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.

 

A Second Source of Light detected by the Rover. Curiosity Sol 568.

page: 11
82
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h



virtually


virtually yours are nothing more than hipotesys like mine....






posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Arken




virtually yours are nothing more than hipotesys like mine....



Except mine come from the ones who actually know what they are looking at.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Arken


The daylight. They can't be detectded in broad day light, according to the source.

Where does it say that? Your interpretation seems to be a product of fallacious reasoning that leads to invalid hipotesysms.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: EloquentThinker
You know, I'm getting a little sick and tired of the sarcastic responses by posters in this forum who are evidently biased towards one way of thinking. As seen on Page 1 of this thread, people started mocking those who prefer the much more simple and likely answer for the light source in exchange for an extremely improbable one.

Phage, in the other thread, checked to see if the "light source" was visible in other pictures from other cameras at that moment in time. It's what intelligent people do when scrutinizing "evidence". It wasn't visible in those pictures, hence the "Cosmic ray" answer. I'd be willing to bet that the same thing is happening here.

What doesn't help is when people automatically jump to conclusions with no evidence or research done to back it up. The desire for proof of Aliens is so strong amongst this crowd that they can't see anything clearly without insisting that "Aliens" must be behind it when there's not one shred of proof that life exists outside of our planet.


I'm not sure why you said this.

Once it's known by now there is a real gap between the two cam shots, it's concievable to assume other possibilities other then cosmic rays.

The pair pictures are taken "within a minute" as a source Nasa mentioned.
And this opens a hell of a real possibilities such as rock reflections for instance.

Trying to stick to this cosmic ray argument just for the sake of debunking is not real science, it's playing on the safe side, and it's surely lack of creative thinking.

It can be cosmic ray, but it CAN be something else. Even NASA is not closed to other possibilities.

Do not forget there are many other pieces of speculation in the game, all of then worth considering.




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAdef





The pair pictures are taken "within a minute" as a source Nasa mentioned.
And this opens a hell of a real possibilities such as rock reflections for instance.



The problem is it is taken within a second of each other and why isn't it in the left mast cam?

The chances go down when it only appears in one cam and not both which was said by NASA.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: LordAdef





The pair pictures are taken "within a minute" as a source Nasa mentioned.
And this opens a hell of a real possibilities such as rock reflections for instance.



The problem is it is taken within a second of each other and why isn't it in the left mast cam?

The chances go down when it only appears in one cam and not both which was said by NASA.


(I edited "a minute" for "a second", my bad)

"A second" is totally fine for the stereo pair composite, but let say there is a reflective rock being dragged by wind and rolling around. The flash could perfectly be caught in only one of the two cameras.

And that's why "a reflective rock" is also considered by Nasa.

edit on 19-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

A funny side story, I was so dense that I never figured out until recently that when people say things they aren't always original. I prefer saying original things at all times, citing sources or using another phrase in a sarcastic or mocking manner to add meaning.
When I play Magic I ask people did you make that deck yourself and they always say no, they found it on the net - my view of the world was like the world was a chess game where no one had memorized any prior moves from history. Although there is a lot of power in being able to create a new move - and in order to create a new move you must know how the moves are made not just what they are.

Anyway has anyone noticed the second picture is either a close up or a closer shot of the same light source yet?
edit on 19amSat, 19 Apr 2014 09:23:29 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 19amSat, 19 Apr 2014 09:24:39 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 19amSat, 19 Apr 2014 09:27:01 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Phage

Anyway has anyone noticed the second picture is either a close up or a closer shot of the same light source yet?


Nobody is claiming it is anything other than an enlargement of the same image. What is your point?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

This was my point.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Just to make sure everyone understands the "cosmic ray" theory is NOT the only possible explanation..


The quotes bellow are from Justin Maki, an imaging scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who is the lead for Curiosity's engineering cameras

Source




.....at the ground surface level in front of a crater rim on the horizon




We think it's either a vent-hole light leak or a glinty rock." ."




"Bright spots appear in single images taken by the Navigation Camera on NASA's Curiosity Mars rover on April 2 and April 3. Each is in an image taken by this stereo camera's right-eye camera [with links to the April 3 and April 2 pictures] but not in images taken within a second of each of those by the left-eye camera [again, with links to April 3 and April 2]. In the two right-eye images, the spot is in different locations of the image frame and, in both cases, at the ground surface level in front of a crater rim on the horizon. "One possibility is that the light is the glint from a rock surface reflecting the sun. When these images were taken each day, the sun was in the same direction as the bright spot, west-northwest from the rover, and relatively low in the sky. The rover science team is also looking at the possibility that the bright spots could be sunlight reaching the camera's CCD directly through a vent hole in the camera housing, which has happened previously on other cameras on Curiosity and other Mars rovers when the geometry of the incoming sunlight relative to the camera is precisely aligned. "We think it's either a vent-hole light leak or a glinty rock."

edit on 19-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AzureSky
We don't know what it is.
No one could possibly know for sure without being there to witness it in person.
All we can do is speculate. Its cool to think about, perhaps some sort of reflective material, or perhaps some sort of lighting (we have heat lightning here, who knows what mars has)



This is clearly a swamp gas ignite or the sun reflecting off an airplane. Are there any major airports around? Maybe a chines lantern.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
NASA wants more money and a spec of light will rake them in more money than a block buster movie like Terminator 4

I think if/when we make contact then no one will be under any illusions about it being the real deal



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAdef

So a single point light source ... such as a Marsian laser ... is still possible ... if it could be a glinty rock or vent hole light leak affecting one of the stereo cameras?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAdef




And that's why "a reflective rock" is also considered by Nasa.


I also understand that it could be a shiny rock, but then how big is that rock to make it that bright?




but let say there is a reflective rock being dragged by wind and rolling around. The flash could perfectly be caught in only one of the two cameras.


Again I would have to ask how big would that rock have to be to give that big a reflection and from the pics it doesn't seem to be that windy.

Again it could be a rock, but with the information available the chances of it being a cosmic ray strike are more probable than it being a reflective rock.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAdef




The quotes bellow are from Justin Maki, an imaging scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who is the lead for Curiosity's engineering cameras


And you probably should add the update with your post...


Maki put a bit of additional emphasis on the cosmic ray scenario in a follow-up email to NBC News: "Two different cosmic ray hits occurring in two different images that happened to be pointed in the same general direction one day apart could certainly happen from time to time," he said.


www.nbcnews.com...

That was on the 8th...

Then we have this from the 9th and a different article...


It turns out that both cosmic rays and glinting rocks are pretty common on Mars. They've been spotted before. Such rocks have been seen in images sent by several of NASA's Mars rovers, and cosmic rays appear in images that Curiosity sends to Earth each week.



Glinting rocks, on the other hand, could easily reflect Martian sunlight. But it's not clear why the glimmer would appear just in the right-eye images, Maki said. He notes that one of the left-eye images is obscured, and he says it's not impossible for a glimmer to show up on only one side.

"I'd probably lean toward cosmic rays," Maki said. "But I'd like to keep an open mind."


news.nationalgeographic.com...

So it seems he is leaning away from the shiny rock theory and more towards the cosmic ray strike.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Not to mention that the most recent image showing a similar white light (on sol 603) has the light in the sky, not on the surface:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

(The smaller white dot just to the right is a stuck pixel which has been visible on and off for quite a while on that camera.)
edit on 19-4-2014 by Rob48 because: Sorry that is sol 603 not 601.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48




Not to mention that the most recent image showing a similar white light (on sol 601) has the light in the sky, not on the surface:


If that is from only the right cam then that really does make the shiny rock theory a bit shaky.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Rob48


If that is from only the right cam then that really does make the shiny rock theory a bit shaky.


Yes, once again it is only the right navcam. Here is the left navcam image for the same time (2014-04-17 17:21:39 UTC).

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I still think they are probably cosmic rays, but I am not 100% behind that theory because they are all from the same camera. I never really fancied the rock idea, because the angular separation between the cameras just isn't enough). And now of course we see a similar light that cannot be a rock. I am pretty confident it is a mere camera artifact, not a real visible light.

This is now three images in recent days, all from the right camera. If it is a cosmic ray strike, why is the right camera seemingly more susceptible to cosmic rays? Or is it mere coincidence?

While keeping an open mind, I am now wondering whether there is some sort of transient problem with the CCD or readout electronics in the right camera equipment, which either causes the white lights directly or somehow makes that camera more susceptible to cosmic ray interference than the left one. But I don't know enough about the camera specifics to speculate on what could cause such a thing.


edit on 19-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Hear ye, hear ye.

Let the reader understand...

Some of the replies, most notably one, were TOO professional. I don't think amateur internet scientists would reply with such MINED data evidence much?

The OP himself had feeble evidence compared to these PROs. It strikes me as obvious really. Color me "gotya".



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: headb
Hear ye, hear ye.

Let the reader understand...

Some of the replies, most notably one, were TOO professional. I don't think amateur internet scientists would reply with such MINED data evidence much?

The OP himself had feeble evidence compared to these PROs. It strikes me as obvious really. Color me "gotya".


What are you trying to say here exactly? That I shouldn't listen to people who provide proper data and evidence? I'm a bit confused here. Who should I listen to? How is it possible to be "TOO professional"?


Besides, I'm not seeing anyone on here claiming to have the answers. There are several theories posted, but nobody is claiming 100% proof of anything. Can you link to the "most notably one" reply you meant?
edit on 19-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join