Opportunity Rover finds Dome

a reply to: Grenade

Well said. i totally agree with that line of thinking. We will never know until we went up there and dug around for awhile to find out the real truth about it.

These rocks, that don't look like much like rocks, gives a person a slight bit of hope that maybe at one time there was some civilization around us and not thinking that is humans are the only beings that could exist in such a vast area.

So good find, I'm not on board with the debunking part of it, which does state some good points. But until I see something else, I just have to shrug my shoulders.

a reply to: ArMaP

My apologies.

I didn't see your answer earlier but thank you for the clarity.

Very intresting "rock".
I'm still not sold on the idea that the round dome in SOL 4073 is not the round feature in the middle of the area.
And I'm pretty sure that in SOL 4005 and 4006 they basically got a 270°+ panorama without turning to what seemed a cool feature from the map.
In fact I cannot find this feature in any image where it should be close up to few meters. From the map it seems a nipple and quite round and is the most similar object to the dome in 4073.

I'm looking at the images of all the cameras 3970sh to 4070sh, so far it seems no camera pointed toward the "nipple" when in close range, and since most of the images are joysticks or a crack in the ground I'm preparing my tin foil hat.

If you find it please post it, it will save me hours given the oblivious interface of opportunity image search.

Well at one point Mars did have water.

That would mean running rivers, and what not.

Through time the erosion would make something smooth.

It's a ROCK.

a reply to: neo96

No further insight beyond "it's a rock, move along"? Couldn't you at least say something interesting like high-metal or basalt? Some sort of igneous rock?

But no, it's just a regular old rock. Worn down by water. Sitting on top of a hill.

I really do wish we had a color version. It's annoying when interesting stuff is in black and white, it makes it so much easier to get confused.

originally posted by: Tardacus
After finding more pictures of the "dome" I realized that my first post is wrong.
After looking at the first pictures that I found I assumed that the "dome" was where the red arrow on the map below is pointing:

After making my first post I found some other pictures one of them is this one taken on SOL4006 which shows the "dome" in the background:

so you can see on the map where the rover was on SOL4006,you can see by that picture taken on SOL4006 that the rover was nowhere near the "dome".

Where your arrow in your B&W photo sits, there's nothing that can be analogous to the round artifact in the other photo. You'd need to show something, anything that could possibly be jutting up above the profile / horizon from any other angle, like the round item.......and that thing is not in your photo.

Since you were significantly off in your earlier analysis, it's a bit presumptuous for you or anyone else to smugly announce "rocks".

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Tardacus
I really have trouble buying this , the original looks totally different , who says that this "rock" "dome" was there at the first drive-by ?

I don't know , for me it ain't over until its over..

The photos supposedly compared to the one in question, have no basis for comparison. It's just odd how some people want some things to be debunked so badly, that they will be far worse and more loose with facts, than the hardcore believers.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: neo96

No further insight beyond "it's a rock, move along"? Couldn't you at least say something interesting like high-metal or basalt? Some sort of igneous rock?

But no, it's just a regular old rock. Worn down by water. Sitting on top of a hill.

I really do wish we had a color version. It's annoying when interesting stuff is in black and white, it makes it so much easier to get confused.

They are literally desperate to make you agree with them, that it's "nothing". Odd that. Makes you wonder about motives.

I'm pretty sure the guy later corrected himself.

People find it a lot easier to think that something is a rock rather than, I don't know, an alien hydroponics bay or whatever. Since it's less of an extraordinary claim, they tend to be a bit looser with the evidence, understandably but unfortunately. For roughly the same reason why I can say I have a bottle water in front of me and you'd believe me without evidence, but if I said I had a unicorn in front of me you'd require it.

I personally think this is a rock, if only due to past experience, but a very interesting one nonetheless, and unlike a other "mars photo cases" this isn't outrageous and actually has a reasonable degree of possibility of being something more than that.

Here you can read the wiki page about spheroidal weathering. It mostly has to due with a change in chemical process and given that Mars lost it's atmosphere I'm sure that significant of a change would have a huge impact on the land.

The chemicals on Mars are in different volumes than those on Earth? I'm sure that is why the rocks look so weird today on a planet that once had oceans, lakes, and rivers billions of years ago. Who knows how acidic the H20 was then, and the chemical composition of the atmosphere....it might have played an important factor on how the rocks look today.

I don't think NASA would publish a photo of a martian base...there has been a cover up on aliens and UFO's for nearly 70 years...

a reply to: game over man

The H2O would have been just as acidic there as it is on Earth. There might have been different concentrations of H3O+ ions in the water, though I wouldn't know why.

The examples of spheroidal weathering aren't very similar. Those are "vaguely round-ish", this is significantly more spherical.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
I'm pretty sure the guy later corrected himself.

People find it a lot easier to think that something is a rock rather than, I don't know, an alien hydroponics bay or whatever. Since it's less of an extraordinary claim, they tend to be a bit looser with the evidence, understandably but unfortunately. For roughly the same reason why I can say I have a bottle water in front of me and you'd believe me without evidence, but if I said I had a unicorn in front of me you'd require it.

I personally think this is a rock, if only due to past experience, but a very interesting one nonetheless, and unlike a other "mars photo cases" this isn't outrageous and actually has a reasonable degree of possibility of being something more than that.

It's certainly more (even most) likely that it's a rock.....but shoddy, hurried, incomplete claims are no better for one opinion, than the other. Just like UFO's. Any given UFO has most likely got an earth-bound explanation, but you can tell when they're lying out their asses to make a sighting go away. I think there's a bit of that going on with this photo.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: game over man

The H2O would have been just as acidic there as it is on Earth. There might have been different concentrations of H3O+ ions in the water, though I wouldn't know why.

The examples of spheroidal weathering aren't very similar. Those are "vaguely round-ish", this is significantly more spherical.

Round boulders in nature don't really resemble the perfect cast concrete spheres, or polished stone, that are always shown as "the explanation". Only vaguely round from one angle, easily shown as anamolous from any other angle. That's all I was asking for here.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

There is absolutely no proof the water content on Ancient Mars would be exactly the same as the ancient water on Earth.

We have only seen one angle from a great distance of this dome. We have no idea the real shape of this anomaly in question.

a reply to: Xeven

....and... if you look (at what appears to be) about 30 feet straight back... there is a head of a statue laying about 45 degrees to the right of upside down! Mouth, ears, eyes, nose.. the whole enchilada!!!

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: game over man

The H2O would have been just as acidic there as it is on Earth. There might have been different concentrations of H3O+ ions in the water, though I wouldn't know why.

The examples of spheroidal weathering aren't very similar. Those are "vaguely round-ish", this is significantly more spherical.

Round boulders in nature don't really resemble the perfect cast concrete spheres, or polished stone, that are always shown as "the explanation". Only vaguely round from one angle, easily shown as anamolous from any other angle. That's all I was asking for here.

well here is the Question ,

when people are saying a Round Dome like Boulder that is Supposedly water weathered Down erosion
as its near an ancient River Bed and the immensely size of the dome like object that we are all talking about

does it accure to anyone that its the only roundish supposed weathered down rock in the whole view ?

not much round rocks in the Area where this photo from the rover has been taken



but to be fair there is apparently boulders on Mars that rolled down slopes

Whoa! Rolling Boulder on Mars Leaves Trail Visible from Space

www.space.com...


but this is Dome Shape! Structure

it just may be a Natural Mound .. but from the NASA Photo

I see a Refection to it that means, it has a shine to it , Metallic or Glassy and the Dome isnt the only one, there is a shine on the object right next to it , the Hut like Structure that has like a Pipeline Tubing near it down a slope.

and another thought for a rock if it is one to be smooth like that , the planet would have to be in a Glacier Period covered in ice sheets ( Mars ICE AGE ) and Mars Had Many .. but not of the magnitude as Earth .. has had .. ( from what if have Read ( so far )

Well let see if NASA can Explain ! it, and if its a Rock ,,
why the many different DISTANT Angles of this type of Supposed Rock ?

the Problem is Depth Perception , Actually how big is this Dome Rock ?

or Could it be Piece from a Failed Mission ? from the Soviets or US

a reply to: game over man

Erm, H2O is H2O wherever it is. It can't be anything but itself. I wasn't talking about the content as in the physical mass and amount of it, I was talking about the chemical properties and composition... Which is the same everywhere. There's no real reason to believe the acidity of the water of Mars would differ greatly from Earth, either.

a reply to: stevieray

When I went to new Zealand we saw round rocks that were taller then me. They are quite common there.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: dragonridr

The fifth word in that link is "unusually."

As I was saying, even if it's just a rock it's still a nice find.

Up until this, my favorite Mars anomaly was the Crab Monster.
I will say this and Crab are the best so far.