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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Paul

--
Email: lastname at best dot com. No spam please.
All spam will be complained to sender's ISP.

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

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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.