Rover captures light source on Mars!!

reply to post by Baddogma

A statistically unlikely couple of events where two high energy particle hit different cameras (or the same one) so that the artifact appears to be external and at the same area of the hill?

That's a funny thing about statistics. They tell us that even "unlikely" events can occur.

Well, Curiosity seems to be heading in roughly toward the "lights." Just have to wait and see if it shows up again.

reply to post by Miniscuzz


But supposing you are correct... the how does the external light source show up in one lens but not the other a hair over a foot away?

And the other image(s) where the light appears... was it caught with the same camera (indicating a internal camera issue) or the other camera? And then, why not both cameras?

Any ideas out there?

Rob48
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

The bottom is at a perfect 90 degree angle because it is totally aligned with the pixel grid - surely a strike against it being natural and in favour of being a pixel artefact.

Similarly the symmetrical blooming into adjacent pixels suggests it is bleeding of electrons into the neighbouring pixels from an overloaded pixel.

Basically everything points to it being a camera artefact EXCEPT the fact that a separate photo taken on a different day shows a similar light in a similar position on the landscape.

So I am slightly mystified.

Hey,

I agree with you. That's what I was trying to get at.

I also think that its most likely a pixel/image creation artefact of some sort, and not a natural phenomenon. I base this on the fact that we have multiple horizontal and vertical straight lines (90 degrees to eachother and the cameras plane of reference) throughout the pixelation, unlike anything else in that photo.

I mentioned the flat edges as I was reasoning to Phage (and everyone else) that it is most likely not a cosmic ray. At least, I didn't think so after I noticed the detail.

For that to occur from anything other than an actual rectangular structure emitting a very specific light frequency (which also cloaks it from certain angles) and an image artefact/partially dead pixels is astronomically unlikely.

We all know which one of those is more likely although a part of me really wishes it was the former lol.

Thanks for the info about the other photo though - that really is a spanner in the works. Has someone linked it in this thread? I've fallen out of the loop.

Baddogma
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

But supposing you are correct... the how does the external light source show up in one lens but not the other a hair over a foot away?

And the other image(s) where the light appears... was it caught with the same camera (indicating a internal camera issue) or the other camera? And then, why not both cameras?

Any ideas out there?

Probably because it is NOT a LIGHT source, but an ENERGETIC PARTICLE source? *shrugs*

reply to post by Phage



Whether CCD's convert Photons or Protons doesn't even mean anything lol. Sorry for the spelling error, but either way, the fact remains that the CCD's cannot NOR NEVER HAVE caught a cosmic ray on MARS.

Yes Phage...the PDS did pluralize streaks...but that does not change the fact that extra long exposure times are needed to even photograph ONE. AT LEAST A MINUTE.


Every mainstream news link posted here, and on any Google search says that JPL claims it IS NOT a cosmic ray.

You should apply for a job at JPL man. It's obvious that they put up the wrong information about their cameras on the linked PDS file. You really DO know it all huh? Pfft!

Most likely a high energy particle. Definitely something internal to that camera rather than an external source.

strawburry

Baddogma
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

But supposing you are correct... the how does the external light source show up in one lens but not the other a hair over a foot away?

And the other image(s) where the light appears... was it caught with the same camera (indicating a internal camera issue) or the other camera? And then, why not both cameras?

Any ideas out there?

Probably because it is NOT a LIGHT source, but an ENERGETIC PARTICLE source? *shrugs*

Please respond as to how a visual light camera using a low shutter speed, along with programs designed to filter out particle noise (ICER, bandpass filters) can capture a picture of Particle Light...which is lightyears away from a visual light spectrum?

No pictures of telescopes in outter space taking pictures of the sun either....it's completely different.


Heres the JPL scientist who built the NC's who claims it isn't a cosmic ray. He's probably wrong too huh?

www.nbcnews.com...

I find it particulary interesting that the scientist says the picture was taken around noon time. This means that the shutter setting was indeed on .25 seconds. NOT LONG ENOUGH TO CAPTURE EVEN THE MOST LARGEST OF PARTICLE RADIATION LIGHT.

The debate is over.

There are of course plenty of other pictures from Mars, that show cosmic ray hits, like this one:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

and plenty of online sources that will tell you about it, like this one:

www.slate.com...

It's a rock.

Miniscuzz

strawburry

Baddogma
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

But supposing you are correct... the how does the external light source show up in one lens but not the other a hair over a foot away?

And the other image(s) where the light appears... was it caught with the same camera (indicating a internal camera issue) or the other camera? And then, why not both cameras?

Any ideas out there?

Probably because it is NOT a LIGHT source, but an ENERGETIC PARTICLE source? *shrugs*

Please respond as to how a visual light camera using a low shutter speed, along with programs designed to filter out particle noise (ICER, bandpass filters) can capture a picture of Particle Light...which is lightyears away from a visual light spectrum?

No pictures of telescopes in outter space taking pictures of the sun either....it's completely different.


Heres the JPL scientist who built the NC's who claims it isn't a cosmic ray. He's probably wrong too huh?

www.nbcnews.com...

I find it particulary interesting that the scientist says the picture was taken around noon time. This means that the shutter setting was indeed on .25 seconds. NOT LONG ENOUGH TO CAPTURE EVEN THE MOST LARGEST OF PARTICLE RADIATION LIGHT.

The debate is over.

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

So what is the alternative?

Martian laser pointer?

Occams Razor comes to mind.

templar knight
The mountains are approx 1.7 km away and so this puts the "shiny object" about 1 km away.
I have given co-ordinates for others to verify/correct this.

I'm not sure you can tell how far away the shiny things are this way, you can only tell where they are in relation to a third object. What did you use to do the triangulation? The relatively tall peak in the distance of both photos?

I tried to create a extended parallax stereo image pair to see if the shiny spots are in the same position on that midway ridge, but couldn't do it. That suggests to me that if it's a real object on the ground, it's not in the same spot in both photos. Not that it couldn't have moved. Here's an animation showing the midway ridge lined up that illustrates that. (Sorry for the seizures.)

reply to post by Miniscuzz


This has been explained numerous times on this thread! It is not a particle entering through the lens as visible light. It is a charged particle striking the sensor electronics directly and causing electrons to flow in the sensor. Cosmic rays are NOT visible light so why are you even bringing up that red herring? Just think for a moment about how CCDs and similar sensors work.

Not that I am saying that this one is necessarily a cosmic ray. It could be a sun glint or light leaking through a hole in the housing as suggested by Justin Maki.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Sorry for the spelling error, but either way, the fact remains that the CCD's cannot NOR NEVER HAVE caught a cosmic ray on MARS.

And you are sure about that? The HAZCAMs (image seen earlier) use the same CCDs that the NAVCAMs do. They have the same spectral range as the NAVCAMS. The HAZCAMS use the same software that the NAVCAMS do. www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov...


But here's an image from the NAVCAM:

Yes Phage...the PDS did pluralize streaks...but that does not change the fact that extra long exposure times are needed to even photograph ONE. AT LEAST A MINUTE.

YOu have not provided a source for that "fact."

Every mainstream news link posted here, and on any Google search says that JPL claims it IS NOT a cosmic ray.

Then post a quote. Show me where any scientist has said it is not a cosmic ray strike.

Blue Shift

templar knight
The mountains are approx 1.7 km away and so this puts the "shiny object" about 1 km away.
I have given co-ordinates for others to verify/correct this.

I'm not sure you can tell how far away the shiny things are this way, you can only tell where they are in relation to a third object. What did you use to do the triangulation? The relatively tall peak in the distance of both photos?

I tried to create a extended parallax stereo image pair to see if the shiny spots are in the same position on that midway ridge, but couldn't do it. That suggests to me that if it's a real object on the ground, it's not in the same spot in both photos. Not that it couldn't have moved. Here's an animation showing the midway ridge lined up that illustrates that. (Sorry for the seizures.)

I hope ObamaCare covers the effects of this.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Heres the JPL scientist who built the NC's who claims it isn't a cosmic ray.

And he doesn't rule it out either.

At the same time, Maki isn't writing off the phenomenon as a double-shot of cosmic rays or data dropouts

www.nbcnews.com...

And just where in your link does he say it isn't a cosmic ray strike?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Read it again. He says he doesn't think it is a cosmic ray.

strawburry

Miniscuzz

strawburry

Baddogma
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

But supposing you are correct... the how does the external light source show up in one lens but not the other a hair over a foot away?

And the other image(s) where the light appears... was it caught with the same camera (indicating a internal camera issue) or the other camera? And then, why not both cameras?

Any ideas out there?

Probably because it is NOT a LIGHT source, but an ENERGETIC PARTICLE source? *shrugs*

Please respond as to how a visual light camera using a low shutter speed, along with programs designed to filter out particle noise (ICER, bandpass filters) can capture a picture of Particle Light...which is lightyears away from a visual light spectrum?

No pictures of telescopes in outter space taking pictures of the sun either....it's completely different.


Heres the JPL scientist who built the NC's who claims it isn't a cosmic ray. He's probably wrong too huh?

www.nbcnews.com...

I find it particulary interesting that the scientist says the picture was taken around noon time. This means that the shutter setting was indeed on .25 seconds. NOT LONG ENOUGH TO CAPTURE EVEN THE MOST LARGEST OF PARTICLE RADIATION LIGHT.

The debate is over.

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

So what is the alternative?

Martian laser pointer?

Occams Razor comes to mind.

Let's use Occams Razor:


What would be the simplest answer to both scenarios:

1) That on April 2nd, the left NC of the Rover got hit by a cosmic ray at the exact same time it took a picture, and the very next day, the right camera took a picture of the same area and IT got hit by yet another cosmic ray at the exact moment of exposure.
Both cameras could only have been hit in a mm wide area on a moving machine on a distant planet millions of miles away while using both bandpass filters to stop cosmic ray corruption, as well as software to wipe any over-exposure of electrons.

2) That the lighting is indeed from some metallic object left on the landscape from some prior civilization.

3) That the camera caught some visual light anomaly such as a laser or simple flashlight coming from an alien.


Now...there are calculations out there which provide for numbers 2 and 3 being plausible. However, the odds of number 1 being right are so astronomical that I can't even imagine an equation being able to come close to an answer.


Is the simplest answer that all the fail-safes on a billion dollar machine decided to stop working TWICE in two days just to capture a cosmic ray? Doesn't sound at all plausible to me.

Also, the site that mentions setting an exposure time of 5 minutes, is using this as a good amount of time to likely see cosmic ray hits on Earth. It is not trying to say if the exposure is not this long, you will never see one, nor anything about Mars.

reply to post by Rob48

Read it again. He says he doesn't think it is a cosmic ray.

There's a big difference from saying he doesn't think it is a cosmic ray strike, compared to saying outright it isn't which is what the OP insists was said.

Heres the JPL scientist who built the NC's who claims it isn't a cosmic ray.