Alien Anomalies

fruitnut1 wrote:

---

Well then give us yours, in order to mantain a sustainable level of debate. Even if the image displays a rock, try explaining the marks left by your RAT hypothesis.

 

-- Frutty

 

---

This thread began with some specific questions qmantoo had about the RAT. Those questions have been answered to everyone's satisfaction, it appears, except you. Chandre has determined that the issue has been sufficiently answered to move the thread to the archives.

I see no reason to draw it out by entering into an endless loop of having you present new image after new image of RAT marks and me having to dissect and explain in detail why it's normal.

 

Several people have learned new things from this thread. I've been happy to be able to contribute to their education.

But the debate is over. Start a new thread if you want; I won't be participating in it.

fruitnut1 wrote:

---

As always I think there is more to this circles purportedly made by Spirit's RAT.

The following image if studied correctly, displays three bluish circles purportedly made by Spirit's rat that are located at different ground topographic levels.

However that's impossible if you figure out the perspective of the picture.

The picture was taken from above. To the left there is a descending cliff that leads to a plain lane like area. The cliff continues descending to the right.

 

No rat could have done that. No way 

---

"It can't be so because I say it can't be so!"

You keep making statements which assert facts. However, there is no evidence to support your claim. Your interpretation of images has not been shown to be reliable; there is no reason to believe your interpretation here is any better.

qmantoo wrote:

---

So finally, we are saying that the brush was used to make these bright reflective circles and they are so bright and reflective because the true surface of the rock, after it has been brushed, is bright and reflective.

---

No. The problem is that you're making assumptions from a single image without having any background knowledge about geology, or optics, or camera systems. You assume that it's a "bright, reflective circle". Why? Because you've seen one photo without any supplemental information. Is it a bright, reflective circle? What wavelength filter was used?



Here's Lutefisk using a filter at 436 nm (deep blue).



Here's Lutefisk using a filter at 754 nm (deep red)

Quite a difference in your initial incredulity at how bright and reflective and shiny the brushed area is, wouldn't you say? I suppose now you'll be surprised and incredulous at how dark the brushed area is.

Images using a number of different filters from the visible into the infrared are easily accessible at http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p304.html

They show different levels of brightness between the dusty surface and the non-dusty rock surface because they have different spectral reflectivities.

qmantoo wrote:

---

1) Do you think that it is likely that the surface of the rock is reflective and shiny without any dust on it?

---

In some wavelengths it is very much brighter. In some wavelengths it is darker. In some wavelengths the brightness is almost identical.

qmantoo wrote:

---

2) Do you think that the brush will 'brush away' things on the surface that will make the surface completely smooth?

---

Talk about a reversal! The original complaint was that the surface texture of the rock was still apparent after grinding which, as everyone knows, should make it perfectly smooth. First it wasn't smooth enough, and now it's too smooth? Which is it?

qmantoo wrote:

---

3) Where is all the dust that it has brushed away?

4) If the surface of the rock was dull, and now it is shiny, wouldn't there be a significant amount of dust on there in the first place?

---

No, there is not a significant amount of dust, it's a fairly thin layer. And here it is. At 904 nm (near-IR) it's most visible in a dark halo around the lower brush area.

qmantoo wrote:

---

5) where are the microscopic imager camera pictures of this brushed area? We are told that two scientists were sitting discussing the rock and their handiwork, and we should expect some MI camera images of the brushed surface.

---

First, you've made an assumption that there should be microscopic imager camera pictures. You expect them. Why?

I'll tell you why. You have a poor understanding of the instruments and capabilities. You expect MI images because the only situation you can imagine in which a rock would be brushed is to then subsequently take pictures with the MI. Therefore there MUST be something funny because there are no MI images. There two other instruments on the rover arm that are used for making closeup soil and mineral measurements. Both the Mossbauer spectrometer and the Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer benefit from brushing away dust so that the rock underneath is measured, not the dust on top.

Second, you didn't work very hard at looking for the images. 24 MI images are available http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_m299.html

So, did that satisfy all the questions you would like to have answers to?

Perhaps if you did a bit of research into the rover's equipment, instruments, and capabilities you wouldn't be mystified and confused when you looked at an image and could then find the answers on your own.

 

 

Software_Pyrate wrote:

---

Hmmmm.....I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong....That may have been the case here...

I had No idea it had a "brush" as well as a "grinder" on board.

---

You didn't know that?  It also carries toothpaste ...  just in case 

 

 

-- Frutty

It's been an interesting thread and good conversation, but OBirien is right. The RAT has a brush as detailed in Skippers 'coin' report where he shows images of the RAT.

The brush is used to dust the surface and in some cases even makes 'sunflower' type shapes on the rocks when the RAT is rotated and the brush is then used.

Sorry, but this thread is going to archives....

People get old and die and there are always those who are willing to spill the beans after they are dead.
The 'control' aspect of all this is that we fear that our loved ones will be harmed if the story gets out, even after our death we do not want 'them' to hurt our family.

This is how a bully acts. Their power is in threats and fear.

Yes, there are many stories of zero point energy being developed and then the developer being visited and their family threatened. End of development, and I wonder if this is what has happened to some developers who have died young or in strange or unusual circumstances. However, these days, spy technology has advanced so much that they can make it look like a simple heart attack - various unpopular leaders can be examples of this. Saddam Hussein etc

The world looks the other way due to media control.

qmantoo wrote:

---

I would go there like a shot and keep copies of everything or 'leak' stuff to other people or just find out what was really going on and then post it.

Unfortunately, they know that people like us are labelled 'nutters' 'oddballs' etc and are on the fringe of sanity (as far as everyone else is concerned). Each person has to decide for themselves what their obligation to society is and where they stand morally.

Is it moral to keep information (which would hurt some people) from knowing about it? (Aliens.cancer,asteroids, etc)
Where does the Government role of 'nanny' end and personal responsibility begin?
There is nothing wrong with the governments stance - except that it does not allow personal choices to be made and which can lead to manipulation of the population against their will. Some profit whilst others lose.

---

Just a serious interlude here, I've had some acquaintances in the military. They always tell me . I have a family and kids, I cannot speak about those things .. So there's always a trade off between what you can reveal and what your morals mandate, mainly your personal safety and that of your loved ones .

-- Frutty

I would go there like a shot and keep copies of everything or 'leak' stuff to other people or just find out what was really going on and then post it.

Unfortunately, they know that people like us are labelled 'nutters' 'oddballs' etc and are on the fringe of sanity (as far as everyone else is concerned). Each person has to decide for themselves what their obligation to society is and where they stand morally.

Is it moral to keep information (which would hurt some people) from knowing about it? (Aliens.cancer,asteroids, etc)
Where does the Government role of 'nanny' end and personal responsibility begin?
There is nothing wrong with the governments stance - except that it does not allow personal choices to be made and which can lead to manipulation of the population against their will. Some profit whilst others lose.

I've been having mixed emotions at this  thought ...

What if I would be offered a great paying job in the NASA or ESA's tampering department, obfuscation division?

hmmmm

 

-- Frutty

I give credit where credit is due....and it was due....:)

Yes, My thoughts exsactly as far as the debri ....but.....is there any other images of the RAT after the effect with debri as well...I doubt it as it only drills 5 mm deep.....If there was any....it would be a fine powder directly on the outside of the drill line....Of course....providing there isn't any wind....wink wink...

Software_Pyrate wrote:

---

My take on it...

I don't think there is a little alien standing there or some creature....


This looks more like a sculpture or carving of some kind into the rock...with a bunch of faces of all different kinds and creeds....

Just my 2 cents

---

Yes, I agree. This gives me a chance to hint on another issue. Don't be so sure this is a small rock. It could be a boulder or a mountain. I've already seen enough on how disinfo works, to be aware of how we can be mislead in many ways 

 

-- Frutty

And still yet....another version

So yes Fruit...while you are trying to make a joke...I think it can be interpated many different ways....its just not clear enough man....

Shoot...I'm trying to upload an animated gif....but its not working for some reason...

let me try on another server....

 

-- Edited by Chandre on Monday 26th of July 2010 03:35:22 PM

Just to elaborate further....

A skeptics one last thread of hope would be to say that the drill only barely touched the surface....However this would not stand a snowballs chance in hell for any body that has used a grinder in their life. Why...well...just the slightest amount of pressure would at the very least "rub off" the higher portions of that area and not disturb the lower....which it has clearly not done.


Although very clear fruit, I don't want to go as far as saying thats a little person there, due to manipulation. But tampering....a definite yes. In fact, being a logical person, this is very good evidence of tampering because there is a physical primes in which to base conclusions off of and rule out other possibilities as I have done.

Nice find Q
Pat on the back

I'm gonna have to agree with you guys on this one....

Just for comparison purposes....And I think it is very important to prove this one strp further...does any body have an image of one that has "actually" been grinded...for the skeptics in the room..

The best thing to do in these cases is to try to see what's behind the photograph this is my enhanced version of the rock, and I see no abrasion, in fact the protuberance could probably be one of your martian little people

-- Frutty

Nothng except maybe we open a thread that's called rover anomalies instead of Mars/martian anomalies 

 

-- Frutty