMHO, of course).

Quote from: funbox on December 30, 2015, 05:14:34 PM
have you tried desaturation ?, seeing as the colour is obscuring the view  for you..

Quoteor are you saying now that colour interpolation now alters geometric shapes ? is intergral to defining them shapes ?

Quotedoes this apparent rule apply even if the asserted shapes are confined to an eightblock or not ?

Quoteand you say I confuse you ? :D

Quote from: funbox on December 30, 2015, 05:03:08 AM
I say this because the amount of atmospheric scattering (3d metalanguage *bloom*

the suns disc is lost in it's brightness and the only indicators there are to its position, are the lensflare circles

this massive radial flare that's apparent in the earlier picture's suggests to me that there's more atmosphere or particulates to create atmospheric scattering than Nasa are letting on

simple enough now ? :D

Quote from: thorfourwinds on December 31, 2015, 06:06:54 AM
Thank you, ArMaP.

QuoteThat Devon Island might be a game-changer, IMHO.

QuoteHappy New Year, everyone.

Quote from: ArMaP on December 30, 2015, 09:08:41 PM
The colours are not obscuring the view, the first thing JPEG compression does is change the colour space from (usually) RGB to YCbCr (a colour space similar to the one used in analog PAL), so from that point we cannot be sure if the colours are the same as in the original or not.
On a 2D image, colour is the only thing that creates the shapes, so any change in colour may change the shape.
Yes, because the change of colour space is the first step and is applied to the whole image. After that, the colour information is downsampled (changing the colours even more) and then the image is split in 8x8 blocks.
This is a democratic forum, everybody confuses everybody. ;D

Quote from: ArMaP on December 31, 2015, 09:17:13 AM
You're welcome. :)
Why? ???
Happy New Year. :)

Quote from: thorfourwinds on January 01, 2016, 08:42:38 PM
One might think that finding the "Martian squirrel" to be a resident
of Devon Island is interesting.

Quote from: funbox on January 01, 2016, 08:49:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwe6pFtxp5w

the shots do look at little mount sharpish at times :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 02, 2016, 12:02:26 AM
Well, they do have Lemmings. :)

Quote from: funbox on December 16, 2015, 02:19:31 PM
is it me is this supposed sand dune unusually tall?
(http://i.imgur.com/rjolTAW.jpg)

Quote from: ArMaP on January 09, 2016, 07:15:33 PM
Now we have an official size for that dune, 5 metres.

And a nice panorama. :)
Full-Circle Panorama Beside 'Namib Dune' on Mars (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=pia20284)

Quote from: funbox on January 09, 2016, 10:57:03 PM
when they say full circle do they really mean it in a three.sixty.degree fashion ? because I don't see the second huge dune

Quotehas it nipped off to partake in a real life, true flag production with screamy girl ? :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 10, 2016, 12:14:16 AM
Yes, it's a 360º panorama, I tried to make one but, for some reason, the program I use doesn't want to include 3 of the photos in the panorama.
It probably got bored with your GIFs.  :P

QuoteIt probably got bored with your GIFs.

Quote from: funbox on January 10, 2016, 10:52:43 PM
did you find it on that one ?..

Quotetheres been a change in the image code to display images  at imgur ..
heres the bb in quotes

"<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="wZa1Gmy"><a href="//imgur.com/wZa1Gmy">View post on imgur.com</a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>"

any reason why this is not working ?

Quotewhy did they change it ?

Quotethese gifs wont display themselves :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 11, 2016, 12:21:36 AM
If I understand the question, the answer is "yes". :)
Because that's not a link to an image.
You have to ask them.

Is this the image you wanted to post?
(http://i.imgur.com/wZa1Gmy.jpg)
And that's bad?  :P

QuoteAnd that's bad?  :P

Quote from: ArMaP on January 10, 2016, 02:34:19 PM
It's easier to see on this site (http://www.360cities.net/image/mars-panorama-curiosity-solar-day-1197).

I think it's this one.

(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Marte%2010.jpg)

PS: you can use the "compass" on the bottom left corner to try to find that area on the site linked above.

QuoteSo  WHO took that picture of the Rover? :D

Quote from: zorgon on January 11, 2016, 08:11:28 AM
I looked for the selfie arm :P Its not in the picture

::)

Quote from: ArMaP on January 11, 2016, 09:43:50 PM
That's because this panorama was not taken with the camera on the robot arm (MAHLI), it was taken with left mast camera.

Quote from: funbox on January 14, 2016, 04:44:29 PM
again this one slipped me , Fog on Mars .. a river of Fog more like

Quotemight be a cause of those blooming early morning suns we're seeing in Gale

Quote from: ArMaP on January 14, 2016, 08:24:34 PM
Look here (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Mars_Blue_Bird_Weather.html#Fog) for more fog. :)
I doubt it, if I'm not mistaken, all the photos that show fog are of the lower areas, lower than Gale crater, and we have now many photos from orbit of Gale crater and I haven't seen one photo showing fog.

QuoteAll the photos that show the fog do not appear to be taken close to sunrise, as the shadows are not long.

Quote from: funbox on January 15, 2016, 04:30:36 PM
the question I now have is , did they know of this foggy region before they decided on the landing site for the Curiosity Rover?

Quoteand if so why did they not consider a foggy region not a viable region to search?

QuoteHas there been any speculation by Nasa on the potential of life in this foggy environment, that you know of?

Quoteto me a foggy region would be the first place to search , a far higher chance to find surface water there ,if its in the air

QuoteYes, the Mars Express photo you posted is from 2004, the landing site for Curiosity was decided in 2011.

QuoteNo, not from NASA or from ESA.

QuoteAccording to page 21 of this PDF, it looks like the shape of the ground is the main responsible for the creation of the fog, not the amount of water.

Quote from: funbox on January 16, 2016, 04:47:08 PM
without reading (I will do later) would this be because of it being a deep Ravine ? temperature inversion keeping a thicker yet colder atmosphere from the warmer above ?

QuoteHRSC images show impressive morning fog features inside Valles Marineris and other regions of the surface of Mars.
Temperatures have been determined simultaneously to the imaging by PFS. This identifies water ice rather than frozen CO2 as the cause of the fog observations.
Numerical estimates of the water vapor pressure and atmospheric water content at the frost-point by a 1-dimensional planetary boundary layer model indicate that conditions in the planetary boundary layer can indeed temporarily favor the formation of ice particles.
The fog phenomena seem to be induced or supported by orographic effects but not directly by the distribution pattern of the
atmospheric vapor or by the regional subsurface water content.

Quote from: funbox on January 17, 2016, 04:23:36 AM
I cant be so sure though , that presentation looked like it was made in crayon by a kid
have strange recollections of looney tunes for some reason :D

QuoteFirst of all, sorry for taking your time

QuoteI read your work about XXXX and have some doubts

Quoteis the difference in environment enough to give better chances for the persistence of surface water? If yes, in which regions is that more likely to happen? And what consequences for the potential of a life supporting environment?

Quote from: funbox on January 18, 2016, 12:59:40 AM
have you been reading Carnegie books again ? :D

Quoteyou want me to lie straight off the bat ? ill not be ever sorry, for asking a question to an employee that publicly displays there email and besides it comes across cheesy

Quoteno no no , I have query about what's been speculated about the fog and its corresponding environment
the only doubt I have is the pdf guys ability to use a crayon

Quotealmost the same as mine , but mines short and to the point

QuoteI think that's what happened with Jim Garvin, he asked me what PDF I was talking about, as just my description wasn't enough for him to remember what it was about.

Quote from: ArMaP on January 18, 2016, 01:23:37 PM
I suppose diplomacy is not your strongest point. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on January 18, 2016, 04:27:59 PM
I suppose under the fog are the same things that are there when there's no fog, rocks and sand. :)

One thing that PDF showed me was something I didn't know, the difference in temperature on those lower areas, and, apparently, the temperatures are lower. I suppose that the difference in altitude also creates higher atmospheric pressures, so while those higher pressures may make it easier for water to exist in liquid state, the lower temperatures make it harder.

Quote from: funbox on January 18, 2016, 05:41:36 PM
are there any pictures of this detail, without the fog covering ?  if the fog ever clears, that is

Quote from: funbox on January 18, 2016, 09:17:01 PM
can I add whipped cream to the growing list of confusion ?

Quote from: ArMaP on January 18, 2016, 09:34:49 PM
Please do. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on January 18, 2016, 10:41:26 PM
Yes, there's something strange about it, both reports can't be correct (if I understood them right).

Quote from: funbox on January 18, 2016, 11:06:38 PM
the quality of the pdf presentation tells me something isn't right :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 17, 2016, 04:41:53 PM
I would say it in a slightly different way. :)

Something like this:

"Hello Nasa Employee
First of all, sorry for taking your time. I read your work about XXXX and have some doubts, is the difference in environment enough to give better chances for the persistence of surface water? If yes, in which regions is that more likely to happen? And what consequences for the potential of a life supporting environment?

Thanks in advance."

QuoteThe presence of subsurface water has long been suspected but required the appearance of strange layered craters to confirm.

Quote from: funbox on January 18, 2016, 03:31:11 AM
ok ok let me have another try :D
*
most revered and astute Nasa employee, creator and manipulator of Quazi.
I hope not to indulge in your time to much and humbly bring my stupid intellect and a question  to your magnificent fatherly/motherly guidance

let me tarry no further and ask if there's life under the fog you took a picture of on mars? and burden you not with , I fear, a cloud of of ignorant stupidity , surely the most dangerous of clouds :D

yours, with sincerest gratitude for wasting your lunch break and hoping my question does not cause to much indigestion

FuNbOx
*

I tend to struggle remembering back to the 'hand print picture days' too

funbox

Quote from: ArMaP on January 18, 2016, 11:15:56 PM
The quality of the presentation may not be directly proportional to the quality of the data and the conclusions. :)

Quote from: funbox on January 20, 2016, 12:20:18 AM
conclusions ? :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 20, 2016, 12:59:01 AM
In general, I wasn't talking about that specific PDF.

I think the way things are presented is not the most important. I even read your posts.  :P

Quote from: funbox on January 20, 2016, 01:19:00 AM
are you sure you read them ?> :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 20, 2016, 01:42:34 AM
No, I'm sure I didn't read them, I was only looking for that specific photo. :)

QuoteI think the way things are presented is not the most important. I even read your posts.  :P

Quote from: funbox on January 20, 2016, 02:04:38 AM
my post that is

Quote from: ArMaP on January 20, 2016, 09:20:32 AM
I read them, understanding what you mean is the hardest part.  :(

Quote from: funbox on January 25, 2016, 03:46:23 AM
ahh well always easy to resort to pictograms

Quote from: ArMaP on January 25, 2016, 11:00:10 PM
Sometimes they are even harder to understand, images posted without an explanation of what was the reason for being posted only add to the confusion.

Quote from: funbox on January 26, 2016, 12:04:08 AM
amazingly obtuse today ArMaP ? :D

Quotewhat would you think I would say with such a picture ...

Quote from: ArMaP on January 26, 2016, 12:35:27 AM
Not more than the usual.
I don't know, I wasn't the one posting it.

The way I see it, this is not a photoblog or an image gallery, if people want other people to discuss something the best way is saying what they want and start talking about it, just posting images doesn't help the discussion.

Quote from: funbox on January 26, 2016, 02:08:11 AM
don't you think it looks like a micro pyramid ? :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 26, 2016, 09:25:35 AM
I do, but I also think expecting other people to understand what you mean without making an effort shows laziness and may even be considered as lack of respect to other members, as it may sound like they have the obligation of knowing what you mean while you have no obligation to help them understand.

Quote from: funbox on January 26, 2016, 04:30:42 PM
a picture with the caption what do you think of this .. well in an ongoing anomalies thread .. quite sufficient

Quoteas for respecting other members.. where's that come from? if people ask me for re-explanation I give it 9/10

QuoteSufficient if everybody knows what the other person is talking about, and although in this case the "micro pyramid" was obvious, it's not always like that, and I was talking in general terms, not about that specific photo.

QuoteI suppose I see a collaborative place like a forum in a different way, as I don't think people should have to ask for explanations, the member posting the information should give enough information so anyone reading his/her posts could use that information for whatever purposes they wanted.

Quote from: funbox on January 28, 2016, 04:21:40 AM
I wonder what the point of the digression was then ?

Quoteso you would prefer to show someone a picture and immediately interfere with there thought patterns with regards to the picture and they're honest interpretation of said picture.

Quotehonesty ArMaP , you say its a crux of you're being, but im yet to get  the full flavour of it :D

Quote


Quote

so you would prefer to show someone a picture and immediately interfere with there thought patterns with regards to the picture and they're honest interpretation of said picture.


No, why do you say that?

QuoteI don't know, I wasn't the one posting it.

The way I see it, this is not a photoblog or an image gallery, if people want other people to discuss something the best way is saying what they want and start talking about it, just posting images doesn't help the discussion.

Quote from: funbox on January 28, 2016, 03:00:32 PM
are you acquainted with the concept of doublethink ? :D

Quotesaying what I want ? are you sure ? :D

Quote from: ArMaP on January 28, 2016, 08:23:01 PM
No.
In that context, yes, I'm sure.

Quote from: funbox on January 28, 2016, 11:28:21 PM
ok then, *cougho'mids and a picture it is then , without fear of two page's of query and reexplaination and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkZdTHmX0TQ

Quote from: ArMaP on January 29, 2016, 08:06:03 PM
I don't have the slightest idea of what you mean by that.  ???

Quote from: funbox on January 30, 2016, 01:42:34 AM
coaxing anomalies out of the shadows requires a little less rigidity, focusing without focusing etc  *insert quazi method here*:D

Quotejust let it flow ArMaP :D

QuoteI suppose it does, but what are other people supposed to do with those anomalies, accepted them as anomalies just because someone says so? Or try to understand what we are looking at?

QuoteAs I always choose the second option, I usually have to ask questions (specially when faced with just an image and no opinion about what we are looking at). If you look at the start of this thread, you also started by asking opinions, and that lead to discussion about several related subjects, something that is starting to lack in these last pages.

Quote from: funbox on January 30, 2016, 04:28:39 PM
that's a good idea    .    what do you think of the Pyramid shaped object? does your thinking allow for non human* in the loosest sense of the word, construction ?

Quote#and if not what type of geological process created this range of *foothills* with its pointed anomoly

Quotewell you'll know what I mean when I post a picture with little opinion or description in the future now won't you ? :D

QuoteNo, it doesn't make me think of artificially built objects, as it looks like a variation of all those conical mounds at the foot of Mount Sharp that we have seen in many photos.

QuoteIt looks like sedimentary material mounds, but I don't know which processes could result in those specific shapes.

QuoteNo, it doesn't make me think of artificially built objects, as it looks like a variation of all those conical mounds at the foot of Mount Sharp that we have seen in many photos

QuoteIt looks like sedimentary material mounds, but I don't know which processes could result in those specific shapes

Quote from: funbox on January 30, 2016, 07:26:28 PM
conical mounds that are rounded , unlike this quite obvious point, wouldn't you say ?

Quoteor is there a reason for it's acuteness, in comparison with its surrounding neighbours

QuoteIce is a great carver, but seeing it hasn't been about for a while, if at all in this region , and even if it had , why the lack of erosion? in comparison with its surroundings ?

Quoteanyway double think

Quotethose conical mounds that are rounded whereas this is acute and apparently un-eroded at its tip?

Quoteif you don't know the processes and the visually perceived environmental conditions suggest heavy erosion/environmental activity in that region, how do you conclude it is similar in nature to the surrounding objects , not just visually but of material too?

QuoteI think maybe pictures with some indicating arrows might be helpful at this juncture :D

QuoteIt's hard to say from that photo if that mound's point is as sharp as it appears to be, if we had two photos for a stereo vision it would be better.

QuoteSure there's a reason, but I don't have any idea of what it may be.

QuoteI don't see signs of ice by ice, and judging by the size of the mound, it's probably more recent than the bigger ones.

QuoteWhat do you mean by "double think"?

QuoteYes, and it's that difference that made me write "variation" instead of "just another"

QuoteI didn't conclude any thing, it's just a supposition, based on the way it looks and on the way the other mounds look, as both appear to be made from the same materials, with similar layers of what looks like sedimentary material.

QuoteArrows? What for?

Quote from: funbox on January 31, 2016, 02:19:29 PM
im sure we wont have to long to wait, I Cant see how Nasa could possibly avoid taking another picture

Quoteand certainly not Aliens/AncientAliens then

Quotefor a complete understanding , and if you interest reaches far enough to find out, an explaination can be found in the book "1984" by George Orwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Quoteno ArMaP , it's a cop out, what you should have said was an acute variation , as similarly looking, they are not.

Quotethat's why the arrows are needed , im struggling to see the sedimentary layers that strike them all as similar :D

QuoteI take it this seeing of these layers is what formed your conclusion to no Architectural construction

Quote from: funbox on February 01, 2016, 01:55:52 PM
interesting interpretation of the darkened lines , quite big for stratified layers aren't they not ? ide say they were 40 feet deep at least.

Quotewhat type of event could have piled up an alternating colour of material .. not just once but twice as can be seen by the huge mountain just behind the pyramid

Quotewouldn't *go faster stripes* or a decorative layer of brickwork be more plausible than two intermediated events that are causing two dark stratifying lines in the terrain ?

Quote3000 years of volcanic activity ?, then sandstorms to build up the layer of light colours ?.. than back to volcanism ?
likely storey

Quoteyou may as well say the two stratifying lines are the darkened remnants of life

Quote from: ArMaP on February 01, 2016, 09:49:50 PM
Big? No.

This is in the Algarve.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/BarrBelharucas1.jpg)

Quote from: funbox on February 02, 2016, 01:02:09 AM
how is that comparable ,? :D cause its big ,, the martian strata runs through airspace into the surrounding hillocks/cones *supposedly

Quotewouldn't this suggest that before the hills were carved by water , first they were deposited on ?

Quoteotherwise how would the strata layers be carved and deposited  at the same time .. and why would water carve such acute shapes

Quoteill stop here because i maybe misunderstanding you

QuoteI think the shapes are a result of the currents that carved those shapes, when you have an area with running water and some obstacle, that obstacle is going to create swirls that will help shape the area, and if you have a piece of ground that has harder material (or where the material, for some reason, got more compacted), that area will last longer and will help create more currents that carve the surrounding area.

Quote from: funbox on February 02, 2016, 02:20:25 PM
well you give too much credit to water I think , but ill reserve judgement until some closer shots are obtained, I still think it would be pushing the envelope for a pyramid to be carved/eroded into shape.

Quoteany other precedence's of such an occurrence here on earth?

QuoteDo you have any evidence of it being pyramid shape?

Quote from: ArMaP on February 02, 2016, 10:11:52 PM
Seeing what water can do on Earth, I don't think I'm giving too much credit to it.

You keep talking about a "pyramid", but to me that looks more like a cone. Do you have any evidence of it being pyramid shape?
Pyramids or cones?

Quote from: ArMaP on February 04, 2016, 08:54:39 PM
I know that layer doesn't appear on other mounds, but that doesn't mean it's not a layer.

If the mounds were created on different occasions in different ways they would look different.

PS: I'm still looking at a 3D image of that area to try to identify those features on a satellite photo.

Quote from: funbox on February 04, 2016, 10:24:15 PM
but then if an intermediating deposition/accretion event happened, wouldn't the darkened layer be obliterated , given that the three mounds/cones/triangulared's are roughly the same height

to further add to the puzzle the long platform behind the pyramid has its stratified darkened stripe raised much higher than it lower situated cougher '0mids ...

I do look forward to seeing the 3d sats though :D

Quote from: ArMaP on February 05, 2016, 08:02:35 PM
One of the reasons I'm trying to get a 3D image from that area is because from these photos it's hard to understand what's close to the camera and what's far away, and looking at satellite photos it looks (to me) like there were different occasions, some with depositions of sediments, some with removal.

Quote from: funbox on February 05, 2016, 11:50:38 PM
interesting , are you suggesting mount sharp is/was volcanic ? or are you referring to another deposition event ?

QuoteThe way you misinterpret the things I say is interesting, what made you think that I was thinking about volcanism? I don't see what I said that could be interpreted that way. ???

Quote from: funbox on February 06, 2016, 03:43:02 PM
there are only clarifying questions ArMaP, why are you asserting im making statements about what you say ? almost as interesting no ?

Quotenow I know your talking about water deposition , ill ask how the middle "cone" got excluded from the layer?

that's the part I have trouble envisioning

Quote from: ArMaP on February 06, 2016, 04:19:33 PM
Because you, again, talk about things I didn't say, and that confuses me. ;D
And that's the part I am trying to understand also, by looking at the satellite images. :)

Quote from: funbox on February 06, 2016, 04:35:30 PM
if you give me the link to the sat map to the region, ill use it in 3dsmax and overlay 3d geometry .. that should give you an indication of distances, it might take a few days though

Quote from: ArMaP on February 06, 2016, 05:46:07 PM
I was thinking about something better than displacement maps made with the photos, as difference in colour and light/shadow will give different results.

Quote from: ArMaP on February 06, 2016, 08:06:08 PM
I need a vacation, it's the third time this week that I miss something right in front of my eyes. :(

On this page (http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/dtm/dtm.php?ID=PSP_009149_1750) they have the Digital Terrain Model (first link under "DTM & ORTHOIMAGES"), which looks like a displacement map to me, so I suppose that can make things easier. :)

As they have the DTM in IMG format and the ortho photo in JP2 and I don't know if you are able to convert both to a more common format, you can download PNG versions of those two files from the links below.

Ortho photo PSP_009294_1750 (http://www.4shared.com/photo/W00_w6xlce/PSP_009294_1750_RED_A_01_ORTHO.html)
http://www.4shared.com/photo/HHRx13nJba/DTEEC_009149_1750_009294_1750_.html]DTM (//http://)

PS: that photo from Curiosity showing the "pyramid" was taken when the rover was just outside the top left of those images, marked with a yellow star in the image below.

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/ESP_033649_1750_RED_1.jpg)

Quote from: ArMaP on February 07, 2016, 12:42:23 AM
Nice work! :)

I agree, it needs some adjustments.

Can you post a view from close to the ground, at the point marked with the star in the image below? I think the "pyramid" is what I circled in the background, but if we can get a view from more or less the same point of view of the rover it will be easier to find.

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/PSP_009294_1750_RED_A_01_3D_1.jpg)

Quote from: ArMaP on February 07, 2016, 04:41:59 PM
I agree, something's wrong with that, too bad I don't have the slightest idea of what it may be. ;D

It was worth the try. :)

Quote from: funbox on February 07, 2016, 05:34:39 PM
are you certain that is the correct satellite strip for the region we can see ?

Quote from: ArMaP on February 07, 2016, 10:29:16 PM
Yes, I'm certain.

Quote from: funbox on February 07, 2016, 11:38:43 PM
good match up, now :D

what dune do we suppose this is most likely to be?

(http://i.imgur.com/prl5o39.jpg)

Quote from: funbox on February 08, 2016, 12:23:54 AM
I think we might need the strip nextdoor

Quote from: funbox on February 08, 2016, 01:54:51 AM
no worries , rest well

Quote from: ArMaP on February 08, 2016, 09:51:04 PM
Thanks, I have been having since Wednesday a mysterious fever that attacks from time to time and that I have no idea of its origin, so I can only take some pills to lower the fever, and I avoid even that, but it looks like it's affecting my concentration. :(

Anyway, what I remembered yesterday (and another thing I forgot while looking for a 3D model of that area) was this very useful site (http://curiosityrover.com/), as it shows the direction the camera was pointing when the photos were taken (that information is part of the information sent to Earth, so scientists can know exactly that).

This is the viewing angle for photo 1197ML0054560020502949E01.

(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1197ML0054560020502949E01_DXXX%201.jpg)

In this image I superimposed the orthophoto, that appears in red. As you can see it's right area.

(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Marte%2014.gif)

Edited to add that my concentration is really lacking, as I forgot the link for the page and to explain what's that yellow line. :(

Measuring the position of the "pyramid" from the left side of the photo I got a distance of 21% the full width of the photo, which corresponds to an angle of 21% of the whole viewing angle, so the "pyramid" should be close to the yellow line.

Quote from: funbox on March 08, 2016, 09:36:32 PM
seems like the stratification effect has disappeared

Quote from: funbox on March 08, 2016, 10:23:02 PM
I think its the same location as the last four pages ...

not see the resemblance ? :D seems like its taken from a lower elevation than the others

Quote from: ArMaP on March 09, 2016, 12:02:24 AM
You're right, I see it now. But the striation is still there, better noticeable on the higher resolution colour photos.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01270/mcam/1270ML0059460110504381E01_DXXX.jpg

Quote from: funbox on March 09, 2016, 10:48:54 AM
higher resolution ? :D , you mean they've got a bit closer don't' you ?

Quote from: ArMaP on March 09, 2016, 02:06:08 PM
I shouldn't have said "higher resolution", as that's not the case, but it's not a case of being closer, as I was comparing the grayscale photo you posted with the colour photo I posted.

The difference between those two photos is not resolution (it's the same), it's the lens used, as the colour photo was taken with a lens with a bigger focal length, so the objects appear larger.

Quote from: funbox on March 09, 2016, 02:32:51 PM
indeed.., how do you think the sharper of the pyramid shaped mounds , maintained its edge over the others ?
selective attrition ?

QuoteI still don't see this shared strata  you see :D in colour or black and white.. where are you defining its geometric and textural outlines within the pictures ?

QuoteI think it was something similar to what creates those balancing rocks, different layers erode in a different way, but if there's a rock in a layer it changes the way that layer reacts to erosion and the end result would look different.

QuoteWell, if you don't see them I don't know how I can show them to you, unless I draw some lines showing where the different layers are

Quote from: funbox on March 26, 2016, 06:52:51 PM
interesting bun :D

QuoteA bizarre marine microbe called Shewanella, for example, gets its metabolic energy by using "nanowires" that draw electrons directly from rocks.


Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/life-in-universe-special-what-is-life-180958432/#XqDjz1dUih6fO0TW.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter

Quote from: ArMaP on March 26, 2016, 07:20:33 PM
I was expecting you to sign as "bunfox".  :P

Meanwhile, this is the most recent photo of the "pyramid".
(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01282/mcam/1282ML0060310180504839E01_DXXX.jpg)

Also, a panorama I just made with the photos from sol 1282.
Sol 1282 (http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/185502).

Edited to add a link to a white-balanced version of the panorama.
Sol 1282, white-balanced (http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/185505)

Edited again to say that I only found now that there's a flaw in the panorama, but I'm not going to try to correct it.

Quote from: Dyna on March 26, 2016, 08:06:23 PM
A bizarre marine microbe called Shewanella, for example, gets its metabolic energy by using "nanowires" that draw electrons directly from rocks.


Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/life-in-universe-special-what-is-life-180958432/#XqDjz1dUih6fO0TW.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter

Quote from: ArMaP on April 17, 2016, 06:09:55 PM
Another panorama, from sol 1302 (http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/186300), and a better view of the "pyramids".

(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01302/mcam/1302ML0061910030405578E01_DXXX.jpg)

Quote from: funbox on April 17, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
conclusions>?

Quote from: ArMaP on April 17, 2016, 10:09:49 PM
The inconsistency in the layers is one of the things I find more interesting in that area, it makes me think that there was some force (marsquakes?) that bent and broke the layers.

My doubts come from lack of data, as usual. :)

Quote from: funbox on April 17, 2016, 10:36:23 PM
are you having difficulty envisioning water cascading down them shallow hills, carving intricate canyons/islands, finally resting in a huge murky pool ?

Quote from: ArMaP on April 18, 2016, 12:55:15 AM
A little, my biggest problem with that is where did all the water came from? In the ground it surely looks like water erosion, but when looking at Mount Sharp it looks different.

Quote from: funbox on April 18, 2016, 02:11:58 AM
different in what way ?

Quote from: ArMaP on April 18, 2016, 09:44:12 PM
You can see on my panorama that it looks like the main part of Mount Sharp appears "cut" from the rest (to the right on the panorama, I think that's the west side of Mount Sharp) by something that doesn't look like water erosion, at least to me.

One of the things that look different is that we can see that the "layers" on the hill to the right of the "pyramid" (not visible on the photo I posted) are not horizontal, and for that to happen it means that the ground moved after the creation of the layers. While something like that is common on Earth with all its tectonic activity it's something uncommon on Mars.

Quote from: funbox on April 18, 2016, 10:10:54 PM
so then, meteorite swarm ?
not many other possibilities

scars of Tiamat perhaps?

Quote from: A51Watcher on April 19, 2016, 09:20:38 AM
All Mars Rovers have shown evidence of rock layers eroded by what appears to be water over time with different levels, but we are told that may have been sulphuric acid cascading down, instead of water.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 19, 2016, 01:58:08 PM
I haven't seen any reference to sulphuric acid, do you have a link?

Quote from: ArMaP on April 19, 2016, 01:58:08 PM
I haven't seen any reference to sulphuric acid, do you have a link?

Quote from: A51Watcher on April 22, 2016, 03:00:46 AM
Oh I'm sure I can find several, that's the NASA party line on what the liquid in ancient times on Mars likely was, if not water.

eta:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/science/space/on-mars-an-ancient-lake-and-perhaps-life.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/science/space/on-mars-an-ancient-lake-and-perhaps-life.html?_r=0)

"But that location would have been an extremely challenging environment for life to take hold — very salty and highly acidic. Later, the scientists said the soils had been soaked not so much by water as by sulfuric acid."

Quote from: A51Watcher on April 22, 2016, 03:00:46 AM
Oh I'm sure I can find several, that's the NASA party line on what the liquid in ancient times on Mars likely was, if not water.

QuoteMars is a planet where the groundwater in many instances is sulfuric acid

QuoteIn the early history of Mars, volcanic activity associated with the formation of the Tharsis ridge produced a very large amount of atmospheric SO2--on the order of a bar of atmospheric SO2.

QuoteNASA chose the 96-mile-wide Gale Crater as Curiosity's landing site because readings from orbit identified the presence of clay minerals, which form in waters with a neutral pH.

Quote from: funbox on April 23, 2016, 08:03:46 PM
they assumed the Ph was neutral from spectrometry on sats

they land in an acid bath :D

Quote from: ArMaP on April 23, 2016, 08:09:52 PM
What "acid bath"? ???

Quote from: funbox on April 23, 2016, 09:56:12 PM
its a term taken from horror, used to describe the removal of a corpse with acid , in a bath...

Quotea ground sodden with acid.

QuoteWhere's the acid? ???

Quote from: ArMaP on April 23, 2016, 04:46:28 PM
That's funny, because I don't remember seeing any reference to that.
...
It looks like the hypothetical existence of sulphuric acid in the past is the chosen way of explaining the presence of sulphates on today's Mars. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on May 21, 2016, 11:55:26 PM
Today I saw a photo that reminded me of the "pyramids". Curiously, it was a photo of a lake, lake Mead, posted on another thread here on Pegasus.

(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1fb69ba7b1d5a0616a5c2522ac75d8a6abbace5f/c=82-0-3668-2696&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/08/27/PalmSprings/PalmSprings/635762703882987290-las-vegas-water-use12.jpg)

The area close to the water's edge and those small islands reminds me of the area at the base of Mount Sharp. :)
(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01282/mcam/1282ML0060310180504839E01_DXXX.jpg)

Quote from: rdunk on June 02, 2016, 03:58:47 AM
[quote author=funbox the rover appears to be causing a bit of a land slide , it appears like vsrying degrees of sublimation has created interesting dark/lighter drying patches *best seen on original*



Hey funbox, if you have an interest in "black goo".............I have found places on Mars that are huge areas of what may be some sort of black goo! Have you ever had any experience with septic systems, when they over load and the waste comes to the top of the ground?? Well, that is just what the black surface spots on Mars look like to me!

I will post here a screenshot of one of them, but this is no small area of "goo". This screenshot is one from a Mars Orbiter camera, and it covers a wide surface area!

If I can find the original link, I will post it too.

What do you think?

(http://s33.postimg.org/eckd64bxr/Screen_Shot_2016_06_01_at_9_52_44_PM.jpg)

Quote from: rdunk on June 02, 2016, 03:58:47 AM
If I can find the original link, I will post it too.

What do you think?

(http://s33.postimg.org/eckd64bxr/Screen_Shot_2016_06_01_at_9_52_44_PM.jpg)

Quote from: ArMaP on June 03, 2016, 12:38:22 AM
That appears to be the type of features seen close to the south pole, but I don't remember seeing this particular area.

Quote from: rdunk on June 02, 2016, 03:58:47 AM
[quote author=funbox the rover appears to be causing a bit of a land slide , it appears like vsrying degrees of sublimation has created interesting dark/lighter drying patches *best seen on original*



Hey funbox, if you have an interest in "black goo".............I have found places on Mars that are huge areas of what may be some sort of black goo! Have you ever had any experience with septic systems, when they over load and the waste comes to the top of the ground?? Well, that is just what the black surface spots on Mars look like to me!
I will post here a screenshot of one of them, but this is no small area of "goo". This screenshot is one from a Mars Orbiter camera, and it covers a wide surface area!
If I can find the original link, I will post it too.
What do you think?
(http://s33.postimg.org/eckd64bxr/Screen_Shot_2016_06_01_at_9_52_44_PM.jpg)

Quote from: Dyna on June 03, 2016, 05:04:07 PM
Interesting place whats the square mark lower right I wonder.
(http://s20.postimg.org/n4zsf7cz1/Screen_Shot_2016_06_01_at_9_52_44_PM.jpg)

Quote from: rdunk on June 06, 2016, 07:17:12 AM
No, this is a Mars Orbiter photo, and there are no Rovers anywhere close to this area - still haven't found the actual photo yet!! :)

Quote from: funbox on June 06, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I wasn't referring to us, *rover/s* :D

it was postulated that underground beings were /are dumping their goop wasn't it ? .. maybe that's a surface testing station, where exacting measurements are taken to make sure theres just goop and nothing else but goop


goopbox

Quote from: rdunk on June 06, 2016, 05:15:28 PM
Could be! Another oddity in this photo is what I would call a primary feature - that would be the large curvy thing that comes out of the ground with a riser, then it swoops downward. Now if we look closely at this pic, there are 2 other similar features just to the left  that I think looks to be older/more worn, but possibly similarly used??????? If someone was pumping liquid wast from underground, then maybe at the surface out-put point some type of insulation of the pipe may be necessary to protect the pipes from freezing before liquid was eliminated. I have numbered these from the oldest to the newest looking one, in the pic.

To me, it does appear that we can just see the end of something circular, like a tube, that barely sticks out at the end of these things.

(click on pic)

(http://s33.postimg.org/a8th2ivtb/Mag_w_locaters_Screen_Shot_2016_06_06_at_10_07.jpg)

Quote from: funbox on June 27, 2016, 03:51:20 PM
although ill imagine the raw scientific community are going to attribute them to lava flows or some outgassing etc etc

Quote from: ArMaP on June 27, 2016, 11:40:34 PM
Or maybe it doesn't look like a tube in a better version of the photo, and that's why it's a shame we don't have the photo ID.

Quote from: funbox on June 28, 2016, 12:37:09 AM
where's the better version of the photo ?

Quoteand why is it a shame we don't have the id ?

Quotecant we find this region , it's fairly distinctive..

QuoteYes, but do you know how big that region is? If it's a 5 km x 5 km square then it's just something like 1/1000000 of Mars' surface.
But if you find it easy to find the region go ahead and find it, it would be great.

Quote from: rdunk on June 28, 2016, 03:33:09 AM
I am still looking for the actual photo! I am surprised that I don't have it in my files anyway, since I made a screenshot from it! I will find it!! :)

Meanwhile -  - here is another screenshot of my blackened area that gives us a slightly different perspective. I did make these screenshots in year 2011.

(http://s26.postimg.org/jmhm8qx49/Screen_Shot_2016_06_27_at_9_39_42_PM.jpg)

Quote from: rdunk on June 28, 2016, 03:33:09 AM
I am still looking for the actual photo! I am surprised that I don't have it in my files anyway, since I made a screenshot from it! I will find it!! :)

Quote from: funbox on June 28, 2016, 02:45:13 PM
where did you originally grab them from , something like google mars ? or was it some science site etc etc ?

funbox

Quote from: ArMaP on June 28, 2016, 05:37:25 PM
Could it be related to this (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg7465#msg7465)?

Quote from: rdunk on June 28, 2016, 09:13:48 PM
Funbox, I am relatively certain that these black area screenshots are from the Mars Orbiter CTX camera.

Quote from: rdunk on June 28, 2016, 09:22:27 PM
ArMaP, do you possibly remember seeing/discussing this in the past??  :)

Quote from: funbox on June 28, 2016, 09:29:27 PM
one of these perchance ?

http://www.msss.com/msss_images/subject/mro_ctx.html

funbox

Quote from: rdunk on June 29, 2016, 02:29:04 AM
No, I am fairly certain that I made the screenshots on this from a very long CTX photo - the size of photo that even if I had used it, i would have had to give directions on where/how to find this black spot in the photo.

Quote from: funbox on June 29, 2016, 11:42:49 AM
I see , so it's one of the big strips then .. glad they're aren't many of them :D

Quote from: ArMaP on June 30, 2016, 12:09:07 AM
Only 76077 up to 2015-11-30. :)

Quote from: funbox on June 30, 2016, 03:00:34 AM
is this a case of science obfuscating information.. access to map information, cannot easily be achieved via lists, 

maybe a co ord system like google maps or earth.. but they know this already..

contrived difficulty

funbox

Quote from: funbox on June 30, 2016, 03:00:34 AM
is this a case of science obfuscating information.. access to map information, cannot easily be achieved via lists,

Quotemaybe a co ord system like google maps or earth.. but they know this already..

Quote from: rdunk on June 30, 2016, 04:13:07 AM
Well funbox, one of the differences is......... the MOC photos are taken at an altitude of 200 miles +/-, so many if not most of those photos are longer ones.  Quite different from photos taken with cameras on the ground Rovers!! :)

Quote from: ArMaP on June 30, 2016, 09:23:21 AM
The list has the coordinates.
Like this (http://global-data.mars.asu.edu/)? I have been using that for several years. :)

Quote from: funbox on June 30, 2016, 10:45:48 AM
very clunky , but along the right tracks

QuoteSome of the wind-sculpted sand ripples on Mars are a type not seen on Earth, and their relationship to the thin Martian atmosphere today provides new clues about the atmosphere's history.

Quote from: Dyna on July 01, 2016, 05:42:44 PM
New article about Mars sand I know you guys were discussing somewhere.
NASA Rover's Sand-Dune Studies Yield Surprisehttp://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6551

QuoteThe researchers checked ripple textures preserved in sandstone more than 3 billion years old at sites investigated by Curiosity and by NASA's Opportunity Mars rover. They found wind-drag ripples about the same size as modern ones on active dunes. That fits with other lines of evidence that Mars lost most of its original atmosphere early in the planet's history.

Quote from: funbox on July 01, 2016, 06:24:26 PM
do you know of where they're referring to here ? ..

wish they supplied some sol numbers /co ords :D

funbox

Quote from: Dyna on July 01, 2016, 07:26:11 PM
Sure don't hope it has something of interest to you guys though.

Quote from: funbox on July 03, 2016, 11:33:56 PM
fossilised Sandune 300 million years old ?

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/h6Hd0qh.jpg)

Quote from: ArMaP on July 04, 2016, 09:26:04 AM
I don't think so, it doesn't look like sandstone.
Did you notice what looks like a face on the far right of the dune on the top image?:)

Quote from: Eighthman on August 01, 2016, 12:09:19 AM
Nice squiggles.  May I ask what the scale or size of them is?

Quote from: Eighthman on August 01, 2016, 02:06:28 AM
http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com/2016/07/ancient-construction-site-discovered-in.html

This is bouncing around the net. I tried to find an original source or photo.  A dam and a city?

Quote from: ArMaP on July 31, 2016, 11:53:58 PM
jeep3r just posted about this one on ATS. :)

(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01416/mhli/1416MH0001760010503065C00_DXXX.jpg)

Very interesting.

Quote from: ArMaP on July 31, 2016, 11:53:58 PM
jeep3r just posted about this one on ATS. :)

(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01416/mhli/1416MH0001760010503065C00_DXXX.jpg)

Very interesting.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 01, 2016, 01:00:32 AM
As they explain on this page (http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=1416MH0001520010503039C00_DXXX&s=1416) and according to the counter for that photo, the camera was something like 6 cm from the target, giving it a resolution of something like 0.032 mm per pixel.

Quote from: funbox on August 01, 2016, 02:01:42 PM
what do you think to the image ? fossil remnants ?

Quote from: Pimander on August 01, 2016, 05:52:47 PM
ArMaP, do you have the ATS thread link?

Quote from: funbox on August 01, 2016, 08:46:19 PM
a typical complimentary text from them too, more description of camera settinsg and time of day.. but its not always like that , sometimes they give their theorys on what we're looking at, ide say it was an unusual aversion , but you know :D

QuoteWhen this image was obtained, the focus motor count position was 14695. This number indicates the internal position of the MAHLI lens at the time the image was acquired. This count also tells whether the dust cover was open or closed. Values between 0 and 6000 mean the dust cover was closed; values between 12500 and 16000 occur when the cover is open. For close-up images, the motor count can in some cases be used to estimate the distance between the MAHLI lens and target. For example, in-focus images obtained with the dust cover open for which the lens was 2.5 cm from the target have a motor count near 15270. If the lens is 5 cm from the target, the motor count is near 14360; if 7 cm, 13980; 10 cm, 13635; 15 cm, 13325; 20 cm, 13155; 25 cm, 13050; 30 cm, 12970. These correspond to image scales, in micrometers per pixel, of about 16, 25, 32, 42, 60, 77, 95, and 113.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 01, 2016, 09:24:32 PM
It's hard to say, but it's a possibility.

As I have said in other occasions, when there's life there's always more than one species, so if those are fossils we should see more than one species. As we are looking at a very small area that doesn't mean that we should see those other species in that area, only that if we see other fossil-looking things but different from these then that makes it more likely that they are fossils, at least from my point of view. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on August 02, 2016, 12:03:22 AM
I don't remember any case of rapid evolution, but I remember two cases of rapid adaptation. The first was some moths in the UK that had a relatively brighter colour, but with the industrial revolution and all the pollution from the burning of coal the trees started to get covered with black soot, so the moths started changing to a darker colour.
The second case is the case of those bacteria in Chernobyl that adapted to use the radiation instead of Sun light.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 02, 2016, 12:03:22 AM
I don't remember any case of rapid evolution, but I remember two cases of rapid adaptation. The first was some moths in the UK that had a relatively brighter colour, but with the industrial revolution and all the pollution from the burning of coal the trees started to get covered with black soot, so the moths started changing to a darker colour.
The second case is the case of those bacteria in Chernobyl that adapted to use the radiation instead of Sun light.

QuoteLizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

QuoteRapid evolution of acute mastoiditis: three case reports of otogenic meningitis in adults.

QuoteSuper-Predators: Humans Force Rapid Evolution of Animals

Quote from: Pimander on August 02, 2016, 03:17:17 PM
Before I duplicate other peoples work, does anyone know what the chemical composition of the rock is?

QuoteIs it likely to have been deposited in water?

Quote from: Dyna on August 02, 2016, 05:10:40 AM
But there are cases listed as such.n 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15547816
http://www.livescience.com/3224-super-predators-humans-force-rapid-evolution-animals.html

i only had 5 mins free to search so just a couple examples.
:)

Quote from: space otter on August 05, 2016, 02:50:00 PM
there are none so blind as those who refuse to see
.

Quote from: funbox on August 06, 2016, 12:00:44 AM
strange you should say that :D

(http://i.imgur.com/78r6Iek.gif)

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01420/mcam/1420MR0070050090702410E01_DXXX.jpg

funbox

Quote from: rdunk on August 06, 2016, 01:56:37 AM
I strongly suggest that this NASA photo is just another of many that have been doctored to hide the truth of the reality of real life on Mars. This pic definitely does not exhibit "real life, except of course........ this one does have the look of a  true  alien!!! :)) ;)

Quote from: funbox on August 06, 2016, 01:31:40 PM
ah well , the picture will have to do , cheers

(http://i.imgur.com/q1komQk.gif)

funbox

Quote from: rdunk on August 06, 2016, 04:38:51 PM
Very interesting!! It seems that this photo does provide possible "proof" of the existence of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere, in the obvious support of "burning fires"!!!  ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: ArMaP on August 08, 2016, 12:48:21 PM
Nice find, but looking at the more zoomed-in photo it looks like a coincidence.

(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01423/mcam/1423MR0070220010702470E01_DXXX.jpg)

Quote from: funbox on August 08, 2016, 01:00:17 PM
what are your considerations to the L shape near the edge of the slab and the appearance of the trail traversing the crack , which I think looks to be on top

Quote from: ArMaP on August 08, 2016, 08:11:08 PM
What L shape?

The "trail" appears to be a vein of a different material, there are many examples of that on the rocks of that area, the crack is just a crack.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 08, 2016, 09:31:44 PM
Sorry, I still don't understand what you mean.

Don't you have some GIF juice left? :)

Quote from: funbox on August 08, 2016, 08:47:32 PM
L shape seam that fades  .. whys that then ?

Quote from: Pimander on August 08, 2016, 10:47:28 PM
A scratch caused by the Rover?

Quote from: Pimander on August 08, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
I'm liking some of the Mars "anomaly" pictures I have seen recently.  Some of the new stuff looks tantalising....

Quote from: funbox on August 08, 2016, 11:24:57 PM
:D how do you like your Hillary ?

Quote from: Pimander on August 08, 2016, 11:30:18 PM
I don't like her.  Neoliberals are fuc4ing up the planet.

Quote from: Pimander on August 08, 2016, 10:47:28 PM
A scratch caused by the Rover?

Quote from: Pimander on August 17, 2016, 09:27:07 PM
Looks like the rover does cause scratches when it brushes rocks.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1130363/pg4#pid21083710

Quote from: funbox on August 17, 2016, 10:04:03 PM
on Mr Shifts say so ?

Quoteeven with the before/after gif;s, its still impossible to say if the rover caused the markings.

Quotesome of the impressions can be seen under the dust.

QuoteYou don't know me very well if you think I just take any persons word for it.

QuoteNo but as the rock has been brushed and most of the marks were not visible it is likely that the brush (or the brushing process) caused most of those "scratches".

QuoteIf you disagree then you need to get your Photoshop/GIMP skills to work on that pre-brushed image and show us.

I want to find proof as much as anyone but this doesn't look like the big one to me.

QuoteYes the rock has a surface that is not  smooth but none of the marks that we thought were possibly fossils were visible before brushing.

QuoteIf you disagree then you need to get your Photoshop/GIMP skills to work on that pre-brushed image and show us.

I want to find proof as much as anyone but this doesn't look like the big one to me.

QuoteYou can see some marks before brushing.  The problem is that, unfortunately, they are not the ones that looked like fossils.

QuoteI agree that, if the brushing process marks the rocks, then something odd is happening.  It could be that the brush is damaged (it is old now)  but if it has been doing this all along then NASA have done the most stupid thing (not entirely surprising).

QuoteThe scratches could be deliberate to obscure evidence but that would be a conspiracy theory. ;)

Quote from: funbox on August 17, 2016, 10:59:08 PM
so wouldn't the more likely explanation be that the ones we can't see were covered by sand,

Quoteit would be staggeringly implausible to imagine that Nasa would mark the sample rock :D

or do I have to believe that the whole mission is a farce not facilitated by the highest trained people on the planet?

Quote from: funbox on August 17, 2016, 10:35:00 PM
so basically we have scientists using non geologically friendly tools, that mark and fracture their samples.. whats more likely ? :D

QuoteNo.  Why would we only be able to see the "marks" on the rock that don't look like fossils? .

QuoteThe ones that looked like fossils would also be visible before brushing and they are not

Quotetherefore they were likely not there before brushing

QuoteI think it would be implausible that they would mark the rock deliberately (unless there is a conspiracy obviously).

QuoteIf some of the possible fossils were visible prior to brushing (like some of the features/marks were) then I'd agree with you but they are not.

QuoteThe fact that only marks that don't look like fossils/scratches were not visible indicates that the brushing process was most likely what caused them.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 18, 2016, 01:15:52 AM
Several tests a geologist does to a rock are destructive.

Quote from: ArMaP on August 18, 2016, 01:15:52 AM
Several tests a geologist does to a rock are destructive.

Quote from: Pimander on August 18, 2016, 01:43:38 AM
I guess I should rephrase that.  I doubt they would deliberately damage the rock with the brush.

Quote from: funbox on August 18, 2016, 01:18:16 AM
Fact's ?..or manipulation of the visual evidence to affirm your own belief they weren't covered by sand,

Quote from: Pimander on August 18, 2016, 01:50:41 AM
This doesn't make sense.  What evidence have I manipulated?  Where have I said I don't believe they were covered by sand?  ???

QuoteWhat I said was that if some marks were visible (but NOT the "fossil" ones) before brushing then the fact that the "fossil" ones were not probably indicates that the "fossil" ones were made by the brushing process.  That is my opinion based on the visual evidence.  If you have some evidence I haven't seen I'm happy to reconsider.

Quote from: funbox on August 18, 2016, 02:02:53 AM
in your mind you believe all the curly shaped markings are fossils,

Quoteso you are manipulating the photographic picture in your mind,

QuoteI believe ive already asked for clarification on what potentials your talking about  ..

Quotetherefore you've already classified them in your brain, and segregated them as the ones that are covered by sand..

Quoteyou didn't ask what I thought were fossils at which im deeply upset.

Quotesadly this isn't a place I can go to see the full picture, on how you've gone wrong :D

Quote from: Pimander on August 18, 2016, 02:13:05 AM
No I have not.  I have decided that I don't think they are fossils ::)
No, you are fantasizing that you know what my mind is doing. :P
Above I asked you which marks were visible before brushing that you were referring to.  You can't because none of them look like fossils/anomalies.

I have already said I don't think ANY OF THEM that are visible both before and after brushing look like fossils/anomalies so there is no point me referring to any specific ones.
Looks like you enjoy trying to imagine how other peoples mind works.  You're wrong.
Yes I did in a post above.  You can't though because it will prove me right. :P
It appears I went wrong by assuming you wanted to know the truth and get to the bottom of this.  It appears you'd rather put words into my mouth or fantasize about how my mind works.

Quote from: funbox on August 18, 2016, 02:19:05 AM
but be honest .. you did ascribe the curly shaped marks to fossils

Quote from: Pimander on August 18, 2016, 02:33:52 AM
I remember saying "They look a lot like parts of crinoid fossils to me".  I also see animals when I look at clouds though. :)

For the record this is the post.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8636.msg125936#msg125936

Quote from: funbox on August 18, 2016, 02:41:44 AM
but my apologies, I appear to completely mistook your slant on these pictures, before and after

Quote from: Pimander on August 18, 2016, 12:50:05 PM
Look, I suspect the Universe is teeming with life.  Not just the odd fossil.

Everywhere we have been, the Antarctic, hot springs, deep underground in total darkness, near volcanic vents, in the upper atmosphere and even in low Earth orbit life can survive.

Basically, the Goldilocks zone is complete BS.  Life can easily exist outside of it.

It looks likely that the building blocks of DNA exist in the interstellar dust.  That bacteria and possibly viruses could survive deep space travel.  If life exists here it can travel through space to elsewhere.

I also think there are likely life forms that are not DNA based.  One example is that there are plasmas in space that seem to behave a lot like living things.  I could go on.

We exist,  The Observable Universe has a Septillion stars (24,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), which is 5 to 10 times as many stars as there are grains of sand on Earth!!!

If life exists on the only one we know and can travel through space then obviously.....  Then there is the time factor.

Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years but life has existed for most of that time (since at least 3.8billion years ago).  So if it only takes a short time in terms of the age of the Universe then it has had a LOT of time to form everywhere else and a Septillion stars to choose from.

WOW! 

ETA:  Yes, you misunderstood me. :P

Quote from: funbox on August 18, 2016, 08:04:33 PM
have you been reading up the drake equation? :D im guessing it needs a big update,

Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2016, 12:43:44 AM
I'd go so far as to say the estimates based on that are nonsense.  We don't know of many places life can't exist below a temperature of about 120C.  If NASA can't find life with their budget then they need new staff!