So this is one of the ruins that I found on this Gigapan. I am new at this so my editing skills are not on par with experienced hunters. Practice makes perfect I guess. This doesn't seem natural to me what do you guys/gals think?
Source: https://viewer.gigamacro.com/view/SpLTdKwYDCXMBvKr?x1=18119.92&y1=-1107.87&res1=3.48&rot1=0.00
Good find, noisemagician. The debris in the foreground and at far left 10 o'clock certainly look archaeological - perhaps foundations or walls with
anglular outlines.
Elsewhere in the gigapan is a wtf !!! Suggestions, anyone.
These belong to the rover, they aren't Martian artifacts.
@MarsX3D It occurred to me that the NASA wags might be taking the piss. However, at the risk of making unfounded assumptions, these artefacts closely resemble those found on Earth.
Absolutely, the obfuscation software is turned off for this image. Or that expelled lander/rover section would've been 'rockified' to the max I promise you.
@Bern Thank you, I was thinking the same thing. I suspect that in the same goes for the middle of the image but there was nothing that I could work with.
Your processing is fine - my gosh, you should have seen MINE when I first started! And you're correct: the road itself shows you the road. Just keep doing what you're doing. Maybe at some point we can put together a PhotoShop basics for anomaly hunters...
Thank your for your encouraging word. I hope you do make a tutorial and also links to the sources of your images.
@noisemagician Every image I publish has an easily-typed short url link in the data bar, and all those used in the videos have clickable links in the description.
They may or may not be ruins, Noisemagician - it's difficult to tell as there simply isn't enough detail. In a case like this, I employ Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. That explanation would be biased towards geological formations. Normally and even without the requisite detail, the presence of strong, clear non-fractal forms would point towards artificiality. Keep doing what you're doing!
You're right, moving forward I will be more critical.
@noisemagician I have learned the hard way to up my game, to always seek more conclusive evidence based upon the presence of non-fractality. Of the large amount of anomalies I find and/or view AND often process each week, I end up tossing 30-40% of them when I come back a day or two later with fresh eyes.. It's a lot more work, but the hard-hitting anomalies are worth the search. For the skeptical (NOT cynical. There's a difference!) person assumed to be in our audience, we want to present the best possible evidence. You can't argue with non-fractal math, so if someone chooses to mock or dismiss such an image, it is indicative of their own ignorance, not ours. Thank you for what you're doing!