Yes, Mars Anomalies

[deuem]

Deuem, I'm curious, does the Deuem process show any signs of tampering in this image?

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

But the answer is No. It will not even pull out what Amy did in any dramatic way. The pallet she used must have been sampled off the print and not another print to make something up. Like adding a UFO! When working with a jpg, all the pixels look funny. The compression on these Mars shots almost destroys any pattern of light there is or was. So Deuem goes funny and just sits there looking for pattern and coming up empty.

Not exactly what it was written for but I try anyways.  I don't know why anything on Mars would be 100% white yet that fore stone has it and the glitch had it. Even though the glitch is fixed now the only thing I can say is that it just looks out of place but what rock might not.

I did mention before that it is possible that someone worked this before her. The 2 stones above look like they have paths around them and they are missing a lot of detail. The only rock that had detail was the bottom one in the shaded area.

Lets play with an idea:  Say those 2 rocks up there had a green moss on them and they wanted to hide it. Just something simple. They would path the area, pick the green and move it down the hue range to match or almost match the colors in the rock. For each rock, maybe at least ten or more greens had this happen. You can just pick out 1 or a color group of them. To me when it is processed it will lose definition in the color patterns and they become un-natural but looking but still real.

So Deuem will do what it should and show the new shifted patterns that look like the same color and I will have flat spots. Which did happen? These flat spots maybe just what I wrote. Lines would blur out if they were full of moss. Hence much less definition! All very subjective to say the least! Since we are working with a reflective light to begin with and not an energy source I don't know what else to do. Thinking...

If Amy wants to try a mos rock I will too, Before and after. A standard is needed. like I do on light.....


Deuem

[deuem]

So if someOne comes along and says that My work shows nothing but rocks, all naturally formed, I will call it like I see it, having nothing to do with WHERE in the image what I found was.

If you say you are doing it for fun, then maybe they are too.. Why would your feelings be hurt?

And yes we all can feel that ! Otherwise you would agree and have a    Let people see what they want to see. Once you step over that verbal line and say "it is a toy" and not " it looks like a toy to me" you enter the snake pit. That simple, that quick...

Amy, the best people in the world look these prints over and you entered that ring. Get the gloves up if you don't want to get hit..

I have no standard to work against. I know if you take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. No one will ever know. I can't tell. But if you had many of them and altered them to match an existing pixel color you should end up with a larger group of the cloned color. Now what does that do do to a photo?

ArMaP would have to make a photo, say a blue gradiant with a small red and green striped ball in the middle with both red and green having gradiants. And then see what you could do with it. Get rid of the ball..I would need to test it before and after to see if i could find anything..

Without doing a lot of testing I have no way of knowing what to look for and we have no idea if it can be done like you say on the mars prints..Mars jpg prints are very confussing to the eye.

If this rover was my project it would never have jpg. Period. I would get a lot less prints but they would be better. If I wanted to hide detail, I would force them to use jpg to make it easy for me to fix them when they came in. Bluring garbage with garbage is easy. Taking a very clean ping or tiff is not. One section could take a month to re-color and not have it pop out....

Deuem

[zorgon]

  you enter the snake pit. That simple, that quick...

[zorgon]

A very thin, equal thickness plate that most resembles certain types of hardware made from a piece of metal sheeting.
Center Right...

2P173157084EFFACA0P2440L7M1.JPG


Interesting square blocks, very symetrical...
Lower Left...

2P173157084EFFACA0P2440L7M1.JPG



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...

2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1.JPG


Those images...  so real that a Hardware store paid to advertise on that page

[rdunk]

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

Most everyone wants to take a personal look at the original photos of any serious anomaly - both skeptics for their reasons, and for others for proving the validity of the anomaly. Simply posting a panorama makes that generally too difficult to do effectively. Many, if not most, anomalies are hard for untrained eyes to see them anyway, so very few will waste the time to look completely through a panorama to find a single few inches object that doesn't look much different from surrounding rocks.

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.

There is no gain generally, to post rocky looking items, and make a guess at what they might look like. That is one of the big things that turn even believers off, as there is no real basis of specificity. That is the way people use clouds looking- like...............!

There are real anomalies of intelligent design to be found on Mars, even with photo tampering. I too am very satisfied with the many proofs of intelligent design that I have found, that intelligent life on Mars is proven, beyond any shadow of doubt.

There is no "winning" in anomaly discussions with a skeptic, or skeptics. It is all about light and shadows and rocks and sand and pixels and bad photos or better photos and look at it this way and look at it that way, and it absolutely makes no difference if it is an exact image of a well known article, or a very very obvious artificial object ~~~~~~~~~~~ still nothing but rock, by skeptic "proof". I am not saying to not discuss - I am saying, just know in the beginning where your post will stand with the skeptic.

If you are truly interested in anomaly research, then use the best photos available, and be able to tell folks where the anomalies are generally located in the photos, if not obvious in the photo.

Now just one comment on point - I thought the best looking piece/anomaly in the photos you posted is the "curvy thingy". It does have an un-natural look for what we supposedly know about Mars.






   

[zorgon]

Here are the originals... there is so much scrap metal around here its amazing... Lets dig it up



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1.HTML

[deuem]

Dead snake Ok, lol   

What Z just did on reply the first snake reply was an on the fence move. No Links, No statements, Just a photo. Now anyone can run with it or laugh it off but he kept his feet out of the pit. The fence is a safe place. I do sell fence pillows. See the difference?

Out of the many answers/questions we can now type. Very few of them can bite hard. We are left to think on our own.

The pit is a dangerous place to play.

Deuem

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1.JPG

for the full image direct link which I can't get to today. It is Saturday and the traffic is high.

[zorgon]

.

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.

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

But most skeptics simply cannot see it... either their eye sight is off, monitor is off whatever and all they see is a blur... and when someone else says other wise they believe they must be nuts

Happened in San Jose  We had a huge Copernicus image on a poster... A LLNL physicist was pointing to the artifacts and was actually yelling "What is the matter with you are you BLIND? Its there as plain as the nose on your face!"  to a skeptic who only saw blurs


I had one artifact that I highlighted with purple... only to find out that people cannot see purple if they have trouble with grey scale and see even more blur.

But The Borg.. at ATS   he was a skeptic... till one day I pushed and he finally wrapped his mind around the SCALE we were showing... He then spotted one anomaly and said "Holy Crap... I see it"  After that he found the rest easily... but then vanished from ATS.  Maybe it was too much for him

[zorgon]

Dead snake Ok, lol   

What Z just did on reply the first snake reply was an on the fence move. No Links, No statements, Just a photo.

What you didn't see my two following posts?

Besides these anomalies in that 'snake' picture were on the website since Mike Singh was here.

Does no one look at our own site? LOL

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Mars_Other_02.html

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

You either see 'it' or you don't . Simple
I quit trying to convince. I post what I see. Believe me or not! Doesn't matter.

[rdunk]

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.

[deuem]

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.

[Amaterasu]

The rock is not in shadow.

Sorry, misspoke.  That SIDE of the rock is in shadow, and the limned edge that is not in shadow is nowhere NEAR as white.  Like I said, I fine-tooth-combed that image and there was no other area that white except for the photo edit (which was 100% white).

Obviously. I suppose that's why you ignored the "getting the sun at a different angle" part.

Maybe You didn't grasp, ArMaP - not that little section.  The whole panorama I spent 6 hours going over.  There were no other areas that popped that white.  And that face is in the shade.
 

Why would be something casting shadows and light? Where did you get that idea?

I envisioned something like blinds in effect, if not actual construction.  Casting shadows in lines.  Be that as it may, ArMaP, the stripes are anomalous.

[deuem]

Lets look at the photo Z posted above. I went out to his link and it brought me to another HiRes link which I also posted that link. After 30 minutes I got it.

That Hi Res as they call it is only 1024 x 1024 @ 312 kb. My cell phone which takes garbage photos is better than that. Where are the real photos?

Ok I took that photo into PS and went to pixels. Show me the photo in actual pixels on my screen, then I snapped what i saw. Here it is. All the garbage is then filtered in your eye/brain to make a picture out of it.

Before I get hung, It is a find and it would even put me on a track to find a better photo, Maybe ArMaP can. And to further the research at a high quality level. I can't believe this is what they spent millions of dollars on hand made cameras to get. Right there is where the BS starts. For most people just look at the pretty picture and stop.



I think I could almost hide an elephant in that photo it is so poor..
Deuem

[Amaterasu]

If you say you are doing it for fun, then maybe they are too.. Why would your feelings be hurt?

Um...  Feelings hurt?  Huh?  I guess I have failed in projecting My meanings if at any time You thought My feelings were hurt.  I was merely stating that I have better things to do if the content of the image is not going to be the focus but instead where in the pic the weirdness was found.  [shrug]

And yes we all can feel that ! Otherwise you would agree and have a    Let people see what they want to see. Once you step over that verbal line and say "it is a toy" and not " it looks like a toy to me" you enter the snake pit. That simple, that quick...

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.

Amy, the best people in the world look these prints over and you entered that ring. Get the gloves up if you don't want to get hit..

Ok.  I have no issues with that. 

I have no standard to work against. I know if you take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. No one will ever know. I can't tell. But if you had many of them and altered them to match an existing pixel color you should end up with a larger group of the cloned color. Now what does that do do to a photo?

Removes data.

ArMaP would have to make a photo, say a blue gradiant with a small red and green striped ball in the middle with both red and green having gradiants. And then see what you could do with it. Get rid of the ball..I would need to test it before and after to see if i could find anything..

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

Without doing a lot of testing I have no way of knowing what to look for and we have no idea if it can be done like you say on the mars prints..Mars jpg prints are very confussing to the eye.

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.

If this rover was my project it would never have jpg. Period. I would get a lot less prints but they would be better. If I wanted to hide detail, I would force them to use jpg to make it easy for me to fix them when they came in. Bluring garbage with garbage is easy. Taking a very clean ping or tiff is not. One section could take a month to re-color and not have it pop out....

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.

Deuem[/size]

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