Mars Opportunity photo - has it been discussed?

I was going through some of the various threads of Mars landing vehicles and came across this thread discussing the idea that the photos are not color correct. Evidence that NASA is altering the true colours of the pictures of Mars There was a link to this photo that caught my attention.



Here it is, according to the author, with color correction.



Here is the original B&W image from NASA.




Has this aspect of the image ever been discussed? Can't find anything using the search engine. It looks as if it's a constructed formation and not natural. It's also a repeated structure in that photo. This is closer to the rover's camera and has more detail.



Guess I should add - if the color correction is indeed accurate, water appears to be a certainty on Mars as there does appear to be green vegetation in that photo.

I see six almost identical circular "objects". The one closest to the top of the image seems the oddest to me. Almost has the appearance of an ant hill. Took me awhile to see anything.

I am no visual analyst, but the "objects" don't appear to be image artifacts or natural formations.

Interesting OP. S&F

Originally posted by coven83
I see six almost identical circular "objects". The one closest to the top of the image seems the oddest to me. Almost has the appearance of an ant hill. Took me awhile to see anything.

I am no visual analyst, but the "objects" don't appear to be image artifacts or natural formations.

Interesting OP. S&F

edit on 22-8-2012 by coven83 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2012 by coven83 because: (no reason given)

I didn't find any discussion of them and that's why I posted this. Maybe I missed it, but don't think so. Thanks

Originally posted by coven83
I see six almost identical circular "objects". The one closest to the top of the image seems the oddest to me. Almost has the appearance of an ant hill. Took me awhile to see anything.

I am no visual analyst, but the "objects" don't appear to be image artifacts or natural formations.

Interesting OP. S&F

edit on 22-8-2012 by coven83 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2012 by coven83 because: (no reason given)

I think they're very large structures. Must be big ants The one I focused on has some other "oddities" as well such as that linear formation at the rear of the circle - what looks to be a perfect circle as well with a "double wall" like a moat.. There also looks to be something in front of the "wall", closest to the camera.

Opportunity made those holes with it's abrasion tool. Here's a link to the photo and article about it:

False Color View of "Rat" hole trail

This view from the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity's panoramic camera is a false-color composite rendering of the first seven holes that the rover's rock abrasion tool dug on the inner slope of "Endurance Crater." The rover was about 12 meters (about 39 feet) down into the crater when it acquired the images combined into this mosaic. The view is looking back toward the rim of the crater, with the rover's tracks visible. The tailings around the holes drilled by the rock abrasion tool, or "Rat," show evidence for fine-grained red hematite similar to what was observed months earlier in "Eagle Crater" outcrop holes.

When I looked at the photos you posted, I had to think for a minute (the shots are old, re: 2004), and then I remembered seeing it before and the article.

I'll admit when I first saw the photo's back then, I did one heck of a double take myself,

My first thought back then was: "Mars had gophers? Wha-????"

can you be more specific as to what you you think is strange pls?
theyre just pics to me, can you save me some time pls?

'eriktheawful' above is correct; the round circles were made with the rover's rock abrasion tool.
Other than that, everything else in the picture just looks like rocks.

reply to post by Bilk22


Yeah I noticed that the object closest to the bottom of the image seems to have another smaller circle attached to its lower left. Im not saying that it is a non natural formation but damn it resembles a circular temple.

Closest image I could find on shor notice, will keep looking.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Ahhh had me going for a sec.....oh well. Good to know the truth of the matter.

reply to post by Bilk22


Ok, I can see that the hole were made by the rover.

However, in looking at the Color Pics, I SEE VEGETATION, PLANT LIFE ON MARS

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Opportunity made those holes with it's abrasion tool. Here's a link to the photo and article about it:

False Color View of "Rat" hole trail

This view from the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity's panoramic camera is a false-color composite rendering of the first seven holes that the rover's rock abrasion tool dug on the inner slope of "Endurance Crater." The rover was about 12 meters (about 39 feet) down into the crater when it acquired the images combined into this mosaic. The view is looking back toward the rim of the crater, with the rover's tracks visible. The tailings around the holes drilled by the rock abrasion tool, or "Rat," show evidence for fine-grained red hematite similar to what was observed months earlier in "Eagle Crater" outcrop holes.

When I looked at the photos you posted, I had to think for a minute (the shots are old, re: 2004), and then I remembered seeing it before and the article.

I'll admit when I first saw the photo's back then, I did one heck of a double take myself,

My first thought back then was: "Mars had gophers? Wha-????"

I wish there was something to give the pic scale, but that looks like a really big slope at a pretty good distance, which would make those really big holes, no? How big is the rover? I don't think I like the explanation from that article. I can see the Rover having a tool that could make a hole maybe as large as a softball, but they look exponentially larger than that.

reply to post by Bilk22


The rover tracks are visible on the photo (they are the darker areas that come from the "horizon") and the round marks are typical marks from the abrasion tool, so the width of that area is something like 2 or 3 metres (at the centre of the photo).

And no, no blue vegetation on that photo, only dust, as you can see in the original individual photos or in the large version.

reply to post by Bilk22


Hey!
How About The Circle in ur pic.,

reply to post by Bilk22


I can understand needing something for scale in the photo. There are 2 things that can help.

First is the rover tracks and knowing how wide the Opportunity's wheel base is: 2.3 meters or 7.5 feet wide.

Rover Design

If we look at the false color image, we can see it's tracks on the slope. My red line indicates 2.3 meters:



Second is the bore holes or "Rat" holes themselves. Here is a link on the Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT). It can make a hole 45mm wide.
Here is a side by side comparison of your zoomed in black and white photo with another picture of a hole from the wiki article:



Just to give you a better sense of scale, here is a panorama of Endurance crater that this was done in:

Originally posted by davolobos
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Ok, I can see that the hole were made by the rover.

However, in looking at the Color Pics, I SEE VEGETATION, PLANT LIFE ON MARS

While I understand your excitement, keep in mind that the photo that is making those areas look greenish or blueish are "False" color images, designed to bring out contrast of the rock layers for geologist and other scientist. The "True" color image actually shows what looks like plants is actually darker colored pebbles and rocks:



I know a lot of people think NASA hides stuff, but think about it: they want to find life on Mars and said that they think it may have at least existed in the past. While I can understand the conspiracy theorist exclaiming that NASA would doctor photos showing actual structures from aliens.......why would they hide plant life if it was there?
If anything, NASA would have screamed about it and so would the headlines back in 2004, because finding actual plant life on Mars would have given NASA a LOT more support and funding.

I know a lot of people think NASA hides stuff, but think about it: they want to find life on Mars and said that they think it may have at least existed in the past. While I can understand the conspiracy theorist exclaiming that NASA would doctor photos showing actual structures from aliens.......why would they hide plant life if it was there?
If anything, NASA would have screamed about it and so would the headlines back in 2004, because finding actual plant life on Mars would have given NASA a LOT more support and funding.

Yes... you would think so, and common sense would suggest that too, but apparently not. There must be other higher agendas in force why we dont get to see the images in the correct detail or why they do not admit to the life on Mars.

There are plenty of examples where they could have investigated if they wanted to or could have explained why/what an item of interest really is - but they dont. Even if it meant having a permanent position for someone to explain these things to us as explained to them by the scientists.

We pay for all this science, so why dont we get the answers to the questions we ask? Why dont journalists ask the relevant questions? Have they no interest in the truth? Over time, these answers would make a great body of knowledge for non-scientists and school kids and would help to kill off all the conspiracy theories too. (if they want that?)

Originally posted by qmantoo
There are plenty of examples where they could have investigated if they wanted to or could have explained why/what an item of interest really is - but they dont. Even if it meant having a permanent position for someone to explain these things to us as explained to them by the scientists.

It would be great if we could find a scientist to explain those things to us, and I think it's possible, as I have always got an answer every time I send an email to some scientist, while NASA's public side of things as never answered.

We pay for all this science, so why dont we get the answers to the questions we ask?

Sometimes it looks like NASA is more interested in being seen as the best source of space information to the whole world than thinking that they really have (like all government agencies in all countries) the moral responsibility of explaining (to some extent) the result of all their operations.

Why dont journalists ask the relevant questions? Have they no interest in the truth?

No, they are only interested in money and fame, as that's what gives the companies they work for money and fame. I can only see that happening with freelance journalists, but who would buy their work?