A Living Species On Mars

[rdunk]

I think I will make a thread about those "forests".

Now, back on topic, one question to rdunk: what characteristics do you see on those photos that make you think those are living creatures?

ArMaP, now you will have to admit - "making a thread" would be a little unusual for you!! I am all for it!!

Question - What characteristics do you see on those photos that make you think those are living creatures?

#1, 2, and 3, have no rock appearance to begin with. They each have common similar features. All three have two rear legs, head and facial features. I described the common feature of the wide front leg area - only #1 front leg area is visible enough to see what look like quills of feathers.  #2 seems to be looking directly at the camera. One can see the squarish mouth.nose area on #2 and 3. #1,2, 3, and 4 bodies all seem to be roughly covered with some type of surface "fluff".

#3 is certainly the most clearly visible in the ninvac photos. Obviously the same species as #1 and 2. One can even see the knob on #2's nose

I did not put locater circles around these in the posted photos, because they are so obvious in each of the screenshots. Their color is darker than most of the rocks around there, and their features are generally common with each other.

However, I did comment that without #1,2, and 3 moving, there is nothing to cause distinction from a statue. It is #4 which more definition to the "alive" possibility. Its shadow even shows the squarish mouth/nose of the others, and a left ear point in the shadow.

For anyone interested, go to the OP links, and bring these into the best view you can get, just for kicks. Magnification is a must.

I can't rule out statues for 1/2/3, because Concepcion and Nautilis craters have some indications as being places of burial, which might include statues.

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, now you will have to admit - "making a thread" would be a little unusual for you!! I am all for it!!

It's true, I never know how to start, so I never start. This time I think I should.

#1, 2, and 3, have no rock appearance to begin with.

That's debatable, I don't see any thing that is not possible (or common) in rocks.

They each have common similar features.

I agree with that, now you just need to show that at least one is alive.

All three have two rear legs, head and facial features.

Are you 100% sure that what you see as legs isn't part of the ground or a brighter rock in front of the "living species"?

I described the common feature of the wide front leg area - only #1 front leg area is visible enough to see what look like quills of feathers.  #2 seems to be looking directly at the camera. One can see the squarish mouth.nose area on #2 and 3.

One can see a mouth and eyes in just some pixels, like this but it's not a living creature, just something that makes us think of one.

#1,2, 3, and 4 bodies all seem to be roughly covered with some type of surface "fluff".

Don't the other rocks have the same type of surface "fluff" (whatever that may mean)?

#3 is certainly the most clearly visible in the ninvac photos.

What's a "ninvac"?

I did not put locater circles around these in the posted photos, because they are so obvious in each of the screenshots. Their color is darker than most of the rocks around there, and their features are generally common with each other.

The "features" are visible, I don't have any problem seeing them, but, just because they remind me of something it doesn't mean that they are what my imagination tells me.

However, I did comment that without #1,2, and 3 moving, there is nothing to cause distinction from a statue. It is #4 which more definition to the "alive" possibility. Its shadow even shows the squarish mouth/nose of the others, and a left ear point in the shadow.

I don't think that what you call the "shadow" is really a shadow, to me it looks more like another rock, a shadow does not have the area closer to the light darker than the rest.

For anyone interested, go to the OP links, and bring these into the best view you can get, just for kicks.

I will look for the originals instead, the closer to the source the better, specially when working with JPGs.

Magnification is a must.

Obviously, haven't you noticed that all of the "animals" found on Mars are not close to the camera and/or small? It's the lack of detail (with the help of JPEG compression) that makes our brains see things in a different way.

I can't rule out statues for 1/2/3, because Concepcion and Nautilis craters have some indications as being places of burial, which might include statues.

But you rule out rocks?

[ArMaP]

I couldn't find the "flying" one, but here are the best images I could find of the other three.









PS: the colours look messed up because these images are made with photos from the infrared, green and violet filters instead of the orange, green and blue that are usually used.

[rdunk]

Thanks ArMaP! for me, some of the original frame black and white "raw images" are more seeable that those you have posted. Here is the B&W #3, and it seems more clear to me that that which you posted - I have to post a link for it, as right now I cannot post the pic.

If you "really" want to see this creature, you need to magnify it a little.

Re your comments, it is one thing to look at a cloud and see it as some familiar object, but, there is very little about these creatures that look familiar, nor like rocks!

AmArP. now you seem to be stretching it a little to say that what is below the "flying whatever-it-is" is not "whatever-it-is's" shadow!! That is one of the most obvious shadows I have ever seen, and is visible proof that this "creature" is off the ground.
And, if you can find it the un-magnified photo, you will still see it just as it is here, just a lot smaller! I can't post any more pics right now, or I would post another pic of #4 again. He/she is a cool looking creature - very similar to the others!!

[ArMaP]

Thanks ArMaP! for me, some of the original frame black and white "raw images" are more seeable that those you have posted. Here is the B&W #3, and it seems more clear to me that that which you posted - I have to post a link for it, as right now I cannot post the pic.

I made those colour images myself with the greyscale photos, I can post them all.

If you "really" want to see this creature, you need to magnify it a little.

I see the "creatures", no need for resizing, and I guess that's the problem, you want to see creatures instead of wanting to understand what is there, so you see them as creatures.

Re your comments, it is one thing to look at a cloud and see it as some familiar object, but, there is very little about these creatures that look familiar, nor like rocks!

OK.

AmArP. now you seem to be stretching it a little to say that what is below the "flying whatever-it-is" is not "whatever-it-is's" shadow!! That is one of the most obvious shadows I have ever seen, and is visible proof that this "creature" is off the ground.

I don't think that I am the one "stretching it" when I see it as a rock instead of a shadow.

A shadow only make things darker, it doesn't change the colours and it's not darker in some places than others, a shadow covers an area with an uniform shade.

And, if you can find it the un-magnified photo, you will still see it just as it is here, just a lot smaller! I can't post any more pics right now, or I would post another pic of #4 again. He/she is a cool looking creature - very similar to the others!!

I'm still trying to find a better version of the photo, but without any reference it's difficult.

[deuem]

A shadow only make things darker, it doesn't change the colours and it's not darker in some places than others, a shadow covers an area with an uniform shade.

I think you might want to reword this. In RGB [what we are looking at on our screens] a shadow will change the RGB values, that is why it is darker. So the colors do change. [tech wise] We are not really looking at a shadow per say but an RGB make up of one.

I would think that it depends on what is causing the shadow if it is exactly the same or uniform. A stained glass window will create a shadow. What about a piece of gause. It will cause a dark light pattern. And so on.....

Shadows are very tricky and almost have to be looked at one at a time as to what is causing them.

The strange thing about this one Flying creature shadow is you both say it is a shadow But what caused it is really the question..

deuem

[ArMaP]

I think you might want to reword this. In RGB [what we are looking at on our screens] a shadow will change the RGB values, that is why it is darker. So the colors do change. [tech wise] We are not really looking at a shadow per say but an RGB make up of one.

The RGB values change but the colour (hue) does not. When I said that the colours do not change is that an yellow ground doesn't turn into brown or orange, it turns into dark yellow.

I would think that it depends on what is causing the shadow if it is exactly the same or uniform. A stained glass window will create a shadow. What about a piece of gause. It will cause a dark light pattern. And so on.....

That's true, but we are not talking about translucent rocks or living creatures, we are talking about something that looks opaque.

The strange thing about this one Flying creature shadow is you both say it is a shadow But what caused it is really the question..

No, I am not saying that this is a shadow, I am saying that's a different rock, with the side facing the camera not getting any direct light.

[deuem]

The RGB values change but the colour (hue) does not. When I said that the colours do not change is that an yellow ground doesn't turn into brown or orange, it turns into dark yellow.

So if I have a yellow surface and the shadow is 100% black your saying that the hue does not change?  If it is a faint shadow like a cloud OK, but a rock shadow on Mars or the Moon should be close to black and the hue changes. So ? ETA: If the yellow was pure yellow Your right it would stay yellow until it hit 100% and turned black. But depending on what color yellow you started with it might go through several color hues to get to black. The possibilities are countless.

No, I am not saying that this is a shadow, I am saying that's a different rock, with the side facing the camera not getting any direct light.

Ok, he says a flying birds shadow, you say a rock in the shade. I will but that, they are 2 different things, Shadow and non lit. One is a product of light the other is no light. I agree...

An overhang will give you a shadow, A cave will give you no light.

Deuem

[WarToad]

AmArP. now you seem to be stretching it a little to say that what is below the "flying whatever-it-is" is not "whatever-it-is's" shadow!! That is one of the most obvious shadows I have ever seen, and is visible proof that this "creature" is off the ground.

That second shadow is from the thin crescent shaped rock in front of the so-called "flying" rock.  The face of the crescent rock is turned away from the camera leaving the flat part twords us obscured in that shadow.  You'll also notice the crescent rocks shadow is a different size than the "flying" rock.

[rdunk]

That second shadow is from the thin crescent shaped rock in front of the so-called "flying" rock.  The face of the crescent rock is turned away from the camera leaving the flat part twords us obscured in that shadow.  You'll also notice the crescent rocks shadow is a different size than the "flying" rock.

Of course there is no gain in debating the seeing of rock vs shadow. As I said, to me, the shadow is quite obvious.

Hi wartoad! Concerning the size of the shadow being different - it should be different/shorter than the flying creature because........the flyer is tilted upward. Thus, the length of any shadow cast by overhead sunlight would be reduced proportionally to the # of degrees the creature is "nose-up"!

If one believes the dark place on the ground is a rock, isn't it interesting that the dark place on the ground seems to match vertically the features of what looks like a flyer?

[rdunk]

For you that remain skeptical about these 4 "objects" not depicting life, how many of these would it take to begin to give you some feeling of maybe this is a "species"? 1 more? 2 more? 5 more? 10 more? 100 more? 

[ArMaP]

So if I have a yellow surface and the shadow is 100% black your saying that the hue does not change?

No, I'm not saying that, as a 100% black shadow would make everything black, obviously.

If it is a faint shadow like a cloud OK, but a rock shadow on Mars or the Moon should be close to black and the hue changes.

Why should a shadow of a rock on Mars or the Moon be close to black?

If the yellow was pure yellow Your right it would stay yellow until it hit 100% and turned black. But depending on what color yellow you started with it might go through several color hues to get to black. The possibilities are countless.

Open you favourite image processing program and go to the colour selection. Pick one colour and change its brightness. Look at the HSV or HSL values, does the H (hue) value change?

An overhang will give you a shadow, A cave will give you no light.

Sorry about the confusion, in Portuguese there is only one word for "shade" or "shadow", "sombra", so I have some trouble finding the right way of expressing what I am thinking about, that's why I talked about not getting direct light, I don't know how to say what I am thinking.

[ArMaP]

For you that remain skeptical about these 4 "objects" not depicting life, how many of these would it take to begin to give you some feeling of maybe this is a "species"?

Of these? Looking like rocks? Only if I would see some signs of them being living creatures, as long as they look like rocks and do not show any sign of being alive I will not think they are a living creature.

If you present some photo that shows clear, unambiguous signs of being a living creature, one photo is enough, disregarding the possibility of being fake, obviously.

[deuem]

Sorry about the confusion, in Portuguese there is only one word for "shade" or "shadow", "sombra", so I have some trouble finding the right way of expressing what I am thinking about, that's why I talked about not getting direct light, I don't know how to say what I am thinking.

Ok Call the gubermint and have them add a new word, because one is a result and the other the lack of. We seem to get into this debate often, now we know why. They are different and I think you agree. They even process different for me.

[ArMaP]

Ok Call the gubermint and have them add a new word, because one is a result and the other the lack of.

No, thanks, we had the last change a few years ago and people are still trying to learn how to follow the new rules (yes, we have official rules for how to write).

We seem to get into this debate often, now we know why. They are different and I think you agree. They even process different for me.

That's the problem of using different languages, some languages have more words for some things than for others. For example, in English there are several words for small water streams, in Portuguese we have only two.