Why didn't they go back and look at it?

t. alien

A boulder fell and shattered a rock on the cliff.

Wait, how big is that?

>>Was there ever a general consensus on the geological processes that could have formed such a structure?
lighting and camera conditions. And in this case, JPEG compression algorithms, crab is less prominent in original:mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00710/mcam/0710MR0030150070402501E01_DXXX.jpg

>> as well as any rock we've seen on the planet in general.
I tell you what, you know what's unlike any other rocks we seen on mars? Those beautiful fucking outcroppings. That's what the rockhounds really want.

Look at this shit man. Doesn't this just give you a rock boner?

>lighting and camera conditions. And in this case, JPEG compression algorithms
I'm so fucking tired of this bullshit explanation. First of all, the "crab" is in a shadow, so lighting has nothing to do with it. As with the jpeg compression, the rest of the image looks absolutely fine, there is no reason to assume that somehow, magically, it accounts for an object to suddenly appear.

>the "crab" is in a shadow, so lighting has nothing to do with it
You can't make this up

Curiosity is not there to look at rocks. It has no time to go back and look.

NASA had to do that on purpose

Dude the crab thing is way too prominent to be caused by bad lighting. I seriously don't understand why you faggots just regurgitate obvious bullshit. I'm not saying it's aliens, but surely weird geological features like that should be worthy of further exploration?

I think it looks weird too, but saying that shadows aren't lighting is just stupid

How can shadows be lighting if they are obviously darking?

If they say it's just a rock formation, it's cool and all, but show me 1 (one) example here on Earth that looks even remotely similar to that Mars crab thing, and I'll believe the scientists. And it can't be a picture of a spider or crab here on Earth, it has to be a geological formation.

...

>but show me 1 (one) example here on Earth that looks even remotely similar to that Mars crab thing

Check your Earth privilege shitlord, don't apply your filthy earth-human perceptions to this beautiful Planet of color. It's rock formations are JUST RIGHT, even if they don't harbor any kind of lifeforms, deal with it bigot. #staywoke #redprideworldwide

>yfw the people you impersonated will shoot down the mars colonization project

shadows are not 100% devoid of light are they?
different levels of lighting makes brighter and darker areas, yes?
the darker areas we call shadows, yes?
so lighting conditions is what this is, yes?
after play time you can have some candy and watch cartoons, yes?

never mind the crab rocks
What about de dinosaur fossils?

What's the deal with the shitty camera lens resolution. Does NASA just use whatever cheap shit they have lying about. Why no top shelf camera and zoom technology.

This is just so fucking stupid.

...

Probably a baby one of these

>this is a rock
>this is a fucking rock
I'm sorry but the tinfoils may be right on this one

>I'm not saying it's aliens,
>but it was aliens.

It's cropped.

Granted, the original is only 1200p - or at least that's what they released to the public

mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00710/mcam/0710MR0030150070402501E01_DXXX.jpg

Weathering processes are different on Earth than on Mars so even if we don't find a perfect analog it's meaningless.

It's not like we don't have weird shit here on Earth anyway.

It's mostly an artifact caused by deblurring. When you are deblurring you always emphasize frequencies in the image that contain more noise than signal. So your result is mostly fantasy.

Why release in a lossy format though - why are these not PNG or some shit? Is NASA hard up for web space?

Because
>Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research, said he gets images showing formations such as this one about once a week.

>“Those that send them to me are generally quite excited, as they claim that these frequently resemble SOMETHING you wouldn’t expect to find on the rusty, dusty surface of the Red Planet,” he said via email. “It’s usually some sort of animal, but occasionally even weirder objects such as automobile parts. Maybe they think there are cars on Mars.”

>He said it’s really just a phenomenon called pareidolia, or the brain’s ability to make shapes out of random objects — like seeing animals in clouds.

>“Far from being a vision defect, pareidolia has a lot of survival value if you need to quickly spot predators in the jungle, for instance,” he wrote.

>He added:

>“Recognizing a crab in a landscape filled with wind-weathered rocks is no more surprising — nor more significant — than seeing a winking face in a semi-colon followed by a parenthesis. ;) “

Just like this teapot isn't actually Hitler.

I'd say bandwidth and signal loss - but I somehow doubt JPG would be the optimal solution for either, particularly signal loss.

Maybe just legacy accessibility conversion for their site - the only alternatives for that being BMP (freaking huge) and GIF (256 colors).

Am a bit curious as to what sorta format the original data was in though - perhaps a higher resolution.

Yeah, while I can see why he'd assume that as soon as someone brought it up, he clearly he didn't look at that thing.

It's practically screaming, "Come little rover - come here and stick your arm in me - LIVE UP TO YOUR NAME BOI!"

...I mean, this is what the damned thing is looking at now. (yay)

Calling everything pareidolia instead of what it actually is - doctored images made to evoke these responses - only fuels other conspiracy theorists, since it overstates what pareidolia is actually capable of.

Saying NASA is doctoring images is even more tinfoil than assuming it's alien life they missed and can't be bothered to go back for due to bureaucracy.

>tinfoil
foil is aluminum now, Grandpa

Dude, the mission was over in 2012... I think they can fucking play around a bit now.

Curiosity and Opportunity are putting in insane overtime - damn things just won't die.

not to mention that that thing probably wouldnt even be there when they returned anyway

Kek

I think we may be getting into the realm of interpreting jpeg artifacts as physical structures here...

Well played.

>since it overstates what pareidolia is actually capable of.

What?

How many people are convinced that pic related is a sculpture of a face, carved into the face of Mars by an ancient alium civilization? Pareidolia seems capable of quite a lot.

It is even better with the pic, sorry.

Explain this, sheeple.

All those dead fish...

You can still get the tin, for hatmaking purposes/

>alium civilization

It's a little easier to blame pareidolia when the object spotted is a face or some earthen critter... But the object in question, if nothing else, presents a clearly anomalous surface. It might be a plant, it might be a crabish thingie, sure. At the very least is an unusual geological formation, and, had someone caught it at the time, it certainly would've been worth checking out.

Now, I suppose, we should give NASA the benefit of the doubt while leaving room for mistakes. It maybe they missed this odd formation for so long, that by the time someone pointed it out, they were just too many miles away to make it worth turning back for. It seems doubtful the rover is sending 1200p JPG images, so maybe they have higher resolution images makes it clearer what it is. Maybe it's clear from said images that merely sand piled up in an odd pattern due to one of those month-long global windstorms Mars occasionally has.

But to say the object isn't objectively incongruous, and to write off every incongruous finding as pareidolia, making the entire effort of sending the thing rather pointless.

That is by far the oddest thing I've ever seen on mars, I'd have sent the rover over for a quick look, can you imagine if that actually did turn out to be a lifeform?

If it is a crab, where are the pictures of all the other crabs? They'll all look pretty much alike, so spotting them in other pictures should be easy. I'll wait.

Rovers are expensive, it doesn't make sense to play around

>It might be...

Might be nothng made to look like something by image manipulation, Might be trying to read too much data into one compressed image.

Might be that the guys at NASA, who would become famous and get their budget upped manifold times, know about all those possibilities.

>It's a little easier to blame pareidolia when the object spotted is a face or some earthen critter

Like a crab?

>But to say the object isn't objectively incongruous, and to write off every incongruous finding as pareidolia, making the entire effort of sending the thing rather pointless.

Well, no, when they actually see anomalous or interesting things, they do their best to study them. But it is worth considering that they may be able to resolve some "anomalies" that would leave you or me stumped, without spending a lot of time or effort.

Finally, an anomaly that shows up after manipulating the image is not as compelling to me as it is to some folks, I guess.

For grins, my favorite pareidolia picture -- truly amazing.

The investment was made with the assumption that the mission would be over in 2012. It's effectively paid itself off several times over.

I'm not saying we should start doing dune buggy races with the thing, but going back to check out something interesting that ya missed hardly seems to be a high risk sacrifice at this point.

Well it's an objectively crab-like formation, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting it is an actual crab or crab sculpture.

>Finally, an anomaly that shows up after manipulating the image is not as compelling to me as it is to some folks, I guess.
Have you even looked at the original image?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00710/mcam/0710MR0030150070402501E01_DXXX.jpg
That is clearly an anomaly... It may not be ayylmao, but ya don't very often come across something that blatantly out of place in this endless series of banal images.

Again, it maybe in the original unreleased image you can see it is packed sand, but I think it's just as likely NASA just missed it for too long. Not that I can really say one way or the other without knowing the minute to minute details of those operation sgo - I also dunno how many hours or days they are away from it now.

I actually looks like a coral to me. Someone memed fossils, but this one really reminds me of one

>I'm not saying we should start doing dune buggy races with the thing, but going back to check out something interesting that ya missed hardly seems to be a high risk sacrifice at this point.

I disagree -- the area around "Hidden Valley" was dangerous for the rover (soft sands) and going back to it would be a needless risk without something more than "if you expand this until the compression artifacts start to look like things, you can see a crab."

>Well it's an objectively
subjectively, but yeah, I see it too in the expanded inages

>crab-like formation,

Not until you blow it up enough to see the compression artifacts, prior to that isit is a blob among a million other blobs in a complicated pile of rocks.

>I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting it is an actual crab or crab sculpture.

Have you read the thread?

>Have you even looked at the original image?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00710/mcam/0710MR0030150070402501E01_DXXX.jpg
>That is clearly an anomaly...

I have, I don't see much anomalous there until you start expanding it. I also do note the ground between the Crab Monster and the rover -- doesn't look like you are going to get much closer in any case, but then I don't drive Mars rovers.

Besides, the obvious "Pharaohnic" carving of a female torso, seen in this cropped image of the dame area, is much more interesting, and not just because I like female torsos more than crabs.

Well certainly coral on Mars would be the find of the millenia.

Meh, it could be anything, I'm just saying it's certainly unusual.

Are really going to compare those clear ravines to that spikey patch? This isn't the same random lines forming a new pattern - that's a different material from the rock it is on. ...Or at the very least, the same material as the sand, suspended somehow. (Although, checking with photoshop, the color drift suggest otherwise, but then again, f*cking NASA and their JPEGs.)

You may have a point about not being able to get within sampling range, but judging by the sequence of images in the series, they didn't stop to take additional photos, nor go back in the next igr, so either they could identify it, or they missed it.

why don't they just release the full images anyway instead of these shitty jpegs?

>so either they could identify it, or they missed it.

I would tend to agree, with the third possibility, that it did not strike them as sufficiently unusual to be worth worrying about. These guys spent over a month looking at if a slab of suspected hydrologic mineral beneath the rover’s tires, I would discount out of hand that they'd ignore an obvious anomaly, which I don't think the image of the Crab shows in any case.

Sidebar -- here's why you want manned exploration. A real time, real set of eyes and a real brain on site could have walked a bit closer and either said "Holy shit, it's a crab!" or "Oh, funny how the sand and shadows looked like a crab for a mement there."

Ps: Somebody upstream (can't be arsed to go find them to reply to) wondered how long ago the pic was taken -- it is from August 5, 2014. So going back to look again is not happening. Fucking crab is likely dead by now.

You are implying implications.

More like
>Holy shit, it's a crab!
>Holy shit, it's jumping me!
>WTF
>Alternative
>Oh shit, what is this, better not go there

>>Holy shit, it's a crab!
>>Holy shit, it's jumping me!
>>IT'S FUCKING DELICIOUS, MARS NEEDS MOAR BUTTER!!

humans are literally space orcs m8

Entirely speculation, but maybe: It's a government organization, we all know they suck at making web sites.

Mars crabs can't digest Earth meat.

What about President Trump and his websites

They are always pretty high quality desu

But their bite is poisonous

Tell Trump to pass an executive order that NASA must use PNG format on their website come Mars 2020.

Venomous, not poisonous.

Just making a change.org petition

>Everyone complains that NASA should have taken another photo of it.
>Spend so much time complaining that they miss the fact NASA did take another photo of it.
>Base all their opinions on the image that looks like it has legs and never look at the one where it's clear it dosen't

Oh? (Left one is yours)

They are checking out things that are interesting, just not things you schizos find interesting.

Normal rocks are very fucking interesting

If you're still seeing a crab in the left image and not just a lump of rock, it's probably too late for you.

I see a low res pic on the left and a little higher res pic in a slightly different angle on the right man

>implying jpeg artifacts look like crabs

they didn't know whether or not it would be aggressive.

>IT PULLED IN ITS LEGS BETWEEN PICTURES!!!!!!!

>just a lump of rock
Lrn2sculpture, thou Philistine

>Crab is just a rock
>Torso from is still there though.

Did you notice how, hen you can see another view, it's just a rock after all?

What if it's not a crab, but a bipedal sitting down

>Yeah, lets turn everything in existence in such an angle (and photograph it with shitty resolution) that it just looks like a random rock
>Dont even consider any other angle or resolution than the one that makes it look like a rock

I can even turn that same shitty argument against you man

>favorite pareidolia picture
Forget the Jesus there
There is clearly a man in a suit next to him
No way this isn't manipulated kek

>guys at NASA, who would become famous
name one guy at NASA who is famous, pleb

Sure --in which case ALL of those rocks might be crabs, why did NASA not investigate the thousands of crabs seen in these images? Is it a cover up?

No, of course not, checking millions of rocks to see if any of them are crabs would be a moronic thing to do. So you look around, with your slow remote camera, and if there is anything that looks a bit interesting, before you risk your zillion dollar lander traversing a boulder field up into the lee of a crumbling cliff face, , you check and se if the same thing is visible in other pictures from other angles. If, when you do that, it is shown that it was not that interesting after all, such as when space crabs turn out to be just rocks when you look at them from a couple of angles, then you move on.

Now, if the other angle still shows a crab, or shows that he's climbed up the cliff a few meters, or is holding up a "Earth go home" sign, guess what? NASA is ecstatic, they've made the discovery of the millennium, they are all famous and get to fuck hot science nerd groupie chicks in the bars that night, while their project funding goes through the roof. It would be their most cherished dreams coming true.

The guy at NASA who said "HOLY FUCKING SHIT, GUYS, LOOK, THERE ARE FUCKING CRABS ON MARS! I JUST DISCOVERED LIFE ON MARS!" -- he'd be pretty famous.

Neil Armstrong

I had to go google the pic and find a website that talked about it before I could see what made up the Jesus image. That is wild.

That guy who wore the sexist shirt his girlfriend made him while landing on a muthafuggin comet, he was pretty famous for a few days.