superchump Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 Ascribing real attributes to these photos would be a phallusy (sic). hardy har har! You are hereby known as "the pun master"!
Sayonara Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 As to the "just rocks"' date=' the picture below will easy dispell this obvious misconception. We have a shell, sitting on top of a big rock [img']http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/2p041-2P129999579EFF0506P2531L7M1-shell-ontop.jpg[/img] I think you'll find that it's Horace the Mars Snail, who was fossilised in transit while going to the shops to buy some gin for the missus.
superchump Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 My god...its a conspiracy Look! Giraffes on Mars! He even has martian antenna!
superchump Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 My God! That's not a penguin on Mars...that's GLOOP ON MARS!!
superchump Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 I don't know Tesseract. You could interpret that a different way too...but then again I just may have a dirty mind. In that case you could say "It's everywhere you want to be".
Tesseract Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 I don't know Tesseract. You could interpret that a different way too...but then again I just may have a dirty mind. In that case you could say "It's everywhere you want to be". I meant G.W.Bush.
Phi for All Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Too bad I missed this all.Off visiting Mars, were we?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 You won't believe what I saw. Well, really, I didn't go to mars, but I did see some wacky things anyways. Like a gay pride parade (yuck).
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 You REALLY don't want to know about it, wherever it may be.
ExtraSense Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 So, what are you going to say now? 3D or not 3D, this is not a question anymore. Here is the fine masonry work from Mars, a cement foundation pictured by rover Opportunity. I will post both ways, but those who have 3D glasses are going to have even more fun than blondes do. e s
Sayonara Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 You realise that using the contrast boundaries of a 2D image to make a 3D separation layer is not the same as seeing the original object in 3D, as you would with a stereoscopic filming process which delivers two or three separate images? It's simulcra, nothing more. The images you are distributing are inherently not what they purport to be.
Dave Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 ExtraSense: take a hint, and stop posting this pile of abundant piddle.
ExtraSense Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 You realise that using the contrast boundaries of a 2D image to make a 3D separation layer is not the same as seeing the original object in 3D, as you would with a stereoscopic filming process which delivers two or three separate images? It's simulcra, nothing more.The images you are distributing are inherently[/i'] not what they purport to be. What I use to create the stereo anagliphs, is official stereo pairs taken by the rovers on Mars. I DO NOT make any "3D separation layer". In fact, I have no idea what it is. ES
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 If you do not make a 3D separation layer, what do you do? And show us the ORIGINAL stereo pictures.
Recommended Posts