Opportunity Rover finds Dome

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

I agree with this.

While there is an extremely faint hint of something being there in original photo, it's nothing like what's in the resampled version and seems to resemble a natural groove in the terrain, with similar-looking areas off to the right.

a reply to: wildespace

Hold on...wasn't it you who said "ignorant and disrespectful"...?

Agreed, moving on...."Dome"

According to ArMap we won't see anything more definitive till MAR2016.

originally posted by: wildespace

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.

Probably natural in my opinion but again, but just because someone says it looks artificial does not give you the intellectual authority to yell rocks. Yelling it's a rock is ignorant and unintelligent and close minded and it's trolling. It's just as bad as yelling aliens.

Can't we have a discussion without accusing people with different opinions of yelling or being ignorant?

In cases like this, with few facts, it's natural that we get a bigger variety of opinions, but they all just that, opinions, and to defend our opinions is not necessary to attack other people's opinions, opinions have (or not) merit on their own, their merit is not a result of the possible lack of merit of other opinions.

Back on topic.

According to ArMap we won't see anything more definitive till MAR2016.

Not according to me, according to the this PDS page. As we are talking about photos they will appear on the PDS Imaging Node, but as their updates page only shows the next update I had to use the PDS Geosciences Node.

a reply to: ArMaP

Not according to me, according to the this PDS page.

My apologies, I should have said ArMap's post.

Agree with the rest. Opinions are what drive discovery however, they are not necessarily indicative of the discovery itself. For example: alchemy and lead into gold, the Higgs-Boson particle or the erratic light fade discovery in a galaxy far, far, away. All of which are the topic of numerous threads throughout ATS.

It's interesting, but there is plenty of precedent for interesting things simply vanishing into piles of rock once a higher-resolution image pops up. Given the terrain, I can't imagine why any intelligent being would build a dome in that spot, but who knows how Martians think?

a reply to: Blue Shift

As I said beforehand, it doesn't necessarily have to be an alien structure. Remnants of a black project from one of our own planet's space faring countries is possible.

originally posted by: amazing
Probably natural in my opinion but again, but just because someone says it looks artificial does not give you the intellectual authority to yell rocks. Yelling it's a rock is ignorant and unintelligent and close minded and it's trolling. It's just as bad as yelling aliens.

Barring the conspiratorial and anti-mainstream set of mind, how would you rate the likelyhood of this dome being a natural formation against the likelyhood of it being a structure built by intelligent beings?

I guess the matter of opinion also enters here, but I hope you'll agree that this being an alien (or secret human) structure is a rather incredible idea, not supported by any current knowledge in sciences. The likelyhood of it being a natural formation is a lot higher, and we actually have knowledge of similar formations on Earth. With so little (credible) information about it, I'll go with an exfoliation dome. Or it could be a large meteorite, especially given its smooth appearance.

Meteorites tend to... You know. Make craters.

If all life on earth suddenly stopped what remains would still identifiable in 300 million years or so? I would think we would look for the same type of stuff on mars.

Here's an IRB (infrared/red/green-blue) image from orbit (from hirise.lpl.arizona.edu... ) :



This selection of filters allows better to distinguish between varying mineral composition on Mars: hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

It isn't natural color, as seen by normal human eyes, because the IR, RED, and BG channels are displayed in red, green, and blue colors. [...]

Dust (or indurated dust) is generally the reddest material present and looks reddish in the RGB color and yellow in the IRB color. Coarser-grained materials (sand and rocks) are generally bluer (or sometimes purplish in IRB color) but also relatively dark, except where coated by dust. Frost and ice are also relatively blue, but bright, and often concentrated at the poles or on pole-facing slopes. Some bedrock is also relatively bright and blue, but not as much as frost or ice, and it has distinctive morphologies.

Looks like the dome is part of the dust-covered terrain.

(I notice some colour fringing on the dome, which is an unfortunate image artifact.)

For comparison, here's a crop from the same image, and at the same zoom level, of the Opportunity rover:



Looks like the dome isn't much bigger than the rover itself.

a reply to: wildespace

an exfoliation dome...there you go. Much, much better than yelling rocks. Thank you.

originally posted by: ArMaP

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.

Nope! Safe supposition there! Not sure if I saw that one before or not, though it's not clearly something alive, at least to me. Interesting, sure. Don't know about alive. Why "Hugo"? Some reference in the thread? When I think "Hugo", I think "Hurley", lol!

originally posted by: ArMaP
Zooming in the browser resamples the image, creating a smoother look.

Already discussed that. Even in the originals, which is what I used, I see what looks like structures. the "pipe" bit is clear in the first one. No resizing needed. Just looking at it, at the size they post, I can see the right-angle bends.

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

Weird. That's the ones I used, but I'd have sworn they said something about 58% zoomed at one point.

originally posted by: ArMaP
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.

Now that will be handy! Hopefully someone here will take a look at those, for all these odd cases, and see what we can see in them.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.

Well, you can see where it should be, and I can see it easily enough. Admittedly, I look without the corrective lenses, so I can focus very close (nearsighted), and see details some might miss. It's there, though, and looks as clear not zoomed as it does zoomed. A magnifying glass might help there.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.

I believe you. I just wonder, as others have, if someone seeing these pics, and being told they were someplace on Earth, and asked if they knew the identity of the structures, would easily see them as such. Same with the rodent-looking pics. Four people here saw the pic, with no context at all, and were asked what hey could see in it. All four saw a small animal, in the one (Canada thread). Only then were they told it was a Mars picture. I won't assume, anymore, that various scientific groups are always honest. I would have, at one time. I have been to NASA (Houston) more than once, and never when there suspected anyone would be less than honest. Even now, I'd guess most would be honest. However, I do consider that information can be and is covered up, by various groups for various reasons. I a far from certain that, if they dis spot small life forms on Mars, they would tell anyone. Structures could as easily be ours. Perhaps more has been done than is said, for military purposes. Wouldn't be the first time there! Why should we assume that's limited to this planet?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Don't know about alive.

I don't think it's alive either, but it's one of the most interesting things I have seen on the Mars photos.

Why "Hugo"? Some reference in the thread?

It's the name of Arken's dog.

Now that will be handy! Hopefully someone here will take a look at those, for all these odd cases, and see what we can see in them.

I hope I remember it or that someone reminds me, but I have my doubts, it's a long wait.

It's there, though, and looks as clear not zoomed as it does zoomed. A magnifying glass might help there.

Zooming the image in an image edit program will not resample it, and when resizing most programs have an option not to resample the image. I used PaintShopPro's pixel resize option. In GIMP (freeware) you can do the same with the "None" option of the interpolation section of the Scale Image command, in Photoshop, if I'm not mistaken, it's the "Nearest Neigbor (preserve hard edges)" option in the Image Size command.

However, I do consider that information can be and is covered up, by various groups for various reasons.

I know that's a possibility, but I think that the best way of covering it up would be by not even talking about it, using separate missions for the public and for the hidden reasons.

Structures could as easily be ours. Perhaps more has been done than is said, for military purposes. Wouldn't be the first time there! Why should we assume that's limited to this planet?

I doubt it, unless there's a real threat or lots of money to be gained.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Don't know about alive.

I don't think it's alive either, but it's one of the most interesting things I have seen on the Mars photos.

Why "Hugo"? Some reference in the thread?

It's the name of Arken's dog.

Now that will be handy! Hopefully someone here will take a look at those, for all these odd cases, and see what we can see in them.

I hope I remember it or that someone reminds me, but I have my doubts, it's a long wait.

It's there, though, and looks as clear not zoomed as it does zoomed. A magnifying glass might help there.

Zooming the image in an image edit program will not resample it, and when resizing most programs have an option not to resample the image. I used PaintShopPro's pixel resize option. In GIMP (freeware) you can do the same with the "None" option of the interpolation section of the Scale Image command, in Photoshop, if I'm not mistaken, it's the "Nearest Neigbor (preserve hard edges)" option in the Image Size command.

However, I do consider that information can be and is covered up, by various groups for various reasons.

I know that's a possibility, but I think that the best way of covering it up would be by not even talking about it, using separate missions for the public and for the hidden reasons.

Structures could as easily be ours. Perhaps more has been done than is said, for military purposes. Wouldn't be the first time there! Why should we assume that's limited to this planet?

I doubt it, unless there's a real threat or lots of money to be gained.

Ah, now the name makes sense. LOL!

I did have Paint Shop Pro, but lost the disc, and the computer it was on. Great program, and I really want to replace it!! At the moment, I am limited to Paint. (sob)

I really am usually skeptical over this sort of thing, but the mouse/lemming/whatever looks too much like an animal, and these domes look manufactured. I hate having to wonder, honestly, but I can't stop in some cases.

More than microbes on Mars seems very possible to me.

Someone said they found my ball ?

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: bkfd54

What's that to the right of it?

The source image in the article is heavily modified to "sell the story" of a dome on Mars.

Here's the area in question, zoomed-in 700% from the original NASA image.

There's no way to tell what it is.

However, the article author is deceiving everyone by smoothing and editing the original to make it appear that there is something there, when there isn't.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Until we land on the planet, we'll not really be able to tell what it is, unless one of the rovers can get much closer.

To call it anything but unknown, and interesting, is sheer conjecture.

a reply to: seagull

Would calling it "rounded" be sheer conjecture?

There are still some bits of information we can gather from images. A final verdict, however, is ultimately impossible.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



Yeah, I think we can get away with calling rounded. Weird, too.