Free Associating On The Surface Of Mars
jdaily writes "Apparently, while NASA scientists are busy analyzing the more than 10 gigabits of data returned by the rovers thus far, earnest space enthusiasts are dissecting the images and reporting discoveries of fossils, letters of the alphabet, and a white bunny. The 'Net really needs a kook hall of fame."
Seems there already is a crank hall of fame. Thisone didn't reach that site yet though.
.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
The 'Net really needs a kook hall of fame.
I thought that's what Slashdot was for.
-b
PS. Joke, not a troll. Get it?
I would love to see a list of all the anomalous photographs from the missions. I'm sure all the tin foil hat types are moving on this, but not necessarily in a constructive way. I saw the so called fossil rock (interesting, but not compelling enough to be likely over chance), and the bunny (a piece of the craft) and a couple of others, but it would be funny to get them organized into one place with the raw images (not photoshop altered) so we could play with statistics, so to speak.
-Sean
If you haven't read the article, do not do so while consuming a beverage. I think someone owes me a keyboard.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
I used to see all sorts of things in the rocky landscape. A lot of the things I saw looked liked gremlins to me, which featured prominently in my nightmares. Now that I look back on it, putting the mural on the wall was maybe not a good idea.
At least I had the sense to realize that it was just my imagination. I never once thought there was anything actually living on the Moon.
Check it out: Granted, it's probably just a tire track, or something, but, last I checked, they hadn't outlawed armchair quarterbacking...
The aspect of these stories I find most interesting is the sheer number of people that have Photoshop and are using it to alter these photographs. Few if any of these folks strike me as the graphic design type. It is strange then that they would shell out $649 for an app they seemingly only use to retouch NASA photographs.
/>
<knowing chuckle
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Fossils are fragile, but they are rocks. You see people being careful with them in movies like Jurassic Park because they are often embedded in other rock, and in your zeal to remove the rock from the rock sometimes it gets hurt.
But no real "fossil" could be obliterated by rolling over in, in Martian gravity no less. The same thing promoting righteous outrage proves that it wasn't a rock in the first place. Even if it "broke up", you'd still see pieces.
Mars isn't the moon, it has an atmosphere; if it broke completely into dust when subjected to such a small force, it would have long since weathered to nothing. A fossil would have to be a rock that has survived millions or billions of years already; rolling over it isn't going to do any more then the wind that would have 'exposed' it, as it would have blown right away with the surrounding dirt.
If you notice the raw image names given, they begin with:
1M131201699EFF
1M131212854EFF 1------------- Opportunity
-M------------ Microscopic Imager
--iiiiiiiii--- Time taken, unsigned integer seconds since ?MEpoch?...
-----------EFF Full-Frame 'EDR' (not linearized)
#man meredr
So those two images are both 'microscopic.' ;)
Tire tracks? Did Opportunity goof off and play with some MicroMachines(tm) for 3 hours?
There are lots of unusual objects, particularly in micro images. Being genious enough to know I'm an idiot; I go 'hmm can't wait until someone explains the process that makes that biological looking shape.'
Regardless of what a fossil is made of, it must be sturdy to survive millions of years, or the process of being exposed to the surface. Saying "we don't know what a fossil on Mars might be made out of" doesn't mean that it might be made out of Jelly Bellies; I may not be able to speak to the exact composition but there are certain properties that must hold true, or you'd never have seen it in the first place.
;-)
I mention this mostly because it's a common fallacy, that some amount of non-knowlege implies total non-knowlege. As soon as you say it, it sounds stupid and is obviously false, but it sneaks up on a lot of people, and is the foundation of entire pervasive modern philosophies. (It is, for instance, an essential philosophical foundation of Strong Post-Modernism.) I do not and can not know everything about the putative fossil on Mars but I can determine some things and make certain observations with great confidence, including observations that lead to the conclusion that it isn't a fossil.
These discussions bring to mind a quote of Carl Sagan's:
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." (from Billions and Billions, iirc)
Whether it's little green men, intelligent design or gun control, people have a tendency to shape their arguments (and distort the facts) to reflect their desire for how they would like the universe (world, society, whatever) to operate, without regard for how it actually functions. I think it's our greatest failure as a species.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
"Secretly, deep down, we all hope there's life beyond our own home planet."
After reading the article, I'm left wondering if there's intelligent life on our own planet.
It's funny... for all the silly crap the nutzo's are claiming to see in Mars images, hardly anything has been made of the unidentified flying object in this image (large streak near the bottom). That's a 15-second exposure of part of the early morning Martian sky, a segment of a panorama series designed to also grab the Earth... the streak is likely one of the 30-some or so defunct and/or lost spacecraft that may be orbiting Mars right now.
DiscDividers tabbed plastic CD dividers: divider cards f