interesting object found on Google Mars

[mcrom901]

Fair enough.

good, with that settled.... let's get back on topic....

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/1500/Mars-Rover-Octopus--1790.jpg

[qxcontinuum]

I personaly think the spelling is not really important if the mesage is sent fordward and understood by others. it could be just a pitty justification of a linqvistic handicap. 5 years in Ontario still working on it. My impression was always that in a regular discussion, others will always look for weaknesses in their oponents as to struck when they are missing arguments. It is in the human nature i guess, but it also depends on the level of tolerance and intelectual development of the parties involved in conversation.

I also speak French, German and Romanian, in writing too. Very confusing languages and complex grammer

Now speaking of Nasa; aplause for all of their missions. Finger down for keeping the public informed. The curiosity rover left me a bit of a bitter taste. 3.5 billion dollars top tech investigating unit while the master cam was only 2.1mega pixel? LOL

Is like sending a blind detective to a murder scene. I was excited and optimistic every since the launch, but then i found on the way that curiosity is not so curious. The best example was the metallic object stick to a rock, cleary different than everything else seen in the landscape, stearing the community in excitment but nasa was not willing to consider investigating further, even more resuming only to supositions claimimg to be largely a rock shaped by the wind. Then it was the announcement of an earthshaking discovery to be announced later, wich turns out to be nothing more than something we all knew.

I dont even want to bring in the discussion the Fallus picture What happened there? Not very professional!

What is this?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/09/mysterious_metal_mars_object/

Or what is the Martian flower?

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/120410/Martian_Flower_Growing_on_Mars_Spotted_by_NASA_Curiosity_Rover/

Why we have a 3.5 millions dollars rover there with 18 cameras but no explanation or macro pictures?

I am not a conspiracionist and my questions are just similar to other a few million space enthusiasts?

[mcrom901]

Now speaking of Nasa; aplause for all of their missions. Finger down for keeping the public informed. The curiosity rover left me a bit of a bitter taste. 3.5 billion dollars top tech investigating unit while the master cam was only 2.1mega pixel? LOL

there are reasons for that...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08/08/Curiosity-interview-with-Malin-Space-Science-Systems-Mike-Ravine

[Andami]

I'm not interested in someones thoughts of what they are, but more interested in why NASA did not investigate them.

Because NASA does not usually investigate easily explainable rock formations. Both of the objects are also incredibly tiny (millimeters). But, in this case, NASA did give a reason for the first object's appearance, and a science institute explained the second object.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/mars-metal-shiny-object-nasa-curiosity-rover_n_2671432.html

http://www.universetoday.com/99457/about-that-flower-on-mars/

[qxcontinuum]

For Real ?

One of the links:

“It could be a lot of things, but without some chemical information to back me up, I’d really hesitate to say what it is,” said Yingst. “I’m not trying to be cagey, I’m just trying to be clear that a light grain could be a lot of different things.”

Making a guess is very different than investigating with the tools you have at your disposal. That was the whole purpose of sending the rover there, no ? These two particular rock objects have stood out, if they are so common why not produce more pictures of the same thing ?

Thank you. I couldn't say any better!

NASA as Never A Straight Answer

Edited September 2, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[Space Commander Travis]

they do seem to have rather a fixed plan of what they decide they'll look at, and they seem to pretty well know already what those things they've decided they'll look at in advance, i must say.

[S2F]

they do seem to have rather a fixed plan of what they decide they'll look at, and they seem to pretty well know already what those things they've decided they'll look at in advance, i must say.

Well they are funded and as such are expected to offer new discoveries that are at least of some significance. They may have come to a decision that this particular anomaly isn't significant enough to warrant an explanation as to why funds are being directed toward it. Or it could just be that with a rather meager budget they would rather focus on things that might prove more cost effective.

[qxcontinuum]

Well they are funded and as such are expected to offer new discoveries that are at least of some significance. They may have come to a decision that this particular anomaly isn't significant enough to warrant an explanation as to why funds are being directed toward it. Or it could just be that with a rather meager budget they would rather focus on things that might prove more cost effective.

Interesting point...

[JesseCuster]

Thank you. I couldn't say any better!

NASA as Never A Straight Answer

BTW, you got some examples of those Photoshopped NASA pics you made claims about and which I asked for earlier in this thread? Edited September 3, 2013 by JesseCuster

[qxcontinuum]

BTW, you got some examples of those Photoshopped NASA pics you made claims about and which I asked for earlier in this thread?

I've never said Nasa's pictures were Photoshopped. I think you've lost the track :-)

[JesseCuster]

I've never said Nasa's pictures were Photoshopped. I think you've lost the track :-)

I was referring to this claim you made earlier in this thread:

and yet there are numerous Photoshop interventions in many of the pictures provided to the public. Never understood why

What Photoshop interventions in what pics are you talking about? If you weren't talking about NASA pics then what pics were you talking about?

[qxcontinuum]

Ohh, that, it is about adding colour hints, clarity improvement corrections, often there are crops, shadows removed, clear sky removed. Please note that by photoshop corrections i am NOT referring to hiding alien ships or something like that. Are there any pictures where i can see the martian sky as is ? For some reasons this seems to be one of the most common corrections.

[JesseCuster]

Ohh, that, it is about adding colour hints, clarity improvement corrections, often there are crops, shadows removed, clear sky removed. Please note that by photoshop corrections i am NOT referring to hiding alien ships or something like that. Are there any pictures where i can see the martian sky as is ? For some reasons this seems to be one of the most common corrections.

Ok, so you admit your earlier accusation about NASA Photoshopping pics that they release to the public despite your claim otherwise "I've never said Nasa's pictures were Photoshopped. I think you've lost the track :-)".

Specifics please. I'd like to see examples and your opinion as to why they are Photoshopped.

[qxcontinuum]

You're trying to create a stir from nothing. Don' t get things just from a black and white perspective. There are numerous grey tones as well, in almost everything.

From this

" and yet there are numerous Photoshop interventions in many of the pictures provided to the public. Never understood why "

To

Ok, so you admit your earlier accusation about NASA Photoshopping pics that they release to the public despite your claim otherwise "I've never said Nasa's pictures were Photoshopped. I think you've lost the track :-)".

Specifics please. I'd like to see examples and your opinion as to why they are Photoshopped.

It's a looong way....

Sure thing;

http://theperilsofpalins.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/martians.jpg

Now seriosly;

Cropped image of the rover, one of many...why?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/680953main_pia16100-full_full.jpg

http://paranormal.about.com/od/marsanomalies/v/mars-photoshopped.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/27/nasa-photoshop-images-video_n_841187.html

Are you saying that Nasa is not using photoshop ? Often they are admitting changing colours of backgrounds and adding more hue to pictures.

Edited September 4, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[qxcontinuum]

Ohh no... Trolls...

[Space Commander Travis]

yes, cunningly disguised Spam.

[JesseCuster]

Cropped image of the rover, one of many...why?

http://www.nasa.gov/...0-full_full.jpg

Because the image is of the Martian landscape. You'll notice that the bits 'cropped' were of the sky and the Rover itself.

Why? Because it's not a cropped image. It's a composite of many narrow angle images put together. The bits you say are 'cropped' are places where they never bothered taking pictures of. They decided not to use valuable time, bandwidth, memory, power, etc. taking pictures of a blank and empty sky and pictures of the rover itself. So they didn't bother taking pointless pictures of the sky and the rover, instead took pictures of the landscape which they were interested in and stitched them together into a high-res panorama where the blank bits are things that they didn't bother to photograph.

http://paranormal.ab...hotoshopped.htm

Video not available. Dang. I'll try again later. I'd like to examine the original photo to see for myself if the clone tool has been used.

http://www.huffingto...o_n_841187.html

That's an example of the kind of inocuous everyday things that astronomers do with images. They're not intended to deceive anyone or cover up anything.

Are you saying that Nasa is not using photoshop ? Often they are admitting changing colours of backgrounds and adding more hue to pictures.

I know that. But that's not controversial, is it? Colorising an image or color correcting images to provide more accurate representation or even exagerrating colours (which they sometimes do with satellite pics of Mars) to show more clearly areas of different mineral make-up is what they're known to do. I assumed when you mentioned that they Photoshopped images and you 'didn't know why' they you weren't referring to corrections and editing where you do know why (apart from the sky being removed thing, it hasn't been removed from the high-res panoramas, it wasn't photographed in the first place).

I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed you were referring to images being edited to cover up something (otherwise why mention it?).

I'm interested in the claim about the clone tool being used but video isn't working for me and I don't have a reference for the image that is claimed to be edited to examine myself in Photoshop.

Edited September 4, 2013 by JesseCuster

[Ugly1]

If NASA wanted to cover something up, why in the hell would they release it on the net!!??

No, those are craters from mundane objects, ie rocks or ice. You can find them all over Mars.

Book smart and wise are to me two separate things. The people reviewing these photos are just normal human beings who make mistakes like the rest of us. I suppose there could be a computer program that looks for abnormalities contained in a photographs from other planets but these would also have their flaws. Either way you look at it, you have a computer program or human scanning through these images prior to releasing them and that leaves room for error.

[ReaperS_ParadoX]

Then perhaps is a battle of power and supremacy. I would not be surprised to see Orcas and dolphins in the future winning and becoming the predominant species in the top of the trophic chain. I mean we know they are already capable of very complex thinking including vocabulary and emotions like love to their pair or babies in the same time revenge against killers and fisherman. They are smart creatures comparing to those dumb ass sharks using tons of jaw power but brainless.

Sharks are far from brainless, and they've been on earth for more than 450 million years, there one of natures top predators.

Edited September 5, 2013 by R4z3rsPar4d0x

[psyche101]

I think Hawking throughout history has struggled with his belief in God, and also his claim that the pope told scientists to “not inquire into the big bang itself.” may have helped trigger a push to disprove God. I do believe what Hawkings thinks is that God is not required to explain the laws of physics

Hawkins said God's presence was not required at the creation of the Universe I think.

I assume that is maintained if we are talking about a "Bulk" Universe as well.

NB* A "Bulk Universe" means that a star floating through a multidimensional plane got sucked into a black hole, half of it got swallowed up and the other half that survived spawned the creation of the universe.

Edited September 24, 2013 by psyche101

[Sweetpumper]

Mummified iguana found on Mars:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/07/nasa-curiosity-rover-spots-iguana-on-mars/?intcmp=features

[seeder]

serious paredoilia

[qxcontinuum]

how about this? Nasa is saying was a rock shaped by the wind... I laughed 3 weeks after this ridiculous claim made by allegedly scientists while refusing to investigate further redirecting the rover to it... does it really look like a rock shaped? it is the same color with the mother rock/base ? What are the ods the entire sourounding are flat but that shape stays straight out of it? ... LOL

Edited November 7, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[Oniomancer]

how about this? Nasa is saying was a rock shaped by the wind... I laughed 3 weeks after this ridiculous claim made by allegedly scientists while refusing to investigate further redirecting the rover to it... does it really look like a rock shaped? it is the same color with the mother rock/base ? What are the ods the entire sourounding are flat but that shape stays straight out of it? ... LOL

Odds are pretty good I would say...

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1236&bih=784&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ventifact&oq=ventifact&gs_l=img.3..0l4j0i24l6.25110.29260.0.29905.9.8.0.1.1.0.107.743.7j1.8.0....0...1c.1.31.img..0.9.753.ByNC_ER0tD8

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1236&bih=784&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=weathering+hoodoo&oq=weathering+hoodoo&gs_l=img.3...21741.24163.0.24574.11.11.0.0.0.0.172.896.10j1.11.0....0...1c.1.31.img..10.1.172.Iwkr5sV0ywY

[qxcontinuum]

Wow amazing... Nice pics, thanks for sharing!