Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Astronomy
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 25-February-2004, 07:27 AM
Wingnut Ninja Wingnut Ninja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middlebury, VT
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to Wingnut Ninja
Default NASA doesn't look at "unusual" rocks?

You know, all the ones that people are saying look like socket wrenches and toilet lids? The ones that they say NASA is avoiding looking at? All those accusations made today's APOD sound rather interesting. It's basically case of "hey, this looked interesting, so we went to check it out".

Which, of course, is something that NASA never does, because otherwise it will blow the whole conspiracy wide open.

Countdown to miniature Martian gondoliers beginning now...
__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 25-February-2004, 07:36 AM
JohnOwens JohnOwens is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vail, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,086
Send a message via AIM to JohnOwens Send a message via Yahoo to JohnOwens
Default

I don't know if it's the weathering or what, but the shading and coloration on a fair number of those pictures (including the one above, but more some of the greyscale ones) makes them look almost like negative images to me. I guess it's the way it's darker near the top, when we'd usually expect to see darker near the bottom? Does anyone else get this perception at all?
__________________
GhiaPet Home Page
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 25-February-2004, 07:55 AM
Ut Ut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, NS
Posts: 2,506
Default

Very much so. In fact, the bright pink band at the bottom of White Boat kind of freaks me out.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 25-February-2004, 10:36 AM
Narthex Narthex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 97
Default

Why do you say it's pink rather than the same color as the soil it is resting on? That's the way I'm reading the color of that band.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 25-February-2004, 11:45 AM
Amadeus Amadeus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Londinium
Posts: 1,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOwens
I don't know if it's the weathering or what, but the shading and coloration on a fair number of those pictures (including the one above, but more some of the greyscale ones) makes them look almost like negative images to me. I guess it's the way it's darker near the top, when we'd usually expect to see darker near the bottom? Does anyone else get this perception at all?
Well the shadows are dark. So unless NASA cropped all the rocks out of the picture, put them on a new layer and inverted brightness levels.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 25-February-2004, 04:04 PM
sts60 sts60 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 2,020
Default

The pictures are beautiful. But (plaintive mode on) I wanna picture of a fossil.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 25-February-2004, 08:41 PM
Ut Ut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, NS
Posts: 2,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Narthex
Why do you say it's pink rather than the same color as the soil it is resting on? That's the way I'm reading the color of that band.
I say it's pink because, to me, it's distinctly pink. It's probably due to a light dusting of brown-red soil along the white rock, but it still looks kind of freaky.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 26-February-2004, 12:37 AM
Rift's Avatar
Rift Rift is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 39 deg 14' N/ 94 deg 53' W / Elv. 784 ft
Posts: 726
Default

Anybody notice the martian fossil skull to the lower left of ship rock? :P

It's more evident on the higher resolution picture

Just a matter of time before Hoagland and the other woo woos latch on to it.

itty bitty martians...
__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 26-February-2004, 04:03 AM
Wingnut Ninja Wingnut Ninja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middlebury, VT
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to Wingnut Ninja
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rift
Anybody notice the martian fossil skull to the lower left of ship rock? :P

It's more evident on the higher resolution picture

Just a matter of time before Hoagland and the other woo woos latch on to it.

itty bitty martians...
Looks like a lemur... huge eye sockets.
__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 26-February-2004, 05:37 AM
Maksutov's Avatar
Maksutov Maksutov is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fifth corner of the Earth
Posts: 16,731
Default Re: NASA doesn't look at "unusual" rocks?

Then there's the three-toed footprint on top of White Boat itself.
__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 27-February-2004, 02:45 AM
Matt McIrvin Matt McIrvin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 74
Default Infrared pictures

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOwens
I don't know if it's the weathering or what, but the shading and coloration on a fair number of those pictures (including the one above, but more some of the greyscale ones) makes them look almost like negative images to me. I guess it's the way it's darker near the top, when we'd usually expect to see darker near the bottom? Does anyone else get this perception at all?
The "negative"-looking pictures are usually those taken through a filter that admits a narrow band of light in the near infrared. The strange darkening near the top of a rock is then an indication that the bare rock is much darker in this infrared light than the reddish dust that covers the base. If you were to look at the rock with your own eyes you wouldn't see that; more likely it would just look grayer at the top, as the approximate-true-color images indicate.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today