Yes, Mars Anomalies

[Amaterasu]

You're assuming things, I never said that there's an object "that shows evidence of intelligent manufacture", I only said that I find it strange.

Did You examine the brick (wall)?  There's also a pyramid with markings to the left and back.  But I didn't bother mentioning, because I am sure such things are natural rock formations.   

I have seen several people saying that, but if that was the case, where are the clouds? We rarely see clouds in Photos from Mars, but when we do they are slightly different from those from Earth, and always of the same type.

Given the clear manipulation of the distance in the panorama, how do We KNOW the original sky had no clouds?

One strange object cannot seriously be considered evidence of intelligent life.

But...  1.  there is no natural explanation for that christmas ornamentish thing I called a toy, and 2. it is NOT just ONE thing.  The brick (wall), the decoration, and many others add up to a scene once inhabited by intelligent Beings.

Yes, you shouldn't make conclusions based on wishful thinking but on facts. 

That was a rather inane reply, ArMaP.  I was asking about what We can make of the facts.   

[Amaterasu]

Maybe Aliens have been picking things up on Earth for countless years, looking them over and dumping the garbage on Mars on their way out of the system. They just want to look at our trash, not keep it. 

ROFL!  GFY!  I doubt it, but will not rule out the possibility....

[deuem]

ROFL!  GFY!  I doubt it, but will not rule out the possibility....

Of Course they extract any gold first....Yea never know what they would keep. Maybe there is an old tooth area there missing gold caps. lol

[zorgon]

Maybe Aliens have been picking things up on Earth for countless years, looking them over and dumping the garbage on Mars on their way out of the system. They just want to look at our trash, not keep it. 

NASA is following suit, just dumping crap on everything they can hit

Maybe its to cover up 'older trash'

[ArMaP]

Given the clear manipulation of the distance in the panorama, how do We KNOW the original sky had no clouds?

Clear manipulation? I have never seen it. On photos from the Apollo missions I have seen some, on photos from Mars, none.

But...  1.  there is no natural explanation for that christmas ornamentish thing I called a toy, and

That's where I think you (and most people) are doing it wrong. The fact that we don't know how it was created doesn't mean that the object is artificial. Assuming that shows that we are not looking at this from a neutral point of view, we are trying to find things to prove our point of view.

2. it is NOT just ONE thing.  The brick (wall), the decoration, and many others add up to a scene once inhabited by intelligent Beings.

To me it's just one thing, maybe two, and I don't see any clear sign of artificiality.

That was a rather inane reply, ArMaP.  I was asking about what We can make of the facts.   

But you were (or should it be was?) not using facts.

[deuem]

But you were (or should it be was?) not using facts.

Hey ArMaP the Deuem program likes the white color balanced photo the best, What say yee, Ok or junk to use... The raw data files are next in line but not as good for me.

That toy Amy is talking about is right on the line with the next frame. In the panarama it has stiching right through it. Is there a better photo we are missing? I do not like the idea they went with jpeg, just so they could get a 360 panarama with 20 degree overlaps. They should have only used png or tiff and cut down on the amount of photos. All the compession is like looking through milk for me. It is very hard to split it up when the color pallet is almost the same for the entire photo blured by jpeg.

I did find some details on the mast cameras and they are 2 different set ups. They have different focal lenghts so doing a sterio from them also might be very mis-leading unless you hit the sweet spot. So I am not sure if I can trust any of the mast sterio shots. It is like one eye has 20/20 and the other is nearsighted.

Deuem

[Amaterasu]

Clear manipulation? I have never seen it. On photos from the Apollo missions I have seen some, on photos from Mars, none.

Well then.  Go back to page 1 and see My posting of the screenshot and the processing I did of the "distance."

That's where I think you (and most people) are doing it wrong. The fact that we don't know how it was created doesn't mean that the object is artificial. Assuming that shows that we are not looking at this from a neutral point of view, we are trying to find things to prove our point of view.

And I say when One can find MANY anomalous objects that One has to "explain" away as "something natural that We don't understand how it was created," One is seriously doing it wrong.  Take any photo of earth lands and find that many anomalous objects that One cannot attribute to Human inhabitance.  You won't find them.  Just sayin'.

To me it's just one thing, maybe two, and I don't see any clear sign of artificiality.
But you were (or should it be was?) not using facts.

Wow.  Really?  No sign in that brick (wall)?  The clear blocks that it is constructed of?  Wow, ArMaP.  Is this willful not seeing?

[Amaterasu]

More work on the panorama image:

Hope this comes out - the original image I took this from ("Car Lot") is showing up about 1/2 size it really is (why, no clue):




Goose Neck w/Hole





And a look at the image that was blurred out...  The purple indicates the area that was selected and blurred.  The edges are telltale.

[ArMaP]

Hey ArMaP the Deuem program likes the white color balanced photo the best, What say yee, Ok or junk to use... The raw data files are next in line but not as good for me.

Will making the image greyscale do any difference?

That toy Amy is talking about is right on the line with the next frame. In the panarama it has stiching right through it. Is there a better photo we are missing?

The best I found was the one I posted.

I do not like the idea they went with jpeg, just so they could get a 360 panarama with 20 degree overlaps. They should have only used png or tiff and cut down on the amount of photos. All the compession is like looking through milk for me. It is very hard to split it up when the color pallet is almost the same for the entire photo blured by jpeg.

We can only get better quality photos (based on the IMG files) when they add the photos to the Planetary Data System, and they do it every 3 months or something like that, so we have to wait for those to make better panoramas. Besides that, the better quality photos must be converted from IMG to PNG, a process that is not direct, using at least two different programs, one of those only works in Linux/Unix, so it's not very likely to see a panorama made with those images.

Maybe I will make one.

I did find some details on the mast cameras and they are 2 different set ups. They have different focal lenghts so doing a sterio from them also might be very mis-leading unless you hit the sweet spot. So I am not sure if I can trust any of the mast sterio shots. It is like one eye has 20/20 and the other is nearsighted.

Yes, that's a problem, I usually resize both images so they both have the same size, but the right camera image loses detail and the left camera image becomes blurry.
In some cases is enough to give an idea of the 3D environment, but for small objects or objects close to each other it doesn't give good enough results.

PS: thanks for the English lesson.

[deuem]

ArMaP, if you can find the img file and convert it to png, If you stich it together then we have that problem also added.  I really don't care so much about the color as I do getting rid of the compression. But the white color balance prints do give me a better pallet to look at. To find any wierd patterns.

Amy, I can find many rocks that have Bricked out. It is a common size when the layered stone fractures. They also build walls with the larger ones. So finding a rectangle, round or triangle stone is very possible if you look around large streams. Even rocks with holes in them can be found. Think Ice and cracks, pop

I am not discounting what you wrote, just letting you know what I can find local. Add a couple of million years in the stream and they all turn to sand.

Do you remember I wrote about a fallen rock in the middle of the road. It was almost perfectly square. Looked like a dice. It must have weighed as much as my truck.

Deuem

[ArMaP]

Well then.  Go back to page 1 and see My posting of the screenshot and the processing I did of the "distance."

It would be easier if you marked in the full panorama where those small sections are, searching for something so small in a huge panorama takes a lot of time. The "toy" was easy to find because I could see the edge of the photo.

And I say when One can find MANY anomalous objects that One has to "explain" away as "something natural that We don't understand how it was created," One is seriously doing it wrong.

You are mixing things, you are the one considering them anomalous, I am not.

Take any photo of earth lands and find that many anomalous objects that One cannot attribute to Human inhabitance.  You won't find them.  Just sayin'.

Why any photo? Those rocks were created in specific conditions, looking for rocks like that in the middle of New York wouldn't work, we should look for them in places that have similar conditions.

Wow.  Really?  No sign in that brick (wall)?  The clear blocks that it is constructed of?  Wow, ArMaP.  Is this willful not seeing?

Show me the originals, not the recompressed panorama, I am not going to waste my time looking for a rock in a panorama with thousands of rocks.

[Amaterasu]

It would be easier if you marked in the full panorama where those small sections are, searching for something so small in a huge panorama takes a lot of time. The "toy" was easy to find because I could see the edge of the photo.

Never thought of that.  Did You doubt My source?  [grin]

You are mixing things, you are the one considering them anomalous, I am not.

Ah, well then.  No point in arguing.  Heh.  Yup.  You're right.

Why any photo? Those rocks were created in specific conditions, looking for rocks like that in the middle of New York wouldn't work, we should look for them in places that have similar conditions.

Ehr Ye dense, Lad?  In amongst the "any" are the "appropriate" set, and I guess I figured You'd be bright enough to catch the idea that of those You might choose the best in Your opinion.  But I guess I need to lead You there.

Show me the originals, not the recompressed panorama, I am not going to waste my time looking for a rock in a panorama with thousands of rocks.

Hon, I don't know where the originals are.  That is what I used.  If You find the original let Me know, because I wouldn't know where to begin to look. 

[ArMaP]

Never thought of that.  Did You doubt My source?  [grin]

It's not a question of doubting, it's a question of quality.

Ehr Ye dense, Lad?

I just have this tendency to take words by their true meaning, too bad many people change the meaning according to what they want.

Hon, I don't know where the originals are.  That is what I used.  If You find the original let Me know, because I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Without knowing where in the panorama things are it's very difficult to find the right photos in the hundreds of photos they used on that panorama. Post an image showing where they are and I will search for the originals.

[deuem]

Ok, I agree with both of you an a lot of the things you posted.

Amy, that panarama is so huge, 360 degrees, ArMaP is right, How do we find it.It could be any rock in thousands.

Here is the jist of it.  When doing this type of research we have been lead down fake paths so many times it hurts. One needs to either get the best original or at least state you can't. I stay away from pans because of the stiching. If you can only work off the pan then please crop out a section that is large enough to find [matchup] then box the area in question like rdunk does and then do your work up.

Because others have posted photos from other sites we have no idea if we are all on the same page or it was manipulated before you got it. The carp just gets deeper that way.

If any of us use a source like NASA then we all like to validate it for ourselvess. If a friend points out a UFO in a NASA photo, I go and find it for myself and duplicate that effort.

<blockquote>Never thought of that.  Did You doubt My source?  [grin]</blockquote>   It's not a question of doubting, it's a question of quality.

ArMaP is 100% correct here. Me 3.  Garbage in garbare out.

<blockquote>Ehr Ye dense, Lad? </blockquote>   I just have this tendency to take words by their true meaning, too bad many people change the meaning according to what they want.

Us Americans took over the English language and we all do what ever we want with it. [I hear our british friends booing] But it is strange for us, because we all know the meanings of the words we can play with them however we want to and we all get it. If you are not an American you will never get it. It is how our slang starts.

We use the root meaning for another reason. We all get it....If you listen to American Rap and so do I , we will hear two different songs. I will heard the meaning, you will hear the words. That's why our English is so hard to understand once we get off the book English.

And I don't think it is too bad I think it is a lucky thing. In Chinese you can't do what we do. The subject will change.

Hon, I don't know where the originals are.  That is what I used.  If You find the original let Me know, because I wouldn't know where to begin to look. 

Start with the bigger photo crop down and then ask for help. Easy. The ArMaP blood hound will find it. He seems to be best at that.

Deuem

[Amaterasu]

It's not a question of doubting, it's a question of quality.

Ok.

I just have this tendency to take words by their true meaning, too bad many people change the meaning according to what they want.

Ummmm.  I said, "Take any photo of earth lands and find that many anomalous objects that One cannot attribute to Human inhabitance.  You won't find them.  Just sayin'."  What word(s) there was "changed?"

Without knowing where in the panorama things are it's very difficult to find the right photos in the hundreds of photos they used on that panorama. Post an image showing where they are and I will search for the originals.

I have no clue.  The only link I have is the one I have and which I worked off of.