deirdre
Senior Member.
heres the NASA link to the shot http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0753ML0032370000400001E01_DXXX&s=753
Jason
Senior Member
Seriously though, what are the odds of this being "fossilized" earth traffic from previous missions. I guess it would help to know if we had any robotics in this area before..
deirdre
Senior Member.
: ) yea it looks like a little green alien egg from the last thread. my ink says the ball is 1 centimeter, so figure the guys can figure out the size of the traffic lights.
Jason
Senior Member
Honestly the shadow looks a bit off too, unless we aren't seeing the whole "rock".What do you think? Is this an old ruin from an ancient civilization? That's what I've been reading around the net today.
deirdre
Senior Member.
no, its fossilized MARTIAN traffic lights.
Jason
Senior Member
Oh, I misread. I thought they meant fossilized robotics or debris from previous missions to mars.
Added: So this was a joke below
External Quote:
Don von Hostas
Member
Speculating here, but it appears to be Mr. Gopher from "Caddyshack."What do you think? Is this an old ruin from an ancient civilization? That's what I've been reading around the net today.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I wish it was. But, no. Sorry.
It's important to realize that Mars 'might' have been viable as another "Earth" a few billion years ago. Something happened there....scientists are studying why. (Using, also, the meager data that can be obtained from extra-Solar planets.....these are planets observed orbiting other stars, not "our" Sun).
We can only use OUR knowledge of evolution as a sort of "BaseLine", on this planet...AND knowing that Mars formed at about the same time as Earth, in our Solar System....
....when we speak about time-lines of evolutionary history, it gets complicated. Humans have a short life-span.
"Could" Mars have evolved life, 100 million years ago? Certainly life was on Earth, then. What about....500 million years ago? Yes, life was on Earth, then. But looking at the fossil record on OUR planet, it seems unlikely that another planet within our own Star System (or "Sol" system...."Sol" being the name of our star...hence "Solar") would evolve life any "faster" than on Earth.
Last edited:
Jason
Senior Member
anyone know how large this is or small it is to be precise? What ever it is, this is by far one of the best examples so far that really looks out of place. If it's erosion from wind, where is the rest of the rock then and how did this small item remain standing.
deirdre
Senior Member.
this link says the 'traffic light' is small..but doesn't say exactly how small. http://themeridianijournal.com/2014/09/image-gallery-oddities-curiosity/#more-5900
and off that link I find
and off that link I find
External Quote:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Look, folks.....ALL of these images are from a planet that NONE of us will (likely) visit in our lifetimes....(although I WISH I could!).
We are seeing images that are (A) Without context and scale and, (B) Without context and scale.
WHAT I mean is....this:
THAT (^^^^) is "forced perspective". It is INTENTIONAL, of course.
WHEN we see images taken by Mars Rovers....we have NO reference scale....because...we are not there....to give a size reference.
WHEN you see a photo taken on Earth, WE generally have a "reference" to size....because we LIVE HERE, and have eyes. But, when it's a computer-generated "GodZilla" in Manhattan (or, whatever?)....in a film? We STILL understand the geometry. AND the 'scale'....(even in really BAD films of the past...we know what they tried to do).
WHEN it comes to photos on an "alien planet" (and Mars IS an "alien planet")....you MUST understand the context OF the image, and the way it is obtained!!
(Sorry for my 'rant'...)
We are seeing images that are (A) Without context and scale and, (B) Without context and scale.
WHAT I mean is....this:
THAT (^^^^) is "forced perspective". It is INTENTIONAL, of course.
WHEN we see images taken by Mars Rovers....we have NO reference scale....because...we are not there....to give a size reference.
WHEN you see a photo taken on Earth, WE generally have a "reference" to size....because we LIVE HERE, and have eyes. But, when it's a computer-generated "GodZilla" in Manhattan (or, whatever?)....in a film? We STILL understand the geometry. AND the 'scale'....(even in really BAD films of the past...we know what they tried to do).
WHEN it comes to photos on an "alien planet" (and Mars IS an "alien planet")....you MUST understand the context OF the image, and the way it is obtained!!
(Sorry for my 'rant'...)
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Pretty sure that round rocks aren't a mystery to science or geology.Have you seen this one too?
I don't think there is a "scientific" explanation as of yet, most sites showing this and the other photo are spewing "it must be aliens" belief.
Thomas
Member
Looking at the shadow, the surface behind it must be at an angle.
Edit: Can't upload example images with ios8.
Last edited:
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Look, folks.....ALL of these images are from a planet that NONE of us will (likely) visit in our lifetimes....(although I WISH I could!).
We are seeing images that are (A) Without context and scale and, (B) Without context and scale.
WHAT I mean is....this:
THAT (^^^^) is "forced perspective". It is INTENTIONAL, of course.
WHEN we see images taken by Mars Rovers....we have NO reference scale....because...we are not there....to give a size reference.
WHEN you see a photo taken on Earth, WE generally have a "reference" to size....because we LIVE HERE, and have eyes. But, when it's a computer-generated "GodZilla" in Manhattan (or, whatever?)....in a film? We STILL understand the geometry. AND the 'scale'....(even in really BAD films of the past...we know what they tried to do).
WHEN it comes to photos on an "alien planet" (and Mars IS an "alien planet")....you MUST understand the context OF the image, and the way it is obtained!!
(Sorry for my 'rant'...)
BOTH of you guys are right. Weed's right in that its a matter of scale and perspective. At first glance it looks a LOT like an aerial photo, or maybe a shot of something off in the distance. There's no scale reference in the picture (since its a raw shot). Deirdre's post GIVES us the scale and perspective.. but to those in the world who dont follow every movement of the rover with baited breath (like I do, cuz Im THAT big of a Nerd) you wouldnt realize that the keyword in the photo is MAST. Meaning the mast camera took the shot, and the VAST majority of those shots are close range. Those who only see a few shots, harken back to the first few days of the Rovers when they were taking pictures of their surroundings.. shooting UP the mountain slope etc.. so those pushing for the totempole or ruin or whatever are having an issue with perspective.
I love following the rovers (Ive even got a sub to their twitter) and it took me a few seconds to try to scale things correctly. When you take a quick glance at it, it looks like a long distance shot, until you really really start to study the picture. The cracks you see on the ground, are like the cracks you see on the desert floor when it hasnt rained in a while, but to the uninitiated they look like river beds... and thats what 's forcing their scale and perspective to change. Look back at the photo and try to see it much MUCH larger than it is, and you'll understand what Im saying. Thats why Im saying both of you guys are right. De's right in that the scale is listed in her post, and Weed's right because if you JUST look at the "artifact" your mind scales it up a LOT when you look at the "cliffs" surrounding it.. instead of it being, what looks to me like, the leftovers of a water pool.
Personally, I think the lil stop light deal is something that broke off from ledge just off to its right. Those flat spots match almost exactly with the three lil nodule deals that make it look like a totem pole/traffic light.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
cloudspotter
Senior Member.
Well if it's erosion from the wind I'd guess that the rest of the rock has blown away and the small item that remains standing is the remains of a bigger item.
jonnyH
Senior Member.
Hevach
Senior Member.
We've never sent two landers to the same part of Mars. At least not yet. It's been proposed, and there were people pushing the Viking sites for all four of the modern rovers, but so far they've never been selected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_rover#Image_map_of_Mars_landings
As you can see, the closest two landers are Sojourner and Viking 1, but it would have still taken years for Pathfinder to reach Viking (it only lasted 85 days, and wasn't expected to last that long).
Sojourner, Opportunity, Spirit, and Curiosity all left landing systems behind. The first three had fixed base stations, so there wasn't a chance to accidentally find them. Curiosity had the skycrane, which was crashed and scattered a good bit of debris. But they intentionally crashed it in the opposite direction from where Curiosity was going, because getting pictures of a broken robot wasn't worth the risk of getting the wheels caught in the cables and potentially ending the mission right there. They saw some packing material in the first few weeks, but there's no chance of running into the skycrane itself.
Mars is big - it's got as much land area as Earth. The chances of our robots encountering each other by random chance are basically zero, and we've intentionally made the chances even lower by sending them to different places.
Last edited:
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
I dunno about traffic lights, it looks more like a standard British railway four aspect signal post to me, with the green lens removed. http://www.railway-technical.com/sig-uktypes.shtml.
which explains why First Great Westerns Bristol - London (Paddington) sevices are so late, if they are being diverted via Mars and then delayed by faulty signaling equipment.
which explains why First Great Westerns Bristol - London (Paddington) sevices are so late, if they are being diverted via Mars and then delayed by faulty signaling equipment.
Similar threads
