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: 14
143
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Maybe this thread can shed some light on the Mars situation? There's some pictures that might have been taken on Devon Island in Canada and The Mars Society also has at least one dome-shaped building in Utah:

Are the Mars Rovers actually in Canada?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: wildespace
*snip*

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


Color-wise, that looks like a B&W pic.

Have you had a look at the colour HiRISE images taken from orbit? We have linked and discussed this imagery in this thread. I've been posting the B&W versions of that imagery because it has better resolution, but the colour images are available.


When the public can see the pictures, the public discovers the various anomalies.

How does the public decide what is an anomaly and what is not? Does the public have a degree in geology, chemistry, planetary sciences, and other relevant fields? Perhaps it's good that the rover missions are operated by actual scientists than your "average Joe".

You've been shown in this thread that nature can create some very interesting and unusual (or very regular) shapes. It would be ignorant and disrespectful to brush it all under the carpet and call your own method of enlaging, enhancing, and analysing images more valid than what scientists are doing.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Here's one colour image of the "dome" from orbit:


(It's an oval-looking "pimple" in the centre of the image)

Source: hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Mars mushrooms
Could it be a plant or fungus
How big do you think it is
Or is it parts of landers from previous missions



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

I think it's pompous and arrogant to pass judgement in the fashion you are. There has absolutely been no disrespect to any natural philosophy. I don't see where anyone me or otherwise has offered substantive "proof" to one side of the debate or other. Usually the debate losers are those that resort to name calling. Ridiculous!



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bkfd54

You are ignoring the substantive proof that has been posted then so you can claim neither side has posted it.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Night Star
Perhaps it's a cooled lava bubble that has been hit repeatedly with small asteroids or ?? It looks as if an alluvial flow went past it.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: amazing

Erm... all those things you mentioned are actually rocks. Rocks can be interesting too, and the rovers on Mars have examined many interesting rocks and mineral formations.

The only silly thing is shouting "UFO!" or "alien base" every time you see something vaguely dome-or-cube-like.

Nature makes regular shapes too.





No, the silly thing is yelling it's a rock. Again, you wouldn't do that in a geology class, you would talk about what it actually is, how it formed, what it's worth, why it's unique, what that might indicate as far as water or plate tectonics or volcanic activity, etc. Let's move on from that ignorant statement, shall we.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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


I was. Don't know what your "Hugo" reference is about.


originally posted by: ArMaP
"Ics"? What's that?


That should have been "pics", of course. Missed a typo.



originally posted by: ArMaP
Didn't you resize the image?


All I did was copy it from the browser, after zooming there (as stated), paste into paint, and crop to the relevant section.


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


Again, do you have a link for one? All I have located is the 58% ones linked in the thread.


originally posted by: ArMaP
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?


It doesn't just look like smooth rock, however. Anyone viewing these pics can see that this looks like domes. Two large ones, and the smaller thing with the pipe-looking bit attached. That should be worth the time to investigate.


originally posted by: ArMaP
Because they look like rocks and we haven't found any thing that is not a rock.


They don't look like rocks, and how would anyone know what else was found, considering that they won't investigate, or, if they do, don't tell us about it? You are assuming they are totally honest and forthcoming.


originally posted by: ArMaP
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.


It hasn't ended, and since they are there, checking out areas of more interest makes sense. Utterly ignoring them doesn't.


originally posted by: ArMaP
Because this mission's idea was to analyse Mars' geology. Curiosity's mission is different.


So, spend all that time and money, and ignore possible structures? If they see little green men running around, will they ignore them, too, because they are only there for the geology?? Sorry but that doesn't wash.


originally posted by: ArMaP
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.


That doesn't mean you ignore a possible sign of life, or of water, of you come across one!



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

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.


.....for which you have repeatedly ignored requests for a link? The images linked here were not full size. Either link for such, or stop talking about them, please.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: wildespace
*snip*

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


Color-wise, that looks like a B&W pic.

Have you had a look at the colour HiRISE images taken from orbit? We have linked and discussed this imagery in this thread. I've been posting the B&W versions of that imagery because it has better resolution, but the colour images are available.


No, I haven't, but glad to, if you could link to them. Way too busy to go searching. In the B&W, though, you can see the round areas, that would be the domes, or whatever.


originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
When the public can see the pictures, the public discovers the various anomalies.

How does the public decide what is an anomaly and what is not? Does the public have a degree in geology, chemistry, planetary sciences, and other relevant fields? Perhaps it's good that the rover missions are operated by actual scientists than your "average Joe".


Members of the public certainly do have such training. Even without a degree, someone with some experience and schooling can see that some things look very different from the surrounding terrain, and should warrant a closer look. Assuming the "average Joe" isn't educated isn't accurate. Some aren't, but a lot are. One doesn't have to work for NASA to have a clue. Did you check the thread linked above? Yet another small animal pic. Funny thing, when I showed the pic to the kids, all three saw an animal, concealed a little in the rocks. Then I told them the pic was from Mars. Check that one out. That is NOT a rock.


originally posted by: wildespace
You've been shown in this thread that nature can create some very interesting and unusual (or very regular) shapes. It would be ignorant and disrespectful to brush it all under the carpet and call your own method of enlaging, enhancing, and analysing images more valid than what scientists are doing.


One, I don't need to be "shown" in a thread that rocks can look like other things. I am not some superstitious, uneducated person, that would believe just anything. In fact, for things like this, I am far closer to skeptical, as a rule. However, when the pics from NASA show domes, and rodents, I am not going to simply be told, "It's a rock", and just accept that. As I said, I am not stupid.

Brushing it all under the carpet is what the deniers are doing, at this stage. Check the little critter in that other thread. Top of page 14 in this one. No one seeing that, and thinking it's on Earth, calls that a rock.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
Here's one colour image of the "dome" from orbit:


(It's an oval-looking "pimple" in the centre of the image)

Source: hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...


In the color image, there are two large dome shapes, just as in the ground images, and they don't really look the same as the surrounding rock. There is soe faint suggestion of the smaller "structures" as well, though this pic is from too far out to be sure there.

Thanks for the pic, at any rate.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Keep up the good fight lady! Been a while


No matter what picture im seeing i still see the same thing. Pixelted or not, resized or not, im still seeing two domes with a zig zag feature coming down the slope.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
It's idiotic to have so much guessing as to what it might be, the friggin rover is right there and not going in for a closer look is complete B/S, what's the point of it even being there if it's just going to show a bunch of landscape photos that all look the same?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: korath
It's idiotic to have so much guessing as to what it might be, the friggin rover is right there and not going in for a closer look is complete B/S, what's the point of it even being there if it's just going to show a bunch of landscape photos that all look the same?


Who said they haven't you often have views of the same terrain from multiple angles as well as multiple cameras. You just have to sort through the pictures to find them. Often something that looks one from one angle looks very different from another especially when you take pictures from navcams. They are close to the ground and make a meter hill look like a mountain range and a 6 cm rock a huge bolder.

There will be a panoramic somewhere of that location that would give you a better perspective. Then you would at least know if we are dealing with a small rock or a mountain range. That is what the geologists do on the project. There is never just one view of the area there are 7 cameras not counting the microscopic imager. 4 hazcams 2 navigation and of course the panoramic camera. When you see something interesting on one if the cameras often pays to look at what the others saw as well.

So in other words if you think something is there get the time stamp for the image and start searching the other cams.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
No, the silly thing is yelling it's a rock. Again, you wouldn't do that in a geology class, you would talk about what it actually is, how it formed, what it's worth, why it's unique, what that might indicate as far as water or plate tectonics or volcanic activity, etc. Let's move on from that ignorant statement, shall we.

No, not as long you're assuming I've been ignorant. Wanna discuss/analyse/theorise about this dome from geological and chemical perspective? Be my guest. If it's something that's extremelly odd and never seen before, I'd love to see substantiated arguments and evidence.

The silly thing is to bypass the scientific side of this and simply yell "aliens!"... which many people did both here, UFO forums, and in the MSM articles that popped up about this dome. The yelling that it's a rock is purely in response to those people. I'm glad you agree that it's most likely to be a natural formation.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: wildespace

I think it's pompous and arrogant to pass judgement in the fashion you are.

Far be it from me to be pompous and arrogant. I'm simply standing up for science, scientists, and all the hard work they do in trying to understand the universe, while the "armchair experts" feel they can wave all that off and present their own ideas and conspiracy theories as perfectly valid and deserving more respect.

"That dome is an anomaly! Why aren't NASA rolling their rover over there to take a look at it? They must be hiding something fom us! Or they must really have no clue what they're doing there and should let the public decide where the rover goes and what it does! That dome is crealy an alien base, or a secret human base! OMG the conspiracy!" - that's pretty much is the mood of many people on ATS and in the rest of the "alternative" community. If anything, that is a pompous and arrogant attitude.
edit on 2-12-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Well...your rant proves my point. The purpose of this thread has been clearly speculative and focused on the "what is it." So the perspectives being offered should not be criticized just because you take issue with those that have suggested aliens or alien base. As a matter of fact you too have offered your opinion as to what this anomaly is which is in line with what the intent of this thread is. I would suggest you take your deeper rooted issue or hatred of people's belief in alien life, secret bases or general conspiracies either to another forum such as "Rant" or continue to post here without the need to denigrate others.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I was. Don't know what your "Hugo" reference is about.

I suppose you didn't notice that the word "Hugo" was a link to this thread.



All I did was copy it from the browser, after zooming there (as stated), paste into paint, and crop to the relevant section.

Zooming in the browser resamples the image, creating a smoother look.


Again, do you have a link for one? All I have located is the 58% ones linked in the thread.

It's on the opening post:
mars.nasa.gov...
Also, here's the link for the left side camera:
mars.nasa.gov...

Until those images are uploaded to the PDS (sol 4073 will be included on the 47th release, scheduled for March 17, 2016) we have only access to the JPGs uploaded to the rovers' site, after the PDS release we can have access to the IMG files that do not suffer from that heavy compression and automatic level correction.


It doesn't just look like smooth rock, however. Anyone viewing these pics can see that this looks like domes. Two large ones, and the smaller thing with the pipe-looking bit attached. That should be worth the time to investigate.

I suppose different people see different things, I don't see any pipe-looking thing on the original photo.


They don't look like rocks, and how would anyone know what else was found, considering that they won't investigate, or, if they do, don't tell us about it? You are assuming they are totally honest and forthcoming.

Different people, different interpretations, to me they look like rocks.
And yes, I am assuming they are being honest, in the same way I am assuming you are being honest on your posts, I always start by accepting people's words, only when they are proven to be liars do I stop trusting them, and I have never seen a lie on a science-related NASA site, only on the sites direct more to the "public relations" side.


It hasn't ended, and since they are there, checking out areas of more interest makes sense. Utterly ignoring them doesn't.

Yes, it makes sense, if they consider those areas as being of interest at the time.


So, spend all that time and money, and ignore possible structures? If they see little green men running around, will they ignore them, too, because they are only there for the geology?? Sorry but that doesn't wash.

There's the difference, I don't see any possible structure.


That doesn't mean you ignore a possible sign of life, or of water, of you come across one!

Sure it doesn't, but I haven't seen one yet.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: bkfd54
a reply to: wildespace

Well...your rant proves my point. The purpose of this thread has been clearly speculative and focused on the "what is it."

I can relate to how you start a thread with a specific purpose, but it then gets pulled in unintended directions (such as bashing NASA or science in general). However, since different views can be posted here, I think it's entirely acceptable to provide counter-views and criticism of the views presented. When someone says "it's an alien base!", I have just as much right to say "don't think so, it's most likely a rock!"

It is you who seems to have gotten too sensitive about something or other I said in this thread. If you look at most of my posts on ATS, I actually try to do some research, pull some scientific resources from the Internet, and try to povide a more-or-less objective view on the subject.

~~~

Let's stop with this butt-hurt and focus on the subject of this thread - the "dome".



new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join