RocK? Or Anomaly With Applied Shadow

[ArMaP]

"Psst", your "skepticism mechanics" is showing.

And that's a bad thing?

If the photos NASA posts were no good, NASA would not post them.

NASA posted all three versions, the first one, converted automatically from the downloaded data to JPEG (the one you use), the original IMG data (that you can see below, as a comparison) and the radiometrically corrected photo (the one I posted before).

Original IMG photo converted to GIF so it can be shown on the forum


Your not recognizing that all photos came from NASA only makes you look like someone that is only looking for confirmation of his own ideas and not for the truth, or like those persons that only look for facebook "likes", I thought you was (or should it be "were"?) better than that.

For you, it is always "find a way" to make everything look less anomalous, or get the discussion going a different direction.

No, it's always "find a way to see if we are wasting time with common things". Seeing something that looks anomalous and not trying to find an explanation creates bad data that only makes it harder to find the truth.

As I said, I will continue to work with what NASA posts, as always!

So will I, as I have done for the last 12 years.

Of course, you have proven no "eye" for what it takes to see anomalous objects anyway!! So, nothing you say ever adds positively to these discussions at all, for me, because you are a hard-over skeptic.

Being a sceptic is good, otherwise I would believe any thing someone say.

The day that you finally admit to seeing a real anomaly, I might BEGIN to see your input in a different way!

That's because you cannot see beyond your desire to find anomalies.

Some years ago there's was a member in another forum that saw buildings and streets in all the photos of Mars, Moon, etc., and, when I showed him/her a photo of something that could not have any buildings or streets he/she still saw them, but when I showed him/her what it was he/she was a little confused and agreed that there couldn't be any houses in it.

[rdunk]

Pimander - "Do you understand now"?

Pimander, I have known about that for quite a long time. Sorry that my not including some expression/reference of that in my comments caused you to do such a detailed piece in trying to help.

My preference has been and will continue to be to use what NASA posts for anomaly research. In all of the what ArMaP calls better pics that he has posted over several years, I have never seen anything (that I recall ) that has changed my opinion for what I have posted....from the NASA posted pics. Pretty much the entire world gets to see what NASA posts, so those pics should be adequate for research and discussion whether doctored or not!!!

[ArMaP]

My preference has been and will continue to be to use what NASA posts for anomaly research.

I will try again: the photos I posted are NASA photos. I consider them has being better because they do not have that high contrast that destroys information.

As I said before, the images posted here are automatically converted to JPEG to an (apparently) constant values of contrast and brightness (or levels) that make the original photos look more like a photocopy.

As an example here's a GIF image created from the original IMG image by using NASAView.


This is what it looks like when I opened the image in Gimp and change the levels from 0-255 to 42-110.


Doesn't it look like the image you posted? But there's still a difference, as the image you posted is a JPEG, saved with an aggressive compression of 75% (I got that value with ImageMagik's "identify" command), so if you open both the image you posted and this similar looking image above in a image processing program and compare them you can clearly see how the JPEG artefacts changes some things on the photo.

As an added bonus, and hoping you decide to learn how to make your anomaly hunting more meaningful, here's an article that may help.

Pretty much the entire world gets to see what NASA posts, so those pics should be adequate for research and discussion whether doctored or not!!!

That depends, the photos NASA posts for research are published on the PDS, and those are the ones I use. The ones you use are not suitable for research.

[rdunk]

ArMaP, another fine example in this thread of your continually talking about everything but the specific posted anomalous feature(s).   

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, another fine example in this thread of your continually talking about everything but the specific posted anomalous feature(s).   

Your post is a good sign of how you avoid any thing that goes against your preconceived ideas.

This thread is about a supposed anomaly. I posted my opinion and another version of the photo. You ignore the better version and keep talking about the worst version as if it's the only one available. I try to make you understand that the better version is the real one and the one you (or anyone else) should use for real research (after all, those are the images used by the scientists), and you say that I talk about everything but the anomalous features.

So, to make it clear, here's my opinion about your "anomalous features": they only exist in your mind, based on flawed analysis of a bad copy of a photo and a stubbornness in avoiding real answers and only looking for confirmation of your own bias.

Good luck finding real anomalies with that mindset.

[Pimander]

Pimander, I have known about that for quite a long time.

Then some of your previous posts were really disingenuous.  There is nothing clever about playing the idiot.

My preference has been and will continue to be to use what NASA posts for anomaly research. In all of the what ArMaP calls better pics that he has posted over several years, I have never seen anything (that I recall ) that has changed my opinion for what I have posted....

If you can't see that is a rock more clearly in the picture ArMaP posted then you need to find a different hobby.

{alternatively you can see that but won't admit it - which is the opposite of the spirit of collaborative research}

Pretty much the entire world gets to see what NASA posts, so those pics should be adequate for research and discussion whether doctored or not!!!

No, that is nonsense.  If there are better images available then we should use them.  It is plain stupid not to.

[rdunk]

The pics that ArMaP posts IMO are certainly not better for anomaly research, as taking out pic contrast makes it more difficult to even see the ground, much less details for what is on the ground. No, I ignore them because they  (as ArMaP presents them) definitely do not show the details of the photos as well as do those which NASA posts directly.

And to ArMaP, I do not have any "preconceived ideas" relative to anomalies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! However, I am willing to accept what I see in photos as being anomalous, if objects appear as being more than simply rocks and sand - something of the which (over several years) you seem to be absolutely incapable of doing. 

[Pimander]

No, I ignore them because they  (as ArMaP presents them) definitely do not show the details of the photos as well as do those which NASA posts directly.

You clearly don't understand what I posted about image formats and compression.  I apologise, you may not have been disingenuous if that is the case.

However, I am willing to accept what I see in photos as being anomalous....

...even when the "anomalies" are obviously artefacts caused by compression or they are not there in the original uncompressed picture?

There are interesting anomalies out there but it is a waste of time if you don't eliminate what is obviously not anomalous.

[ArMaP]

The pics that ArMaP posts IMO are certainly not better for anomaly research, as taking out pic contrast makes it more difficult to even see the ground, much less details for what is on the ground.

It's the opposite, the images I posted don't have contrast removed, the image you posted has the contrast changed, that's why I could recreate the look of the image you posted with the image I posted but if we do the opposite we don't end with an image similar the one I posted.

No, I ignore them because they  (as ArMaP presents them) definitely do not show the details of the photos as well as do those which NASA posts directly.

The detail is there, the image you posted is the result of increasing the contrast of the image I posted.

And to ArMaP, I do not have any "preconceived ideas" relative to anomalies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was not what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant is that you have preconceived ideas about the photos and those preconceived ideas make you ignore the better data and keep on working with the worse data.

However, I am willing to accept what I see in photos as being anomalous, if objects appear as being more than simply rocks and sand - something of the which (over several years) you seem to be absolutely incapable of doing. 

I am capable of doing it, just look around the main The Living Moon site. There aren't many, but they exist.

[rdunk]

ArMaP said, "I am capable of doing it, just look around the main The Living Moon site. There aren't many, but they exist".

ArMaP, I will accept that, if you say it is so! I would like to ask you, can you visualize the 2 primary Mars anomalies shown in my avatar? 

[ArMaP]

I would like to ask you, can you visualize the 2 primary Mars anomalies shown in my avatar? 

No, I see nothing anomalous in that image.

[rdunk]

No, I see nothing anomalous in that image.

Of course!! Obviously my avatar is a crop from one of my prior posts quite some time ago. To me........it is one of the best true anomalies I have seen. It is a Martian surface reality of alien intelligent life - "alien" because it is a reptilian, and "intelligent" because someone designed and manufactured this small annotated metal-looking ID tag/shield.

For a refresher, here is the link to the prior (Feb. 2012) Mars Reptilian post that I mentioned........which you did not see or comment on at the time - maybe you can see it now!! 

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=709.0

[ArMaP]

For a refresher, here is the link to the prior (Feb. 2012) Mars Reptilian post that I mentioned........which you did not see or comment on at the time - maybe you can see it now!! 

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=709.0

I saw it at the time, but, like now, I don't find it worth discussing.

[rdunk]

I saw it at the time, but, like now, I don't find it worth discussing.

Just making a point - you didn't see it worth discussing back then either. This is a very real anomaly, with easy to see anomalous features, and you didn't admit to seeing them!! 

[ArMaP]

This is a very real anomaly, with easy to see anomalous features, and you didn't admit to seeing them!!

To you they may look like anomalous features, to me they look like common Mars rocks.