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: 7
95
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
In my highly expert opinion, just kidding, it almost looks like a jet emanating from the ground. Perhaps a geyser, although maybe not of water. Perhaps carbon dioxide. I suppose it could be a light, but it just looks to me to be more like a geyser.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Please provide some sort of proof that what was captured there were cosmic rays and not just dust, metoroids, or distant shooting stars please. Without some sort of scale, your analogy is weak Phage....really weak.

Do you know how often a cosmic ray has actually hit any rover? Once...and that's still being debated. Do you know what happened to the Rover and it's onboard computer when/if that Ray hit? It shut that pig down and corrupted the "A" Computer. Then...it put the Rover into "safe-mode". The article is a good read if you have a minute.

LINK: www.theguardian.com...




I wonder what NASA says about capturing cosmic rays in pictures. Here's just a snippet from the link
here: www.nasa.gov...






If dry ice is unavailable, you can construct an alternative cosmic ray detector using a digital
camera able to keep its shutter open more than a minute. Cover the lens so that no light
penetrates the camera. Use the highest ISO (International Standards Organization) setting
available; this makes the film as sensitive as possible to light. Then set the exposure time for
about 5 minutes. You should see small streaks in the resulting image. These are the tracks of
secondary cosmic rays. Digital cameras have noise-reducing programming built into their
computers, so some cosmic ray tracks may be erased. For further details, see Kendra
Sibbernsen’s article, “Catching Cosmic Rays with a DSLR,


According to NASA, in order to capture a cosmic ray or it's light with a camera such as the NAV-CAM, you must have the shutter open for 5 MINUTES and on the highest setting to light possible.

Well, according to the JPL website (link provided below), the maximum exposure time for the NAV-CAM is just over 5 minutes at maximum. So far, it seems like Phage may have something...until you visit this link:

starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov...

The link provides all the specs of the NAV-CAMS. It also mentions that the normal exposure time at NOON on Mars is just .25 seconds. This is the setting the NAV-CAMS are normally on. While I agree there's a possibility that when this picture was taken, the operator of the Rover decided to maximize exposure time for some reason, that won't account for why the operator also decided to ramp up the light filter to maximum as well...which according to the snippet above....is necessary to capture a cosmic ray.
If the light setting on the NAV-CAMS was at it's highest (which would be needed to capture the cosmic ray in the first place), why is the surrounding area so dark? It's obviously light out, and on the highest setting, we'd be seeing far more detail in the pictures I think.

There's no plausible reason for the NAV-CAMS on the Rover to be set at a 5 minute exposure time with the maximum light setting possible. The NAV-CAMS are "tactical" and are there to protect the Rover from obstacles. This doesn't require long exposure times, which is why it's stated that normally a .25 exposure time is used.

On top of all of that...let's assume that the NAV-CAMS did photograph a cosmic ray. Unfortunately, it wouldn't appear on the picture according to the above link. The image processors in the cams are there specifically to wipe cosmic rays from photographs...specifically "blooming". Blooming is caused by cosmic rays and other sources. Read the PDS from JPL linked above for all the NAV-CAM specs.

I can't really see how anyone could even argue that it's a cosmic ray in light of all my posts suggesting otherwise.
edit on 7-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Ananake
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Made a stereoscopic gif to more easily see its place or lack thereof in 3 dimensions.



imgur.com...


This was terrific - thanks.

Makes the "light" more into a beacon of sorts. Which just got me thinking/wondering...

Do the 2 stereo mastcams take their images at the *exact* same instant?

If not - I'd love to see the rover image that area from the same position again...and use the mastcams as well as at least one other camera...



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
You have all got it wrong! Not cosmic rays. Not a shiny rock, and not waterflows! It is clearly a transporter beam. Captain Kirk has beamed down to Mars after those pesky Klingons who are intent on changing our past by sabotaguing the rover on the eve of making an historic discovery of finding a cave with art drawings left by our ancestors before they left to travel to Earth to start over!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Isnt the definitive proof...as Phage suggests...in the absence of 1/2 of the stereo image? At six INCHES apart rt and lt? It should appear in both at the same time.

Since it was taken simultaneous with each other to form the stereo image, and it does not appear in both...it cant be a light source.

I'd go with Phage's ascertion.
edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I believe there is organic material and perhaps life on Mars, and that NASA is hiding the truth from the public ... but this is just a digital artifact. It is not a light source.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

skuly
Shiny rock ?



edit on 6/4/2014 by skuly because: adding


Can someone do some math on that photo? How tall is that light source?? It has to be atleast 20 feet tall? Am I wrong?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Please provide some sort of proof that what was captured there were cosmic rays and not just dust, metoroids, or distant shooting stars please.
"Shooting stars" in space? Really? In any case:

Cosmic rays are very high energy particles which come from a variety of sources (e.g. solar flares, supernovae). They are of interest to lots of astronomers, but mostly just noise for us. We see lots of them in every image and occasionally, 3 or 4 of them hit the CCD in just the right places in consecutive images to fool us into believing there is a real object there. The cosmic rays can show up as points or as streaks.
sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil...
 


Do you know how often a cosmic ray has actually hit any rover? Once...and that's still being debated
What is being debated is whether a cosmic ray caused the problem. The rovers are hit by cosmic rays on a pretty regular basis.

The graphic to the right shows the radiation dose rate measured by RAD on the surface of Mars. Radiation detected by RAD during the first 300 Sols was almost entirely due to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs).

www.spaceflight101.com...
 



According to NASA, in order to capture a cosmic ray or it's light with a camera such as the NAV-CAM, you must have the shutter open for 5 MINUTES and on the highest setting to light possible.
Five minutes in order to obtain a number of tracks. The NAVCAM is not a DLSR nor is the NAVCAM on Earth's surface. Cosmic radiation levels are higher on the surface of Mars. This is a 30 second exposure from the NAVCAM at night. Exposures during the day are shorter so catching cosmic ray strikes is more rare.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
 



The image processors in the cams are there specifically to wipe cosmic rays from photographs...specifically "blooming".
No. Anti-blooming is not there to remove cosmic ray strikes. It is there to minimize oversaturation carrying from pixel to pixel. It also cannot handle it in all cases. For example, note the horizontal blooming near the bottom center of the image:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

dovdov
I believe there is organic material and perhaps life on Mars, and that NASA is hiding the truth from the public ... but this is just a digital artifact. It is not a light source.

Why would NASA do that? If NASA discovered even a sniff of life then they'd be shouting about it and clamouring for extra funding to investigate it! It wouldn't make sense to hide anything like that.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Blue Shift

lemmin
I don't understand how this can be taken as anything more than a digital artifact. These are all over other images. I went back ONE day and found another one after three clicks.

It's curious how both of the flashes appear right at the horizon line. That's kind of an interesting coincidence and not something you'd expect from a random cosmic ray strike. It it possible for it to be a processing artifact of some kind?

Yes it is strange. I put the first one down to coincidence that it appeared right by the horizon thus making it seem more significant, but it is odd that the second artifact is also right at the horizon.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I'd bet the house on this being a geyser, but I could never trust NASA to tell me the truth. I'm too skeptical. I've believed there to be water on Mars my entire life. In 5th grade I was told to rewrite my report that I did using books from the library. They proceeded to call my parents and ban the books. It was a big argument and I absolutely refused to rewrite it. I got in a lot of trouble, but there is water. Even if this is not a geyser I do believe 100% that there are geysers and that this planet can and will be morphed back to Earthlike. I think this is where we originally came from, it was destroyed in war, and then we morphed Earth. We did not have enough of a foothold to maintain our level of tech. The exact opposite will take place again in the future.
edit on 7-4-2014 by ezwip because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
It's most likely one of two things.

Either:

1). Cosmic Ray

2). Hot pixel exacerbated by exposure length and image compression.

either way, it's not really there on the surface.

BTW:

Everyone seems to have forgotten about the tracks on the surface in front of the rover...??

They're created by dust devils (that's the prevailing theory)

.:Edit:

I've created a 3D Anaglyph of the RAW images...

Linky to image

It seems to float... Not really touching anything.
edit on 7-4-2014 by gspat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


You've got yourself in a twist over the 5 minute exposure/maximum ISO settings to capture a cosmic ray.

The simple fact is, neither are required. Higher ISOs (more gain) simply mean you can more easily see lower energy cosmic rays, and longer exposure times mean you have a greater chance of capturing one. As for the idea that the rays had to pass through a background hill - they are not required to travel in lines perpendicular to the imaging sensor; Mars is three dimensional! Heck - they could easily originate from behind the rover.

The fact that the artefact's intensity goes from full white (RGB 255) and fades out is highly indicative that it's a cosmic ray hitting the sensor at an oblique angle.
edit on 7-4-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


I would say that the light source is human in origin. Maybe a private enterprise has sent a rover of it's own to Mars, knowing where the public rover is, they thought it would be charming to tease the NASA folks with a light show.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
As much as I would love this to be something interesting such as a geyser, reflective surface, light being, or anything worth noting, I believe the absence of the anomaly in 1/2 of the stereoscopic photos (assuming they were indeed taken at the same exact time), then one must conclude that it is just some sort of lens reflection or other as of yet unknown technological 'glitch'. The odds of it being something worth noting AND was captured by 1/2 of the stereoscopic photographing system is just so miniscule it really needs to be discarded. Same logic goes for the possibility of the reflection being so acute that only one lens captured it while it was out of the range of the other.

Having said that, and even casting logic aside, lets say that every conventional and rational explanation could be proven otherwise, even if it could be proven as some form of structure and/or light casting/emitting/reflecting object in the distance, the 12 pixels that comprise the anomaly make it impossible to decipher what it could be anyway.

Interesting photo though as well worth the post!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

ezwip
I'd bet the house on this being a geyser, but I could never trust NASA to tell me the truth. I'm too skeptical. I've believed there to be water on Mars my entire life. In 5th grade I was told to rewrite my report that I did using books from the library. They proceeded to call my parents and ban the books. It was a big argument and I absolutely refused to rewrite it. I got in a lot of trouble, but there is water. Even if this is not a geyser I do believe 100% that there are geysers and that this planet can and will be morphed back to Earthlike. I think this is where we originally came from, it was destroyed in war, and then we morphed Earth. We did not have enough of a foothold to maintain our level of tech. The exact opposite will take place again in the future.
edit on 7-4-2014 by ezwip because: (no reason given)


If a Martian year is about 650 days and earths 365. Then how come we seem to be getting regular pics. from mars when mars and earth would be separated by the Sun for a considerable period. Wouldn't their be a period when mars was to close to the sun for radio waves to get through. Forgive my ignorance if I've missed something.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I have question and an observation:

Question
What steps should I follow to attach an image to this reply? (I pushed the "insert an image from your library" and a blank pop-up appears on the top)


Observation:
I used my Google Chrome zoom functionality to zoom in at 500% (this is the image I wanted to attach to this post) -- the results are EXTREMELY clear, with no pixel distortion.
That is not a rock, nor fire, nor lighning, nor a geyser (why would geyser water glow?).
It definetly looks like something that would require advanced life to build.

Please keep in mind the source -- NASA.jpl -- this may well be the best-ever evidence put forward so far of alien life by anyone.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


Data can be stored. Both on the rovers and on the orbiters which serve as relay stations.
edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join