DescentBB

I have a question, later the argument: (this is serious)

Can you see some thread like things
on this picture? And how much they appears as real? (rate it by percent)

Whatcha mean 'thread-like'? It looks like gravel, with larger rocks. The rocks look a little fuzzy. Too blurry to gleen any minute details.

More specifically, look for something like cat hair on sand thinking the picture is a close-up

i see these little "Thread" like textures and one large one.......

I see 2 things that look sort of like threads. Image linked since it's over 200K.

http://home.comcast.net/~tomandcatherin ... hreads.PNG

Just from the few responses given so far, I'd say this demonstrates quite clearly how difficult it is to try to draw inferences from fuzzy B&W photographs :)

the frame I posted is belong to image
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 53M2M1.JPG, enlarged 3 times.

Ok? What is significance of this image? This image become popular because it contain a "thread-like feature" just below the large ball on the upper right. Many people asked to NASA what the significance of this thread. And finally NASA find the answer. Goto Mars rovers home page http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html and below the "FEATURES" section see presentation "Thread-like Feature on Mars:Mystery Solved - Apr 15, 2004"

Ok, on this presenation page
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotligh ... _Mars.html it is written:

"The science team hunted for similar features, scouring every microscopic image transmitted back to Earth... but they did not find similar long, thin features
anywhere else in the microscopic images."

My argument is: Even without "scouring" other images (which many offer better view of such features), similar thread like features can be seen on the same image.

How NASA scientists (see the team picture on this article) missed that?

Because they find this thread is unique, the safely concluded it could be part of airbag, not a Mars feature.

I am very disapointed from that because they totally dismissed these features in any images. These dont exist according NASA.

I think their explanation is pretty good:



It's not NASA saying the features "don't exist", as you claim -- it's NASA saying the features are most plausibly explained as airbag fibers, rather than as life.

I don't see what "similar thread-like features" you're referring to in that same picture. In http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 53M2M1.JPG there is one long white thread-like feature just below the large rock in the upper right. What you presented was cropped from the same picture, about 3 thread-lengths to the left of the thread. Your image has a few black segments that look sort of thread-like, but are not nearly as well defined as the white thread in the main picture. Your image (from left to right) is about the same size as the large white thread, meaning the little black things AceCombat and I pointed out are no more than 1/3 the length of the big white thread, and most are closer to 1/10 that size. Furthermore, the white thing appears to be uniform thickness with smooth tapering near the ends, while the black things appear rough and poorly defined. Finally, in the larger image, if I point to the white thread, nobody will deny that there's something there (though they might try to explain it away as a "scratch" or something) -- it's a clear feature of the image requring explanation. If I point to the black things (in your cropped image, or in the larger image) it's very questionable as to whether there's even a feature there to bother explaining. Notice AceCombat and I didn't even identify the same things as "threads" -- but in the larger image, pretty much anyone would identify the white thing.

So, I agree with NASA: the scientists really *didn't* find any more "similar long, thin features" -- the things Ace and I pointed out aren't similar. They're not the right color, they're not smooth or uniform, they're not clear, they're nowhere near the same size, and overall they're just not the same thing. They investigated the one single feature (the white thread) and found that airbag fibers look exactly like that, and concluded that since an airbag hit that area, it's likely the thing photographed was a fiber.

You want very badly for the features to signify life -- like meathead in an evolution thread, you're just not interested in any explanation that doesn't fit with your preconceptions. It's rather unfortunate -- because establishing the existance of life on mars isn't something to be taken lightly, or to be done with shaky quote-unquote evidence that's easily explained. You're trying to establish an extraordinary claim -- that there's life on Mars. Such a claim should not even be taken seriously without reasonable evidence.

i was just beginning to wonder just WTF are we looking at.


oh BTW: Sudan , your avatar cat face looks exactly like one of my cats. Himalayan/Siamese mix breed...name: Dave

Only exercise Sudanamaru gets is jumping to conclusions.

oh and you have your faults in the tech room aswell mobius so you got no room to speak..........frankly neither do i

In my other posting in public forum vortex, I wrote:

"On my experience on Mars images, this specific filament appear unique and does not look like too much to other filament I spotted, therefore NASA scientists
conclusion could be acceptable on the airbag origin of this filament, but totally dismissing other widespread filaments appears a cover-up."
------

My point is not to claim the original "thread-like feature" is a Mars feature, but "similar thread-like features" phrase is very misleading. This is because this specific shape of thread has no importance. Important is existance of any kind of thread, which could be an evidence of life.

There ARE "thread-like features" on Mars images. Their significance does not reduce if they are not so similar to original thread.

I will try an example for this situation:

Assume a biologist made an expedition to an island where it is not expected to find any kind of birds. He take some photos, and in one photo it appears a figure like a bird, a white bird. So people asked to biologist could this be a bird? Is there any bird on this island? Biologist examine his pictures and other material, and conclude the figure is not a bird mainly because he did not found any other white bird like figure in his pictures and this specific figure can be exlained in other way. But if there are many black bird like figures on these photos and the biologist dismiss them because they are not white.

It is obvious that people dont just to know a specific figure is a bird or not but they want to know is there any bird on this island.


---

You wrote "Furthermore, the white thing appears to be uniform thickness with smooth tapering near the ends, while the black things appear rough and poorly defined."

Yes, native threads are significantly different from this Airbag thread. native thread mostly consist of dots. This suggest the thread which align these dots is very thin and can not be seen stand alone.

You wrote:
If I point to the black things (in your cropped image, or in the larger image) it's very questionable as to whether there's even a feature there to bother explaining"

This is wrong because the kind of threads I show are many on this image and on other images. They can be seen more clearly on many images. See the biologist example.

You can't look at the image and claim there are threads when at the exact same time you say they are too thin to show up as a line so they show up as "dots".

Photographs don't work that way, if something is between pixels then it shows up halfway between either. You don't get artifacts like you do when rendering too small in computer generated images.

Next, don't blow the image up. You can't have a computer fill in the gaps for you and then claim that what's inbetween the gaps is significant.

Look at this article:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/ho ... facts.html
It discusses people seeing things in compressed and enlarged images.


So, say there is a black line there. You have shown no evidence to say it's life. It could be black (or darker since it's a black and white image) dirt there that coincidentally forms a line. Or maybe there is a depression in the shape of a line and you're seeing its shadow?

Don't get so caught up on the really really small details you can't explain while ignoring all the larger ones that you can. Otherwise, you turn into this guy and will never, ever, ever get a girlfriend.

"You can't look at the image and claim there are threads when at the exact same time you say they are too thin to show up as a line so they show up as "dots".

No mean beads by saying "dots", not pixels. Black treads look like to aligned beads. See http://orchestra.webhostme.com/images/s ... luster.png taken from very focused picture allowing individual beads are visible. I
actually thinking these beads grow-up and become these blue-berries finally.

I am aware of compression. I prefer to examine at least two images of the same spot taken slightly with difference focus. Real features shoud exist in both images. The best is same spot with different angles. Composed 3-D picture allow not only see the depth but brain image proccessing yield more detailed images dramatically.

my middle name is Dave...

E&C, anyone?

The black threads are too blurry, could be anything, probably nothing of interest.