a martian oddbox

[zorgon]

Rocks.

Are you QUALIFIED to make that assessment?

What would you call THIS

Although the objects are bigger than the 8x8 blocks the details appear smaller. Is that from the other link you posted or from a different photo (as it looks like)? I don't like to comment on altered images.
Too much contrast, as in all other occasions when people point to areas that appear too dark but that on the higher quality images posted on the PDS show some detail on those areas.

I agree with you on altered images (though I do accept coloration to better highlight an object) I always want the original so I can reproduce the artifact myself  other wise I ignore it.

But being a geologist, rockhound and fossil hunter  I can look at a picture of rocks and point out things in that picture that are NOT 'just rocks'  Those things would be a crystal, a natural formation such as a geode, concreation or basalt formation... and fossils

Like in THIS image from the older Mar Rovers  (Yes it is colorized but I have the original )



Original here
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/p/016/2P127793693EFF0327P2371R1M1.JPG

Here is one with the main objects of interst circled  Look at them closely and tell me again they are just rocks

And the top image with the coin? Those are fossil see shells..

You may be comfortable saying "Rocks" but to me pictures of rocks tell a story.


I once posted a banner at ATS about the qualifications you need to be able to state as fact "Its only rocks"

These are NATURAL columns. The Rock is Basalt which forms hexagonal sections. There is a lot of basalt on Mars which would account for a lot of rocks looking like ancient structures like the small pyramid posted earlier



But until you learn about the nature of rocks, saying it's just a rock is not valid

Like the gear shaped artifact on the Moon, there are many images on both the moon and mars that indicate either a fossil, or fragment of some ancient race...

Like THIS one found by Mike Singh



Also look at the object to the right of the 'spanner'  the one that looks like a vest of armor.  It is hollow as you can see light through it,,,

[ArMaP]

Are you QUALIFIED to make that assessment?

As much as any other person that, although not a geologist, likes geology, has found several fossils and is looking at a photo taken on a different planet.

What would you call THIS

Rocks and a coin.
And some grass-like vegetation in two different states, green and dry.

But being a geologist, rockhound and fossil hunter  I can look at a picture of rocks and point out things in that picture that are NOT 'just rocks'  Those things would be a crystal, a natural formation such as a geode, concreation or basalt formation... and fossils

Although not "just rocks", aren't those, even fossils, all rocks?

You may be comfortable saying "Rocks" but to me pictures of rocks tell a story.

They sure do, that's one of the reasons I prefer to see the whole photo and not just a clipped area showing the "anomaly", to get an idea of how the area looks like.

In the case of those Mars rocks with holes they do look like the ventifacts on Antarctica. The "spanner" is an interesting case, as it does look a little out of place, but the material looks to be the same as the other rocks.

[funbox]

Rocks.

Although the objects are bigger than the 8x8 blocks the details appear smaller. Is that from the other link you posted or from a different photo (as it looks like)? I don't like to comment on altered images.

jack of clubs part of the anomaly .. how ?
how does the 'rock' elongate and then branch ?
are the two moon's representative of Phobos and Diemos ?

altered image ?, I gave you the link to the original rawjpg
see there's nothing up my sleeves, and contrast adjustments don't add detail, or, are you now saying Raws are the correct representations , even Nasa rebalances they're pictures.

I think, if it wasn't for processing not a single true colour picture would ever be seen, unless you manually white balanced before taking shots. nonsense , processing is a necessity for accuracy.

what's dishonest is trying to brand it as tampering

funbox

[ArMaP]

jack of clubs part of the anomaly .. how ?

In the same way other sedimentary rocks (I think this one looks like a sedimentary rock) form.

how does the 'rock' elongate and then branch ?

What do you mean by "elongate" and "branch"?

are the two moon's representative of Phobos and Diemos ?

What two moons? Regardless of being a rock or not, those are obviously not moons. And you misspelled Deimos.

altered image ?, I gave you the link to the original rawjpg

That's why I asked if it was the same, you only had to say "yes".

see there's nothing up my sleeves, and contrast adjustments don't add detail, or, are you now saying Raws are the correct representations , even Nasa rebalances they're pictures.

I don't see your sleeves, so I cannot say if there's something up your sleeves or not, and although contrast adjustments don't add detail they do remove detail, so they really change the image.

I think, if it wasn't for processing not a single true colour picture would ever be seen, unless you manually white balanced before taking shots. nonsense , processing is a necessity for accuracy.

Processing done by those that know the characteristics of the camera, to get the best results, yes, processing added to make things look different just to look different, no.

what's dishonest is trying to brand it as tampering

I didn't use the word "tampering", why are you using it? And you talk about dishonesty? 

[zorgon]

Rocks and a coin.

At least your honest and consistent...  but that defeats the entire purpose of looking at photos to discover what EXACTLY is there to see...

Although not "just rocks", aren't those, even fossils, all rocks?

No a rock is a combination of two or more minerals... Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms. In the case of a sea shell the actual shell becomes the fossil so it is not a rock... even when in the case pf petrified wood where the original tree is replaced by a mineral like silica

So when looking for evidence of life on other worlds in photos, when you spot one that looks like a fossil... it likely is

They sure do, that's one of the reasons I prefer to see the whole photo and not just a clipped area showing the "anomaly", to get an idea of how the area looks like.

That is why I always provide the original, the cropping the close up and the high light  because what some of us can see like its a BEACON others seem to have difficulty spotting things

The "spanner" is an interesting case, as it does look a little out of place, but the material looks to be the same as the other rocks.

How so? the 'spanner' looks like a curved bent thin piece of metal, not a fractured chunk of rock. The 'spanner', the 'gears' on the moon, the rectangle in Daedelus Crater are three of many we have... But if your just looking for rocks... that is all you will see

[ArMaP]

At least your honest and consistent...  but that defeats the entire purpose of looking at photos to discover what EXACTLY is there to see...

I don't understand it, what defeats the purpose?

No a rock is a combination of two or more minerals... Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms. In the case of a sea shell the actual shell becomes the fossil so it is not a rock... even when in the case pf petrified wood where the original tree is replaced by a mineral like silica

I thought a rock could be made of just one mineral, like the definition from Wikipedia.

In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of one or more minerals or mineraloids. For example, the common rock granite is a combination of the quartz, feldspar and biotite minerals. The Earth's outer solid layer, the lithosphere, is made of rock.

I was thinking of a fossil as the mark left by the shell, not the shell itself, as to me a shell is a shell.

So when looking for evidence of life on other worlds in photos, when you spot one that looks like a fossil... it likely is

Sometimes, yes, but in some cases, not even when we have the object in our hands are we able to know if it's a fossil or not.

How so? the 'spanner' looks like a curved bent thin piece of metal, not a fractured chunk of rock.

Why do you say it looks like metal? What properties specific to metal and impossible for a rock or mineral does it show?

But if your just looking for rocks... that is all you will see

The same can be said of those that are looking for fossils, right?

Me, I'm just looking.

[funbox]

you suggested I was tampering with the images, I just cut a word that cuts all the crap out

Although the objects are bigger than the 8x8 blocks the details appear smaller. Is that from the other link you posted or from a different photo (as it looks like)? I don't like to comment on altered images.

how else am I to interpret that

What two moons? Regardless of being a rock or not, those are obviously not moons. And you misspelled Deimos.

you cannot see two crescent moons? , or did you think I meant two real moons ? Phobos and Deeemoss came down to land no, look what's on the rock in front of the alien arm that's been severed up by the elbow

Processing done by those that know the characteristics of the camera, to get the best results, yes, processing added to make things look different just to look different, no.

so again you try to discredit me by saying that im tampering with the image

does talking about  anomalies make you feel uncomfortable or something? instead , trying to deny it behind a wall of image tampering and artefacts ?

Processing done by those that know the characteristics of the camera, to get the best results, yes, processing added to make things look different just to look different, no.

.... are you sure your not saying im tampering with the images

I didn't use the word "tampering", why are you using it? And you talk about dishonesty? 

tampering sums up your post to me quite nicely , saves all those unnecessary words

funbox

funbox

[ArMaP]

you suggested I was tampering with the images, I just cut a word that cuts all the crap out

I suggested nothing.

how else am I to interpret that

By reading what's there and not what's not there.

you cannot see two crescent moons?

See, that's the problem I have with the way you write, if you had written "crescents" or "crescent moons" I would have understood that you were talking about the crescent-looking shadows.

or did you think I meant two real moons ? Phobos and Deeemoss came down to land

As I said before I have a hard time understanding what you mean.

no, look what's on the rock in front of the alien arm that's been severed up by the elbow

In cases like this I think the best way would be for you to post an image with what you are talking about marked in some way, that would make it easier for everyone to understand what you mean.

so again you try to discredit me by saying that im tampering with the image

No, that was not about you, read what I wrote.

does talking about  anomalies make you feel uncomfortable or something? instead , trying to deny it behind a wall of image tampering and artefacts ?

No, it doesn't make me uncomfortable or anything else, but there's one fundamental thing about data processing, "garbage in, garbage out", nobody can get good results from bad data, so I always look for the best quality data available, try to ignore the more obvious JPEG compression artefacts (something that even the images from the older rovers, that are sent without lossy compression, have on the NASA site where they publish the "raw" photos that are not really "raw") and the effects of using too much contrast and/or brightness.

.... are you sure your not saying im tampering with the images

Yes, I'm sure, if I want to say it I will, with all the letters (as we say in Portugal).

tampering sums up your post to me quite nicely , saves all those unnecessary words

I suppose that shows that I'm not the only one not understanding what other people write, the biggest difference being that I do not assume what the other means, like you are doing in this case.

[funbox]

so you don't think that ive altered the image to make the tenticular looking stone, look more tenticular

or

that I've made the crescent shaped dark patches more crescent shaped ?

accentuated the lines of the box ?

or any image tampering has been done by me ?

*please sign here*

funbox

[zorgon]

I thought a rock could be made of just one mineral, like the definition from Wikipedia.

In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of one or more minerals or mineraloids. For example, the common rock granite is a combination of the quartz, feldspar and biotite minerals. The Earth's outer solid layer, the lithosphere, is made of rock.

But the definition you quoted says "solid aggregate of one or more minerals"

I was thinking of a fossil as the mark left by the shell, not the shell itself, as to me a shell is a shell.

Impressions are sometimes included in fossils, but any serious study will clarify the difference between and impression and a true fossil/ Example a foot print left by a dinosaur in ancient mud that hardened is not a fossil

Sometimes, yes, but in some cases, not even when we have the object in our hands are we able to know if it's a fossil or not.

Any one with basic geological knowledge can recognize a fossil in a hand held specimen unless they are micro fossils requiring magnification... but then we are not talking about micro specimens in Mars photos

Why do you say it looks like metal? What properties specific to metal and impossible for a rock or mineral does it show?

Because to ME from having been in the field hunting rocks and minerals all my life since I was 10, I have learned to recognize certain characteristics specific to rocks, minerals and bent old corroded pieces of metal..

Can I say the spanner is 100% metal? No  that is why I said it LOOKS like metal As for specifics  the upper section that is thin and curved LOOKS like metal. The rocks in that region are basalt  so there would be no fancy curved mineral specimens on the surface

So my years of hands on experience allow me to look at THIS image and tell you that the rocks you see are Vesicular Basalt and Scoria  ( a fact that even NASA agrees with )




When I said  'defeats the purpose' I mean what is the point of just LOOKING without looking FOR something special in the photo? The purpose of anomaly hunting is to find anomalies in the available photos

And the photos we have to work with are several levels better than the ones the Air Force anomaly hunters had available to find anomalies on earth to plan their bombing targets

Me, I'm just looking.

Yes I know... but WE are looking FOR anomalies

[zorgon]

NASA is also looking for fossils



http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_m030.html

[ArMaP]

so you don't think that ive altered the image to make the tenticular looking stone, look more tenticular

or

that I've made the crescent shaped dark patches more crescent shaped ?

accentuated the lines of the box ?

No, I think you only the usual (and, to me, useless) changes in size, brightness and contrast.

or any image tampering has been done by me ?

In the sense of altering the image to make it look like something different? No.

[zorgon]

[zorgon]

No, I think you only the usual (and, to me, useless) changes in size, brightness and contrast.

It may be useless to YOU but just about everyone else recognizes that adding a little color to high light the object in question, zooming it, and adjusting contrast are valid methods to show an object

NASA does it all the time

In the sense of altering the image to make it look like something different? No.

No  in the sense to highlight the object in question so those with poor vision, bad monitors and other vision defects can better see what you are showing

As long as the ORIGINAL is also included people like yourself can go look for them selves

[ArMaP]

But the definition you quoted says "solid aggregate of one or more minerals"

Yes, it says "one or more", that's what I was saying, that, to me, a rock can be made from just one mineral.

Impressions are sometimes included in fossils, but any serious study will clarify the difference between and impression and a true fossil/ Example a foot print left by a dinosaur in ancient mud that hardened is not a fossil

I should have been clearer when I wrote "the mark left by the shell", as I meant something like these, some of the few that we still have.

Any one with basic geological knowledge can recognize a fossil in a hand held specimen unless they are micro fossils requiring magnification... but then we are not talking about micro specimens in Mars photos

I was think about sedimentary rocks that look somewhat like bones, for example, something like this one I have and that looked like a vertebra when I found it half burried.

Because to ME from having been in the field hunting rocks and minerals all my life since I was 10, I have learned to recognize certain characteristics specific to rocks, minerals and bent old corroded pieces of metal..

Aren't things a little different in greyscale photos?

Can I say the spanner is 100% metal? No  that is why I said it LOOKS like metal As for specifics  the upper section that is thin and curved LOOKS like metal. The rocks in that region are basalt  so there would be no fancy curved mineral specimens on the surface

Looking at photos taken with different filters (if available) could help, as if it looks different from the rocks in at least one of the photos it's likely to be a different material.

I think there are other photos from that area.

So my years of hands on experience allow me to look at THIS image and tell you that the rocks you see are Vesicular Basalt and Scoria  ( a fact that even NASA agrees with )

Yes, I remember that photo.
My experience only allows me to see some rocks as sedimentary or volcanic.

When I said  'defeats the purpose' I mean what is the point of just LOOKING without looking FOR something special in the photo?

Because when someone is looking for a specific thing it's easier to miss other things that may be important.

The purpose of anomaly hunting is to find anomalies in the available photos

I'm not anomaly hunting.

And the photos we have to work with are several levels better than the ones the Air Force anomaly hunters had available to find anomalies on earth to plan their bombing targets

I doubt that they had photos with JPEG compression. 

Yes I know... but WE are looking FOR anomalies

And I'm looking at what you find.

Can't I comment on that?

PS: what does your hands on experience says about the photos on this thread?