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: 3
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by fenian8
 


A dead pixel will show up as either black, but a dead 'hot' pixel will be white, red, green, or blue depending on the reason what is causing it be 'dead'. Hot, pixels can get stuck and will stay as such on all following images, although there are some techniques to 'un' stick them, but will be producing data along the lines of 255,255,255 - 255,0,0 - -0,255,0 - 0,0,255 in a rgb ccd. A completely dead pixel is no longer providing reliable data so its displayed (interpreted) as black (0,0,0).

Opening up a camera for long duration exposures on earth dramatically increase your chances of ending up with a stuck pixel. I personally have stuffed my dslr after spending an entire night doing bulb exposures, essentially it was open all night in a series of about 12 half hour exposures. Over that time I gathered myself about 20 permanent hot lit pixels... I wasn't happy... :/



+20 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
This post as well as countless others are part of the reason I don't comment. What is our "little" guy 2 cents worth imagining for a minute that there is something more. We have yet to even scratch the surface of what is possible and plausible in the spec of time we exist. We do not know. We all guess. Everyone has their theories.
So why may I ask are there so many "veterans" of this site that are so damn quick to shoot anything down. And glimmer of hope that it may be beyond explanantion. Just because you are well read and research information does not make you an expert. I am growing more scepticle by the day that there are respected people on this sight that are here only to debunk and spout disinformation. Sure some are smarter than others....cudos to you OP for having the balls to post this thread. By the looks of it you didn't have a chance from te start.
From my understanding being well read without a phd does not make you an expert, thinking you are is a form of narcissism.
I personally believe that if this is not a geyser reflecting light than it is some sort of flame. Thanks OP!


edit on 6-4-2014 by Moelson because: Oops



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Well for sure if the trends continue, we'll see a lot more cosmic ray strikes in the cameras. I know back in 2009 NASA were worried about the increase in cosmic rays because of the Sun in solar minimum then and it seems, still is. Full explanation here,
www.nasa.gov...

It was enough for NASA then to reconsider protection for astronauts going to Mars. I don't know about the alternative one way crowd.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Moelson
 


It is an interesting thread. Hopefully it has helped people understand the usefulness of a set of stereo cameras! Yeah, strange things can happen out there, but you have to remember to deny ignorance. People are welcome to postulate about whatever, but it has to be scrutinized from all angles to discount what may, or may not support their theory. Phage may come off a little arrogant I guess at times, but at least he provides evidence and rational scientific thinking behind what he posts.
I could say it's a faerie or sprite, but taking the fact that the other camera did not see it restricts the possibilities of the artifact and an answer must then be sought from within that camera alone.

(edit)
How can your flame theory be supported by the lack of flame in the left camera? I'd be open to a CO2 theory, Mars does indeed have quite a bit of CO2 action on it, but I can't explain it if it can only be seen with one eye.

Like, if you went to the doctor because you were seeing a black dot in your vision, but only from your right eye. Would the doctor be looking in the corner of the room for the black dot, or directly into your eye for a macular problem?
edit on 6-4-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Could it be a dust devil?



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 1ofthe9
 


I can see why Phage gets a bit short with people...
It perhaps could be a dust devil.... But only if you can explain it being visible in one camera and not the other, remember, stereo cameras!



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I see everyone focusing on several pixels of "light" off in thedistance but nobody commenting on the marks on the surface in the foreground. Kinda reminds of " hey what caused that tra... oh look a shiny thing over there"



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
This picture is quite beautiful--probably the best I've seen of Mars.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Miniscuzz
reply to post by Phage
 



Sometimes, you just have to let go Phage lol. Listen, are you actually claiming that the odds favor your assumption that a cosmic ray hit a sensor that's mm's wide right at the exact moment it took a picture on Mars? Those odds cannot even be calculated into any reliable theory. However, the odds that aliens exist CAN be and IS calculated correct?

Perhaps it was an alien taking a pot-shot with his ray gun at that exact moment. Perhaps it was the reflection of the sun. Perhaps is was Obi-Wan-Kanobi. All of the above sound far more plausible than your whacky theory lol.

Now that I've responded to you, how about you respond to me on how any cosmic ray could make it to the ground of a planet that doesn't have the proper atmosphere to facilitate the breakup of the particles which cause cosmic rays to continue on to the ground. Thanks!

edit on 6-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: spelling. ugh


Phage and I don't always agree but I don't see how you can continue to argue his point! The proof is in the cameras that take a photo at the EXACT time, if the light were visible in both left and right photos I would agree with you but it has been DEBUNKED, nice try but move on! Also, the atmosphere has NOTHING to do with it, they are arrested by the magnetic force around the earth.
Those cosmic rays do the exact thing to astronauts eyes:

"Cosmic ray visual phenomena", also referred to as phosphenes or "light flashes", are spontaneous flashes of light visually perceived by astronauts outside the magnetosphere of the Earth, such as during the Apollo program. Researchers believe that cosmic rays are responsible for these flashes of light, though the exact mechanism is unknown. Hypotheses include one or all of: Cherenkov radiation created as the cosmic ray particles pass through the vitreous humor of the astronauts' eyes, direct interaction with the optic nerve, or direct interaction with visual centres in the brain.
Astronauts almost always reported that the flashes were white, with one exception in which the astronaut observed "blue with a white cast, like a blue diamond." There were a few different types of flashes: "spots" and "stars" were observed 66% of the time, "streaks" were observed 25% of the time, and "clouds" were observed 8% of the time, the same phenomena has been observed in CCD cameras"

So I would say without much doubt this is subatomic cosmic rays.


edit on 6-4-2014 by wulff because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   

zetnom


Image comparing cosmic ray captured on earth with DSLR and Mars 'light' source.

After the extra info I think I would have to say cosmic ray over dead pixel due to its shape and size, it would have to be a fair few dead pixels.

It does look quite large compared to other captures I have seen but I suppose it all depends on the angle which it hits the sensor.

Info on capturing cosmic rays with DSLR

People are getting quite consistent images of cosmic rays by doing long exposures here on earth, giving the size of the practical and the size of the sensor. An area the size of your hand here on Earth is said to be hit by a cosmic ray once per second. As Mars does not have an atmosphere to protect it you would have to assume that the hit rate would be far greater.


Based off the image I see in your close up drawing, I'd say this is some type of exhaust port for an underground base. Look at the base of where the exhaust is coming from. It looks like some type of fabricated hole. That's just how I see it.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   

lostbook

zetnom


Image comparing cosmic ray captured on earth with DSLR and Mars 'light' source.

After the extra info I think I would have to say cosmic ray over dead pixel due to its shape and size, it would have to be a fair few dead pixels.

It does look quite large compared to other captures I have seen but I suppose it all depends on the angle which it hits the sensor.

Info on capturing cosmic rays with DSLR

People are getting quite consistent images of cosmic rays by doing long exposures here on earth, giving the size of the practical and the size of the sensor. An area the size of your hand here on Earth is said to be hit by a cosmic ray once per second. As Mars does not have an atmosphere to protect it you would have to assume that the hit rate would be far greater.


Based off the image I see in your close up drawing, I'd say this is some type of exhaust port for an underground base. Look at the base of where the exhaust is coming from. It looks like some type of fabricated hole. That's just how I see it.



This sort of 'skyhook' thinking is always really funny to me. When confronted with an unknown phenomena people who try to 'figure it out' by going with the most complex and fanciful explanations first really are doing themselves and the field a considerable disservice. Whenever you dont know what something is, you should ALWAYS try to figure it out by going for the most simple, most rational and least fanciful explanation first (ESPECIALLY on things with very little information, like one picture, or one video), then if you rule that out start getting more complex.

The idea that this ISNT a cosmic ray relic is really maddening to me personally, Phage clearly was being extremely helpful in this thread and the OP seems to take it personally that the guy gave him the best and most likely answer to his question, but because it seemed to trample on his fanciful imaginative dreams that CANT be the explanation. If you want Sci Fi, phrase it as sci fi, If you want Science, proceed from simple, physical causes and axioms until you can rule those out.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


It could be certain ore deposits giving off gases. I've seen this in Mexico on silver and gold mine areas on my grandfathers old stake. There is a Spanish term for it, but I can't recall. Kind of like dancing candle...I will have to ask some people.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The main problem with this being something actually out there, away from the MSL, especially 1/2 to 1 mile away, is the simple fact that it shows up only in one image from one camera of a stereo pair that took images at the same time.

Think of a pair of binoculars. As you are looking through them, your eyes are both "taking pictures" at the same time.

Now, produce a light source, or reflected light from 1/2 to 1 mile away....and show me how that light stays so tightly focused, that it will only strike either the left or right lens of your binoculars, but not the other.

It can't.

UNLESS: it's a focused beam of light. A TIGHTLY focused beam of light (think laser pointer).

A geyser would show up in both images.
Light reflected off of a shinny surface, would show up in both images.
Any light source (flash light, light from a secret alien base, light from a secret human base, light from a space ship, car, even a alien camp fire....er.....not sure how they got fire to work in a atmosphere that is very starved of oxygen, but still), other than a tightly focused beam (read that as LASER), will show up in BOTH images that take at the same time, from 1/2 to 1 mile away.
Or even 100 feet away.

I'm afraid that because it's only in one image, it leaves us with only the following possible answers:

Cosmic Ray Strike.
Camera Artifact (dead pixels, or pixels that did not work on that image).

or


Someone with a laser pointer.

Now, in all honesty, I have trouble believing that last one. But, I have to include it because it is possible to produce the same result (eg showing up in only one camera).

Just remember that with the MSL stereo pair: anything further than a few inches are so from the camera, will always show up in both cameras.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   

immoralist

lostbook

zetnom


Image comparing cosmic ray captured on earth with DSLR and Mars 'light' source.

After the extra info I think I would have to say cosmic ray over dead pixel due to its shape and size, it would have to be a fair few dead pixels.

It does look quite large compared to other captures I have seen but I suppose it all depends on the angle which it hits the sensor.

Info on capturing cosmic rays with DSLR

People are getting quite consistent images of cosmic rays by doing long exposures here on earth, giving the size of the practical and the size of the sensor. An area the size of your hand here on Earth is said to be hit by a cosmic ray once per second. As Mars does not have an atmosphere to protect it you would have to assume that the hit rate would be far greater.


Based off the image I see in your close up drawing, I'd say this is some type of exhaust port for an underground base. Look at the base of where the exhaust is coming from. It looks like some type of fabricated hole. That's just how I see it.



This sort of 'skyhook' thinking is always really funny to me. When confronted with an unknown phenomena people who try to 'figure it out' by going with the most complex and fanciful explanations first really are doing themselves and the field a considerable disservice. Whenever you dont know what something is, you should ALWAYS try to figure it out by going for the most simple, most rational and least fanciful explanation first (ESPECIALLY on things with very little information, like one picture, or one video), then if you rule that out start getting more complex.

The idea that this ISNT a cosmic ray relic is really maddening to me personally, Phage clearly was being extremely helpful in this thread and the OP seems to take it personally that the guy gave him the best and most likely answer to his question, but because it seemed to trample on his fanciful imaginative dreams that CANT be the explanation. If you want Sci Fi, phrase it as sci fi, If you want Science, proceed from simple, physical causes and axioms until you can rule those out.


Yes, I know scientifically speaking, the answer is probably something simple as stated by Phage. However, this is a conspiracy site. There's always the "what-if" element to topics as well as the "here it is."



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Lukes light sabre?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Well I instantly thought of the Swan from lost..




Perhaps a Martian Desmond is under there not realising the planet has died out.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Sorry, just some packetloss while the image was being transferred.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I think this 'light' could possibly be an image artifact, considering it only appears on one of the cameras. I believe that the likelihood of it being an image artifact is greater than any other theory postulated here.

Daas.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Phage

Can anyone explain why it does not appear in the image taken by the left NAVCAM at the same time?
Left
edit on 4/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Because it is a transient defect in one of the sensors, and aligned on the pixel grid.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Nikola Tesla did say he believed there was a radio signal coming from Mars.



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join