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: 5
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   

KnightLight
reply to post by Arken
 


Did anyone ask about the picture with the mountains in the back? AS in how would a cosmic ray go through them to hit the camera lens? I would think there would be lights coming in OVER the horizon if they were cosmic in nature, but maybe I am crazy.

First thread by Arken (that I remember) that I am going to take VERY seriously.


You guys don't seem to understand how cosmic rays work. They don't need to travel straight into the sensor like normal light does. The rays pass through everything, including the housing of the camera and sensor. This means the sensor can be struck from 360 degrees in every single angle.

A ray could hit the BACK of the camera, travel through the casing, and strike the sensor.

A ray could travel through the SIDE of the camera, or the BOTTOM (yes, THROUGH the entire planet)

Imagine a geometric plane, and then draw a line that intersects that plane. It doesn't matter what angle you move that line, it will always leave a point/dot where it passes through the plane. The plane is the sensor and the line is the ray.

I keep seeing people saying that the rays would need to bend and change direction to hit the sensor. no, they don't. The rays pass straight through the planet, the camera, the rover, mountains, everything.

That being the case I still find it odd these keep only appearing in the background of the images. The first pic, I could easily believe it's a ray, but it seems you would see them appear randomly all over the sensor, not just in a location making them appear in the upper edges of the picture making them look distant.

What I mean is that if you had one of these light points lower in the picture, it would be closer (if it was an actual light source) and if it was closer, but still looked just like a little dot, that shows it's just a ray strike.

But having this one appear smaller, and further away, and the other one being closer, and larger seems odd. Until we see one right in front of the camera (meaning covering the lower area of the picture) I think we should really be more open to the idea of there being some actual light source there, whether it be some gas, dust, underground base, plasma, or ghosts doesn't matter, it could be anything, but instantly dismissing the idea it's a light source seems very foolish.




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 




but instantly dismissing the idea it's a light source seems very foolish.

No so foolish when considering that they appear in only one image of the stereo pairs of which they are included.

edit on 4/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   

ipfreely32
reply to post by Phage
 


Perhaps it's cosmic rays that you are seeing when you are looking at "the flag on the moon".


Cosmic rays don't stay in the same place to be photographed each time the LRO passes over.


Sorry, but it's hard to seriously take any info from (assuming) a grown man who uses a dr. who avatar.

Says the grown man who calls himself I P Freely?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
One thing that is odd to me about the cosmic ray theory, why now and not before? Cosmic rays are always present. Why has this not happened before? Maybe it has, does any one have any examples of similar cosmic ray strikes during the first year and a half of operation of MSL? And why so much now all of a sudden? Has the rover maybe gone significantly higher in elevation maybe? I am sure one one thing you can't be absolutely sure about a phenomena based solely off of a couple pixels on some photographs, to do so is just nieve. Is there any other evidence to the cosmic ray theory other than it looks similar to other photographs with cosmic ray strikes?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BGTM90
 


Why has this not happened before?
It has.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Is there any other evidence to the cosmic ray theory other than it looks similar to other photographs with cosmic ray strikes?
Because they appear in only one of a stereo pair of images, it is a very strong indication that they are cosmic rays strikes as opposed to an external light source.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by BGTM90
 


Why has this not happened before?
It has.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Is there any other evidence to the cosmic ray theory other than it looks similar to other photographs with cosmic ray strikes?
Because they appear in only one of a stereo pair of images, it is a very strong indication that they are cosmic rays strikes as opposed to an external light source.


Yes when I said before I was speaking about before these three images where taken, a week is a relatively short amount of time compared to the amount of time MSL has been on the surface. And interesting point about it only appears in the one stereo image, it does lend it self to the cosmic ray theory. Has it been the same camera each time because if so that tends to point towards a defect in the camera or the housing for the camera.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BGTM90
 





Has it been the same camera each time because if so that tends to point towards a defect in the camera or the housing for the camera.

No. Some of the examples are from the hazcams.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Then most likely it is a cosmic ray strike.
thanks for enlightening me on the subject sometimes it can be a challenge shifting through all in info on a thread especially when its spread out through multiple ones.
edit on 16-4-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

The one thing niggling me about these three recent images is that all of them show the white dots in the right-hand cam, and all of then are in the top left corner of the frame (but not in the same spot). Makes me wonder if it could be some other artefact of the camera electronics or optics.

As you say, cosmic ray hits happen all over the place, but these seem rather localised. I don't think it is a real object on the surface, but I am still a bit puzzled.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Rob48
reply to post by Phage
 

The one thing niggling me about these three recent images is that all of them show the white dots in the right-hand cam, and all of then are in the top left corner of the frame (but not in the same spot). Makes me wonder if it could be some other artefact of the camera electronics or optics.

As you say, cosmic ray hits happen all over the place, but these seem rather localised. I don't think it is a real object on the surface, but I am still a bit puzzled.


So is it the same camera or not the same camera because thats a pretty significant piece of info.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Rob48
 

Chance.

Here's a hit on the left cam.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BGTM90
 




So is it the same camera or not the same camera because thats a pretty significant piece of info.

As I said, some of the examples I provided are on different cameras.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   
That's the third one, let's now wait for the fourth picture that's comming soon.
Let's once again see the light comming from the same region, taken by the right cam only.
There's something going on, and I don't really think is cosmic ray, even if it may look like.

May the next picture come!





posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by BGTM90
 


Why has this not happened before?
It has.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Is there any other evidence to the cosmic ray theory other than it looks similar to other photographs with cosmic ray strikes?
Because they appear in only one of a stereo pair of images, it is a very strong indication that they are cosmic rays strikes as opposed to an external light source.


This is what gets me sold on the idea that it is a light source internally processed by the cameras.
- It is only on 1 camera of a stereo pair
- I have not seen a link or image to the camera snapshots before or after this light source. If the "light source" showed up in multiple shots, it could be a valid candidate for a 3rd party light source. If this is just one still frame, there are too many variables involved that would make it some short term cosmic event

Just my 2 cents on this thread and the previous one that also had 1/2 cameras capture a "light source"



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
It gives some people some thing to do, and I dont have a problem with that unless it becomes " Lets worship the great light on mars " and then start to kill non believers wile shouting " Mars light is great".
Well who knows how things get started.
edit on 16-4-2014 by imod02 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Arkan take a look this is the same light source shot from two different places just check out the terrain!

This means that the light source was taken a picture of at two different times from two different locations.

That reduces the likelihood it was a lens artifact or mistake. It's also makes it less likely it was a natural light source unless that natural light source was sustaining.
edit on 16amWed, 16 Apr 2014 05:31:37 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


In the Opening post there are already two pictures of the same light source from different places just check out the small hill to the left of the light source it appears in both pictures.

Therefore according to your logic is a valid candidates for a third-party light source correct?

It is the same light source in both pictures
edit on 16amWed, 16 Apr 2014 05:37:02 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Hopefully it is OK to post a link to another forum. The Unmanned Spaceflight forum has some fairly in-depth discussion of this. People there have plotted the viewsheds of the images and discussed the possibility that those two images both show reflections off a particular thin, shiny rock which is visible in other photos. I don't find that idea very convincing though, because (a) the spearation between the two cams is not big enough to allow the light to shine in one but not the other, and (b) the said rock appears to be visible separately from the white spot.

However I admit I haven't looked at the images in detail - I was browsing the thread on my phone screen on the train this morning and I have real work to do at the moment.

Here is the link:

www.unmannedspaceflight.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   

darkbake
Arkan take a look this is the same light source shot from two different places just check out the terrain!

This means that the light source was taken a picture of at two different times from two different locations.

That reduces the likelihood it was a lens artifact or mistake. It's also makes it less likely it was a natural light source unless that natural light source was sustaining.
edit on 16amWed, 16 Apr 2014 05:31:37 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


OMG...
You say that the light source is in the same place but detected by the Rover from two different positions in two different sols?

This must be investigate deeply!

Stars.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by Philippines
 


In the Opening post there are already two pictures of the same light source from different places just check out the small hill to the left of the light source it appears in both pictures.

Therefore according to your logic is a valid candidates for a third-party light source correct?

It is the same light source in both pictures
edit on 16amWed, 16 Apr 2014 05:37:02 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


It could be. From the opening post it shows one image, and a magnified image of the same one, or different. I couldn't tell clearly from the first post as it references a single image link to NASA.

If you have a link to the image set before and after the "light" was observed, then there is something to go on. If this is a single still image from one (and not both) cameras then yes the artifact/"cosmic ray" possibility is high. If the same "light" is captured on both stereo cameras, and visible in the shots before and after this one - there should be a link from NASA to the image set to see that.

I'm not predisposed to disbelieve, but when it comes to tech like this under the circumstances, there should be more than one image frame to make an informed decision




top topics



 
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join