OPPORTUNITY'S
ANOMALOUS OBJECT
Report #065
April 10, 2004
As you can see by the above first image that I've added some color to, there is a highly anomalous looking large object distantly seen out on the Meridiani Planum plain as seen across Eagle Crater from the Opportunity Rover's camera system. Note how very dark, upright, and bulky looking this object is in this view. Even though the rest of the object is very dark, note the two side by side very bright light sources emitting from it looking very much like car "headlights" with the right headlight slightly offset above the level of the left one. Lonely, strange and alien looking isn't it.
Although I am certainly not the original discoverer of this object and cannot identify with any certainty who is (others have already tentatively discussed this in forums), this object in the view you see here was brought to my attention in some heads up work by a viewer named Peter on AOL just because it is so anomalous looking. At that initial point, neither one of us had any real insight as to what this might be. In fact, I had essentially stopped looking in the Spirit/Opportunity imaging (unless someone brought something to my attention) because it is of such poor resolution quality seriously handicapping any reasonable research in it, or so I thought, and would have otherwise missed this. So thanks to Peter, more of us get a look at this anomaly.
However, upon investigating, it turns out that this has already been officially identified as the Mer-A/Opportunity backshell and parachute discarded in flight as the Lander made its decent to the Mars surface as opposed to say the discarded heat shield that is said to have landed in a different location. I expected that there would be some kind of official explanation, whether it is actually Opportunity debris or not, just because this strange object is so obvious in some of the official images, looks so anomalous, and would be so easy for many to find and become concerned about.
This official identification information was not easy to find but some of it can be accessed at this NASA Photojournal image PIA05229 link, at this Wikipedia link, and an article at this Mars Astrobiology Magazine link. All arise from and accept the same basic official JPL source explanation that this is the Opportunity backshell and are rehashments of this conclusion from the very brief to the more informative. A review of all three collectively will be the most informative and included is a nice map with labels defining locations of the Opportunity Lander and the location of its cast off parts on Mars relative to each other as produced from the DIME imaging taking by Opportunity in its decent to the Mars surface.
Now the above second image is drawn from the very wide panoramic PIA05600 image at NASA Photojournal produced as a mosaic from smaller individual imaging sourced from both the Opportunity Rover onboard panoramic and navigation camera systems. As you can see, this imaging offers a bit clearer view of the object and insight that the object isn't as solid and bulky looking as it appears in the poor quality Rover individual imaging as released to us. In fact, it can begin to be seen here that this is actually an object made up of different projections rather than the blocky bulky impression the poor quality Rover individual shots convey.
Note that the upper split image is produced from a large 5.139 MB JPEG image and the lower split image is produced from the much larger 42.42 MB TIFF image also available at this same site. The theoretical advantage to us is suppose to be that these are larger closer images of this object producing higher detail views.
That would of course be especially true of the very large file size TIFF image that theoretically would offer at 42.42 MB some 8¼ times the detail of the smaller 5.139 MB JPEG file and this particular larger JPEG file would in turn offer considerably more detail than the standard and smaller Rover individual JPEG images released as browser compatible science data imaging by JPL. However, what I want you to pay special note to is that the lower TIFF image as demonstrated above in the split screen view obviously offers no more resolution detail of the object than the companion upper JPEG image. For a TIFF file size 8¼ times the JPEG file size, this is theoretically quite impossible.
The bottom line is that the PIA05600 JPEG imaging does offer a good increase in detail when compared with the individual JPEG Rover images as released to us but that is mostly because the latter are of such incredibly poor quality. So the increase in detail is to be expected since the PIA05600 JPEG image is so much larger file size wise than the individual Rover JPEG imaging collectively as released to us. However, this same expectation should also hold true as we move up from the PIA05600 5.139 MB JPEG image to the much larger 42.42 MB TIFF image. But, as you can see by the over and under comparison, there is essentially no difference in detail.
Now the above third image demonstrates the same scene as in the above second image drawn from the same source but with a increased zoom factor of 200% providing a closer even if more blurry view. Again we have the split screen JPEG view on top and the TIFF view on bottom. Note that they are again essentially identical with no increase in detail in the much larger file size TIFF image over the much smaller file size JPEG image. Please understand that, although these split screen images look essentially identical here, they are in fact drawn from the two identified official JPEG and TIFF images respectively.
Take special notice to that the image artifacts around in the more blank areas are essentially the same even though the two image formats process image content quite differently. If I were to blow these images up even larger, the nearly identical nature of these two sources and the imaging artifacts would be even more apparent but I didn't do that here because it would have come at the expense of clarity on the object itself and I had no more room for additional images.
The nearly identical nature of these two images is theoretically impossible unless someone has intentionally interfered with this digital imaging. When one takes huge file size raw format science data (not made available to us) and produces a smaller but still very large size TIFF file from it, a great deal of the original image detail is retained because of the type of processing and the light degree compression used. That is why TIFF files are very large compared to much lower size JPEG files and that is also why they are used to provide more content detail in an image over the lower file size GIF or JPEG formats. Its the same principle as in digital cameras for home use. In this science data we should be able to logically expect that the much more highly compressed and thereby smaller size JPEG files would then be produced downward from either the highest possible raw science data or from the still large TIFF files with their natural accompanying slight loss in detail.
However, as you can see in the second 100% and third 200% zoom factor images above, the TIFF file here is no better detail wise than the JPEG file. Further and much worse, JPEG compression artifacts in the JPEG file are reproduced in the TIFF file. This clearly implies that the TIFF file has not been worked down from the highest detail raw science data but has been work up from the much poorer quality Internet Browser compatible JPEG files. This has to be an intentional act and cannot be done accidentally. The process of producing this kind of large TIFF file size from a poor quality JPEG file requires a completely different software and process that intentionally fills in the blank no information areas of the image to create the 8¼ times greater TIFF file size without also recreating increased detail on the object in question here.
You have to ask yourself, what could be any logical reason for doing this??? The whole idea of having the much larger TIFF file size available at all occupying so much display space would be logically to provide a more detailed look at the science data evidence. If it does not do so, as you see clearly evidenced here on this anomalous object in these over and under comparison images, then this is logically by intent and not accidental. So what would be the purpose? Obviously, there is only one logical conclusion and that is to obfuscate evidence detail, such as this anomalous object, in the science data.
It is this type evidence of image tampering tactic with its hopeful enlightenment for you that is actually the main thrust of this report, not the anomalous looking object itself. The report on this object just provides the opportunity for me to convey this information to you in a manner that you can see in this over and under comparison fashion and recognize for yourself. The bottom line is that full Mars truth is not represented in the official science data and full true Mars information is not being shared with us. The mere presence of the image detail obfuscation tactic as revealed here demonstrates this.
In the above fourth also split screen image, you can see this object in examples of different lighting conditions. In the top view the object seems to be receiving sunlight from a low angle from the right causing the object's upright bulk and light reflection qualities to be seen from a different perspective and casting shadows. Even though the object itself is blocky and of indeterminate detail here in this view, the very low profile object on the ground to its near right also casting shadows demonstrates that it is a 3-D object upon the ground as opposed to some light reflective ground spot geology. In this view, the right low profile object looks very much like a collapsed parachute just as officially identified.
Yet, in the lower split screen view, note bright and light reflective the large object is over a broad area of its surface. Yet, note how very dark and non reflective the "parachute" is. If this were the Opportunity backshell and parachute as official proposed, then there is a serious inconsistency here in this visual evidence. Both the Opportunity backshell and parachute components are made of highly reflective materials, so what is true of one should be true of the other to some degree when it comes to sunlight reflectivity. Yet the opposite is going on here. This is inconsistent physical evidence that cannot be ignored or dismissed.
If we concede that the right object may indeed be the parachute, there is the natural tendency to identify the upright bulky object with the sunlight reflections to its left as part of the Opportunity Lander cast off in decent flight. It is a logical assumption but please remember that it is just an associative assumption based on opinion and not conclusive fact. The official explanation sounds logical and reasonable and especially when this identification carries the weight of JPL and NASA behind it complete with their formal scientific looking labeled imaging. But, is this cut in stone or is there more to consider? Let's look a little closer.
SO WHAT IS IT?
What I would like for you to do is look closely at my third image above providing the 200% zoom view from the PIA05600 official image. Look very close at the large upright bulky object in this view and what the arrow and label there points out. Note the dark color rounded cylindrical angled upward projection sticking out from the object pointed out by my labeling as differentiated from the bright glare smaller object immediately above it. Note that this is a distant view and this whole object is therefore quite large.
The object is both upright and quite bulky looking. Bulky looking enough to cause one to pause and question whether such apparent bulk could actually be the necessarily aerodynamic Mer-B backshell? Also, that dark rounded projection sticking out from this object and its obvious bulkiness also does not seem to be something that could be associated with the necessarily aerodynamic Opportunity backshell either and that factor should also give us pause as well.
Then there is that so anomalous looking view of this object in my first above image here. Note the two very bright "headlight" light sources emitting from the object even though all the rest of the upright bulky object is very dark. How can this be possible if the "headlights" are to be considered sunlight reflecting off of the object and we know that the bulk of the smooth Opportunity backshell is made of highly reflective materials? Also note how very dark the object is relative to the very bright reflective "parachute" on the ground to its right clearly demonstrating strong sunlight. This kind of visual evidence as to what should and should not be sunlight reflective clearly seems to conflict with each other.
If this is in fact the Opportunity parachute and backshell, both are made of reflective materials with highly reflective surfaces and both objects should be very reflective, even if in varying degrees, under these lighting conditions. The parachute is highly reflective all over its surface, so why isn't the backshell demonstrating the same broader surface area sunlight reflectivity? Is something real here and something not? Is it possible that the "parachute" is not real? Is it possible that the detached parachute simply fell beside this dark bulky looking object by chance and that the two objects are not truly related to each other? Is it possible that the bulky object is not the backshell but something that is able to control the reflectivity of its surface or are some of the light sources actually generating light from it in some views, such as in the first image here and reflected light in others?
Now please return again to my third image here and look at the general shape of this object and the rounded projection pointed out with the arrow and label and record this visual in your head. Now go to my previous report #064 titled "Spirit Anomalies At Bonneville Crater" and take a close look at my second image there drawn from the Spirit Rover all the way around on the other side of Mars.
The view is better of the anomalous object there in the Spirit imaging and what you will see there has some very strong similarities with this Opportunity anomalous object here. The same unusual general shape right down to its orientation toward the camera and, although the left rounded upward angled projection is mostly obscured here on this Opportunity object by the glare from the left light source, the right dark color rounded cylindrical projection as seen separate from the right light source immediately above it appears very much the same as in the Spirit imaging right down to shape and dimensions. Also, although the imaging here is too blurry to be sure, it is possible that the two light sources, reflective or otherwise, on the upper areas of this Opportunity object are spheres just like those seen on the upper areas of the Spirit object.
Remember that the similar Spirit object was officially identified as the Spirit heat shield discarded in decent while this Opportunity object has been identified differently as the Opportunity backshell and parachute with the heat shield identified at another nearby and different location. The visual evidence in both the Spirit and Opportunity imaging demonstrate very strong similarities between these two objects. Even considering some official confusion over heat shield and backshell physical shapes, the similarities might support the Spirit and Opportunity cast off debris theories except that there are just too many unique and strange and yet consistent physical characteristics that I just find too hard to correlate properly with either heat shield or backshell debris shapes from either of the two Earth decent vehicles, including taking into consideration any kind of impact wrecked condition created differences.
These kind of questioning issues bring up yet more questions. Could this really be a robotic craft sent in advance to both the Spirit and Opportunity anticipated landing sites to observe and monitor the respective Lander decent and opening and subsequent Rover activity but from a distance? Could the dark rounded cylindrical angle projections with their blunt end surfaces and the round bright spheres be different onboard high technology sensors doing that monitoring?
It's fascinating speculation but the visual evidence in the poor quality imaging as made available to us just does not adequately support answering with any confidence the question as to whether these anomalous looking objects are Spirit or Opportunity debris or something native to Mars. All the evidence does do is not adequately support the official theory explanation. That doesn't mean that the official explanation isn't true or that native Mars technology is the answer either. The evidence is just saying that we should still be keeping an open mind on this because there are still too many legitimate questions relating to this anomalous looking evidence to be dismissing it by accepting the official explanation trying to impose just such a dismissal psychology.
I've included the above fifth image to provide anyone wishing to investigate this on their own in the science data with identifiable fixed reference points in the form of the Opportunity Lander within the newly named small Eagle Crater and the unique circled rock group relative to the anomalous looking object location off in the distance. The object is often distant, hard to find and hard to see in this imaging and these reference points should help some.
RECAP
The visual evidence is a little too strange and unfamiliar looking and too distantly seen in poor resolution for me to be trying to conclusively identify what these anomalous looking objects are or whether they are native to Mars or not, so don't expect that. Now if JPL and/or NASA would cough up the true highest resolution raw science data for us to examine commensurate with what these Rover cameras are capable of and do actually produce, we could perhaps arrive at some better truth than the "trust us" official explanation or the current poor quality intentionally obfuscated visual imaging we must contend with. Who knows, the availability of the highest resolution data might even support the official position?
All I can really say is that I can not buy into the official explanation as to what this object is at this point. It is too premature and too dismissive and that is too consistent with other forms of duplicity coming from official sources. This view is further reinforced by the presence of the image tampering obfuscation tactics, such as that demonstrated in the TIFF imaging here, that rightfully doesn't instill confidence in the official we'll substitute word explanations for any hard visual evidence that we can verify for ourselves route that you unwashed masses out there don't really need to pursue.
The only thing that I would trust here to a very limited extent, is the available visual evidence itself and what limited information it can still convey in spite of the poor resolution obfuscation tactics. Rather, I regard the obvious evidence on the manipulation of the TIFF imaging demonstrating intentional official level obfuscation tactic as revealed here as more telling hard evidence than anything else.
DOCUMENTATION
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/036/1P131370726EFF0500P2275R1M1.JPG: This link directly accesses the official science data image from which my first image in this report was drawn.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA05600: This link accesses the official science data page from which my second, third and fifth images in this report were drawn. Note that from this page both the 5.139 MB JPEG and 42.42 MB TIFF images can be selected.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/058/1P133338864EFF0830P2215L6M1.JPG: This link directly accesses the official science data image from which the top view in my fourth split screen image was drawn.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/056/1P133159562ESF06HEP2405L7M1.JPG: This link directly accesses the official science data image from which the bottom view in my fourth split screen image was drawn.
, Investigator
