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: 9
95
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by freetheuniverse
 


It's not in the same spot on every image.


mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

compare to

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I must say I do find it a little strange that it appears right on the horizon in both images. When I saw the first one I immediately thought it looked like a hot pixel, and if it appeared anywhere other than right on the horizon it would be more obvious that it was. But two hot pixels in different parts of the field of view but both right on that horizon line? I am starting to get more interested.


edit on 8-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Hi Erik,
Thank you very much for the links and the explanation. I'm going to have a lot at these pdfs later.
Although I agree an infinitesimal latency wouldn't produce the missing "light", I was intrigued by the possibility.

Cheers



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Why you sure it's from Mars ?Maybe they took the picture from Arizona or New Mexico desert.
edit on 8-4-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by candlestick
 


Er, perhaps because it's from the rover which is on Mars? I don't think it has a long enough lens to take close ups of New Mexico



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Miniscuzz
I think it's time to put to rest that this is some sort of cosmic ray being caught with a camera. First, once one studies the makeup of the mast and the position of the Nav-Cam sensors, it becomes obvious that the odds a cosmic ray was able to hover 10ft. above the ground and slam into the sensor is NIL. Mostly because according to the picture, there's a large hill directly in front of the camera some distance away. That cosmic ray would've slammed into IT long before reaching the mm wide sensor.

On your incorrect assumption of where a cosmic ray would come from. How about behind the camera for starters !!


However, I also did some digging on those cameras and came up with some other relative information.

First, those Nav-Cams use Visual Light. Let that sink in for a second...VISUAL LIGHT. Are cosmic rays able to be seen using a visual light source? NO. Cosmic rays aren't even in the vicinity of the visual light spectrum, because if they were, every single picture captured by those Nav-Cams would be bombarded with cosmic ray light. They aren't.

FYI I have a degree in electronics and I worked for Motorola so take it from me that cosmic ray was hitting a semiconductor junction. It does NOT have to be visible light.


Secondly, let's assume for one hot second that Cosmic Rays were visible in the visual light spectrum. Both Nav-Cams have band-pass filters which wouldn't even allow for them to catch any residual light from any source...most especially from a cosmic ray. Those cams aren't DSLR cameras either. Meaning that they do not contain the metal oxide semi-conductor chips which is necessary (along with very long exposure times) to be able to capture cosmic rays in the first place.

The filter won't stop a cosmic ray and yet again your are forgetting about a high energy particle striking a semiconductor. You need to stop thinking "normal CCD behaviour".....Light hits the epitaxial layer, generates an electron, the electron(s) travels along the channel to be collected. The greater the electrons the greater the charge the higher the digital value. Now from that two sentence description it is obvious that a high energy particle can disrupt or enhance the flow of electrons without needing to mimic a photon!


snip
I'll await a response on how visual light cameras are able to take pictures of something that isn't even in the visual light spectrum. This ought to be good...

You keep thinking "photograph", stop now and think "energetic particles interacting with semiconductor junctions".....then you will understand what is happening.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 

Thanks for the explanation. I think some people need to read up on how cameras work!

What are your thoughts on the placement of the artefact on those two images though? Does seem a bit of a coincidence that they are both right on the horizon line, but not in the same place on the image.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   

yorkshirelad

You keep thinking "photograph", stop now and think "energetic particles interacting with semiconductor junctions".....then you will understand what is happening.


Don't you mean: "then you understand this theory"?

I haven't seen where this has been proven to be the case other than claims of such. Furthermore, a few posts above show to separate pics from separate angles showing a light source in the vicinity.

I guess I'm confused why the leading idea so far is the most illogical. Wouldn't make more sense for it to be a geyser jutting out from the ground and light reflecting off of whatever material is being ejected out? Perhaps even some kind of transient martian phenomenon.

It could also be a base built in secret by the US or some other nation. Maybe perhaps not all the aliens left Mars for Earth some thousands of years ago and hunkered down, survived and are now moving above ground. 50 years from now we may see the beginnings of some terraforming and areas of greenery begin to spring up. What? just as likely as cosmic rays IMO.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Now, we can still say this all is a Hoax , and the rover was never even close to mars. I am one of the followers of the Inner Earth theory that our earth is inside and all celestial bodies are in fact not there.

But Can't they just go where the light is ? This is exploration mission , and this needs to be explored. It was proven once Mars had water. There is still possibility there to be something under the surface. This light can be coming out from there. We need to see it closer.

P.S Regarding the Gayser Theory, It may fit perfect the theory about the underground water. If there is underground water, there is life. If there is life, we can quiet assume there can be some kind of underground cave system full of alive mars creatures. And all this time we are investigating the long dead surface.....
edit on 8-4-2014 by ZeroFurrbone because: Removed curse words



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 


It can't be a geyser... You have to account for all the facts we have. There is a twin image taken at the same time which does not show the geyser. As I've said before, if you go to the doctors and say you are seeing a black dot in your right eye, the doctor doesn't look in the corner for an answer, he looks at your eye.
The artifact is only in one camera, it is designed to collect energy in the form of visible light, which makes it sensitive to being struck by a cosmic ray. Don't think 'laser', it is a tiny highly charge particle which is so small it can travel easily though matter, but it can also interact with the world, which is what we see in the ONE image. Not image two, so you seriously have to consider why the geyser is invisible to a camera centimeters away.
The light as explained well above you in the image is not what it looks like, its the massive discharge of energy which is so high it is clipping the pixels.
Also, you've probably had a one or two or three Cosmic rays going through you in the last few hours, mostly they pass straight through, most are deflected by the earths magnetosphere which mars lacks. So the chances are much greater of one interacting on Mars as they are rife throughout the galaxies.


Edit - Thanks Yorkshire Lad, I hope your explanation helps others understand
I tried on page 2 and 3 to no avail. But hopefully it helps ppl understand.

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



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Bright Blips on Mars Pictures Spark a Buzz Among UFO Fans



Update for 9 p.m. ET April 7: Doug Ellison, an imaging guru who happens to work at JPL, quickly told me in a Twitter update that the bright spot is due to a "cosmic ray hit" affecting the rover. (Later: The Surrey Space Center's Chris Bridges agrees.)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

ZeroFurrbone
Now, we can still say this all is a Hoax , and the rover was never even close to mars. I am one of the followers of the Inner Earth theory that our earth is inside and all celestial bodies are in fact not there.


The Flat Earthers would vehemently disagree.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Rob48
 


Great find! Adding the 2nd image, the plot thickens (or clarifies depending on where you stand on this).



2 different images, taken on 2 separate days from 2 separate vantage points both showing the same light source in approximately the same area on Mars but in 2 different areas of the image? Really? So we're supposed to believe that a cosmic ray struck on 2 separate days from 2 separate vantage points yet only affecting areas of the image that happened to show this spot?

The only thing keeping me from totally throwing game, set & match to this being an actual artificial light source on Mars is the fact that both images come from the same camera.

But even with that in mind, methinks Lucy has some 'splaining to do....



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Looks like some sort of geothermal event. Or, an alien dune buggy coming up out of a Deep Under Ground Tunnel.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Looks to me the rover is investigating the light by taking 2 photos of the same object, just from a different angle.
I think cosmic ray is out. It looks to me like a guyser but it seems a little bright and a little different to a normal guyser but that might be due to the distance.

I would love it to be a actual light of some sort on Mars though....Explain that NASA....
Great find..



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Having two cameras and the image only appearing from one of them leaves the only solution being something related to the camera.
The cosmic ray theory has credence as it would affect only the camera it is interacting with.
A reflection involved has credence because of different angles of the two cameras, but has less credence than the cosmic ray.
Either way you go, with two images involved and only one showing the anomaly, the camera and a reaction with is it the only possibility.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Isn't Mars Beautiful....i would give both my legs and a right arm just to walk on that planet...it's awesome..Mars Rocks.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Gawd... This kind of thread really makes you wish that the scientific method were actually taught in schools as a holistic approach to life. Instead, we're treated to avalanches of stars on the first page because it looks cool therefore aliens, zilch attention to the follow-up, and Phage bashing, because man, that guy and all his honest research is such a buzzkill.

ATS has become so impatient and opinionated it's freaking terrifying.

Anyways. Occhams razor : Cosmic ray, not Mos Eisley.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Ismail because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 

Just to walk on it AND throw a baseball of course...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Soloprotocol
Isn't Mars Beautiful....i would give both my legs and a right arm just to walk on that planet...it's awesome..Mars Rocks.


For some reason, I don't think that'd work out too well for you...


Soloprotocol
...i would give both my legs...



Soloprotocol
just to walk on that planet...





posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyaussi
 





I think cosmic ray is out.


Why?



Explain that NASA....


They did...from Pauligirl's link


Update for 9 p.m. ET April 7: Doug Ellison, an imaging guru who happens to work at JPL, quickly told me in a Twitter update that the bright spot is due to a "cosmic ray hit" affecting the rover. (Later: The Surrey Space Center's Chris Bridges agrees.)


and the tweet that explains it...

twitter.com...

But because this is a conspiracy site everything has to be a conspiracy to some.




top topics



 
95
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join