WHO THE F*** TOOK THIS PHOTO? **WTF** - Curiosity Rover Snaps Stunning Self-Portrait on Red Planet

A shadow of the camera is visible on the closest front wheel. The arm itself would have moved to get the composite, and thus was edited out.

The camera would:

A:have to be a remote camera
B: two separate cameras taking snaps with each camera retracted.

Since it didn't state that then something is up with this photo.

And I'm not a "we didnt go to the Moon" person.

Mars, earth, where ever that picture really is, it's a desolate shithole place.

Maybe it's taking a picture off a reflection created by the side of one of those mirrored UFOs.

surprised to see so many "the earth is flat" people here.

Maybe marsian swampgas could be a good explanation for this.

Not at all, how does a camera take a picture of itself without a mirror? Without a remote camera or without two cameras being employed to have the entire rover shot? Regardless of how many photos it took to take the montage?
How?

????????????????????????????????

Is that the color of the sky from mars? It looks like an overcast day in NYC.

LOL Great pic.

SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT TO ME. LOL

And if you believe this, I got some bitching sea front land here in Scottsdale Arizona for sale.

I don't know much about space and space missions, but the name of the picture in wiki article kind of gives a hint. Still, hard to believe really.

[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

Nevada is lovely at this time of year.

Yes, so where's the arm? There isn't one in the photo, and no excuses given so far explain it. If NASA 'shopped it out, they need to admit that they alter the images.

But they don't want to do that or they'd know we (well, at least some of us) wouldn't be able to trust any images from them at all. We could take their word that they only enhanced them or something, but what fool would accept that, from the agency fondly called "Never A Straight Answer"?

Not trying to shill or anything, but why would the arm be still visible in the composition? As far as I'm concerned with technology available today this is not a massive challenge.

By technology, you'd have to have a self-propelled floating camera. I'm pretty sure not even NASA claims to have one of those up there.

Think about it: the camera is mounted somehow on the rover, on an extendable arm. Since the arm is attached to the rover, any photo of the entire rover, even if it was pieced together, MUST show the extendable arm, at least partially.

Now look at the space between the rover and wherever the camera is, and explain what the camera could possibly be sitting on. This is not a question of technology but of logic and physical equipment on a planet that supposedly is uninhabited, and where no other previous bots could take the shot.

I was looking for a picture for reference to try to understand how it actually could be done, I must say, I'm quite curious :)
Anyway, if you take a look at this picture:

[link to www.popularmechanics.com]

It shows that APXS and MAHLI are mounted on the 5-joint 7ft long robotic arm, which is not visible, but in the photo there is a grey "pole" sticking out from the place where the robotic arm apparently is, so maybe this pole is the 1st of 5 joints of the arm and the rest was shopped out. I may be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are some CGI experts on this forum to find where (if) the photos had the arm visible.

Thanks for the drawing. It shows exactly where the arm should be, and clearly it is not in the NASA photo.

If it was 'shopped out, NASA images cannot be trusted, period.

And what would be the point of NASA going to the trouble to seamlessly remove the arm? Isn't that part of the self-portrait? Why would they remove it and not say so, which only begs for criticism?

The possible choices, as I see it:
-- NASA images are fake
-- The rover isn't on Mars
-- Something or someone is on Mars and we weren't told about it, and that someone/thing took the photo

Holy fuck, I despair for humanity..

Well, it does say in the article that this is a composition made of 55 images. You wouldn't expect them just to overlay all the images and post it. That would sure look weird. Actually I'm starting to think that someone just made a rapid accusation without reading how it was done. I mean, you wouldn't just jump to conclusion that it's manipulated after reading that it was a composition, you'd probably think "man, that's some fine photoshop skills there".
Btw, anyone knows why they put cabling outside the rover rather than hidden inside? Just out of curiosity.

I have run out of ways to say "It doesn't matter HOW MANY IMAGES make up the whole". The number is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It's beside the point.

The point is that the ARM is MISSING.

There are no words...

God help us all.

Yakiivegas Training Center?

Actually if you look closely in photoshop it is a reflection of a lens, nothing behind the lens though. I'm not sure if it setup a tripod of some sort to take the picture or what. Very strange none the less.

Not sure, maybe another probe on the planet? What other robots that are functioning does NASA have on Mars?

[link to cdn.zmescience.com]

In the above photo you can see where the arm is mounted.

The self-portrait is a composite and they were able to edit out the arm. They left the shadow of the APXS and MAHLI.

Here is a picture of the MAHLI taken by the MAST cam:
[link to www.jpl.nasa.gov]

Here is a picture of the arm, taken by the MAST cam:
[link to www.jpl.nasa.gov]

Last Edited by MuzzleBreak on 11/04/2012 10:38 PM