http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/n/4030/1N485946529EFFCNGCP1765R0M1.JPG
Rover Opportunity Nav cam photo, Sol day 4030! The "natural distance" shot is not a big deal, as the prominent black piece in the pic simply has a shadowed look - see 1st photo.
With a bit of magnification we can see more detail in the black feature, particularly an elongated above-the-ground piece at the bottom of the blackend area that projects out toward the camera. Now that piece doesn't really doesn't quite look like a rock?? And magnified, there does appear to be some sort of white structure directly behind this blackened area. Magnified, we can see some of the geometrics of the white structure too. See 2nd photo.
What do you think
(http://s13.postimg.org/aq6cm54pz/Screen_Shot_2016_09_22_at_4_05_29_PM.jpg)
(http://s13.postimg.org/8hzsi2uon/Screen_Shot_2016_09_22_at_4_02_03_PM.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on September 22, 2016, 10:16:09 PM
Now that piece doesn't really doesn't quite look like a rock??
Why?
QuoteWhat do you think
It's a rock with face pointing to the camera in the shadow. That face isn't completely flat, so we see some differences in the light reflected by it.
ArMaP, can you not see the shaped piece near the bottom of this anomaly that extends out above the surface? Also, as I said, one can see the exposed structure design thru the shadow? - it exemplifies/copies the same opposite shape as that we actually can see to our right side of the darkened area.
quote author=ArMaP link=topic=9632.msg127394#msg127394 date=1474586351]
Why?
Because I think most rocks do not extend outward as this length piece does - away from this "shadowed piece".
It's a rock with face pointing to the camera in the shadow. That face isn't completely flat, so we see some differences in the light reflected by it.
No, the black area is not reflecting ANYTHING! The non black area piece at the bottom that stretches out from it is entirely different!
Quote from: rdunk on September 23, 2016, 03:33:31 AM
ArMaP, can you not see the shaped piece near the bottom of this anomaly that extends out above the surface?
It would help if you posted an image showing what you're talking about, "shaped piece" is not specific enough for me to understand what you mean.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 23, 2016, 09:24:30 AM
It would help if you posted an image showing what you're talking about, "shaped piece" is not specific enough for me to understand what you mean.
Ok...............!
(http://s18.postimg.org/km3nzaehl/Shaped_Piece_Screen_Shot_2016_09_22_at_4_02_03_P.jpg)
Another pic to outline one feature of the possible structure behind this "shadow"...................doesn't look like a real shadow to me!!
(http://s12.postimg.org/3t2aix7kd/Shaped_Piece_Screen_with_added_Shot_2016_09_22_a.jpg)
It's not the first time I have this problem in a thread here on Pegasus, using the correct words for what I'm talking about.
In this case I think that we are seeing the side of the rock that is in the shade, having the Sun on the other side. As the Sun appears high in the sky the shadows are short.
To me, we are seeing one bigger, triangular-shaped rock, with the face facing the camera in the shade. In that face it looks like there's a slight protrusion that is getting some light, making that slightliy brighter curved line on the shaded face of the rock. We also see a smaller rock in front of it. To the camera's right there's another rock, also with the face facing the camera in the shade, but as this rock has a flat top we can see a bright top.
We can also see the ground behind the rock, and the ground appears full of small hills, and I think that what you marked in the second photo is the protrusion in the rock and the edge of one of those small hills. The ever present JPEG artefacts do not help.
Now, as this is from the navigation camera, we have two photos, one for the right and the other for the left camera, so we can make an animated GIF to get and idea of how the scene looks in 3D. :)
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1N485946529EFFCNGCP1765R0M1.gif)
It's a rock. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 23, 2016, 09:54:52 PM
It's a rock. :)
Not to my eye! :)) And FWIW, I have never seen a "shaking photo" that changed anything that I am seeing. We (I) can see through that blackened 'for a shadow area", and can see the geometrics of whatever it is that is back there.
The protruding piece at the bottom does have a shadow under it!
Quote from: rdunk on September 23, 2016, 10:31:08 PM
Not to my eye! :)) And FWIW, I have never seen a "shaking photo" that changed anything that I am seeing.
It's not suppose to change what you see, it's supposed to help you understand what you see. :)
QuoteWe (I) can see through that blackened 'for a shadow area", and can see the geometrics of whatever it is that is back there.
Or so you think. :)
QuoteThe protruding piece at the bottom does have a shadow under it!
The protruding part I was talking about is not at the bottom, and all rocks have a shadow under them.
The protruding part I was talking about is not at the bottom, and all rocks have a shadow under them.
ArMaP, can you not see that the "protruding part" stretches out and above the ground surface, and that is why a "real shadow" is under it? :)
The yellow line in the image below underlines what I called the "protruding part".
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1M458433044EFFCEQKP2955M2M1_2.jpg)
It doesn't stretch "out and above the ground surface", it ends at the bottom of the rock.
As this is a relatively old photo I looked for it in the Analyst's Notebook (https://an.rsl.wustl.edu/merb/merxbrowser/default.aspx) and got the radiometrically corrected images, that look much better than the quick conversion to JPEG they publish when they get the photos, and this is what it looks like.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1n485946529radcngcp1765l0c1_2.jpg)
Rocks. ;)
Looks like a snake to me. :o
Like this one, actually I think this one is ropey rock.
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/590x/snake-mars-712910.jpg)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/712910/NASA-Rover-finds-snake-like-creature-on-Mars
Quote from: ArMaP on September 24, 2016, 03:53:42 PM
As this is a relatively old photo I looked for it in the Analyst's Notebook (https://an.rsl.wustl.edu/merb/merxbrowser/default.aspx) and got the radiometrically corrected images, that look much better than the quick conversion to JPEG they publish when they get the photos, and this is what it looks like.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1n485946529radcngcp1765l0c1_2.jpg)
Rocks. ;)
If you notice, your "revised photo" has been lightened, and thus has removed all of the existing shadows in this photo. Sorry ArMaP, that is not what the released NASA photo presents. IMO, for what I see, there is likely no actual rock there, but rather simply a shadowed area, and something else. For sure that lower protruding piece is something solid, as it does have a shadow under it, but it does not appear to be a "rock" either.
If this were an actual rock, it would certainly be pretty much "out of character" with all else around this photo area, wouldn't it? :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 24, 2016, 06:18:54 PM
If you notice, your "revised photo" has been lightened, and thus has removed all of the existing shadows in this photo.
It's not a "revised photo".
When they get the photos from the rover they convert them to JPEG in an automated process that results in too much contrast.
Also, the original images have a colour-depth of 12 bits per pixel, resulting in 4096 shades of grey instead of the 256 8 bits per pixel allow in JPEG and most image files.
The image I posted is brighter than the image without applying the radiometrical correction, this is how it looks when converted directly from IMG to PNG.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1n485946529radcngcp1765l0c1_2.png)
You can use your favourite image editing program to make the image lighter and see that it will result in more or less the same thing I posted.
QuoteSorry ArMaP, that is not what the released NASA photo presents.
This is a NASA photo. ::)
QuoteIMO, for what I see, there is likely no actual rock there, but rather simply a shadowed area, and something else.
How would you explain that?
QuoteFor sure that lower protruding piece is something solid, as it does have a shadow under it, but it does not appear to be a "rock" either.
Are you talking about the same protruding piece as I was? It doesn't sound like it, as the one I was talking about is part of the big rock.
QuoteIf this were an actual rock, it would certainly be pretty much "out of character" with all else around this photo area, wouldn't it? :)
What are you expecting to see on Mars, billiard balls? :P
Rocks are not made to a specific standard, an odd looking rock that looks out of place is something common on Earth, you just have to look around.
This is a NASA photo. ::)
As are the OP pics and others that I posted!!
"How would you explain that?"
It simply looks like an applied shadow - especially as it also has a sticking out object near the bottom of the "shadow".
"Are you talking about the same protruding piece as I was? It doesn't sound like it, as the one I was talking about is part of the big rock".
There is no other sticking out or protruding piece on this "shadowed" feature, as you suggested earlier. What you marked is what we can see through the "shadow".
"What are you expecting to see on Mars, billiard balls? :P
Rocks are not made to a specific standard, an odd looking rock that looks out of place is something common on Earth, you just have to look around".
This is the comment I expected to get from you, obviously. Now you want us to compare all of the Earth rocks to the Mars rocks!! :))
Then you "take a look around" here in this photo - not so common with every other "rock" we see in this photo, and neither are the other two significant pieces we can see right there near our featured "shadow" - one is just in front of it, and the other seems to be behind it. Actually, the one behind this "shadow" may be sticking out on both sides, with a seeable very sharp vertical/perpendicular edge on our right end of it!!....................... my guess is, whatever is behind this "shadow" is precisely what the protruding feature is attached to - as it is extending at that very level!!
Quote from: rdunk on September 24, 2016, 09:44:47 PM
As are the OP pics and others that I posted!!
Yes, but the way you wrote it it almost sound like you were saying that the photo I posted was not a NASA photo.
QuoteThere is no other sticking out or protruding piece on this "shadowed" feature, as you suggested earlier. What you marked is what we can see through the "shadow".
What I marked is the more or less horizontal face of the protruding piece. As it's almost horizontal it gets some light, while the almost vertical face facing the camera doesn't.
QuoteNow you want us to compare all of the Earth rocks to the Mars rocks!! :))
No, I said nothing like that, don't start implying that I said things I didn't say, please.
QuoteThen you "take a look around" here in this photo - not so common with every other "rock" we see in this photo, and neither are the other two significant pieces we can see right there near our featured "shadow" - one is just in front of it, and the other seems to be behind it.
The second biggest rock, slightly to the right (from the camera's point of view) of the biggest rock looks to be the same type of rock.
QuoteActually, the one behind this "shadow" may be sticking out on both sides, with a seeable very sharp vertical/perpendicular edge on our right end of it!!
Could you draw what you mean? I don't understand your explanation.
Quote ArMaP
Actually, the one behind this "shadow" may be sticking out on both sides, with a seeable very sharp vertical/perpendicular edge on our right end of it!!
Could you draw what you mean? I don't understand your explanation.
Ok, I will add other markers to the existing photo.
(http://s10.postimg.org/6xtyierxl/Shaped_Piece_Screen_with_added_Shot_2016_09.jpg)
No, sorry rdunk, but you have definitely lost me here. If that area was deliberately shaded then why would they leave the more interesting feature you have just highlighted. It just makes no sense to me. Unless I've missed something obvious (not for the first time). :
I mean, this discussion is about this.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1n485946529radcngcp1765l0c1_2.jpg)
Dynas "snake" looks more anomalous to me.
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/590x/secondary/2-660213.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on September 25, 2016, 08:24:15 PM
Ok, I will add other markers to the existing photo.
Without explaining what those markers are supposed to be they do not help much. :(
Pimander said, "If that area was deliberately shaded then why would they leave the more interesting feature you have just highlighted"?
Hey Pi, no way to know why! Over the NASA photo years, we have seen many NASA artificial "shadows", and there has often been enough left that makes it clearly to be an anomalous piece/object/intelligent design. In this photo, the most obvious clearly anomalous item is the lower protruding piece that comes out of the blackened area that I showed by encircling and now with directional outline.
The protrusion does stretch out above the surface, with underlying shadow. What is it - since we cannot see its source of origin we cannot know or even begin too guess!!
And no, the discussion was/is not about the photo ArMaP (and you) posted, rather it was about the photo(s) I posted. ArMaP's photo is much lighter/brighter, and shows almost no shadows anywhere. ;)
Quote from: rdunk on September 25, 2016, 09:41:13 PM
The protrusion does stretch out above the surface, with underlying shadow. What is it - since we cannot see its source of origin we cannot know or even begin too guess!!
There is shadow under the rock next to it too.....
QuoteAnd no, the discussion was/is not about the photo ArMaP (and you) posted, rather it was about the photo(s) I posted. ArMaP's photo is much lighter/brighter, and shows almost no shadows anywhere. ;)
But ArMaP's is the same image but converted to a format that retains important detail missing from the one you posted. It has 20 times as many "colours" so you can see that the dark part (shadow) is not just a monotone shadow. ArMaP's image shows that the dark shadow actually contains shades that show the surface of a rock.
ETA: ArMaP has seen far better anomalous images. ;)
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/mikesingh_bucket/MarsCity3-1-1.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 25, 2016, 09:36:36 PM
Without explaining what those markers are supposed to be they do not help much. :(
These are the drawing which you requested! The markers represent the shapes of what I see there in the pic. The red lines are to present what is behind the shadowed area, and also represent directional lines of the above surface protruding piece!!
Pimander said, "But ArMaP's is the same image but converted to a format that retains important detail missing from the one you posted. It has 20 times as many "colours" so you can see that the dark part (shadow) is not just a monotone shadow. ArMaP's image shows that the dark shadow actually contains shades that show the surface of a rock".
If NASA wants to release new pics, then I will consider them. Otherwise, I will continue to use and comment on what they have released. I do not give much consideration to known "skeptic changes" made to photos released by NASA - ever. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: rdunk on September 25, 2016, 09:41:13 PM
And no, the discussion was/is not about the photo ArMaP (and you) posted, rather it was about the photo(s) I posted. ArMaP's photo is much lighter/brighter, and shows almost no shadows anywhere. ;)
The photo is the same, the only difference is that you are basing your opinion on a bad copy and refuse to accept the better one.
Not the best way of doing it, I think.
Quote from: rdunk on September 25, 2016, 09:52:54 PM
These are the drawing which you requested!
I know, and I thank you for that, but just throwing some lines without saying what you think each one of those are doesn't help me understand what you mean.
QuoteThe red lines are to present what is behind the shadowed area, and also represent directional lines of the above surface protruding piece!!
The red line on the left is to the left of one rock (there 4 rocks in the image you posted), the red line on the right is along the right side of the biggest rock and the yellow ellipse is around another rock that is in front of the biggest rock.
I posted the animated GIF so it would be easier to understand the relative positions of the several rocks, and now I will post it again, but with the radiometrically corrected images and a faster frame rate.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1N485946529EFFCNGCP1765R0M1%202.gif)
To further help get the idea, here's a direct view (or cross-eye, I never remember which one this is) version
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1n485946529radcngcp1765l0c1_3.png)
and an anaglyph.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1n485946529radcngcp1765l0c1_4.png)
Quote from: rdunk on September 25, 2016, 10:04:57 PM
If NASA wants to release new pics, then I will consider them.
These are NASA photos.
QuoteOtherwise, I will continue to use and comment on what they have released.
Doesn't look like it, it looks like you will continue to use what you think helps your point of view and ignore the better data.
QuoteI do not give much consideration to known "skeptic changes" made to photos released by NASA - ever. ;D ;D ;D
Psst, don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. I suggest you learn something about these photos before commenting more about them.
Here's (https://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewProfile.jsp?dsid=MER2-M-NAVCAM-3-RADIOMETRIC-SCI-V1.0) a page that can help you learn something, if you are really interested in the truth.
ArMaP said, "Psst, don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. I suggest you learn something about these photos before commenting more about them".
"Psst", your "skepticism mechanics" is showing. If the photos NASA posts were no good, NASA would not post them. For you, it is always "find a way" to make everything look less anomalous, or get the discussion going a different direction. As I said, I will continue to work with what NASA posts, as always! Of course, you have proven no "eye" for what it takes to see anomalous objects anyway!! So, nothing you say ever adds positively to these discussions at all, for me, because you are a hard-over skeptic.
The day that you finally admit to seeing a real anomaly, I might BEGIN to see your input in a different way! ;)
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2016, 03:11:09 AM
"Psst", your "skepticism mechanics" is showing. If the photos NASA posts were no good, NASA would not post them.
I thought you said they were doctored and no good?
QuoteAs I said, I will continue to work with what NASA posts, as always!
Then you need to understand the images.
Both images discussed here - the one you posted and the one ArMaP posted are not the original digital image. Do you understand that?
The one you posted is a JPEG format converted from the original. The one ArMaP posted is a png format converted from the original.
The original image file is a PDS (Planetary Data System file). This is the format NASA use to transmit image data and they confusingly give the files the suffix .img (even though that is the same as one commonly used outside space science for disk images).
PDS files are uncompressed. That means that all of the information the Curiosity Rover camera records is in the file. That is the number of colours and the full resolution of the image are stored in the file.
When NASA convert the PDS/img file to JPEG the files are compressed into a smaller size and lots of the data (think detail) is lost because the maths used to shrink the file into a small package cannot be decompressed and retain all the information from the original. The file you are working with may have been released by NASA but it isn't the best image available. They do this partly so that the images are a sensible size for storage and for transmitting over the internet.
The image ArMaP posted is a conversion of the original into a lossless compression format (png). This means that the data that NASA lost when converting to JPEG is not lost in ArMaP's .png making it a more reliable version of the original data. A png cannot be compressed more than a certain amount because it would lose data.
If you don't believe that the img is the original you could convert it yourself to a png and even JPEGs of different sizes (different amounts of compression). If you do that you will see that the less you compress a JPEG the better the image (although practically speaking, the resolution of the screen means compression above/below certain parameters make no difference to the naked eye)
Do you understand now?
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2016, 03:11:09 AM
"Psst", your "skepticism mechanics" is showing.
And that's a bad thing? ;)
QuoteIf the photos NASA posts were no good, NASA would not post them.
NASA posted all three versions, the first one, converted automatically from the downloaded data to JPEG (the one you use), the original IMG data (that you can see below, as a comparison) and the radiometrically corrected photo (the one I posted before).
Original IMG photo converted to GIF so it can be shown on the forum
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1n485946529effcngcp1765l0m1.gif)
Your not recognizing that
all photos came from NASA only makes you look like someone that is only looking for confirmation of his own ideas and not for the truth, or like those persons that only look for facebook "likes", I thought you was (or should it be "were"?) better than that.
QuoteFor you, it is always "find a way" to make everything look less anomalous, or get the discussion going a different direction.
No, it's always "find a way to see if we are wasting time with common things". Seeing something that looks anomalous and not trying to find an explanation creates bad data that only makes it harder to find the truth.
QuoteAs I said, I will continue to work with what NASA posts, as always!
So will I, as I have done for the last 12 years.
QuoteOf course, you have proven no "eye" for what it takes to see anomalous objects anyway!! So, nothing you say ever adds positively to these discussions at all, for me, because you are a hard-over skeptic.
Being a sceptic is good, otherwise I would believe any thing someone say.
QuoteThe day that you finally admit to seeing a real anomaly, I might BEGIN to see your input in a different way! ;)
That's because you cannot see beyond your desire to find anomalies.
Some years ago there's was a member in another forum that saw buildings and streets in all the photos of Mars, Moon, etc., and, when I showed him/her a photo of something that could not have any buildings or streets he/she still saw them, but when I showed him/her what it was he/she was a little confused and agreed that there couldn't be any houses in it.
Pimander - "Do you understand now"?
Pimander, I have known about that for quite a long time. Sorry that my not including some expression/reference of that in my comments caused you to do such a detailed piece in trying to help.
My preference has been and will continue to be to use what NASA posts for anomaly research. In all of the what ArMaP calls better pics that he has posted over several years, I have never seen anything (that I recall :) ) that has changed my opinion for what I have posted....from the NASA posted pics. Pretty much the entire world gets to see what NASA posts, so those pics should be adequate for research and discussion whether doctored or not!!! :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2016, 05:11:41 PM
My preference has been and will continue to be to use what NASA posts for anomaly research.
I will try again: the photos I posted are NASA photos. I consider them has being better because they do not have that high contrast that destroys information.
As I said before, the images posted here (http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity.html) are automatically converted to JPEG to an (apparently) constant values of contrast and brightness (or levels) that make the original photos look more like a photocopy.
As an example here's a GIF image created from the original IMG image by using NASAView.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1n485946529effcngcp1765r0m1.gif)
This is what it looks like when I opened the image in Gimp and change the levels from 0-255 to 42-110.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1n485946529effcngcp1765r0m1%201.gif)
Doesn't it look like the image you posted? But there's still a difference, as the image you posted is a JPEG, saved with an aggressive compression of 75% (I got that value with ImageMagik's "identify" command), so if you open both the image you posted and this similar looking image above in a image processing program and compare them you can clearly see how the JPEG artefacts changes some things on the photo.
As an added bonus, and hoping you decide to learn how to make your anomaly hunting more meaningful, here's (http://planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2643.html) an article that may help. :)
QuotePretty much the entire world gets to see what NASA posts, so those pics should be adequate for research and discussion whether doctored or not!!! :)
That depends, the photos NASA posts for research are published on the PDS, and those are the ones I use. The ones you use are
not suitable for research.
ArMaP, another fine example in this thread of your continually talking about everything but the specific posted anomalous feature(s). :o :o
Quote from: rdunk on September 27, 2016, 04:32:34 AM
ArMaP, another fine example in this thread of your continually talking about everything but the specific posted anomalous feature(s). :o :o
Your post is a good sign of how you avoid any thing that goes against your preconceived ideas.
This thread is about a supposed anomaly. I posted my opinion and another version of the photo. You ignore the better version and keep talking about the worst version as if it's the only one available. I try to make you understand that the better version is the real one and the one you (or anyone else) should use for
real research (after all, those are the images used by the scientists), and you say that I talk about everything but the anomalous features.
So, to make it clear, here's my opinion about your "anomalous features": they only exist in your mind, based on flawed analysis of a bad copy of a photo and a stubbornness in avoiding real answers and only looking for confirmation of your own bias.
Good luck finding
real anomalies with that mindset.
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2016, 05:11:41 PM
Pimander, I have known about that for quite a long time.
Then some of your previous posts were really disingenuous. There is nothing clever about playing the idiot.
QuoteMy preference has been and will continue to be to use what NASA posts for anomaly research. In all of the what ArMaP calls better pics that he has posted over several years, I have never seen anything (that I recall :) ) that has changed my opinion for what I have posted....
If you can't see that is a rock more clearly in the picture ArMaP posted then you need to find a different hobby. :P
{alternatively you can see that but won't admit it - which is the opposite of the spirit of collaborative research}
QuotePretty much the entire world gets to see what NASA posts, so those pics should be adequate for research and discussion whether doctored or not!!! :)
No, that is nonsense. If there are better images available then we should use them. It is plain stupid not to.
The pics that ArMaP posts IMO are certainly not better for anomaly research, as taking out pic contrast makes it more difficult to even see the ground, much less details for what is on the ground. No, I ignore them because they (as ArMaP presents them) definitely do not show the details of the photos as well as do those which NASA posts directly.
And to ArMaP, I do not have any "preconceived ideas" relative to anomalies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! However, I am willing to accept what I see in photos as being anomalous, if objects appear as being more than simply rocks and sand - something of the which (over several years) you seem to be absolutely incapable of doing. :P
Quote from: rdunk on September 27, 2016, 04:42:10 PM
No, I ignore them because they (as ArMaP presents them) definitely do not show the details of the photos as well as do those which NASA posts directly.
You clearly don't understand what I posted about image formats and compression. I apologise, you may not have been disingenuous if that is the case.
QuoteHowever, I am willing to accept what I see in photos as being anomalous....
...even when the "anomalies" are obviously artefacts caused by compression or they are not there in the original uncompressed picture?
There are interesting anomalies out there but it is a waste of time if you don't eliminate what is obviously not anomalous.
Quote from: rdunk on September 27, 2016, 04:42:10 PM
The pics that ArMaP posts IMO are certainly not better for anomaly research, as taking out pic contrast makes it more difficult to even see the ground, much less details for what is on the ground.
It's the opposite, the images I posted don't have contrast removed, the image you posted has the contrast changed, that's why I could recreate the look of the image you posted with the image I posted but if we do the opposite we don't end with an image similar the one I posted.
QuoteNo, I ignore them because they (as ArMaP presents them) definitely do not show the details of the photos as well as do those which NASA posts directly.
The detail is there, the image you posted is the result of increasing the contrast of the image I posted.
QuoteAnd to ArMaP, I do not have any "preconceived ideas" relative to anomalies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was not what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant is that you have preconceived ideas about the photos and those preconceived ideas make you ignore the better data and keep on working with the worse data.
QuoteHowever, I am willing to accept what I see in photos as being anomalous, if objects appear as being more than simply rocks and sand - something of the which (over several years) you seem to be absolutely incapable of doing. :P
I am capable of doing it, just look around the main The Living Moon site. There aren't many, but they exist. :)
ArMaP said, "I am capable of doing it, just look around the main The Living Moon site. There aren't many, but they exist". :)
ArMaP, I will accept that, if you say it is so! I would like to ask you, can you visualize the 2 primary Mars anomalies shown in my avatar???? ;)
Quote from: rdunk on September 27, 2016, 09:53:51 PM
I would like to ask you, can you visualize the 2 primary Mars anomalies shown in my avatar???? ;)
No, I see nothing anomalous in that image.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 27, 2016, 09:59:38 PM
No, I see nothing anomalous in that image.
Of course!! Obviously my avatar is a crop from one of my prior posts quite some time ago. To me........it is one of the best true anomalies I have seen. It is a Martian surface reality of alien intelligent life - "alien" because it is a reptilian, and "intelligent" because someone designed and manufactured this small annotated metal-looking ID tag/shield.
For a refresher, here is the link to the prior (Feb. 2012) Mars Reptilian post that I mentioned........which you did not see or comment on at the time - maybe you can see it now!! :)
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=709.0
Quote from: rdunk on September 27, 2016, 10:30:53 PM
For a refresher, here is the link to the prior (Feb. 2012) Mars Reptilian post that I mentioned........which you did not see or comment on at the time - maybe you can see it now!! :)
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=709.0
I saw it at the time, but, like now, I don't find it worth discussing.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 28, 2016, 09:22:25 AM
I saw it at the time, but, like now, I don't find it worth discussing.
Just making a point - you didn't see it worth discussing back then either. This is a very real anomaly, with easy to see anomalous features, and you didn't admit to seeing them!!
Quote from: rdunk on September 28, 2016, 04:49:11 PM
This is a very real anomaly, with easy to see anomalous features, and you didn't admit to seeing them!!
To you they may look like anomalous features, to me they look like common Mars rocks.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 28, 2016, 08:20:03 PM
To you they may look like anomalous features, to me they look like common Mars rocks.
Then you have no "eye" for anomalous entities! Why do you waste your time?
Quote from: rdunk on September 28, 2016, 08:32:52 PM
Then you have no "eye" for anomalous entities!
The question is not if I have "eye" for anomalous entities, the question is "do you see anomalous entities where there's none?"
QuoteWhy do you waste your time?
Probably by the same reason you keep on posting your finds, because I think it's more likely that I am right. :)
PS: considering that I have found at least one anomaly and you pride yourself on never having changed your mind about one of your "anomalies", I also think that it's more likely that you see anomalous entities where there's none than I not having the "eye" for finding them. Also, I see things people point as anomalies, but my interpretation is different.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 28, 2016, 08:37:36 PM
The question is not if I have "eye" for anomalous entities, the question is "do you see anomalous entities where there's none?"
Probably by the same reason you keep on posting your finds, because I think it's more likely that I am right. :)
PS: considering that I have found at least one anomaly and you pride yourself on never having changed your mind about one of your "anomalies", I also think that it's more likely that you see anomalous entities where there's none than I not having the "eye" for finding them. Also, I see things people point as anomalies, but my interpretation is different.
Well obviously, OF COURSE ArMaP!! I see nothing! I know nothing! And you are always right about everything!! And I would not recognize a real reptile if I were to see one, as they are just too hard for me to actually see!! And everyone knows already that there is no such thing as a real reptilian anyway!!..........Just move along!!
............................................................................
But I was actually astounded when I did see this reptilian lying there on Mars surface, possibly seeable as a result of a disturbed grave - disturbed by a small meteorite or incoming missile - such a small crater ( I said "possibly disturbed")! Oh well!! :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 28, 2016, 10:18:16 PM
Well obviously, OF COURSE ArMaP!! I see nothing! I know nothing! And you are always right about everything!!
Why are you acting like a child? I never said that you see nothing or know nothing, and much less that I am right about everything. In fact, I am the first to admit that I may be wrong about almost everything.
QuoteAnd I would not recognize a real reptile if I were to see one, as they are just too hard for me to actually see!!
Just because a rock looks like an animal doesn't mean it's an animal, the problem with your interpretation is that you jump from the "it looks like" to the "it must be" without more evidence than that of your own eyes. Are you one of those people that think they can never be wrong?
QuoteAnd everyone knows already that there is no such thing as a real reptilian anyway!!..........Just move along!!
Nobody is saying either of those things.
Quote from: rdunk on September 28, 2016, 10:18:16 PM
But I was actually astounded when I did see this reptilian lying there on Mars surface, possibly seeable as a result of a disturbed grave - disturbed by a small meteorite or incoming missile - such a small crater ( I said "possibly disturbed")! Oh well!! :)
To be fair, I've never seen a sandstone reptile.
Quote from: Pimander on September 29, 2016, 11:28:49 AM
To be fair, I've never seen a sandstone reptile.
And neither have I! :)
FWIW, most "sandstone" is not a black color, as is the Mars reptilian that I posted. The Mars "Egyptian Statue" that we all have seen at the Victoria Crater on Cape St. Vincent is carved out of some sort of rock on the face of the cape, but not this reptilian. Admittedly, we cannot see very much of the reptilian, but there is enough to see to know that it is a reptilian form. And for it to have a piece tied to its wrist really "nails" this amazing discovery.
I am sorry that some just cannot see it there on the surface! I do think that the fact that it is mostly covered by some sort of plaster-looking stuff probably is a distraction factor to actually seeing the reptilian. :o ;D
It isn't plaster, it is a rock with layers (like sandstone). The "reptilians head" also has layers so must also be rock. LOL
Quote from: Pimander on September 29, 2016, 06:23:37 PM
It isn't plaster, it is a rock with layers (like sandstone). The "reptilians head" also has layers so must also be rock. LOL
Obviously, with the alien being......being in Mars photo, no way to positively know what it is! Could be a droid/robot of some sort, but then why would it have been left or buried here. I call it "reptilian" because all of its "few" seeable features are more reptilian-like - its very very heavily rough outer "skin", its large but flattened arm, and its seeable 2 fingers sticking out from under the shaped & marked/engraved metal-looking piece on its wrist. There are numerous markings on this wrist piece, but most are not clear enough to actually really make-out - one of them looks like a large number "1" right in the bottom middle of the wrist piece.
IMO, the fact that this wrist piece is attached to this possible "reptilian" makes it quite obvious that this
"whatever it is"..... is simply not a natural rock object!! But yes, it is hard to get these natural human minds to accept - in thus case - what we are seeing here! ;) ;D
(again - the reptilian OP: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=709.0 )
One of the original photos that gives us a pretty good view of this anomaly:
(https://s11.postimg.org/g57yaclkz/Screen_shot_2011_11_06_at_11_20_30_PM_jpg_w_Ring.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on October 01, 2016, 10:50:20 PM
I call it "reptilian" because all of its "few" seeable features are more reptilian-like - its very very heavily rough outer "skin", its large but flattened arm, and its seeable 2 fingers sticking out from under the shaped & marked/engraved metal-looking piece on its wrist.
The "arm" doesn't appear to be part of the larger object, as you can see in the animation below, created with the photos you like.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1p306622172rada600p2410l2c1%201.gif)
The same animation made with the photos I like. :)
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1p306622172rada600p2410l2c1%202.gif)
And, just because I can, a colour version, made with the photos I like. Because the image used for the red channel is from the infrared channel the colours are not really what they should be, but it's the only colours we have.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1p306622172rada600p2410l2c1%203.png)
PS: just curious, what makes you think that that other object is "metal-looking", what properties do you see in it that make you think of metal?
"The "arm" doesn't appear to be part of the larger object, as you can see in the animation below, created with the photos you like".
ArMaP, you are so funny!! It is more than obviously that the "arm" is a direct part of that black object. And even in your shaking photos, the "arm" is precisely moving with the shaking, right along with the head and shoulder. Making it shake so that it makes it to you seem disconnected is a total waste for seeing the truth of this matter. For what it is, everything is just there in very plain sight. Nothing you say is going to change what is there in the NASA pic.......as far as what I easily see. No making shapes out of clouds, and the such like! What is there is there.
Now I would be even more interested in knowing what actually disturbed this place! There are several very small craters of this type, with each having significant evidence of aliens/intelligent design. It is almost as if they have at some point in the past been targeted, as if to maybe destroy the evidence however (How many years did NASA orbiters and landers photograph Mars before the Rovers came to life there?). I have also wondered why NASA's rovers, with relatively such short distance to travel capability, would just "coincidentally" be on route to stop by so many of these small anomaly prone craters, and take photos?? :o :o :o
PS: just curious, what makes you think that that other object is "metal-looking", what properties do you see in it that make you think of metal?
Metal-looking = geometrically shaped, smooth face, a bit more reflective than the area rocks. If not metal, then some sort of other material that would withstand the harsh environment of a "surface grave on Mars" (a matter of evidentiary opinion). :)
Quote from: rdunk on October 02, 2016, 02:25:30 AM
the "arm" is a direct part of that black object.
There is no black object it is a shadow. ::)
QuoteFor what it is, everything is just there in very plain sight. Nothing you say is going to change what is there in the NASA pic.......as far as what I easily see. No making shapes out of clouds, and the such like! What is there is there.
rdunk, do you really think that is a dead reptilian? SERIOUSLY?
(http://pixdaus.com/files/items/pics/3/17/73317_7f7b6f0c84fdfc1f456d5b1a97e6bea8_large.jpg)
QuoteThere are several very small craters of this type, with each having significant evidence of aliens/intelligent design.
You do realise that even if a rock looks like something it doesn't mean it is that? Probably not on the evidence in this thread.
QuoteMetal-looking = geometrically shaped, smooth face, a bit more reflective than the area rocks. If not metal,
Again, where is this metal object in the high resolution pictures with enough detail to see the nature of the material? It doesn't exist.
Convincing anomalies are interesting. This discussion is also interesting but only from the point of view of studying psychology. :)
Quote from: rdunk on October 02, 2016, 02:25:30 AM
ArMaP, you are so funny!!
I'm here all week. ;)
QuoteIt is more than obviously that the "arm" is a direct part of that black object. And even in your shaking photos, the "arm" is precisely moving with the shaking, right along with the head and shoulder.
Don't you see a space between the "arm" and the "shoulder"? And that the shadows are not connected?
Interesting.
QuoteNothing you say is going to change what is there in the NASA pic.......as far as what I easily see. No making shapes out of clouds, and the such like! What is there is there.
That's true, regardless of what you or I think, the truth is the truth. Have you ever thought that you could be wrong?
Quote(How many years did NASA orbiters and landers photograph Mars before the Rovers came to life there?).
The first photos of Mars taken by orbiters were taken in 1965, by Mariner 4, but they didn't had enough resolution to show any thing so small as the area in the photo being discussed, I suppose only with Mars Global Surveyor (in 1997) did they have photos with enough resolution.
QuoteMetal-looking = geometrically shaped, smooth face, a bit more reflective than the area rocks. If not metal, then some sort of other material that would withstand the harsh environment of a "surface grave on Mars" (a matter of evidentiary opinion). :)
So, your opinion that this is a metal object is partially based on your interpretation of the scene and not vice-versa? Interesting.
Pimander said, "There is no black object it is a shadow. ::)"
Pimander, you are partially right! There obviously are shadows in this pic! But, at some of the shadows are shadows cast by the "black object", which makes the black object something other than a shadow. ;) That would be the shadow on the ground under what I term the reptilian's head. That shadow is easily seeable and obvious. There also is a "bit" of shadow on the ground alongside the reptilian's arm. Also, there is a small shadow under the "object" on the reptilian's wrist. So, as you see, the shadows do play a confirming part in the defining of the fact that there is a very different object here, which I refer to as looking like a reptilian. 8)
Pimander said, "rdunk, do you really think that is a dead reptilian? SERIOUSLY?"
Yes........ but not without some consternation to begin with!! And I really have no viable thought of reality about why this thing exists!! To begin with, I could not believe what "I" was seeing...........!!!! So, I certainly understand you and anyone questioning what I have proffered. But, as I said earlier, this thing is not a "cloud", nor is it a wind/erosion designed piece of rock or sand. It has very specific features that are seeable, even though this thing is mostly covered - head, shoulder, arm, and covered hand with 2 "fingers" showing, plus the geometric piece which covers the hand. Whether reptilian or not, whatever this thing is, it has a very strange appearance here on the surface of Mars.
Pimander said, "Again, where is this metal object in the high resolution pictures with enough detail to see the nature of the material? It doesn't exist.
First-off Pi, the "nature of the material of this wrist piece makes no difference to the conclusions of what we can see. The piece on the reptilian's wrist seems to be geometrically shaped, flat, or relatively flat, with various visible inscriptions on it. That piece is simply "not a rocK". It somehow has been attached to this thing's wrist.........for some unknown (to us) purpose, and we can see two black "fingers", with lighter color finger-nails sticking out from under it. The "fingers" are somewhat reptilian-like too!
Pimander said, "Convincing anomalies are interesting. This discussion is also interesting but only from the point of view of studying psychology. :)
Yes Pimander, I agree - and the psychology of it can go both ways!! :D In the past, for me, any conversation/presentation relative to the possibility of reptilian beings were very farcically regarded. Even when I saw this one, I had a hard time believing what I was seeing. But, I take photo fact seriously - photo fact is what I see in a photo - so, I had to accept what I was seeing in this photo. For sure, we can let what we believe over-rule at times what our eyes are telling us!
Oh, and there are no real differences between the photo ArMaP presents, and the original NASA posted jpeg photo, other than his photo has slightly less contrast - all of the interesting details are present in both!!
ArMaP said, "Don't you see a space between the "arm" and the "shoulder"? And that the shadows are not connected?
Interesting."
:D ArMaP, if you would take a magnifying glass and closely look at the black object in either of our "still photos", you should easily see that the arm is solidly connected at the shoulder of this body. Maybe the shaking pic gives you a distraction, caused by the noticeable bumps on the top of the arm, and by the outward stretching of the curving arm at the elbow?? The attachment looks solid to me!
ArMaP said, "So, your opinion that this is a metal object is partially based on your interpretation of the scene and not vice-versa? Interesting."
Well ArMaP, as I said earlier, the physical make-up of the wrist piece object makes no difference. I called it "metal-looking".... that does not mean it is actually metal does it?? It could just as well be painted carbon fiber - or whatever!! The main thing is, it is a very visible engraved geometric emblem type piece that seems to be attached to this being's wrist. Nope, we absolutely do not know why this piece is attached to the reptilian's wrist, but by all that we see, we can know that SOMBODY had a reason for putting it there - Now, who was/is that SOMEBODY"??
Quote from: rdunk on October 02, 2016, 05:43:38 PM
But, at some of the shadows are shadows cast by the "black object", which makes the black object something other than a shadow
But if you look at the pictures, there is no black object there. There are parts of the image of the rock in shadow and there is a darker shadow on the ground but there is no black object in the image....
QuoteBut, as I said earlier, this thing is not a "cloud",
At least we can agree on that. ;D
Quotenor is it a wind/erosion designed piece of rock or sand. It has very specific features that are seeable, even though this thing is mostly covered - head, shoulder, arm, and covered hand with 2 "fingers" showing, plus the geometric piece which covers the hand.
What you are calling the "geometric piece" has the same texture as the rock a little to its right. It just looks like a different shaped rock to me.
QuoteThat piece is simply "not a rocK". It somehow has been attached to this thing's wrist.........for some unknown (to us) purpose, and we can see two black "fingers"
Why does it have the same texture as a rock then? You were saying it was metallic before.
Lets say that what you think is a wrist is just a long rock. Then you have a rock textured "piece" near a longish rock... I'm less convinced the more I look at the image. Surely it should be the other way around?
QuotePimander said, "Convincing anomalies are interesting. This discussion is also interesting but only from the point of view of studying psychology. :)
Yes Pimander, I agree - and the psychology of it can go both ways!! :D In the past, for me, any conversation/presentation relative to the possibility of reptilian beings were very farcically regarded.
Yes the psychology can work both ways. The thing is, I don't have a pre-conceived position. I think there is a good chance there has been life on Mars and may still be. I am completely open to the possibility of seeing fossils or perhaps even living things on Mars. I just don't think this is what you think it is.
What I find interesting about the psychology is that you can't entertain the possibility that you might be wrong.
Don't forget you are discussing this with two people who have "wasted" hundreds of hours looking at Mars and Moon images, one of us is adept at image analysis and the other is a biological scientist with an A level in geology. I know that does not mean we will always be right (I've been wrong plenty of times analysing images before) but....
I have often looked at anomalies and decided I don't know either way. It might be something it might not. Rarely I have leaned towards it looks like something but often I leaned towards it is nothing. In these cases I'll wait for more data before I decide. In this case I think it is definitely a rock. If I had to bet my life on it, it is a rock.
Quote from: rdunk on October 02, 2016, 06:24:04 PM
:D ArMaP, if you would take a magnifying glass and closely look at the black object in either of our "still photos", you should easily see that the arm is solidly connected at the shoulder of this body.
That's one of the silliest things someone can do while analysing a photo, as it will show the elements that compose each pixel on the screen.
QuoteMaybe the shaking pic gives you a distraction, caused by the noticeable bumps on the top of the arm, and by the outward stretching of the curving arm at the elbow?? The attachment looks solid to me!
It's not the "shaking", you can see it on the following parallel viewing (not direct view, like I called it earlier :) ) and anaglyph images below.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1p306622172rada600p2410l2c1%204.png)
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1p306622172rada600p2410l2c1%205.png)
PS: I usually use the animated GIF to give a 3D idea because many people are not able to use parallel viewing (I cannot do it when I'm tired, although it gives the best results) or have one of those red/cyan glasses to see an anaglyph. As someone that is frequently looking at photos taken by the rovers on Mars I strongly suggest you get a pair of those glasses (if you cannot use parallel viewing), as it helps a lot in seeing things in 3D, making some of the panoramas even more interesting. :)
ArMaP said, "That's one of the silliest things someone can do while analysing a photo, as it will show the elements that compose each pixel on the screen."
Well, If you think the arm is not connected to the shoulder of this reptilian-looking being, then you do need to magnify the photo, so that you can actually see what is there to see. Individual pixel element magnification is what sounds silly to me, if that is what you do to analyze photos. Simply magnifying the full photo so that you can better see the full details should be sufficient in this matter, for you to see!!!!
ArMaP said, "It's not the "shaking", you can see it on the following parallel viewing (not direct view, like I called it earlier :) ) and anaglyph images below."
ArMaP, you are simply "making up" a story about an unconnected arm to shoulder/body for the reptilian-looking black form in these photos. There is no space between the arm and body to show non-connection. No, a different type of viewing glasses is not needed for viewing these photos. Actually, the slightly colorized photos you posted here are even less clear and less seeable than are the basic jpeg photos.
Pimander said, again, "But if you look at the pictures, there is no black object there. There are parts of the image of the rock in shadow and there is a darker shadow on the ground but there is no black object in the image....
No Pi, your continually saying, "there is no black object there" does not change what the photo shows. There is a starkly difference in the make-up and look of the rock-looking stuff there, and the make-up and look of the black reptilian-looking object. And of course, if you cannot even "see" the black object, then our even discussing it is useless. it is there, and there is no real explanation for why it is there.
Pimander said, "What you are calling the "geometric piece" has the same texture as the rock a little to its right. It just looks like a different shaped rock to me."
Again NO! It is obvious that the geometric piece does not have "the same texture" as an adjacent rock in the normal black and white photos. When ArMaP colorizes the photo, then the differences are harder to discern! But their textures look are vastly different in the actual photos. It is fine, if it looks like a rock to you Pi, but that is not what I clearly see, with the geometric piece, and with the whole package here.
Pimander said, "What I find interesting about the psychology is that you can't entertain the possibility that you might be wrong.
Pi, I report what I am seeing, not what I "think" I see!! What I am surprised at is that you can see nothing at all anomalous in this photo, especially with what you relate as your background. I spent a lot of years looking at aero engineering drawings and other stuff for various purposes, so my eyes too are well trained to see, probably as good or better than most. Then on top of that I have the mind of an investigating detective, all of which seems to compliment my ability to see "stuff". That is why I have seen enough here at this crater to believe this possibly was/is a burial place! And this black object - a VERY ODD CADAVER, pretty much confirms that!!!!! ;)
Pimander, do you want to see an empty grave?? :))
Quote from: rdunk on October 02, 2016, 10:05:13 PM
Well, If you think the arm is not connected to the shoulder of this reptilian-looking being, then you do need to magnify the photo, so that you can actually see what is there to see.
I already did that, and there's not only a difference in the distance from the "arm" to the "nose" between the left and right photos, showing, that the "arm" is closer to the camera than the area of the body where it should be attached, but we can also see two or three pixels of is behind the "arm", something that shouldn't happen if the "arm" was connected with the "body".
QuoteIndividual pixel element magnification is what sounds silly to me, if that is what you do to analyze photos.
Do you know how a pixel is created in the screen?
QuoteSimply magnifying the full photo so that you can better see the full details should be sufficient in this matter, for you to see!!!!
That's what the zoom feature was created, many years ago.
QuoteArMaP, you are simply "making up" a story about an unconnected arm to shoulder/body for the reptilian-looking black form in these photos.
No, I don't make up stories.
QuoteThere is no space between the arm and body to show non-connection. No, a different type of viewing glasses is not needed for viewing these photos. Actually, the slightly colorized photos you posted here are even less clear and less seeable than are the basic jpeg photos.
You don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about, do you?
Have you ever seen one of these?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Anaglyph_glasses.png)
Quote from: rdunk on October 02, 2016, 10:46:58 PM
When ArMaP colorizes the photo, then the differences are harder to discern!
I didn't "colourized" the photo, that's an anaglyph. Read the Wikipedia article about it in the link on my previous post.
QuotePi, I report what I am seeing, not what I "think" I see!!
Not really, we are all reporting what we think we see, as what we see is interpreted in the brain, that's why there are things like optical illusions.
ArMaP, No! No! No! I am not getting into a "who knows best" with you on photos, as you have with funbox and other persons here in similar anomaly posts, talking about "everything" other than the anomaly itself!! That such is totally distracting from the intent of the basic conversation on anomaly photos.. I do not care if you have a Phd in photo shop, that such does not apply to what we have here. It is ludicrous to propose/think that the arm of the reptilian-looking object is not connected to the body at the shoulder The photos I have, and have posted, plainly show the arm is connected, and that is quite good enough for me.
And no, I am not at all interested in your colored glasses either..........for the same reasons!! :o :o :o
The feature/anomaly (off OP topic -reptilian) posted during discussion plainly has reptilian features, whether android or now dead/was buried alien, and details of all features together "make it so"!! That is what I clearly see!!!!! ............a little tough for anomaly debunking when the photos are so good isn't it?? ???
Quote from: rdunk on October 03, 2016, 02:26:27 AM
It is ludicrous to propose/think that the arm of the reptilian-looking object is not connected to the body at the shoulder
rdunk, you're so obsessed by the idea that you are right that you are missing something pretty obvious.
If you can see the shadows cast by the large rock and the "arm" then you will see there is a gap between the shadows. That gap could not be there if the rocks (or arms whatever :P) did not have a gap between then.
The light has to be passing between the gap. It is impossible for that shadow to be there with the gap otherwise.
On the subject of image analysis. You need to get as much data from the images as possible if you want to understand what you are looking at. It is not about "who knows best" but about understanding and data. You can't research something properly without good data (and knowing what the data means).
I posted an image earlier that looks like a face. It doesn't mean it is a face. Because I have more data about the image, I know exactly what it is.
(http://pixdaus.com/files/items/pics/3/17/73317_7f7b6f0c84fdfc1f456d5b1a97e6bea8_large.jpg)
Like I say, it is impossible for the shadow to have the gap without a gap between the rocks. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Ergo, the "arm" is not connected to the rock ("reptilian body" or whatever you think it is.) It is impossible.
ETA: If you can't concede that
there is a gap in the shadow and therefore light must be passing between the rocks then I can only conclude that you are delusional and incapable of thinking about the image rationally.
Quote from: rdunk on October 02, 2016, 10:46:58 PM
Pimander, do you want to see an empty grave?? :))
The immortal Pimander has no fear of graves. 8)
Why, O Men of the Offspring of Earth, why have you delivered yourselves over unto Death, having power to partake of Immortality? Repent and change your minds, you that have together walked in Error, and have been darkened in ignorance.
Quote from: rdunk on October 03, 2016, 02:26:27 AM
ArMaP, No! No! No! I am not getting into a "who knows best" with you on photos, as you have with funbox and other persons here in similar anomaly posts, talking about "everything" other than the anomaly itself!! That such is totally distracting from the intent of the basic conversation on anomaly photos..
How can the basis of what you are using for your "research" be a distraction? You are "analysing" a photo, knowing about those photos and what tools to use should be part of your work.
QuoteI do not care if you have a Phd in photo shop, that such does not apply to what we have here.
I do not have a Phd in anything, but as I started looking into photos from space missions I thought it was a good idea to learn about them and how to use all the tools available. I thought that anyone interested in this topic would follow the same process, but it looks like I was wrong.
QuoteIt is ludicrous to propose/think that the arm of the reptilian-looking object is not connected to the body at the shoulder
It's just an opinion, like yours.
QuoteThe photos I have, and have posted, plainly show the arm is connected, and that is quite good enough for me.
The photos you have posted are the same I have posted, I only added the photo from the right camera and created 3D images made with them.
The fact that you act like there's only one photo and one way of looking at it is interesting. Sad, but interesting.
QuoteAnd no, I am not at all interested in your colored glasses either..........for the same reasons!! :o :o :o
I agree, they are the same reasons, too bad you don't see how wrong you are in your approach.
QuoteThe feature/anomaly (off OP topic -reptilian) posted during discussion plainly has reptilian features, whether android or now dead/was buried alien, and details of all features together "make it so"!! That is what I clearly see!!!!! ............a little tough for anomaly debunking when the photos are so good isn't it?? ???
There's no need of debunking an opinion.
Pimsandere said, "rdunk, you're so obsessed by the idea that you are right that you are missing something pretty obvious".
Pimander, I am not "obsessed" as you say with anything related to anomaly stuff - I simply know what I am seeing is what is there in this instance!! What I have reported is clearly visible in the photos.
Pimander also said, "If you can see the shadows cast by the large rock and the "arm" then you will see there is a gap between the shadows. That gap could not be there if the rocks (or arms whatever :P) did not have a gap between then.
The light has to be passing between the gap. It is impossible for that shadow to be there with the gap otherwise.
NOPE, not so!! The shadows there show that the sun is pretty much directly overhead! With that being the case, is why there is a very narrow "arm shadow, down the length of the arm, to what I will refer to as the elbpw. There are 2 other small visible shadows we can also see here.
First off, I do now see something a little differently than I have see before in this. I have been seeing the reptilian-looking object's head as being raised as if it were above the round (because of a shadow there). I now see that there are "2" small shadows there, and the head is laying on the ground. The nearest small shadow, just at the shoulder area, is a shadow on the near side of a very small rock, Then the other very small shadow is on the ground beside the head. I do hope that you too can see this small rock, as it can give an impression of "light shining through, if not see correctly. The sun is shining on the top of that little rock. ;) I will post a screenshot from a different photo that shows this area a little better. This photo also clearly shows that there is no disconnection between the arm and shoulder of this being.
Thanks for your comments!!!
(https://s11.postimg.org/tfjuymmoz/Show_Rock_Screen_Shot_2016_10_02_at_10_22_37_PM.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on October 03, 2016, 01:24:31 PM
How can the basis of what you are using for your "research" be a distraction? You are "analysing" a photo, knowing about those photos and what tools to use should be part of your work.
I do not have a Phd in anything, but as I started looking into photos from space missions I thought it was a good idea to learn about them and how to use all the tools available. I thought that anyone interested in this topic would follow the same process, but it looks like I was wrong.
It's just an opinion, like yours.
The photos you have posted are the same I have posted, I only added the photo from the right camera and created 3D images made with them.
The fact that you act like there's only one photo and one way of looking at it is interesting. Sad, but interesting.
I agree, they are the same reasons, too bad you don't see how wrong you are in your approach.
There's no need of debunking an opinion.
Just to make it clear ArMaP, none of your comments here have any relevance to the secondary anomaly being discussed here, as is not unusual for you! So, I see no real anomaly basis for a reply!!! :o :o
Quote from: rdunk on October 03, 2016, 06:04:10 PM
Just to make it clear ArMaP, none of your comments here have any relevance to the secondary anomaly being discussed here, as is not unusual for you! So, I see no real anomaly basis for a reply!!! :o :o
Don't you think that someone analysing something should be familiar with the technology that related to that something and with all the tools he/she can use to help in his/her work?
Quote from: ArMaP on October 03, 2016, 09:43:33 PM
Don't you think that someone analysing something should be familiar with the technology that related to that something and with all the tools he/she can use to help in his/her work?
ArMaP, here "with anomalies", we are not talking about chemical composition, DNA testing, the Theory of Relativity, anti-gravity, turbine engine thrust, and the such like. Here for I, and hopefully for most others, with anomalies we are talking about what is/can/cannot be seen in a (now)-digitally made photograph. Not much "technology" needed for doing that for most people. Photos are photos, and what is in the photos is what was there for the camera to see when the photos were taken.
ArMaP, whatever photo technology you have and like to use.......you "ALWAYS" use it in such ways for strictly "DEBUNKING" photos. and your comments often go in the direction of getting off of discussing the anomaly itself! That is what you did/do at ATS, and that is what you do here. You do it in a controlled and nice way here, and that is a good, thing! But, at the bottom line of anomaly discussion we can always know that your position is negative, regardless of the anomaly presentation.
One thing I do not remember.......in the thousands of anomaly posts you probably have seen, you have admitted to seeing only 1 actual anomaly - was that an admission that you actual did see a real anomaly, or was it that the you just saw something you could not explain??
For sure, we do not have much anomaly posting here - past or present.......I wonder why??
Quote from: rdunk on October 03, 2016, 10:39:37 PM
Here for I, and hopefully for most others, with anomalies we are talking about what is/can/cannot be seen in a (now)-digitally made photograph. Not much "technology" needed for doing that for most people. Photos are photos, and what is in the photos is what was there for the camera to see when the photos were taken.
Yes, photos are photos, but I think it's important to know the technology behind it, regardless of being digital or chemical. For example, I think that knowing that changing the contrast in an image reduces the amount of colours (or shades of grey) is important, and I have seen people applying a high contrast to make things clearer. Yes, it makes some things clearer, but it destroys the more subtle tone changes.
I also think it's important to know that the photos from most rover cameras are (usually) taken in pairs, so when in doubt we can look at the two to get an idea of how things really looked at the time the photo was taken, and to me, the depth information we can get by using the photos from the left and right camera is more important than the colour information.
QuoteArMaP, whatever photo technology you have and like to use.......you "ALWAYS" use it in such ways for strictly "DEBUNKING" photos.
When looking at photos the technology that matters is the one used to take those photos, not any technology that I may have, the only things I have are tools, and those are available to any one, as I use free tools. And yes, I think we all should start by trying to debunk all our findings (the interpretations, not the photos themselves, as the camera doesn't lie ;)).
An example is those photos taken by one of the rovers showing a bright light in the distance. Some people created some theories about what it could be, but if we looked at all the available information we could see that the rover was coming from that area, and, when looking at the photos from other sols we could see that the light was being reflected by part of the heat shield that protected the rover during the descent and was discarded after landing.
Quoteand your comments often go in the direction of getting off of discussing the anomaly itself!
To know if something is really an anomaly on the scene we need to rule out all other possibilities, because, like Sherlock Holmes said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth", so if we cannot eliminate something then it must the truth.
QuoteThat is what you did/do at ATS, and that is what you do here.
Yes, I'm consistent. :)
QuoteYou do it in a controlled and nice way here, and that is a good, thing!
Sometimes it's hard, but I try. :)
QuoteBut, at the bottom line of anomaly discussion we can always know that your position is negative, regardless of the anomaly presentation.
That's because you don't present things for which I cannot find an explanation. Find me something really unexplained and I will consider it as such.
QuoteOne thing I do not remember.......in the thousands of anomaly posts you probably have seen, you have admitted to seeing only 1 actual anomaly - was that an admission that you actual did see a real anomaly, or was it that the you just saw something you could not explain??
More than one, and it means that I saw something for which I couldn't find an explanation, so, if it wasn't normal, it was an anomaly.
Your question now made me think about what mean by "real anomaly"? Isn't an anomaly, for you too, something that you can't explain? How can there be "real" anomalies and some other kind of anomaly? ???
QuoteFor sure, we do not have much anomaly posting here - past or present.......I wonder why??
That is also happening on ATS, the Curiosity 2016 anomalies thread has very little activity.
Quote from: rdunk on October 03, 2016, 05:42:23 PM
I now see that there are "2" small shadows there, and the head is laying on the ground. The nearest small shadow, just at the shoulder area, is a shadow on the near side of a very small rock, Then the other very small shadow is on the ground beside the head
Yes, I see a small rock as well. I also see that the sun is high but it is casting shadows...
It looks like I need to draw some arrows to show you what I mean without any more confusion. It's just too hard in words to get the point across well. I'll try to find time later, I'm not great at faffing with image programs. :)
On the theme of further data, this image is helpful to see that the "shoulder" is not connected. At the top you can see "behind" the "shoulder into the gap to the big rock.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/1p306622172rada600p2410l2c1%202.gif)
Pimander said, "On the theme of further data, this image is helpful to see that the "shoulder" is not connected. At the top you can see "behind" the "shoulder into the gap to the big rock."
Pi, for me, this moving photo does not improve ones ability to discern what is the reality of this anomaly. No, I absolutely see no disconnection of that arm to the body. For me, the moving of the photo even shows more solidly...to me...that it is connected. Also, the screenshot of a completely different photo that I posted in reply #69 even more clearly shows connection - I see no space between are/shoulder of this being in any of the photos.
I have looked numerous times for other photos which might give us a different/better perspective on this anomaly, but haven't found any this far - still a possibility!
FWIW, I do laugh at myself for seeing this thing incorrectly, because of the light and shadows in the photo. I have probably looked at this reptilian-looking thing a 100++ times, and I always saw the head as stiff-necked sticking straight out above the ground, with a shadow under it. But, as I said prior, yesterday as we were discussing the shadows, and you and ArMaP proposing that light was coming through with an "unconnected shoulder", I finally saw my error about the being's head. Seeing that little rock with the small shadow is what caused me to see it correctly - the head is lying on the ground!!! ;D
Thanks for commenting!