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: 12
82
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarthFazer
reply to post by Arken
 


It has to be either swamp gas or ball lightning because those are the only plausible explanations.


Actually. NOT.

This type of sarcasm fails, pretty much.

Because "swamp gas" would be a rather idiotic explanation for a light on Mars, and "ball lightning" in a sense also. As opposed to "swamp gas" or "ball lightning", cosmic rays which hit a CCD and cause a white speck are indeed a plausible (and not even far-fetched) explanation.

Too bad you cannot discern between WHAT is actually plausible and what not : )




posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Hi tsurfer,
I wouldn't mind adding new updates at all.
My goal here is to suggest people keep there minds open. People believe there's Phage's cosmic ray OR the rest... It looks as thou Phage's points are the soly Scientifically solid true, which is wrong. As much as I respect Phage's comments I sometimes think it's not always "healthy" in a way that gives the "followers" a blind belief. I'm sure Mr. Phage does it unintentionally, but I see it as a side effect of his behaviours.

Cosmic ray is surely a big possibility in this game, but not the only one.




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


..."Probably" = not definitelly
.... " keep an open mind" = what I suggest everyone here (INCLUDING MR. PHAGE) should do.

That's simple, that's all.
Piece.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
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.



How big? It didn't have to big at all. It did have to be reflective thou.

Why do you think the odds of 3 cosmic rays are better than a glinty rock on the ground?
Remember the lights are on the surface ground , roughly in the same area. THAT is what makes other possibilities still open. We are not talking of random white blobs anywhere in the pictures, we are talking of very coherently placed lights in a certain place in the map.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAdef

But how does the rock theory account for the fact that out of the three similar lights, one of them is in the sky? Floating rocks?
edit on 20-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ipfreely32

Dr Who? Try bukaroo banzai! It's an image of a "Red Lectroid", one Dr Lizardo! I believe. DO NOT BE ALARMED! John Parker has saved the day, along with some help from the Hong Kong Cavaliers and the Blue Blazer Regulars! Great movie. Dr Who? Meh! Martha Jones rocks. I like K-9.

Cosmic rays - Possible. Static discharge - Possible. Lens Flare - Possible. Martian Fire Flys - Sure why not!

I'd have to take ANYTHING NASA says with a grain of salt. They lied about the shuttle disasters, BOTH of them. The spent beau-coup bucks on a Mars orbiter, and they MISSED Mars because they didn't double check they're math. They are so incompetent about managing money and spending it wisely, the USA doesn't have a manned space flight capability. We have to bum rides from the Russians! So ok, the crappy robots they send keep hallucinating and seeing lights. Never send a robot to do a humans job! (unless it's Chernobyl or something like that) Nuff Said. Build a space ship. Send some people. Put boots on the ground. Find out the place is deader than Joe Bidens cerebral cortex and move on! Hey, we landed on humans on the Moon right? Mars should be a piece of cake. Just stop sending useless radio shack robots up there! it's a colossal waste of cash on a planet that only has one purpose. Resources. As in we should go there, see if there's anything we can use, and take it! It's our Solar system. We own it. Wait, that proves I'm right! I just heard Mr Spock doing a face palm!
I think NASA should focus on this. Build a ship that lets you go were you want. Not one designed to go to a specific place!



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAdef




Why do you think the odds of 3 cosmic rays are better than a glinty rock on the ground?
Remember the lights are on the surface ground , roughly in the same area. THAT is what makes other possibilities still open. We are not talking of random white blobs anywhere in the pictures, we are talking of very coherently placed lights in a certain place in the map


The problem is the last one is not on the ground so that pretty much ends the shiny rock debate.

There is nothing that shows this anomaly is even near the ground, but it looks like it because of the terrain it is looking at. So to say it is coherently placed light is a fallacy.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: LordAdef

But how does the rock theory account for the fact that out of the three similar lights, one of them is in the sky? Floating rocks?


I'm not sure what you're talking about...
The lights in the three pictures look very much on ground level.

And if you analyse the terrain you will notice the source of interest is in the same spot.

These are the 3 first pictures:


Picture 1:

picture 2:

Picture 3:

edit on 20-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: wulff
a reply to: Rob48

Watch and see, he will see those cosmic rays again on another image in a few weeks and come out with another thread (I'll even help him name it) "A Third Source Of light On Mars Images!"


an earlier quote by you

originally posted by: wulff

I know also what you guys mean about trolls it seems like there are a few members that nearly every time their replies are just to try to make the OP look bad, stupid, etc. I have often wondered if those people get the stars from the other troll buddies? LOL:


What difference does it make to you what he does? at least he is contributing and not just crying an pissing himself about the price of tea in China.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAdef

Sorry, confusion over numbering. The one in the thread called "A third picture" on here is actually the fourth. My mistake. This is the pic I mean:



Regarding the other three: the first two lights are in the same area. The third isn't.

I'm about as puzzled as anyone else here. All I can say is that it very likely isn't anything really there on the surface of Mars. Looks like a camera problem, but caused by what, I don't know. It's possibly relevant that, since these lights started appearing on the right camera, it seems to have developed a series of stuck pixels. Started off as one, and now we are up to four.
edit on 21-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
its little cousin "opportunity"

2nd



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: LordAdef

But how does the rock theory account for the fact that out of the three similar lights, one of them is in the sky? Floating rocks?


Do you mean a floating rock, like this one?


Also visible here:


Source: mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Blister
edit on 21-4-2014 by Blister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
seems convenient the sun is shining, so obviously a reflection has to be the first process of elimination, which is not possible until it can be approached and investigated, if it was a light source of unknown origin why is there no image when its dark, if there is a light still, then we know it's not the suns reflection.. prob wont get us very far but at least its one theory eliminated or reinforced... we know nothing about our universe and what we are seeing is new to us and so we refer to it as an anomaly but it may in fact be a very common occurrence. I don't know how we go from seeing this reflection or whatever to suggesting is the chimney of some underground alien house.. we can't ever know what it really is until it can be investigated, and I'm sure NASA has other bigger fatter fish to fry first..



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blister

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: LordAdef

But how does the rock theory account for the fact that out of the three similar lights, one of them is in the sky? Floating rocks?


Do you mean a floating rock, like this one?


Also visible here:



Source: mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Blister


so, nothing? a floating rock and people are looking at so-called lights?

well, i guess the rock would need it's own thread.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao

My own opinion is that the "floating rock" is an optical illusion, exactly like the "lights" visible in assorted Curiosity pictures.

We can assume that the rock floats and use basic geometry to measure height off the ground, just as some have used basic geometry to triangulate the postulated position of the "light". Such a task is very attractive and compelling - doing such a multi-dimensional exercise in problem solving is interesting and leads to great conclusions, such as "yep, there is the place that is shining brightly". An assumption that rapidly breaks-down when suddenly new "bright lights" appear in new and historic locations.

So, the floating rock pictures are simple illusions. Good ones too. But from other angles and using other cameras (look them up if you are interested) the truth is obvious. And that is how I feel about this "bright light" issue. Forgive my rant.

Blister.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Maybe that light was an attempt for night time work on this:

original
It is the top left corner of image where this is.
edit on 21-4-2014 by alienreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Blister
Which rock is meant to be floating there? If it is meant to be an optical illusion it's a pretty rubbish one!

(I know you are just using it as an example)
edit on 21-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blister
a reply to: tsingtao

My own opinion is that the "floating rock" is an optical illusion, exactly like the "lights" visible in assorted Curiosity pictures.

We can assume that the rock floats and use basic geometry to measure height off the ground, just as some have used basic geometry to triangulate the postulated position of the "light". Such a task is very attractive and compelling - doing such a multi-dimensional exercise in problem solving is interesting and leads to great conclusions, such as "yep, there is the place that is shining brightly". An assumption that rapidly breaks-down when suddenly new "bright lights" appear in new and historic locations.

So, the floating rock pictures are simple illusions. Good ones too. But from other angles and using other cameras (look them up if you are interested) the truth is obvious. And that is how I feel about this "bright light" issue. Forgive my rant.

Blister.



well, david blane could take a few lessons! lol! i did think of illusion.

what about that campfire circle?

i'm a fan of skipper's site. anyway, the right cam has a flaw. imo.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: LordAdef

Sorry, confusion over numbering. The one in the thread called "A third picture" on here is actually the fourth. My mistake. This is the pic I mean:


Regarding the other three: the first two lights are in the same area. The third isn't.

I'm about as puzzled as anyone else here. All I can say is that it very likely isn't anything really there on the surface of Mars. Looks like a camera problem, but caused by what, I don't know. It's possibly relevant that, since these lights started appearing on the right camera, it seems to have developed a series of stuck pixels. Started off as one, and now we are up to four.


Hi Rob, don't worry. I warned Arken in the other thread too.
To me this Fourth image is unrelated to the latter three.
I might be fully wrong but following the way the terrain perspective changed the three pictures point to the same area indeed.

I actually was waiting for a good soul to located this geometry since I'm totally stupid with image softwares.
I agree with, Noone knows for sure what's going on and may likely be a hardware malfunction.

And that's my point: it's a LOT more likely then the safe side "cosmic ray" answer.

My personal belief is there is a loose glinty rock being moved or spinned by wind, the cintilation cicle is produting the "one cam" sindrome.

It's just a guess, not closely more improbable the cosmic ray hitting the same perspective spot three in a role.
Good debate anyway!
Bests



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Blister

Good picture and good find!

I don't see any problems with this shot being taken while this rock was in the air, being pushed by wind.
Rocks are moving in Mars dragged by wind. fact.
Depending on how strong that wind might be, it may even lift the rocks.

Now, if this rock has a very reflective nature it would produce a Beacon light effect, that could be picked by one of the cams.

So, this might be exactly what we're seeing in these 3 pictures, a moving glinty rock beeing pulled by wind.

It's a theory that fits all scientific Mars canons,



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: LordAdef
a reply to: Blister

Good picture and good find!

I don't see any problems with this shot being taken while this rock was in the air, being pushed by wind.
Rocks are moving in Mars dragged by wind. fact.
Depending on how strong that wind might be, it may even lift the rocks.

Now, if this rock has a very reflective nature it would produce a Beacon light effect, that could be picked by one of the cams.

So, this might be exactly what we're seeing in these 3 pictures, a moving glinty rock beeing pulled by wind.

It's a theory that fits all scientific Mars canons,


If there was such a strong wind in the immediate vicinity, then wouldn't the rover have also been blown or even toppled over?

Why would this incredibly strong wind be lifting only one rock? Would you expect to see hundreds of rocks blowing in this sort of wind?



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join