#1
|
|||
|
|||
mars worm?
The following links point to two clips from Opportunity MI images
on Sol 199. There seems to have been some disturbance between the two images that caused one of the pebbles to disappear. Notice that a worm-like feature in another pebble appears to have been affected by the disturbance and seems to have contracted somewhat. (Images courtesy NASA/JPL.) http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/pre_1...MI1-B202R1.jpg http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/post_...op3-B202R1.jpg Paul -- Email: lastname at best dot com. No spam please. All spam will be complained to sender's ISP. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Morris wrote:
The following links point to two clips from Opportunity MI images on Sol 199. There seems to have been some disturbance between the two images that caused one of the pebbles to disappear. Notice that a worm-like feature in another pebble appears to have been affected by the disturbance and seems to have contracted somewhat. (Images courtesy NASA/JPL.) http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/pre_1...MI1-B202R1.jpg http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/post_...op3-B202R1.jpg Paul One thing you might want to consider is that something very big (compared to the objects imaged) moved between the first and the second image. Nothing contracted. The viewing angle is somewhat different, and the pokey-outy bit is seen from almost overhead in the second image. -- Tom McDonald |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jeez!
zexs - WE/RE burning off the nipples of Rounded Grains on Mars trying to find where the WMD are! Tom McDonald wrote: Paul Morris wrote: The following links point to two clips from Opportunity MI images on Sol 199. There seems to have been some disturbance between the two images that caused one of the pebbles to disappear. Notice that a worm-like feature in another pebble appears to have been affected by the disturbance and seems to have contracted somewhat. (Images courtesy NASA/JPL.) http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/pre_1...MI1-B202R1.jpg http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/post_...op3-B202R1.jpg Paul One thing you might want to consider is that something very big (compared to the objects imaged) moved between the first and the second image. Nothing contracted. The viewing angle is somewhat different, and the pokey-outy bit is seen from almost overhead in the second image. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Morris wrote:
In article , wrote: Paul Morris wrote: The following links point to two clips from Opportunity MI images on Sol 199. There seems to have been some disturbance between the two images that caused one of the pebbles to disappear. Notice that a worm-like feature in another pebble appears to have been affected by the disturbance and seems to have contracted somewhat. (Images courtesy NASA/JPL.) http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/pre_1...MI1-B202R1.jpg http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/post_...op3-B202R1.jpg One thing you might want to consider is that something very big (compared to the objects imaged) moved between the first and the second image. Nothing contracted. The viewing angle is somewhat different, and the pokey-outy bit is seen from almost overhead in the second image. -- Tom McDonald I agree that the viewing angle is different between the two images. However, I do not believe that is sufficient to explain the dramatic difference in appearance of the "pokey-outy" bit, as you put it. I'm not entirely certain, but on balance I disagree with you on this. To illustrate this, I have placed the two images side-by-side as a rough stereo pair. (If you allow your eyes to separate, it is possible to fuse the pair in most places into a single 3-D image.) http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/left-right.jpg Notice, however, that the "pokey-outy" bit does not properly fuse. This indicates that the appearance has really changed. Actually, it seems quite obvious that in the right image, the feature has a bulbous appearance, whereas it appears deflated in the left image. Again, we are talking about appearances. I think this is subjective, and what you consider appears 'deflated' I think appears to be seen from 'generally overhead'. The result would be the same, only in your view this means the object has really changed, while in my view the object is essentially the same but seen from a different angle. There seem to be differences between the larger images that suggest some real alteration of the smaller bits, probably due to the movement of the imager. However, I don't see the sticky-outy part as having changed at all. If we can agree that the feature has really changed its appearance, then a possible explanation might be that the disturbance knocked off a piece of the feature. Sadly, at this time we can't agree on the changed appearance, at least as I think you mean it. As I noted, the apparent change is IMHO not a physical change in the object. I also don't see anything in the second image that looks like a broken off sticky-outy piece. However, due to the apparent effect of the imager on other bits, that isn't evidence that it wasn't broken off. Although, there does seem to be an intriguing circular band at the bottom of the feature in the left image, but not in the right, which is difficult to explain by the knock theory. If you are referring to the line at the bottom of the object, notice that the image on the right seems to show the line not reaching to the left edge of the object; while the image on the left shows the band as continuing unbroken across the entire bottom of the object. I noticed also that in the image on the right, the apparent hairpin curve of the line seems to resolve, in the left image (which shows the imager having moved toward the left between the images) into a short, rightward-tending line with a darker bit (depression?) to its left. At the point where this short line diverges from the long line, in both images there is what appears as a small rectangular mark. On the right image, it is where the line appears to make a sharp backward bend; on the right, it is merely a nick taken out of the object just above the longer line. If that's what you're referring to, I think it is more evidence that the change in location of the imager makes significant changes in one's understanding of the topography of the object. On an entirely unrelated note, what if there were actual intelligent Martians, and they knew we were spending time and energy on this, when they could just go pick it up and look. I think they'd think we were a bit silly :-). -- Tom McDonald |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
wrote: Paul Morris wrote: I agree that the viewing angle is different between the two images. However, I do not believe that is sufficient to explain the dramatic difference in appearance of the "pokey-outy" bit, as you put it. I'm not entirely certain, but on balance I disagree with you on this. It is quite surprising to me, but I think you are correct that the apparent dramatic difference in _shape_ is primarily due to the different viewing angle. At the marsrovers gallery http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gal...nity_m199.html there are images from several viewing angles both before and after the disturbance. I have collected 3 pictures at different angles taken before the disturbance and 3 after at very close to the same angles. These can be seen at http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/six.jpg Note that each pair in the top row and each pair in the bottom row can be viewed as a stereo pair by the roll-the-eyes trick (giving two 3-D images before and after). Your eyes need to be about one foot from the screen for this to work. It seems clear from these that the shape is essentially unchanged after the disturbance. The 3-D images suggest the feature may be slightly coiled like a snake, which would explain why a small change in perspective could produce a large change in apparent shape in a 2-D image. Even though the shape may not have changed, there does seem to be a striking change to the _texture_ of the feature. There are small whitish areas on the feature that become significantly more prominent after the disturbance. This is seen even more clearly in the 3-D images. It appears there are many small platy areas arranged in a regular pattern that become much more noticeable after the disturbance, almost as if they had become erect somehow. There is also a very prominent black spot in the before images that almost seems to disappear in the after images, possibly covered by the platy bits. Paul -- Email: lastname at best dot com. No spam please. All spam will be complained to sender's ISP. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Morris" wrote in message ... The following links point to two clips from Opportunity MI images on Sol 199. There seems to have been some disturbance between the two images that caused one of the pebbles to disappear. Notice that a worm-like feature in another pebble appears to have been affected by the disturbance and seems to have contracted somewhat. (Images courtesy NASA/JPL.) http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/pre_1...MI1-B202R1.jpg http://morris.best.vwh.net/ftp/post_...op3-B202R1.jpg They press the lens into the soil, you're seeing before and after that's all. You're images conveniently cut out the portion of the pic that shows the lens indentation. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2977M2M1.HTML http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2957M2M1.HTML The question these pics beg is why do the simple mineral deposits shown above contrast so sharply with the exquisitely spherical and uniform shape of our blueberries? http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2957M2M1.HTML The answer should be obvious, one is geology the other life. Jonathan s Paul -- Email: lastname at best dot com. No spam please. All spam will be complained to sender's ISP. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Morris" worm-like feature in another pebble appears to have been
affected by the disturbance and seems to have contracted somewhat. That's nasty. Looks like some kind of small creature that could easily climb into the folds of the space suit and work its way into a tube and then crawl through and get into someone's ear, like in STAR TREK WRATH OF KHAN. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Morris" in the right image, the feature has a bulbous appearance,
whereas it appears deflated in the left image. GAWD, it looks like a little PENIS head swelled up, and then it looks deflated. Perhaps the rock thing has a penis and ejaculated onto the other rocks? Perhaps it is space spores that were ejaculated? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom McDonald" in my view the object is essentially the same but
seen from a different angle. You must be focking blind. I bet you think the earth is flat? what a dumbass. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - September 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | September 28th 03 08:00 AM |
Space Calendar - August 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | August 28th 03 05:32 PM |
Space Calendar - August 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | August 28th 03 05:32 PM |
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | July 24th 03 11:26 PM |