RocK? Or Anomaly With Applied Shadow

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, if you would take a magnifying glass and closely look at the black object in either of our "still photos", you should easily see that the arm is solidly connected at the shoulder of this body.

That's one of the silliest things someone can do while analysing a photo, as it will show the elements that compose each pixel on the screen.

Maybe the shaking pic gives you a distraction, caused by the noticeable bumps on the top of the arm, and by the outward stretching of the curving arm at the elbow?? The attachment looks solid to me!

It's not the "shaking", you can see it on the following parallel viewing (not direct view, like I called it earlier ) and anaglyph images below.





PS: I usually use the animated GIF to give a 3D idea because many people are not able to use parallel viewing (I cannot do it when I'm tired, although it gives the best results) or have one of those red/cyan glasses to see an anaglyph. As someone that is frequently looking at photos taken by the rovers on Mars I strongly suggest you get a pair of those glasses (if you cannot use parallel viewing), as it helps a lot in seeing things in 3D, making some of the panoramas even more interesting.

[rdunk]

ArMaP said, "That's one of the silliest things someone can do while analysing a photo, as it will show the elements that compose each pixel on the screen."

Well, If you think the arm is not connected to the shoulder of this reptilian-looking being, then you do need to magnify the photo, so that you can actually see what is there to see. Individual pixel element magnification is what sounds silly to me, if that is what you do to analyze photos. Simply magnifying the full photo so that you can better see the full details should be sufficient in this matter, for you to see!!!!

ArMaP said, "It's not the "shaking", you can see it on the following parallel viewing (not direct view, like I called it earlier ) and anaglyph images below."

ArMaP, you are simply "making up" a story about an unconnected arm to shoulder/body for the reptilian-looking black form in these photos. There is no space between the arm and body to show non-connection. No, a different type of viewing glasses is not needed for viewing these photos. Actually, the slightly colorized photos you posted here are even less clear and less seeable than are the basic jpeg photos.

[rdunk]

Pimander said, again, "But if you look at the pictures, there is no black object there.  There are parts of the image of the rock in shadow and there is a darker shadow on the ground but there is no black object in the image....


No Pi, your continually saying, "there is no black object there" does not change what the photo shows. There is a starkly difference in the make-up and look of the rock-looking stuff there, and the make-up and look of the black reptilian-looking object. And of course, if you cannot even "see" the black object, then our even discussing it is useless. it is there, and there is no real explanation for why it is there. 

Pimander said, "What you are calling the "geometric piece" has the same texture as the rock a little to its right.  It just looks like a different shaped rock to me."


Again NO! It is obvious that the geometric piece does not have "the same texture" as an adjacent rock in the normal black and white photos. When ArMaP colorizes the photo, then the differences are harder to discern! But their textures look are vastly different in the actual photos. It is fine, if it looks like a rock to you Pi, but that is not what I clearly see, with the geometric piece, and with the whole package here. 

Pimander said, "What I find interesting about the psychology is that you can't entertain the possibility that you might be wrong.

Pi, I report what I am seeing, not what I "think" I see!! What I am surprised at is that you can see nothing at all anomalous in this photo, especially with what you relate as your background. I spent a lot of years looking at aero engineering drawings and other stuff for various purposes, so my eyes too are well trained to see, probably as good or better than most. Then on top of that I have the mind of an investigating detective, all of which seems to compliment my ability to see "stuff". That is why I have seen enough here at this crater to believe this possibly was/is a burial place! And this black object - a VERY ODD CADAVER, pretty much confirms that!!!!! 

Pimander, do you want to see an empty grave??

[ArMaP]

Well, If you think the arm is not connected to the shoulder of this reptilian-looking being, then you do need to magnify the photo, so that you can actually see what is there to see.

I already did that, and there's not only a difference in the distance from the "arm" to the "nose" between the left and right photos, showing, that the "arm" is closer to the camera than the area of the body where it should be attached, but we can also see two or three pixels of is behind the "arm", something that shouldn't happen if the "arm" was connected with the "body".

Individual pixel element magnification is what sounds silly to me, if that is what you do to analyze photos.

Do you know how a pixel is created in the screen?

Simply magnifying the full photo so that you can better see the full details should be sufficient in this matter, for you to see!!!!

That's what the zoom feature was created, many years ago.

ArMaP, you are simply "making up" a story about an unconnected arm to shoulder/body for the reptilian-looking black form in these photos.

No, I don't make up stories.

There is no space between the arm and body to show non-connection. No, a different type of viewing glasses is not needed for viewing these photos. Actually, the slightly colorized photos you posted here are even less clear and less seeable than are the basic jpeg photos.

You don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about, do you?

Have you ever seen one of these?

[ArMaP]

When ArMaP colorizes the photo, then the differences are harder to discern!

I didn't "colourized" the photo, that's an anaglyph. Read the Wikipedia article about it in the link on my previous post.

Pi, I report what I am seeing, not what I "think" I see!!

Not really, we are all reporting what we think we see, as what we see is interpreted in the brain, that's why there are things like optical illusions.

[rdunk]

ArMaP, No! No! No! I am not getting into a "who knows best" with you on photos, as you have with funbox and other persons here in similar anomaly posts, talking about "everything" other than the anomaly itself!!  That such is totally distracting from the intent of the basic conversation on anomaly photos.. I do not care if you have a Phd in photo shop, that such does not apply to what we have here. It is ludicrous to propose/think that the arm of the reptilian-looking object is not connected to the body at the shoulder The photos I have, and have posted, plainly show the arm is connected, and that is quite good enough for me.

And no, I am not at all interested in your colored glasses either..........for the same reasons!!     

The feature/anomaly (off OP topic -reptilian) posted during discussion plainly has reptilian features, whether android or now dead/was buried alien, and details of all features together "make it so"!! That is what I clearly see!!!!! ............a little tough for anomaly debunking when the photos are so good isn't it??

[Pimander]

It is ludicrous to propose/think that the arm of the reptilian-looking object is not connected to the body at the shoulder

rdunk, you're so obsessed by the idea that you are right that you are missing something pretty obvious.

If you can see the shadows cast by the large rock and the "arm" then you will see there is a gap between the shadows.  That gap could not be there if the rocks (or arms whatever ) did not have a gap between then.

The light has to be passing between the gap.  It is impossible for that shadow to be there with the gap otherwise.

On the subject of image analysis.  You need to get as much data from the images as possible if you want to understand what you are looking at.  It is not about "who knows best" but about understanding and data.  You can't research something properly without good data (and knowing what the data means).

I posted an image earlier that looks like a face.  It doesn't mean it is a face.  Because I have more data about the image, I know exactly what it is.



Like I say, it is impossible for the shadow to have the gap without a gap between the rocks. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."  Ergo, the "arm" is not connected to the rock ("reptilian body" or whatever you think it is.)  It is impossible.


ETA:  If you can't concede that there is a gap in the shadow and therefore light must be passing between the rocks then I can only conclude that you are delusional and incapable of thinking about the image rationally.

[Pimander]

Pimander, do you want to see an empty grave??

The immortal Pimander has no fear of graves. 


Why, O Men of the Offspring of Earth, why have you delivered yourselves over unto Death, having power to partake of Immortality? Repent and change your minds, you that have together walked in Error, and have been darkened in ignorance.

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, No! No! No! I am not getting into a "who knows best" with you on photos, as you have with funbox and other persons here in similar anomaly posts, talking about "everything" other than the anomaly itself!!  That such is totally distracting from the intent of the basic conversation on anomaly photos..

How can the basis of what you are using for your "research" be a distraction? You are "analysing" a photo, knowing about those photos and what tools to use should be part of your work.

I do not care if you have a Phd in photo shop, that such does not apply to what we have here.

I do not have a Phd in anything, but as I started looking into photos from space missions I thought it was a good idea to learn about them and how to use all the tools available. I thought that anyone interested in this topic would follow the same process, but it looks like I was wrong.

It is ludicrous to propose/think that the arm of the reptilian-looking object is not connected to the body at the shoulder

It's just an opinion, like yours.

The photos I have, and have posted, plainly show the arm is connected, and that is quite good enough for me.

The photos you have posted are the same I have posted, I only added the photo from the right camera and created 3D images made with them.

The fact that you act like there's only one photo and one way of looking at it is interesting. Sad, but interesting.

And no, I am not at all interested in your colored glasses either..........for the same reasons!!     

I agree, they are the same reasons, too bad you don't see how wrong you are in your approach.

The feature/anomaly (off OP topic -reptilian) posted during discussion plainly has reptilian features, whether android or now dead/was buried alien, and details of all features together "make it so"!! That is what I clearly see!!!!! ............a little tough for anomaly debunking when the photos are so good isn't it??

There's no need of debunking an opinion.

[rdunk]

Pimsandere said, "rdunk, you're so obsessed by the idea that you are right that you are missing something pretty obvious".


Pimander, I am not "obsessed" as you say with anything related to anomaly stuff - I simply know what I am seeing is what is there in this instance!! What I have reported is clearly visible in the photos.

Pimander also said, "If you can see the shadows cast by the large rock and the "arm" then you will see there is a gap between the shadows.  That gap could not be there if the rocks (or arms whatever ) did not have a gap between then.

The light has to be passing between the gap.  It is impossible for that shadow to be there with the gap otherwise.


NOPE, not so!! The shadows there show that the sun is pretty much directly overhead! With that being the case, is why there is a very narrow "arm shadow, down the length of the arm, to what I will refer to as the elbpw. There are 2 other small visible shadows we can also see here.

First off, I do now see something a little differently than I have see before in this. I have been seeing the reptilian-looking object's head as being raised as if it were above the round (because of a shadow there). I now see that there are "2" small shadows there, and the head is laying on the ground. The nearest small shadow, just at the shoulder area, is a shadow on the near side of a very small rock, Then the other very small shadow is on the ground beside the head.  I do hope that you too can see this small rock, as it can give an impression of "light shining through, if not see correctly. The sun is shining on the top of that little rock. I will post a screenshot from a different photo that shows this area a little better. This photo also clearly shows that there is no disconnection between the arm and shoulder of this being.

Thanks for your comments!!!

[rdunk]

How can the basis of what you are using for your "research" be a distraction? You are "analysing" a photo, knowing about those photos and what tools to use should be part of your work.
I do not have a Phd in anything, but as I started looking into photos from space missions I thought it was a good idea to learn about them and how to use all the tools available. I thought that anyone interested in this topic would follow the same process, but it looks like I was wrong.
It's just an opinion, like yours.
The photos you have posted are the same I have posted, I only added the photo from the right camera and created 3D images made with them.

The fact that you act like there's only one photo and one way of looking at it is interesting. Sad, but interesting.
I agree, they are the same reasons, too bad you don't see how wrong you are in your approach.
There's no need of debunking an opinion.

Just to make it clear ArMaP, none of your comments here have any relevance to the secondary anomaly being discussed here, as is not unusual for you! So, I see no real anomaly basis for a reply!!! 

[ArMaP]

Just to make it clear ArMaP, none of your comments here have any relevance to the secondary anomaly being discussed here, as is not unusual for you! So, I see no real anomaly basis for a reply!!! 

Don't you think that someone analysing something should be familiar with the technology that related to that something and with all the tools he/she can use to help in his/her work?

[rdunk]

Don't you think that someone analysing something should be familiar with the technology that related to that something and with all the tools he/she can use to help in his/her work?

ArMaP, here "with anomalies", we are not talking about chemical composition, DNA testing, the Theory of Relativity, anti-gravity, turbine engine thrust, and the such like. Here for I, and hopefully for most others, with anomalies we are talking about what is/can/cannot be seen in a (now)-digitally made photograph. Not much "technology" needed for doing that for most people. Photos are photos, and what is in the photos is what was there for the camera to see when the photos were taken.

ArMaP, whatever photo technology you have and like to use.......you "ALWAYS" use it in such ways for strictly "DEBUNKING" photos. and your comments often go in the direction of getting off of discussing the anomaly itself! That is what you did/do at ATS, and that is what you do here. You do it in a controlled and nice way here, and that is a good, thing! But, at the bottom line of anomaly discussion we can always know that your position is negative, regardless of the anomaly presentation.

One thing I do not remember.......in the thousands of anomaly posts you probably have seen, you have admitted to seeing only 1 actual anomaly - was that an admission that you actual did see a real anomaly, or was it that the you just saw something you could not explain??

For sure, we do not have much anomaly posting here - past or present.......I wonder why??

[ArMaP]

Here for I, and hopefully for most others, with anomalies we are talking about what is/can/cannot be seen in a (now)-digitally made photograph. Not much "technology" needed for doing that for most people. Photos are photos, and what is in the photos is what was there for the camera to see when the photos were taken.

Yes, photos are photos, but I think it's important to know the technology behind it, regardless of being digital or chemical. For example, I think that knowing that changing the contrast in an image reduces the amount of colours (or shades of grey) is important, and I have seen people applying a high contrast to make things clearer. Yes, it makes some things clearer, but it destroys the more subtle tone changes.

I also think it's important to know that the photos from most rover cameras are (usually) taken in pairs, so when in doubt we can look at the two to get an idea of how things really looked at the time the photo was taken, and to me, the depth information we can get by using the photos from the left and right camera is more important than the colour information.

ArMaP, whatever photo technology you have and like to use.......you "ALWAYS" use it in such ways for strictly "DEBUNKING" photos.

When looking at photos the technology that matters is the one used to take those photos, not any technology that I may have, the only things I have are tools, and those are available to any one, as I use free tools. And yes, I think we all should start by trying to debunk all our findings (the interpretations, not the photos themselves, as the camera doesn't lie ).

An example is those photos taken by one of the rovers showing a bright light in the distance. Some people created some theories about what it could be, but if we looked at all the available information we could see that the rover was coming from that area, and, when looking at the photos from other sols we could see that the light was being reflected by part of the heat shield that protected the rover during the descent and was discarded after landing.

and your comments often go in the direction of getting off of discussing the anomaly itself!

To know if something is really an anomaly on the scene we need to rule out all other possibilities, because, like Sherlock Holmes said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth", so if we cannot eliminate something then it must the truth.

That is what you did/do at ATS, and that is what you do here.

Yes, I'm consistent.

You do it in a controlled and nice way here, and that is a good, thing!

Sometimes it's hard, but I try.

But, at the bottom line of anomaly discussion we can always know that your position is negative, regardless of the anomaly presentation.

That's because you don't present things for which I cannot find an explanation. Find me something really unexplained and I will consider it as such.

One thing I do not remember.......in the thousands of anomaly posts you probably have seen, you have admitted to seeing only 1 actual anomaly - was that an admission that you actual did see a real anomaly, or was it that the you just saw something you could not explain??

More than one, and it means that I saw something for which I couldn't find an explanation, so, if it wasn't normal, it was an anomaly.

Your question now made me think about what mean by "real anomaly"? Isn't an anomaly, for you too, something that you can't explain? How can there be "real" anomalies and some other kind of anomaly?

For sure, we do not have much anomaly posting here - past or present.......I wonder why??

That is also happening on ATS, the Curiosity 2016 anomalies thread has very little activity.

[Pimander]

I now see that there are "2" small shadows there, and the head is laying on the ground. The nearest small shadow, just at the shoulder area, is a shadow on the near side of a very small rock, Then the other very small shadow is on the ground beside the head

Yes, I see a small rock as well.  I also see that the sun is high but it is casting shadows...

It looks like I need to draw some arrows to show you what I mean without any more confusion.  It's just too hard in words to get the point across well.  I'll try to find time later, I'm not great at faffing with image programs.

On the theme of further data, this image is helpful to see that the "shoulder" is not connected.  At the top you can see "behind" the "shoulder into the gap to the big rock.