'Curiosity' Landing Site Alien Debris

[Fellow Aspirant]

NEW:

I just finished replacing the original images with "enhanced" versions of each. The contrast and exposure have been boosted, in order to assist the viewer in picking out shapes, textures and some further details. I hope it helps!

So, let's try this again. I previously attempted to post these pics, but technical problems prevented it. I'm hoping for a better result this time, and have included two additional pics.

I hope, Dear Avalonians, that you will find something of interest in this information. I will try my best to explain what I see here. It takes some patience to get past the blurriness of the images, but once your eyes/brain "resolves" the information, I think you will find them quite evident.

Attached are three "captures" of specific areas taken from one of the first panoramic views broadcast from Curiousity. The link to the pic is here:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/675184main_pia16026-full_full.jpg

The "captures" are of zoomed-in portions of the panorama. I used a generic "add-on" tool. There are many good ones, most for free. I highly recommend that you download one to use, if you have not already.

To locate the debris for yourself, go to the site, go "Full Screen", then look at the ground area ...

a) just off the bottom left corner of the big blacked out section for one of them, the one that looks like a piece of metal with "arms" protruding from it and

b) just below the bottom edge of the same black section, a little to the right of centre, for the one that is more of a rectangular block shape.

c) Unfortunately I have lost track of the location of the third one, the triangular piece, but it was from the same image.

185291853018531

When you look carefully at the first anomaly, you will notice that it seems to have a "leg" protruding down and to the right, at a 45 D angle to the block shape. The leg has three sections: the first, where it attaches to the block, is thicker than the second part. There appears to be a machined "shoulder" where it joins the smaller second portion. Finally, the tip of the leg flares out, and is an even larger diameter than the first part. Above and below this leg are two "stumps", truncated versions of the middle leg. The bottom one points straight down and ends with a sheared off 90 D edge, while the one on the top is even shorter, and ends with a 45 D angle. Meanwhile, lying just above this top stump, there appears to be what could be one of the missing appendages, broken off. It has the right diameter and same flared tip that the middle one exhibits.

Most intriguingly, the base of the object seems to have two machined holes, one at either end (top and bottom in the picture) The centre portion is hollowed out and you can see squared "shoulders" that contain the holes. If this is an actual machine part, it would appear that it is formed so that another part fitted down into the hollowed portion and was fixed into place by pins that matched the two end holes. The curved hollow potion would allow it to rotate 30-45 D or so.

The second anomaly, the block, has right angle corners and is divided roughly into three portions. There are two obvious rectangular blocks with an indistinct shape between them.The one at the top left forms the left side of the main block, and shows some reddish-brown discolouration on the bottom right of its face. There is a more distinct rectangular block shape contained toward the right end. This portion, which sits slightly higher than the rest of the block, contains a hole facing out to the left. Its top surface is visible running across the width of the whole piece. Most curiously (no pun intended) is the shape found on the back end of the rectangle: three "spikes" pointing upward. They are part of a thin (metallic?) edge, and could be irregularly shaped because of damage as they were torn away from a larger part. The right side of the block is indistinct, perhaps also due to damage.

The third image (which I am too tired to relocate - I think it was in the upper left of the pic - good hunting!), shows a triangular shape, formed by the joining together of two flat surfaces at an angle of approximately 30 D. The apex of the structure is quite broad, giving it a sturdy, rugged appearance. There is clearly an opening visible at the facing end of the piece. The bottom of the left-hand-side of the piece (the side that reflects highly) separates into a pair of "posts", which contact the ground. These shapes may be by design or from damage.

So, that's what I see. What these pieces of anomalous debris mean is way beyond me, of course. But, as we here at PA are aware, anomalies are the first step.

Cheers!

Brian

[watchZEITGEISTnow]

Far be it for me to say, but I just don't know about ANY of NASA's stuff anymore...

[indigopete]

Very Hoagland'esque of you to zoom in on a blurry piece of rock that looks vaguely regular and pronounce it "alien debris" :)

I'm sure if you were given a picture of a random piece of Icelandic rocky wilderness and you thought it was a NASA picture taken on Mars, you'd find plenty of "alien debris" there as well.

Pete

[Fellow Aspirant]

Very Hoagland'esque of you to zoom in on a blurry piece of rock that looks vaguely regular and pronounce it "alien debris" :)

I'm sure if you were given a picture of a random piece of Icelandic rocky wilderness and you thought it was a NASA picture taken on Mars, you'd find plenty of "alien debris" there as well.

Pete

Show me some "Icelandic rocky wilderness" with the machined surfaces and right angles of these artifacts and I will gladly declare them to be manufactured as well.

Just look at the pictures and read the descriptions.

Cheers,

Brian

[indigopete]

Show me some "Icelandic rocky wilderness" with the machined surfaces and right angles of these artifacts and I will gladly declare them to be manufactured as well

What you need to do to be able to make a statement like that is to:

a] - lift the object out of the ground and away from it's background

b] - get right up close to it and take a sharp, in focus picture

What happens when you've got a blurry, partial picture of the object from an oblique angle is that your imagination has to fill in the rest (which yours has clearly done).

Did you never muck about outside as a kid and see things that you imagined to be something interesting from only 20 feet away ? As I remember, you generally had walk right up within reaching distance - eyeball to eyeball with the object - before reality set in to the extent that you were prepared to let the imagined one go.

There are hundreds of rocks in that picture. What you've done is spend hours pouring over it looking for one that looks "machined" and . . . . surprise surprise you've found one. Except that it's not "an alien machined artifact" . . . it's a rock I'm afraid.

Pete

[Kindred]

I don't know if any of these items are, or, are not 'artifacts'. What I find More telling, is the large blacked-out area. What has NASA Omitted? And, even more to the point... these cameras are Supposed to be 'state of the art'. That means that they Should have the ability to read the 10 point text of a letter at 100 feet, Minimum.

Again... What are they Not showing?

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Hervé]

These are so obviously machined... "Look at that symmetry"... would Hoagland say...


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Chaussee_geants_prismes_rouges.jpg/800px-Chaussee_geants_prismes_rouges.jpg

[indigopete]

It might be a good idea to remind ourselves what "artificial artefacts" look like against a desert / rocky background (at original resolution) so we know what we're looking for:

What we're looking for . . .

18547

What we saw . . .

18548

[Hervé]

***

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Causeway-code_poet-4.jpg/800px-Causeway-code_poet-4.jpg
Giant's Causeway, Northern Ireland

[Fellow Aspirant]

[QUOTE=Fellow Aspirant;565848]Show me some "Icelandic rocky wilderness" with the machined surfaces and right angles of these artifacts and I will gladly declare them to be manufactured as well


So, I'm still waiting for the "Icelandic rocky debris" that looks anything like the images from Curiosity, blurry or not.

I've done an upgrade on my attached pics as well, to help with the visualization. Please have a look now ...

]

[Fellow Aspirant]

18568

***

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Causeway-code_poet-4.jpg/800px-Causeway-code_poet-4.jpg
Giant's Causeway, Northern Ireland


LOL! Yes, I love the Giant's Causeway! Huge upwelling of basalt, demonstrating its crystalline form, although in a rather haphazard way in its cross-sectional profile. Lovely stuff, really, and a fine demonstration of geologic possibilities.

I assume you mean to use it to demonstrate that mother nature is capable of some regular shapes. Well, yes and no: crystals are among the most regular of natural shapes, but I wouldn't have used The Giant's Causeway as my example. Those shown above are much more useful in making the point, I think.

At any rate, we're really talking apples and oranges here, aren't we? I mean, no one who looks carefully at the Curiosity images, especially the "new and improved" versions, with boosted light and contrast, would ever mistake them for rock crystals, would they?

Please cast a patient, analytical gaze upon the pics as they are presented. I'm sure you will see something "unnatural" in them.

Cheers,

Brian

[Hervé]

You may or may not be right in your assumptions.

However, I personally would avoid using Hoagland's circular strategy to insinuate "artificiality" into the "picture":



From: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/117758-Comet-Elenin-again/page3 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/117758-Comet-Elenin-again/page3)

Originally Posted by Don J

Hoagland pretend that the tetrahedron is a "geometric force shield "protecting the central object...

Since the comet appears to be distintegrating, I guess they should have gone with the underbody rustproofing too.

Hoagland starts with the conclusion that Elenin is a spacecraft and then interprets the rest of the observations around that. Circular argument, tetrahedral "force shield."

Of course we aren't told what a "force shield" is. That's because it's pure science fiction. We aren't told how Hoagland determined that's what it was. The fog that populates other areas of the image is apparently unremarkable, despite it being of the same visual character as the fog around Elenin. So if it's around Elenin, it's a "force shield." If it's elsewhere in the image, it's ordinary dust, dispersion, noise, or whatever. Hoagland only ventures to explain part of the fog.

As he did with the formations at Cydonia on Mars, Hoagland imposes the notion of regularity on the image. He says it's "perfectly" regular in a geometric, but it visibly is not. That raises the same specter that we always have to confront when dealing with Hoagland's claims: how far can you be off and still be "perfect?" At a certain point the eye rectifies near-regular geometries as part of our highly-developed pattern-based vision. Real photo analysis has to move to numerical methods in order to sidestep this artifact of human vision. Hoagland rarely does that.

The problem with setting up a not-quite-perfect shape as a perfect shape is that the alleged perfection then becomes the only argument for artificiality. "Such a perfect shape cannot arise in nature, therefore it must be artificial." But near-regular processes occur all the time in nature. So the degree of perfection becomes the important element.

He sees three bright patches near Elenin, roughly centered on it and forming a nearly equilateral triangle. He interprets them as the visible edges of some tetrahedral structure. But a triangle is not a tetrahedron. You can interpret it that way only if you assume one of the four cardinal axes of the tetrahedron is aligned with your line of sight. That's convenient for a happenstance image such as this. Most real-world photography of regular shapes in chance encounters does not capture them in a canonical orientation.

Further, Hoagland argues that the vertices of his tetrahedron are perfect circles. Really, Richard? Are you going to say that the product of considerable image processing, deconvolution, and filtration is circular, and that this is proof of regularity rather than an artifact of the circular support for the relevant algorithms?

Needless to say, it's pure Hoagland: lots and lots of imagination and no science.

[Fellow Aspirant]

You may or may not be right in your assumptions.

However, I personally would avoid using Hoagland's circular strategy to insinuate "artificiality" into the "picture":



From: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/117758-Comet-Elenin-again/page3 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/117758-Comet-Elenin-again/page3)

Originally Posted by Don J

Hoagland pretend that the tetrahedron is a "geometric force shield "protecting the central object...

Since the comet appears to be distintegrating, I guess they should have gone with the underbody rustproofing too.

Hoagland starts with the conclusion that Elenin is a spacecraft and then interprets the rest of the observations around that. Circular argument, tetrahedral "force shield."

Of course we aren't told what a "force shield" is. That's because it's pure science fiction. We aren't told how Hoagland determined that's what it was. The fog that populates other areas of the image is apparently unremarkable, despite it being of the same visual character as the fog around Elenin. So if it's around Elenin, it's a "force shield." If it's elsewhere in the image, it's ordinary dust, dispersion, noise, or whatever. Hoagland only ventures to explain part of the fog.

As he did with the formations at Cydonia on Mars, Hoagland imposes the notion of regularity on the image. He says it's "perfectly" regular in a geometric, but it visibly is not. That raises the same specter that we always have to confront when dealing with Hoagland's claims: how far can you be off and still be "perfect?" At a certain point the eye rectifies near-regular geometries as part of our highly-developed pattern-based vision. Real photo analysis has to move to numerical methods in order to sidestep this artifact of human vision. Hoagland rarely does that.

The problem with setting up a not-quite-perfect shape as a perfect shape is that the alleged perfection then becomes the only argument for artificiality. "Such a perfect shape cannot arise in nature, therefore it must be artificial." But near-regular processes occur all the time in nature. So the degree of perfection becomes the important element.

He sees three bright patches near Elenin, roughly centered on it and forming a nearly equilateral triangle. He interprets them as the visible edges of some tetrahedral structure. But a triangle is not a tetrahedron. You can interpret it that way only if you assume one of the four cardinal axes of the tetrahedron is aligned with your line of sight. That's convenient for a happenstance image such as this. Most real-world photography of regular shapes in chance encounters does not capture them in a canonical orientation.

Further, Hoagland argues that the vertices of his tetrahedron are perfect circles. Really, Richard? Are you going to say that the product of considerable image processing, deconvolution, and filtration is circular, and that this is proof of regularity rather than an artifact of the circular support for the relevant algorithms?

Needless to say, it's pure Hoagland: lots and lots of imagination and no science.



Well, right or not, here's how I arrived at my assumptions:

1. This is a picture sent back from Mars.
2. The only things that I expect to see in the picture are Martian terrain.
3. There are anomalous "things" sitting on the ground that bear no resemblance to any conceivable "natural" feature of a landscape.
4. These "things", therefore, are not natural.
5. These "things" are then, by definition, artificial.

Where you disagree, apparently, is from no. 3 onward. (in the judgement that these "things" are not natural). On this matter, I can only appeal to your optical/visual discernment, and your experience with machined parts. On this, you have made your decision.

However, whereas I respect what Mr. Hoagland is trying to do, I make no such claims about "force fields" or space craft. I only offer possible explanations for how these things got onto the ground.

So, to sum up, my view is that these things ain't no rocks.

Cheers,

Brian

[Hervé]

Nicely side-stepping the purple-highlitghted points made by that aeronautics engineer (Don J.).

[Fellow Aspirant]

Let's not get confused here. "Regularity" is what Nature does best; variation is next. I don't agree at all with Hoagland's claims in this regard, so please don't go putting words into my mouth. I have not sidestepped anything.

What I find anomalous about the 'things' is not their regularity per se, but the complexity of their regularity: there are clearly distinct components within each of them that should not 'naturally' be together. Two of them look to be assembled from disparate, artificially created parts. That is, the elongated cube structures that exist in the same unit (no. 2) or the three 'planes' that are attached in no. 3 have no natural correlates. Number one has features that suggest not so much "assembly" as something that has been cast or forged. Either way, these are complex collections of planar geometry that indicate design and purpose (and please, let's leave the old randomly piled collection of parts becoming a 747 out of this, okay? LOL )

I say again - these things are not rocks.

Cheers,

Brian



Nicely side-stepping the purple-highlitghted points made by that aeronautics engineer (Don J.).

[sdv]

1. This is a picture sent back from Mars.
2. The only things that I expect to see in the picture are Martian terrain.
3. There are anomalous "things" sitting on the ground that bear no resemblance to any conceivable "natural" feature of a landscape.
4. These "things", therefore, are not natural.
5. These "things" are then, by definition, artificial.

Mars is not Earth. As long as we perceive and process information from Mars from an Earth perspective, we will always have anomalies. Earth is not the centre of the Universe. It is not the be all and end all of the Universe!

[Fellow Aspirant]

So, by this reasoning, we will never have a complete understanding of any other planet. Hell, we don't even understand this planet. Should that impede our exploration of other celestial bodies?

It is ludicrous to infer that "earth is not the universe". While that is self evident, it is also true that earth is part of the universe. What we find as we explore off-planet are other aspects of the same system that contains the earth. So far as our solar system is concerned, scientists are satisfied that the same rules of physics occur throughout. Beyond our galaxy things get a little iffy, but there is no reason why our terrestrial experience should not equip us to investigate the conditions on such a near neighbour.

And why throw in caveats about the hubris of a terracentric point of view? Obviously, there is no place for this warning if you are addressing people who are exploring another world. Humans who have gone to another planet have gone there because it not earth.

Additionally, one of the main reasons that astronomers give to justify their investigations of unearthly places is that by doing so, we will have a different perspective, one that will shed light on our terrestrial environment. What happens to this argument? Why are we even sending probes to other planets if we lack the abilities to comprehend what we find?

And what is wrong with anomalies? They serve as the impetus for most exploration. You can't just throw up your hands in exasperated defeat when confronted with something that makes you go WTF?

In trying to come to grips with the mysterious, we come closer to the truth. Only fools (those who are asleep) ignore anomalies.

Be Curious!

Cheers,

Brian



1. This is a picture sent back from Mars.
2. The only things that I expect to see in the picture are Martian terrain.
3. There are anomalous "things" sitting on the ground that bear no resemblance to any conceivable "natural" feature of a landscape.
4. These "things", therefore, are not natural.
5. These "things" are then, by definition, artificial.

Mars is not Earth. As long as we perceive and process information from Mars from an Earth perspective, we will always have anomalies. Earth is not the centre of the Universe. It is not the be all and end all of the Universe!

[mojo]

Maybe 1967sander could work on the images? His amazing software analysis might be able to pull more information from the photos. I hope we go further in the debate i.e. if we can agree the artificial structures are there. Can we glean any recent changes in the way NASA releases information from Curiosity then how they have released information in the past? If not than does this tell us where disclosure stands in the minds of NASA?

[Fellow Aspirant]

I would welcome the help of anyone who knows how to "deblur" these images. Do you know how to reach 1967sander?

Cheers,

Brian


Maybe 1967sander could work on the images? His amazing software analysis might be able to pull more information from the photos. I hope we go further in the debate i.e. if we can agree the artificial structures are there. Can we glean any recent changes in the way NASA releases information from Curiosity then how they have released information in the past? If not than does this tell us where disclosure stands in the minds of NASA?

[sdv]

Thanks for your contribution Brian (much appreciated), but I think you made many assumptions about my post and replied accordingly.

I love and welcome and support and applaud the expoloration. But we cannot ever truly understand and learn when we limit ourselves to our beliefs and our perspectives. Mars is not Earth! Personally, I want to live long enough to see human beings living on Mars, but on Martian terms rather than simply making it another/alternative Earth.

We see anomalies on Mars and make conclusions, based on our Earth perspective (coloured by our culture, and so on). But what are anomalies from an Earth perspective may well be very normal on Mars and connected to a Martian history that is very different from the evolution and sustainability of life on Earth.

As long as we analyse what we find from Mars in a way that must conform with our Earth-based perspectives (and our beliefs about ETs and so on), we will never truly understand Mars.

[mojo]

I went to his channel to get the link for you and spotted his new upload 3 hours ago. He provides an opening analysis of an image from the Clementine satellite. Although it's just the beginning of the analysis it seeems like its going to be an amazing reveal. It provides an idea of the sofwares abilities.

http://www.youtube.com/user/1967sander?feature=watch

_egt15SkXvI