It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Opportunity Rover finds Dome

page: 13
143
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Why silly? Because you believe something different than someone else? Your sphere has a hole bored thought the center of it for the mooring line or chain that use to be a part of it nothing natural about that. What about the astronauts that actually set foot on the moon who verified there are structures there?




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: wildespace

Why silly? Because you believe something different than someone else?

It's not about belief, it's about scientifically verifiable evidence.


Your sphere has a hole bored thought the center of it for the mooring line or chain that use to be a part of it nothing natural about that.

My sphere is actually a concretion, entirely natural. brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk...


What about the astronauts that actually set foot on the moon who verified there are structures there?

Care to provide some quotes and reports? I've visited the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal many times for various images and reports, and never seen anything about any structures there.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

What the hell's the second image?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Concede the concretion. However, Edgar Mitchell and buzz aldrin' sown testimony to moon structures. Also, just because you say something is doesn't mean it isn't. There is no verifiable means to prove this structure is a pile of rocks or if it is a made structure. Regardless of what anyone says it is all circumspect until the rover drills into it or we send people to knock on the door.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Pyrite.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: Devino

Evidence as you call it is not impericle and can be used to support both sides.
We should stick to the original image and not be distracted by pixelated artifacts found after resizing and reshaping. A comparison between these two images has been shown in this thread. I believe the object in question has been found in other images also shown in this thread so we can view it from more than one angle.


Also, your making the assumption that the rover takes pictures on the level.
Am I?
I get your point but does that then mean you’re assuming the rover was tilted while taking this picture which would then make the dome level?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You're best off looking at the non-smoothened enlarged image posted earlier. The wiring and second dome are mostly JPEG artifacts.


I did look, at the actual NASA image. It's still a dome, even zoomed in. The smaller one and the ling pipe/wire/whatever are not simple JPEG artifacts, either; they are clearly part of the actual scene, whatever they are. The pipe-looking piece has two basically 90° bends in it. Seems a bit much for something natural.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Laughing.... Touché



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Interesting photo! Yet another Mars anomaly, to add to all the rest. How many of these, I ask again, do we have to see before everyone stops claiming they can't be anything but rocks?

When they look like they couldn't be rocks.


These do. When you get picture after picture after picture of things that don't look like rocks, it's time to start looking more closely.


originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
What's the point of exploring the planet, anyway, if they can't divert the Rover to look at the more interesting things? Isn't the whole point to find out as much as possible? If they can't divert, we may as well just quit now.


To me, there are two problems with this: first, these "discoveries" usually happen some time after the rover has moved to another location; second, "rocks that look like something" are not unusual, and they are only rocks.


When the public can see the pictures, the public discovers the various anomalies. You are asuming that NASA doesn't see anything odd, and that's not a logical assumption. We have no way of knowing what they actually think; we only hear what we they want us to hear.


originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That is a dome. It's way too smooth to be a rock, and too regular on the edges we can see. The smaller bit looks like the edges are sort of squared, but smoothed, and it also looks like it cold have a window. That one bit looks like pipe or covered wiring, or something of the sort. To the right of the smaller bit is a white part that looks very flat for a rock.


It's only that smooth because people resize the image with resampling, making it smoother than the original. This is how the original looks like when resized without resampling.


No, it looks pretty smooth even zoomed, when one allows for pixel size. Zooming in from the NASA image, it's still smooth -




originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Instead of assuming that we now everything, perhaps we should start actually looking at all of the evidence. Maybe there is more to learn. Isn't that why we have missions on Mars? To learn? Or just to claim there is nothing more to see?

What evidence, that there are rocks on Mars? We already know that.


Now you are just being facetious. We have picture after picture after picture of things on Mars that do not look like rocks, and yet no investigation into any (save the "face") is ever done. We are simply told to believe that they somehow know it's all "just rocks", without ever providing more pictures of the areas in question, or them having the Rover ever go in for a closer look. If it's all "just rocks". let them prove it.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I agree but people will criticize your drawing because you haven't used the original pixelated version which would cloud your depiction and lend credence to the debunkers...it's unfortunate. Both sides of the debate are simply left to speculation and conjecture based on what NASA feeds us.


Oh, already saw that! The thing is, when I zoom the NASA image myself, it isn't nearly as pixelated as what they show. A little, but not that much, and that's just zoomed in the browser and copied into Paint. I don't have my photo software anymore; lost the disc and the system it was on was stolen. Even just using Paint, it's smoother than the debunkers want to admit.

I am all for being reasonable. I don't assume anything odd on Mars is some life form or structure, by a long shot. However, when we can see a dome, and another dome-topped shape nearby, with some sort of pipe or something that has 90° bends coming out of it, writing it off as "just rocks" doesn't work well for me! At the least, we need pictures from closer up, and from other angles. NASA never wants to talk about all the oddities the astronauts saw, either. Once in a while, they will say "this one was ice" or something to that effect, but often, they simply ignore them.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
*snip*

Colour-wise, it's the same reddish as the terrain around it, _not_ grey or silvery metal.

~~~

@LadyGreenEyes the rovers are there do do science, and follow carefully thought-out plans. If they went this way and that way to examine anything that the public deems an anomaly, they would never get anything done.

Ideally, what we should get is a rover with a small drone aircraft that could flutter up to such interesting objects, take pictures, and fly back to the rover. That way, the rover could get on with proper science, while we'd still get a closer look at stuff public finds interesting.


Color-wise, that looks like a B&W pic. I don't see anything reddish in it. There are, though, some circular-looking areas.

Ideally, a drone would be good. At the least, they could check these things out. Since they likely monitor the stuff as it's happening (with time delay for distance), someone likely sees the same oddities we can see. As it is, there could be remnants of some civilization there, and they'd never bother to check them out.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: boneoracle
I noticed something back on page 4 I think, in the shot posted by intergalactic fire. If you look further to the right in the shot from further back, there is another pile or structure (depending on what you think). It looks quite similar to the others to the left and is more upright. Can anyone get a closer look at it?

Link: mars.nasa.gov...


Sadly I don't have the software I had before, so this is the best I can do. It does look similar, and is quite intriguing.



Sort of looks like a larger version of the smaller one to the left, I think.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It's still a dome, even zoomed in.

I agree.


The smaller one and the ling pipe/wire/whatever are not simple JPEG artifacts, either; they are clearly part of the actual scene, whatever they are.

I disagree, although they are part of the scene, they are partly JPEG artefacts.


The pipe-looking piece has two basically 90° bends in it. Seems a bit much for something natural.

I think the "pipe" is made of two distinct parts, one closer to the camera and the other farther away, and the JPEG artefacts make it look like one piece.

It's more noticeable on the photo from the left side camera, as you can see below.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

The smaller one and the ling pipe/wire/whatever are not simple JPEG artifacts, either; they are clearly part of the actual scene, whatever they are.

I disagree, although they are part of the scene, they are partly JPEG artefacts.


It's hard to say, since they didn't get more close-up shots. You'd think something that looks like a collection of domes would garner some attention. They look to be anything but artifacts to me. Stuff like this really makes me miss my software! Gotta replace that one of these days!


originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The pipe-looking piece has two basically 90° bends in it. Seems a bit much for something natural.

I think the "pipe" is made of two distinct parts, one closer to the camera and the other farther away, and the JPEG artefacts make it look like one piece.

It's more noticeable on the photo from the left side camera, as you can see below.


Again, all we can do is speculate, since they didn't go in for a closer look. They could gather samples a few yards off the planned track easily enough. That they always seem to be running just far enough from these things to make people wonder is a bit odd, too. It's as though someone looked at the aerial views, and planned routes that avoid anything too interesting.

Believe me, I don't just assume anything like this is anything other than a rock. The "lizard" rocks were cool but were, I believe, just rocks. The "mouse"? I can't really decide there. A view from another angle would help. It sure looks like a rodent, from the one pic! Way different color, too.

In this case, we have what looks like two larger domes, and a smaller structure that looks domed on top, and a pipe. Even the aerial view shows round-looking areas. Some of the closer view of both larger domes, in the pic taken farther away, shows an area that looks like it was graded, and is a bit circular.

link If you hit the "+" for the page once, then zoom in your browser, you can see it a bit below the right-side dome. Even the aerial view has ore interest. The whole area has a sort of "arrow" shape to it, or maybe a wishbone shape. It's odd. As a scientist, I'd be checking it out! Even if it's just geological it's a lot more interesting than the scatter rocks through which the Rover was driving. That it looks like it could be something else is all the more reason to alter course, and take a closer look.

Why they don't can't be explained away as "they'd never get anything done".

This isn't new. Saturn missions were similar. A fascinating moon, and some oddities, and they diverted away from them!! Par for the course for NASA. They could stumble over a roving fleet of Klingons, and we'd never know till they invaded. Yes, a bit facetious on my part, but this is frustrating.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
These do. When you get picture after picture after picture of things that don't look like rocks, it's time to start looking more closely.

I think the thing that looked less like a rock (or part of the rover, like that white piece that looked like plastic) to me was "Hugo". Everything else looks like rocks, mostly sedimentary rocks like the one I have next to me.


When the public can see the pictures, the public discovers the various anomalies. You are asuming that NASA doesn't see anything odd, and that's not a logical assumption. We have no way of knowing what they actually think; we only hear what we they want us to hear.

No, I know NASA sees them, you just have to look at the description of the activities for the sols to see that are always looking at everything and choosing the next target (if any) for investigation, I am assuming they saw it and, like me, saw nothing special.


No, it looks pretty smooth even zoomed, when one allows for pixel size. Zooming in from the NASA image, it's still smooth -

That resizing has resampling, resize the image without resampling so you can look at the original pixels.


We have picture after picture after picture of things on Mars that do not look like rocks, and yet no investigation into any (save the "face") is ever done.

I disagree, as I said above I have yet to see something that doesn't look like a rock.


We are simply told to believe that they somehow know it's all "just rocks", without ever providing more pictures of the areas in question, or them having the Rover ever go in for a closer look. If it's all "just rocks". let them prove it.

Why should they prove that they are rocks? They look like rocks on a place full of rocks, it's highly likely that they are rocks, assuming that they are rocks is natural.

People that say that those are not rocks should provide their evidence that they aren't rocks.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Oh, already saw that! The thing is, when I zoom the NASA image myself, it isn't nearly as pixelated as what they show. A little, but not that much, and that's just zoomed in the browser and copied into Paint.

Resizing the image in the browser uses resampling, and different browsers use different resampling algorithms, you can try if for yourself, resizing the same image on two different browsers and comparing the result.

Any resampling algorithm is going to change the pixels (that's what resampling does), "averaging" the pixels it added to give a better looking (but less real) image.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
These do. When you get picture after picture after picture of things that don't look like rocks, it's time to start looking more closely.

I think the thing that looked less like a rock (or part of the rover, like that white piece that looked like plastic) to me was "Hugo". Everything else looks like rocks, mostly sedimentary rocks like the one I have next to me.


Not sure what you mean here. I am not even paying attention to the white bits in these pics, because those do look like artifacts. It's the domes and pipe shapes that interest me. They don't look like rocks to me. I take a lot of pics, landscapes and the like, and never see things that look remotely as interesting as this stuff. And, yes, I note how things can resemble something else. One pic, I saw what looked like an animal, alongside a highway, but another trip showed it was just the angle of the pic. I checked. Thought I might have caught a wolverine or something on camera. I din't assume, and I didn't write it off.


originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
When the public can see the pictures, the public discovers the various anomalies. You are asuming that NASA doesn't see anything odd, and that's not a logical assumption. We have no way of knowing what they actually think; we only hear what we they want us to hear.

No, I know NASA sees them, you just have to look at the description of the activities for the sols to see that are always looking at everything and choosing the next target (if any) for investigation, I am assuming they saw it and, like me, saw nothing special.


The thing is, I don't assume they see "nothing special" in all of these. The "lizard" rocks? Sure. All of the ics, though? No.


originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No, it looks pretty smooth even zoomed, when one allows for pixel size. Zooming in from the NASA image, it's still smooth -

That resizing has resampling, resize the image without resampling so you can look at the original pixels.


That's from the NASA shot. Any resampling, they did themselves. If you have a link to one not resized, I will be glad to take a look. Even resampling doesn't mean it's not really smooth, though, and assuming that's the case isn't logical. What if it really is that smooth? Shouldn't a geologist want a closer look? Again, I would!


originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Why should they prove that they are rocks? They look like rocks on a place full of rocks, it's highly likely that they are rocks, assuming that they are rocks is natural.

People that say that those are not rocks should provide their evidence that they aren't rocks.


Why shouldn't they? Why assume there is nothing there but rocks? Why assume anything?? Real science means being open to possibilities that don't fit preconceptions. Why bother to go at all if it's assumed that there is nothing to see but rocks?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Oh, already saw that! The thing is, when I zoom the NASA image myself, it isn't nearly as pixelated as what they show. A little, but not that much, and that's just zoomed in the browser and copied into Paint.

Resizing the image in the browser uses resampling, and different browsers use different resampling algorithms, you can try if for yourself, resizing the same image on two different browsers and comparing the result.

Any resampling algorithm is going to change the pixels (that's what resampling does), "averaging" the pixels it added to give a better looking (but less real) image.


Fair enough. Even so, assuming it isn't smooth, and that only the resampling makes it look smooth, isn't logical. Th resampling might have, or the object might actually be that smooth. Only a closer look can show the truth. Three things that look like structures, and being able to see from above that they look round, should warrant that much.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Not sure what you mean here.

I don't understand what you mean either, it looks like you are not answering the part you quoted.



The thing is, I don't assume they see "nothing special" in all of these. The "lizard" rocks? Sure. All of the ics, though? No.

"Ics"? What's that?




That's from the NASA shot. Any resampling, they did themselves.

Didn't you resize the image?


Even resampling doesn't mean it's not really smooth, though, and assuming that's the case isn't logical.

I'm not assuming, I am looking at the non-resampled image and comparing it with the resampled image, just that.


What if it really is that smooth? Shouldn't a geologist want a closer look? Again, I would!

If there's nothing better to do and if it's considered worth the time and energy (and if it's possible, considering the place where it is) to move the rover to that place, yes, but if it looks only like a smooth rock, why divert the rover?


Why shouldn't they? Why assume there is nothing there but rocks?

Because they look like rocks and we haven't found any thing that is not a rock.


Why assume anything?? Real science means being open to possibilities that don't fit preconceptions.

Being open to all possibilities, yes, but they have constraints, this mission was supposed to have ended several years ago, I don't think they have all the resources they had during the main mission.


Why bother to go at all if it's assumed that there is nothing to see but rocks?

Because this mission's idea was to analyse Mars' geology. Curiosity's mission is different.

From what I remember, NASA decided (or someone decided for them) to first study the geology, then look for signs of water, then, if they find signs of water, signs of life.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Fair enough. Even so, assuming it isn't smooth, and that only the resampling makes it look smooth, isn't logical.

I'm not assuming, I'm looking at the non-resampled image.







 
143
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join