It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rover captures light source on Mars!!

page: 21
95
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AkumaStreak
 


Er, I'm not totally sure Phage disagrees with me. He may disagree, I don't know.

I'm not sure what makes you think I am on the team "NOT ALIENS!" side...




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blister
 


Sorry, it was a rushed post. I just don't get how you came up with the "same angle" thing, at least not from what you presented. I didn't have time to enunciate what I really wanted to say, which was just that it was fun to see Phage step back and think a bit. This is really interesting, and I hope it ends up not being a camera artifact, as that's the most boring outcome imo. An interesting geological feature reflecting light would suffice. Human goof-ups, even though we learn from them, are not the most fun -- we aren't on Mars to learn about humans... :-P

Or are we?...
edit on 4/8/2014 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
It's not amazing enough that humans are able to take photos on the surface of mars. It takes something like this to get people interested. No wonder why NASA is so underfunded. Maybe this is the answer to getting the kids, and many adults, off their i-devices, dropping candy crush, turning off TV, and using their brains. Nah, probably not.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Assuming NASA would shoot more photos in the direction of the possible external source, when would we get some more shots back (in Earth time)? Excited to learn more.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

zayonara
It's not amazing enough that humans are able to take photos on the surface of mars. It takes something like this to get people interested. No wonder why NASA is so underfunded. Maybe this is the answer to getting the kids, and many adults, off their i-devices, dropping candy crush, turning off TV, and using their brains. Nah, probably not.


To be fair, I think the population at large was pretty engaged when the last rover landed/started taking pictures. At this point, unfortunately, the pics are largely looking the same along the rover trek. It's like watching Aunt Thelma's vacation slideshow -- after a while, most people have seen enough...

That is, unless they show something shiny and new...
edit on 4/8/2014 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Blister
 




Yes, assumptions are not good. The possibility that the "bright spot" (your words), or the "light source" (my words) is external is an assumption - after all, even if the detector head is leaking, where else is the light coming from but externally?

Ok. Then a cosmic ray is also external.
The point is that the bright spot probably does not represent an imaging of a distinct light source.


Hey, I'm note sure what you mean by "distinct light source". Do you mean a reflective object, on Mars, external to the camera? If so, I agree.

My own suspicion is that the repeated "bright spot" seen in the two images in question may not be externally caused. But we'll have to wait and see. A wild suggestion is the electrical or temperature control system related to Navcam right B may be functioning in a non-optimal state. Reason: unknown. For now I'll work with what is known and assumed.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AkumaStreak
 


It's like watching Aunt Thelma's vacation slideshow -- after a while, most people have seen enough...
Yes. People can get used to the most amazing things. Sunsets and sunrises for example, and they are never the same.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Blister
 




Do you mean a reflective object, on Mars, external to the camera? If so, I agree.

Yes. Reflective or emittive is what I mean by external. (Is that a word?)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Looked at the source pic (the first one) in GIMP (CSI time... :-P)...

What are the chances of it being a cosmic ray impact if the impact was perfectly vertical in the sensor/photo + at the horizon line in two photos (whether or not the rover was perfectly level when it took the photo)? Yes, statistics, it's still more likely than [wild theory here]...

What are the chances of it being a natural rock formation if it's perfectly vertical in the sensor/photo?

Both seem so unlikely.

[bologna warning]
The source of this light pillar was either handy with a level or is subject to naturally being perfectly vertical in that environment (like a liquid or gas ejection). Another annoying geyser photo.
[/end bologna]

So interesting.
edit on 4/9/2014 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Blister
 




Do you mean a reflective object, on Mars, external to the camera? If so, I agree.

Yes. Reflective or emittive is what I mean by external. (Is that a word?)


Hah, "emittive" is an interesting but difficult word to work with. It suggests that the proposed (Black Body?) object emits radiation (light) rather than reflects it. It may do both.

I wont comment here about that. But we both agree that:



The point is that the bright spot probably does not represent an imaging of a distinct light source.


Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some interesting information of emissivity can be found on the internet at:

spectralemissivity.com...
ia600201.us.archive.org...

Plus many other places.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


I've been looking everywhere for my lightsaber. Please forward the coordinates to me so I may retrieve it.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Uh, Here is another idea: Astral projection?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   

IT IS NOT A "REFLECTION" OF A ROCK. ROCKS DON'T EMIT VERTICAL BEAMS OF LIGHT...

WHY IS IT DISTINCT, AND NOTHING ELSE NEXT TO IT "REFLECTING?"
edit on 9-4-2014 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I keep asking phage why the fuzzy part is at the top and he keeps avoiding the question. Maybe you can answer that?


Look at the zoomed in image. What you are calling a "fuzzy part" looks to me more like blooming of the overloaded pixels into the neighbouring columns. The bottom couple of bright pixels are surrounded by dark pixels so the energy is more easily absorbed by them: the additional energy only takes them up to a mid grey. The upper ones are surrounded by brighter pixels so the energy is added to a brighter base level and so the surrounding pixels become that much brighter. Hard to explain clearly but hopefully you can see what I mean.



Does anyone know how the pixels are addressed on the sensor? I don't know but I suspect that the overloaded pixel is that bottom brightest one and the effects are smeared upwards by the camera electronics. If the pixels are addressed column by column then this explains why the "light" appears totally vertical. As I said before, when you see an anomaly that is perfectly aligned with the pixel grid then you probably need to be looking at the camera or image processing rather than something in the physical scene.

Whether that pixel is overloaded by a cosmic ray strike or a very bright physical light source is unknown though.

But please can people stop sniping at others who don't agree with them, it is spoiling the thread.

edit on 9-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
If it were not for the other image, I would still be in the cosmic ray camp based on the stereo pairs alone, and it would obviously make the most sense, since the other camera in the stereo pair, does not show it.

There is great coincidence, that if it is a cosmic ray collision in the sensor, that it is nearly perfectly vertical, and terminates near that surface division in horizontal plane, but it certainly can happen.

There is one other explanation, and I did not see it brought up here yet.. What if it is an external image, but the image is rapidly blinking?

This would imply that the stereo pair has some kind of delay between them when imaging the object. Something like the fact that the image processor must frame and store the image from each camera separately... perhaps only taking milliseconds. This is conjecture, not knowing the technical aspects of the stereo imaging, but if the image were blinking very rapidly, the other camera in the pair may have caught it in the "off" state, as it were. It would also explain the existence of the other image, taken at a later time.

I direct this to any here that know specifics about the rover imaging technology. I think Phage and Jim Oberg might know these specifics.

So, do you think that this could be a plausible scenario?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Rob48

bottleslingguy
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I keep asking phage why the fuzzy part is at the top and he keeps avoiding the question. Maybe you can answer that?


Look at the zoomed in image. What you are calling a "fuzzy part" looks to me more like blooming of the overloaded pixels into the neighbouring columns. The bottom couple of bright pixels are surrounded by dark pixels so the energy is more easily absorbed by then. The upper ones are surrounded by brighter pixels so the energy is added to a brighter base level. Hard to explain clearly but hopefully you can see what I mean.



Does anyone know how the pixels are addressed on the sensor? I don't know but I suspect that the overloaded pixel is that bottom brightest one and the effects are smeared upwards by the camera electronics. If the pixels are addressed column by column then this explains why the "light" appears totally vertical. As I said before, when you see an anomaly that is perfectly aligned with the pixel grid then you probably need to be looking at the camera or image processing rather than something in the physical scene.

Whether that pixel is overloaded by a cosmic ray strike or a very bright physical light source is unknown though.

But please can people stop sniping at others who don't agree with them, it is spoiling the thread.

edit on 9-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)


I like that analysis. It would imply that the image processor scans for sensor pixel input from the bottom, upward in like a raster fashion. The lower pixels have not seen the cosmic ray yet, so they do not register the bloom. Nice work. This as well needs a technical review from someone that knows the hardware.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Miniscuzz

grey580
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Could that be a pixel gone bad?
Or maybe corruption of the data coming from Mars?
Could also be a geyser or water vapor with the sun shining on it.



A few posts back I mentioned that the Rover used a program called ICER. Neither ICER nor the NAV-CAM are capable of sending pixelated pictures or any corrupted data. It's also in the PDS link provided in my post above.

The excuse of "bad pixels" or "corrupted data" is just as plausible as swamp gas in my opinion.


Regardless of the image software used, the SENSOR on the cameras, in this case a CCD sensor, CAN have hot pixels, black pixels, blemishes, and other contaminants. Here's some information about CCD sensors and their blemished/non uniformities: CCD Sensor Probs...

In regards to the image being discussed, I don't think blemishes or pixel problems are the cause. However, I don't know for certain and cannot rule it out. I would believe the anomaly or light geyser was caused by a problem with the CCD sensor before I would believe Martians are beaming up lights from below the surface of their planet.

Becoming defensive and so absolute in your opinion that it just CANNOT be a cosmic ray, camera issue, etc. doesn't allow for a good debate and makes you seem rigid and close minded.

But hey, who knows, maybe it is the Martians!
edit on 9-4-2014 by lovebeck because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2014 by lovebeck because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by lovebeck
 


Miniscuzz said:

Neither ICER nor the NAV-CAM are capable of sending pixelated pictures or any corrupted data.

I would love to know what he meant by that! Is he suggesting that images compressed by ICER do not consist of pixels? Clearly that is nonsense.

ICER is a wavelet-based image compressor that allows for a graceful trade-off between the amount of compression (expressed in terms of compressed data volume in bits/pixel) and the resulting degradation in image quality (distortion). ICER has some similarities to JPEG2000, with respect to select wavelet operations.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
It doesn't look like image distortion because the light source starts exactly at ground level and extends consistently into lower part of sky. There is nothing to suggest its not what it appears to be a light. Everyone has their own view. I heard in one image it wsnt there and one it was. Well that can mean its an intermittent light source indicating intelligent control.




top topics



 
95
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join