Mars Rover Curiosity - "Big Bird"

[Amaterasu]

My assessment of the "bird:"

I see what appears to be just what You, rdunk, are describing.  I do ask if it is unreasonable to consider the following:

1.  Could it just be happenstance of rock formation and perspective?

2.  Is it a piece of statuary left in this jumble of what I see more as ruins of a city, or building at least, of enormous proportions amongst the landscape?

Because I'm here to tell You that I saw areas I'm pretty sure were manipulated to obscure something...  I could go through and set up the screenshots like I did with stuff I found tres interesent.

[ArMaP]

After looking at two 3D versions it looks (to me) like the "head" is really the rock behind the "bird".

Cross eye version.


Anaglyph version.

[rdunk]

My assessment of the "bird:"

I see what appears to be just what You, rdunk, are describing.  I do ask if it is unreasonable to consider the following:

1.  Could it just be happenstance of rock formation and perspective?

2.  Is it a piece of statuary left in this jumble of what I see more as ruins of a city, or building at least, of enormous proportions amongst the landscape?

Because I'm here to tell You that I saw areas I'm pretty sure were manipulated to obscure something...  I could go through and set up the screenshots like I did with stuff I found tres interesent.

Amy, thanks for your comments!

On this earth, there are a lot of physical things that happen in nature that causes us to wonder, so, it probably does likewise on Mars. Some things can be natural, and still have some degree of likeness to un-natural objects. But.............for a natural object to look exactly like a "complex" un-natural object - just doesn't happen, in my opinion.

Take the iguana that you posted here yesterday, and posted on Fox News today. Yes, that rock does have a few feature lines that are remindful of an iguana. But of course, we know t is not an iguana, and that "iguana" clearly is just-a-rock.

But, with this bird, there are only two features that we don't have, one is the legs/feet, which are shadowed, and the chirp or quack sounds that this bird might make. Everything else we can see for what it is.

And yes, we do agree on the statuary possibilities. For just a photo, and without seeing the bird move or fly, we cannot know if it is alive or a statuary piece. Yes, there are numerous areas of destruction on the Mars surface. Because some of these areas are so similar, one could think they were purposely singled out for a direct hit, rather than the crater being the results of a meteor hit. I think it extremely interesting that Rover Opportunity (I don't know about Spirit) had a travel path that "just happened to pass right by several of these "VERY SMALL CRATERS JUST TO GET A FEW PICS"?? (really can make one wonder) I do "contend" that several of these are/were burial places, and would logically have statuaries and/or the such-like, as determined by whoever was doing the burying!

Regardless of real bird of statue, the primary point for us remains: 

* real bird = life on Mars NOW!

* real statuary = real life and intelligent design on Mars as some point, in the past and/or the present, or transient.

[rdunk]

After looking at two 3D versions it looks (to me) like the "head" is really the rock behind the "bird".

ArMaP, it is quite obvious you are not seeing the white head of the bird. I still see the white head, even in your playing with the photos. In the anaglyph version you posted, the white head of the bird is still there, next to the red. The white head is not turned to the side, it is looking straight in our direction.

[ArMaP]

I still see the white head, even in your playing with the photos.

To make things clear, I only resized one of the photos to match the size of the other, that's all the "playing" I did.

The white head is not turned to the side, it is looking straight in our direction.

Who said it was?

[rdunk]

To make things clear, I only resized one of the photos to match the size of the other, that's all the "playing" I did.
Who said it was?

ArMaP, I thought this bird might be tough for you, as the bird is pretty clear, as anomalies go! Yes, you did say "it looks (to me) like", so I do give you much credit for stating it that way.

One point I haven't mentioned before, it seems that in addition to the white head that can be seen there, there is also a bit of white neck/neck feathers of sorts, just visible under the head. This can also be seen in the darker pic in the original post. Can you see this feature too?? Here is that pic again!

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, I thought this bird might be tough for you, as the bird is pretty clear, as anomalies go!

I don't have any problems seeing the "bird", the only difference is that I see it as being made from two rocks: the darker one in front and the bright side of the rock behind it.

One point I haven't mentioned before, it seems that in addition to the white head that can be seen there, there is also a bit of white neck/neck feathers of sorts, just visible under the head. This can also be seen in the darker pic in the original post. Can you see this feature too?? Here is that pic again!

First of all, you should use the original image, and when you resize an image you should use a non-resampling method, to avoid creating things that are not there.

This is how the "bird" looks like in the original photo.


As you can see, what is most visible is the compression artefacts. Those, when we do a resize that resamples the image, get mixed with the real data of the image, so we end up with an image that is a mix of the original and the compression artefacts, only now those artefacts are not recognisable as such.


This is how I see the rocks forming it.


The "neck" looks like a dent in the rock, making the left side brighter, as the sunlight comes from the right.

[rdunk]

Absolutely not so! That is not how the original pic looks. You have really messed with this one!

Please provide me the link to that photo, and I will take a comparison look at it, but right now I cannot accept it as even being factual. Rover Curiosity photo quality starts out being much better than that!! Your pic is completely blurred. I am not sure what your purpose is in that regard, other than presenting the usual skeptic's point of view.

There is no way the head of that bird is back beyond the body of that bird, and that is clear in the photo. Certainly ArMaP, you are entitled to present your opinion, be it fact of fiction!

But just FYI, even in your blurred photo, the white head of that bird remains still obvious!

[Amaterasu]

Few more crops I grabbed:

A rock on the right that looks wrong...  Could be a stitching artifact?




Evidence of photo manipulation:




And




Other weird stuff - like a large shell?




A skull?




A hersheys kiss?




And a couple of pieces where I "looked under the outcrops:"

[ArMaP]

Absolutely not so! That is not how the original pic looks. You have really messed with this one!

That shows how much you know about it.

Here's the original.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00120/mcam/0120MR0752014000E1_DXXX.jpg

Please provide me the link to that photo, and I will take a comparison look at it, but right now I cannot accept it as even being factual.

Denial is not a good sign. 

Rover Curiosity photo quality starts out being much better than that!! Your pic is completely blurred.

Blurred? That's funny.

I am not sure what your purpose is in that regard, other than presenting the usual skeptic's point of view.

It's the same purpose that I have followed all my life, truth and facts.

Certainly ArMaP, you are entitled to present your opinion, be it fact of fiction!

I never present fiction, I don't even have the imagination for that and I do not copy other people's ideas. 

But just FYI, even in your blurred photo, the white head of that bird remains still obvious!

I wasn't expecting you to see it, the way you present your opinion as if it was a fact was an obvious sign.

Edited to add that I haven't seen if this photo is already in the PDS, those are usually better than the copies they put on the site. I will have a look tomorrow.

[ArMaP]

Few more crops I grabbed:

A rock on the right that looks wrong...  Could be a stitching artifact?

That's one of the reasons why we should use the originals and not the panoramas.

[deuem]

AMP, can you post the best link for the bird so I am not looking at so many pixels. IE: not a jpg link. any bit maps or png files. We have been through this jpg thing so many times now and all of the compression issues. If it is jpg it is problems. pngs are so much cleaner........
Deuem

[ArMaP]

AMP, can you post the best link for the bird so I am not looking at so many pixels.
Deuem

I just posted the link to the original image (the only one I have seen so far).

[deuem]

I just posted the link to the original image (the only one I have seen so far).

IE: not a jpg link. any bit maps or png files. We have been through this jpg thing so many times now and all of the compression issues. If it is jpg it is problems. pngs are so much cleaner........
Deuem

[rdunk]

That shows how much you know about it.

Here's the original.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00120/mcam/0120MR0752014000E1_DXXX.jpg

ArMaP, the link you posted is the same photo I used for the 2nd pic posted, wherein I said, "It is "lighter". No difference, the bird is just there! Actually, if you look closely, you can see a darker "space" between where the bird's feet are that we just cannot see yet. Also one can see that the wing-feathers are actually multi-colored, darker and lighter!!!!!