Yes, Mars Anomalies

[deuem]

Z wrote:
This one is really amazing! You can see right through it! The thin wavey base and the overall shape suggest some piece of machinery.
Just ignore the sleeping Gopher...

Funny, I saw the gopher first, had to look for the rest, guess I like gophers.

[Amaterasu]

Just some general comments to this extended discussion, on the about 3 years of my anomaly research.

...

GFY, rdunk.  Yes, I agree.  And that curvy thing is indeed interesting, jpg or no.

[Amaterasu]

Not true.. it depends WHY the skeptic can't see them. If they are just being obtuse, yeah no amount of detail beyond a close up in high detail will work

Z, for sure you are right, as you have way more experience than do some of the rest of us. However............I have seen the many different sides of the skeptic community. On the Unexplained Mysteries site, there was a very well coordinated group there that went to great lengths in the "skeptic realm" to disprove the anomaly and/or "kill the poster". It did appear to be very much a paid operation, if there ever was one. That group actually got me banned from posting, by claiming I was someone else who had been banned, and was now back under another name - - because I wrote like him - I could write a book about those guys! Actually zaru let me back in, and because of the still complaining, he asked me to just not post. And then ATS.................of course you know all about that.

I myself have yet to see a true skeptic admit to actually seeing an anomaly - because if/when they do, their belief system is forever changed - at least for most.

I met that group.  They ran Me off by baffling with BS and then closing My thread.  And then deleting it.  It was on electrogravitics.

[deuem]

[snip] I was merely stating that I have better things to do [snip]

The term I have better things to do can be a fordian slip for, "Oh yea buster, do it yourself"

I never DID say it was a toy.  I said NATURE did not construct it.  In fact I have very conscientiously been calling it the "toy," quotes and all.

I would think there is no difference here a toy is a toy and not a cigar.

Removes data.

Ok, please spain this one! If I take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. How do I look at the new photo and tell I lost data. As far as I know saving a pixel in any color is the same but I will try that and get back. But even if I lost data, I guess you meant size of overall kilobytes. If I don't have the original to compare it to, how can I tell.

Reading and answering as I go...  Not sure where We're going with this.

I was hoping we could run a test to see if you could take a known and blend it so I could test it. I need before and after.

Ok.  Forget about these pics.  I's found Me a TIFF.  My system is puking trying to work with it but it allows Me to ensure that I can back up and point to where.  Still not sure what ArMaP's creating a pic has to do with anything.  Hoping to see as I read.

OK waiting.

I don't think the data coming from Mars is in jpg format.  I suspect They can choose what format to issue the images in.

Go read the camera specs. They also say they are 1200 pixels yet we see 1024. HUM???

Well....  What's ArMaP creating something got to do with it?  I'm still confused.

Don't worry about it  "I have better things to do"!  In this case do you read that as sarcastic? Or really true?

Deuem,

psst, that whole ArMaP thing was to help you but you missed what I was up to. I wanted to see if you could do what you say they are doing at the pixel level so we have ammo in our belts.

Deuem

[deuem]

Compared to most members here, John and Zorgon included, I feel like a "banned virgin". I have never been banned and I think my work is as far out on a limb as any others. If anything I keep getting requests to join other forums or please come back notes. I can see Z now. Deuem banned from Peggy. I hear the axe falling. Its turkey de-heading day...

Virgin Deuem....And I like it that way......

[Amaterasu]

The term I have better things to do can be a fordian slip for, "Oh yea buster, do it yourself"

Not what I meant at all.  In truth, the time I spent finding images and but for rdunk, no One has mentioned the content of the pics unless I do and direct to anOther.  But many chimed in about how important knowing where to find it is.

But, like sky....  I think I'm hooked, and will struggle with My gimpy system to please the whole lotta Yuz.

I would think there is no difference here a toy is a toy and not a cigar.

I also called it a "christmas ornamenty thing."  I have to call it SOMETHING to ensure clarity as to which image I am referring to, n'est pas? 

Ok, please spain this one! If I take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. How do I look at the new photo and tell I lost data. As far as I know saving a pixel in any color is the same but I will try that and get back. But even if I lost data, I guess you meant size of overall kilobytes. If I don't have the original to compare it to, how can I tell.

Oh.  If You're asking whether One can tell, it depends.  If You have a very dark image and change one pixel to yellow, You will see it.  If You have a field of blue-greens and green-blues and change one pixel to the other value, You will not see it in the image.

BUT, what I look for in image manipulation is not mere pixel changing, but a quality of an aggregate.  Blurring has a distinct "feel" to it, and when combined with a mask, leaves a certain edge line.  I look for circular areas that seem to have slight "offness" to that which is around.  This is characteristic of a clone tool (I have an image that I defined such evidence here somewhere).  There is the edge "tucking" that happens also in masking an area to be filled in.  Also, though subtle, I have seen rocks that are somehow more (or less) in focus than the rocks around.  This suggests a rock from elsewhere pasted in like a UFO.

I was hoping we could run a test to see if you could take a known and blend it so I could test it. I need before and after.

Ah.  Not sure what You mean by "blend" it, but if I get clear instructions, and what I need to work with, I'm game.

Don't worry about it  "I have better things to do"!  In this case do you read that as sarcastic? Or really true?

Neither.  I accept You are busy, and whether it is true or not, all cool.

psst, that whole ArMaP thing was to help you but you missed what I was up to. I wanted to see if you could do what you say they are doing at the pixel level so we have ammo in our belts.

You want to see if I can use the clone tool, the masking function, the pasting over with rocks, the blur tool?  On a pixel level?  Kinda scratching M'head.

[deuem]

You want to see if I can use the clone tool, the masking function, the pasting over with rocks, the blur tool?  On a pixel level?  Kinda scratching M'head.

I want to see if you can make the ball go away with out a trace....

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Sorry Z, I don't really research Mars. I just get involved with a post or two. The Mars guys should do that and have disks full of data like I have disks full of Deuem.

And yea I can see the snake shape with ease.. Cool

deuem

Sarge, If you can locate it in a jpg and it is still there in a qualiyt format, your right as I see it.  many things go away with a clear print that is not scambled with jpg. All people like me and ArMaP what to do it to make sure we are looking at the best photo we can get before jumping in the pit. Even rdunk just said the same thing and if I remember right you had that problem once and retired for a spell.

Believe me, It would make my day if I could take any of these and help prove it.

Of course you always look for the best quality photo. But what if you don't have one? What if you only have what you have?
Then you do the best you can. Or don't even try? Some here would say there are no anomalies just bad resolution photos and they'll go to great lengths to prove you wrong in your interpretation.

I learned my lesson. If I put something out there and you don't see what I see, then so be it. I will not try to convince anyone anymore.

Peace
Rock...

[sky otter]

hey sarge
don't let anyone get to you..
makes me think of the  "i see dead people"  line  some say "where?" and some say "yeah, right!"

and you can't convert either ....it's all good 

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

hey sarge
don't let anyone get to you..
makes me think of the  "i see dead people"  line  some say "where?" and some say "yeah, right!"

and you can't convert either ....it's all good 

No one 'gets' to me anymore as I said....I learned my lesson...
At this point in time, I could care less what anyone thinks...except maybe John and of course Zorgon....

[deuem]

Sarge, I agree 100% you must at least try both you out lined. Get the best print and give it a go with what ever the best you have. Even if it the worst print on record. I am forced to do that with most every UFO I have ever done. The only difference is that the jpg format does not bother me as much as it does the Mars work. Basicly a UFO pattern is going to be there or not. On Mars, Moon and orbit photos, sometimes an object will go away in a better print but sometimes it will get better! When it gets better we all smile..   I say go for it. Run with the best you have. Deuem

[Amaterasu]

I want to see if you can make the ball go away with out a trace....

Ahhhh. Yeah, I bet I can.  How's this?

Toy Gone:



(Original for comp)

[ArMaP]

I already did this picture and also the one before she reworked it, in this thread if you missed it.

I didn't miss it, I misunderstood what you were saying.

[ArMaP]

But, just know that in the posting of anomalies, the skeptics NEVER see anything but rocks, or at least don't admit seeing anything but rocks. So, the quality of the pics will not make a difference in what the skeptic sees.

I see almost all of the "anomalies", I just don't see them as irrefutable proof of being made by intelligent beings.

And yes, the quality of the photos makes a difference, specially when we are talking about small objects in the photo.

[ArMaP]

That SIDE of the rock is in shadow, and the limned edge that is not in shadow is nowhere NEAR as white.

The side not in shadow is not in direct sunlight either, it's only getting reflected sunlight.

Maybe You didn't grasp, ArMaP - not that little section.

If the sun is reflected directly to the camera by one surface that surface will appear much brighter and can "burn" the photo on that spot. For another surface to do the same it needs to be in a similar position between the light source and the camera, so it reflected the light directly to the camera.

The whole panorama I spent 6 hours going over.

Irrelevant.

There were no other areas that popped that white.

Why should there be more?

And that face is in the shade.

The general face, yes, but I think that we are looking at is not a flat face, but a stepped face, with the face of the "steps" pointing to the camera and the top of the "steps" getting direct sunlight.