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