A crab photographed on the surface of Mars?

[Dalia]

hello, Give me your opinion about this

?

Would a crab have been photographed on the ground of the red planet Mars? At least that is what tries to prove to us several net surfers, responsible for this "discovery" ...
After the discovery of a pyramid, a mysterious saucer, a buffalo, or an alien mummy, today is a crab that has been discovered by Internet users on the planet's soil red, littering the rocks. Although this discovery may make many of you laugh, this is what a few Internet surfer responsible for the NASA snapshot claim most seriously, revealing a rock formation where a whole bunch of shapes can 'imagine.
A crab on Mars, the responsible pareidolia
While the crab hypothesis on Mars is currently much in the news, Seth Shostak, director of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) research center, which can be translated as "search for extraterrestrial intelligence", has largely disputed the appearance. To listen to the man, this observation simply echoes the phenomenon that we call paréidolie, or the faculty of our brain to see concrete forms in various abstract objects.
As for specialists, they also add: "Recognizing a crab in a pile of pebbles is no more surprising or more meaningful than watching a winking face in a semicolon followed by a parenthesis".

Un crabe photographié à la surface de Mars ? - DocuMystere : Paranormal - Science - Mystères

 

[JGalt]

hello, Give me your opinion about this

?

Would a crab have been photographed on the ground of the red planet Mars? At least that is what tries to prove to us several net surfers, responsible for this "discovery" ...
After the discovery of a pyramid, a mysterious saucer, a buffalo, or an alien mummy, today is a crab that has been discovered by Internet users on the planet's soil red, littering the rocks. Although this discovery may make many of you laugh, this is what a few Internet surfer responsible for the NASA snapshot claim most seriously, revealing a rock formation where a whole bunch of shapes can 'imagine.
A crab on Mars, the responsible pareidolia
While the crab hypothesis on Mars is currently much in the news, Seth Shostak, director of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) research center, which can be translated as "search for extraterrestrial intelligence", has largely disputed the appearance. To listen to the man, this observation simply echoes the phenomenon that we call paréidolie, or the faculty of our brain to see concrete forms in various abstract objects.
As for specialists, they also add: "Recognizing a crab in a pile of pebbles is no more surprising or more meaningful than watching a winking face in a semicolon followed by a parenthesis".

Un crabe photographié à la surface de Mars ? - DocuMystere : Paranormal - Science - Mystères

That's not what I see. It could be a space whore.

 

[Dalia]

hello, Give me your opinion about this

?

Would a crab have been photographed on the ground of the red planet Mars? At least that is what tries to prove to us several net surfers, responsible for this "discovery" ...
After the discovery of a pyramid, a mysterious saucer, a buffalo, or an alien mummy, today is a crab that has been discovered by Internet users on the planet's soil red, littering the rocks. Although this discovery may make many of you laugh, this is what a few Internet surfer responsible for the NASA snapshot claim most seriously, revealing a rock formation where a whole bunch of shapes can 'imagine.
A crab on Mars, the responsible pareidolia
While the crab hypothesis on Mars is currently much in the news, Seth Shostak, director of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) research center, which can be translated as "search for extraterrestrial intelligence", has largely disputed the appearance. To listen to the man, this observation simply echoes the phenomenon that we call paréidolie, or the faculty of our brain to see concrete forms in various abstract objects.
As for specialists, they also add: "Recognizing a crab in a pile of pebbles is no more surprising or more meaningful than watching a winking face in a semicolon followed by a parenthesis".

Un crabe photographié à la surface de Mars ? - DocuMystere : Paranormal - Science - Mystères

That's not what I see. It could be a space whore.

Well, we don't see the same thing what could i say more

 

[konradv]

Fuzzy and out-of-focus. Making any sort of guess as to what it actually is is a fool's errand. If there were really something there, wouldn't someone have used fancy graphical software to clear things up?

 

[Dalia]

Fuzzy and out-of-focus. Making any sort of guess as to what it actually is is a fool's errand. If there were really something there, wouldn't someone have used fancy graphical software to clear things up?

Yes, to learn more about this image, we have to do some research

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's a rock

 

[usmbguest5318]

Give me your opinion about this

My opinion, if it can be called that two-dimensional images can easily make objects appear to be things they are not; thus the object in the image may or may not be a crab of any sort.

One need not look to Mars for examples of the effect of depicting in two dimensions objects that are three dimensional. There's a television show on the Science Channel that illustrates the effects of such depictions; the show is called What on Earth. Some of the things the show discusses are images from satellites that are distorted due either to three-to-two dimensional representations, and others are the result of something called stitching. Sometimes researchers know what the object/phenomenon is, and other times they don't. In all cases, the show introduces the object/phenomenon as though there's something sinister afoot re: its existence. I dare say the show is right up the alley of "conspiracy theorists" and/or "ancient alienists."

Why is that lake pink?

Is an asteroid about to hit Earth?

Why is there a triangle in the middle of the Australian outback's nothingness?

Who put a person's face on the Earth?

What are all those circles doing there?

Why is one of Los Angeles' reservoir water turning black?
​

There are simple, straightforward explanations for each of the things above, yet the show drags out providing them by introducing all sorts of cockamamy explanations. For the things that haven't been explained/examined, the show leaves viewers with any number of plausible and implausible speculations.

 

[norwegen]

I hope the photo isn't a selfie. Or crabs are smarter than I thought.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I see the sphinx to the right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Give me your opinion about this

My opinion, if it can be called that two-dimensional images can easily make objects appear to be things they are not; thus the object in the image may or may not be a crab of any sort.

One need not look to Mars for examples of the effect of depicting in two dimensions objects that are three dimensional. There's a television show on the Science Channel that illustrates the effects of such depictions; the show is called What on Earth. Some of the things the show discusses are images from satellites that are distorted due either to three-to-two dimensional representations, and others are the result of something called stitching. Sometimes researchers know what the object/phenomenon is, and other times they don't. In all cases, the show introduces the object/phenomenon as though there's something sinister afoot re: its existence. I dare say the show is right up the alley of "conspiracy theorists" and/or "ancient alienists."

Why is that lake pink?

Is an asteroid about to hit Earth?

Why is there a triangle in the middle of the Australian outback's nothingness?

Who put a person's face on the Earth?

What are all those circles doing there?

Why is one of Los Angeles' reservoir water turning black?
​

There are simple, straightforward explanations for each of the things above, yet the show drags out providing them by introducing all sorts of cockamamy explanations. For the things that haven't been explained/examined, the show leaves viewers with any number of plausible and implausible speculations.

I love good mysteries, and the explanations for them. Have absolutely no patience for that type of program. Sad that they even do those.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Give me your opinion about this

My opinion, if it can be called that two-dimensional images can easily make objects appear to be things they are not; thus the object in the image may or may not be a crab of any sort.

One need not look to Mars for examples of the effect of depicting in two dimensions objects that are three dimensional. There's a television show on the Science Channel that illustrates the effects of such depictions; the show is called What on Earth. Some of the things the show discusses are images from satellites that are distorted due either to three-to-two dimensional representations, and others are the result of something called stitching. Sometimes researchers know what the object/phenomenon is, and other times they don't. In all cases, the show introduces the object/phenomenon as though there's something sinister afoot re: its existence. I dare say the show is right up the alley of "conspiracy theorists" and/or "ancient alienists."

Why is that lake pink?

Is an asteroid about to hit Earth?

Why is there a triangle in the middle of the Australian outback's nothingness?

Who put a person's face on the Earth?

What are all those circles doing there?

Why is one of Los Angeles' reservoir water turning black?
​

There are simple, straightforward explanations for each of the things above, yet the show drags out providing them by introducing all sorts of cockamamy explanations. For the things that haven't been explained/examined, the show leaves viewers with any number of plausible and implausible speculations.

I love good mysteries, and the explanations for them. Have absolutely no patience for that type of program. Sad that they even do those.

Same here. Sadly, the narrators and explainers spend more time talking about all the things the objects/phenomena are not than they do discussing what they are; consequently, show is better viewed on DVR than live, for least one can fast-forward through the BS and get to the actual explanation, or discover there isn't one and move on. The biggest letdown is the episodes wherein every segment is about something for which there is no settled answer.

 

[rightwinger]

Martians don't eat crabs silly