It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by Miniscuzz

Curiosity is supposedly protected heavily to combat any digital artifacts caused by cosmic rays.

Not really. The electronics are hardened but how do you propose they prevent cosmic ray strikes on a CCD while still allowing it to capture images?


However, I'd like to point out that the two pictures referred to in my thread last week about a similar light were deemed NOT cosmic ray hits by both NASA, and the scientist who built the NC's.

Bullspit and you know it. Post the quote. The whole quote and not just your cherry picked portions.

edit on 16-4-2014 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by MarsIsRed

But that 0.01% is a b*&#h, ain't it?

Yeah, an internal issue (or external energetic particle) is the likeliest answer... though light is fast and since both cameras aren't precisely synchronized... sigh...

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:06 PM

This means that these cams act exactly as our human eyes. Since particle light is NOT visible to humans, it is not visible to these cameras.

Holy chocolate covered horse doots Batman! You simply refuse to suss the nature of a cosmic ray....don't you?

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:11 PM
I were lurking around waiting for another symbolic day to register, now I can reply,

Isn't these light sources something like the neon and chemical reactions found on Io? I certainly do not see aliens.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:15 PM

reply to post by tallcool1

Come on people - there's no room for logical discussion in this thread. Even with the comparison pictures that show this is from the same spot and not two different spots

So you're trying to stop any different and more intelligent sounding discussion by mocking it?

That's what people who have only the "Cosmic Ray" argument do...bad try.

edit on 15-4-2014 by Arken because: (no reason given)

Dang Arken - you took my own mocking words and threw them back in my face! Even though I was the one who got slammed, I can still appreciate a good burn and give you a star for it! Well played sir!

I still don't believe any of these lights/images are space monsters or anything sentient, but still had to star you for the great burn!

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:26 PM
Yay, I found great protection against cosmic radiation! A photographic bandpass filter for visible light. Cosmic particles aren't visible light, so the filter will protect me.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:34 PM
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.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:40 PM

reply to post by MarsIsRed

But that 0.01% is a b*&#h, ain't it?

Yeah, an internal issue (or external energetic particle) is the likeliest answer... though light is fast and since both cameras aren't precisely synchronized... sigh...

Yeah, always that 0.01% lol

If we examine the options:

...a reflecting rock on a ridge line looks like the best explanation... except it's only visible in one camera, which almost completely rules that out...

...alternatively, a shielding problem allowing light into the camera could be plausible, except it's (in the first two photos) only a couple of microns in size - that's some serious focused light!...

...realistically leaving cosmic rays, which coincidently happen to seemingly align along a ridge. Coincidences do happen, as I suspect is the case here.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by MarsIsRed

I agree with this assessment. If, however, the next such event also occurs only in the right camera and in the same upper-left quadrant of the image, then I will start to wonder, as that will be four in a row!

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by St Udio

I always said they should ship cockroaches to mars, they would probably thrive there, that or do what we do here on earth build some factories and a whole lot of gas guzzlers, leading to all kinds of greenhouse effects, you know if they want to start terraforming it that is. Its as good as an option as any they could think of, or have.

But you know first we must get the martians permission. Because you never know, and this may boggle there minds, but maybe just maybe, if there are actually intelligent creatures living in such environments and circumstances, well they just may like it like that.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by Miniscuzz

No matter how many times Phage comes here and claims "cosmic ray" just isn't possible with the equipment ran on that rover.

You may want to tell that to your source for the last thread, because this is what he really said..

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.

Maki said that one percent of those hundreds of weekly images might include cosmic ray-induced bright spots. But the junked-up pixels normally don't cause much of a stir.

"You'll see cosmic rays every two or three days. Certainly at least once a week," Maki said. "The reason we see so many is because Mars's atmosphere is thinner: It doesn't block as much cosmic radiation as Earth's does."

Cosmic rays are charged particles that fly through the universe in every direction all the time. Every so often they'll collide with something like a camera. One sign of a cosmic ray hit, Maki said, is the appearance of the ray in images taken by one of Curiosity's eyes but not the other.

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

Kind of makes your theory a bit shaky now doesn't it?

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:41 PM
I’m wondering if these light sources may be down to sunlight reflections from pieces of Volcanic glass seems about the most logical conclusion to me I’m sure Mars has Obsidian like materials on the surface I’m pretty sure the sperules found on mars are volcanic in origin too.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by Arken

And what about those clouds in the sky? Would have to be a good amount of water on the planet to have a cloudy day, no?

Looks like the light source is on top of that hill/mountain. Or is this another case of bad pixels in the rover camera?

What ever it is, we can count on NASA towing the company line and giving us some lame excuse that is acceptable to 80 % of the population.

And, being that the rover is called "Curiosity", why doesn't its curiosity persuade it to go over and take a look at the source?

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:10 PM
No offense intended, but come on! This is not a "second" source of light because the "first" one was the same thing as this one - a DIGITAL ARTIFACT. I've worked in graphic design for over ten years. I believe evidence shows there is plant and animal life in the universe, that the military has bases on the moon and Mars, and that the truth about extraterrestrials is being hid from the public. But when I see silly ideas like this thing here it really gets under my skin. Just this morning someone else posted something about a "laser beam" that shot into the sun creating a giant solar flare (CME). But this was also an artifact caused by solar radiation on the sensor. The cameras and equipment used in space exploration are very sensitive. When anomalous things are seen the very first approach an intelligent adult should always take is, "what is the most rational explanation for this?" before jumping to other things. I understand people get excited when they see something they don't understand, but the reason it frustrates me is because that kind of ignorance makes every other person with an open mind look insane. It's a digital artifact, not a light source.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by EloquentThinker

Eloquent Thinker.. Yes.. No matter where you go, even if its a forum called "Above Top Secret", there are people that insist on shoving your mind back in the box of conventional thinking. These are the folks, that said flight was not possible, the world was flat, and any form of communication other than shouting would never be heard beyond two blocks... of... corn stalks.. These are old world thinkers, government conformists, and anything out of the norm.. i will not dare use the word.. paranormal.. is impossible..

Carry on and just stick your brain/head right back in the box my friend.. you'll never win or persuade this crowd.

Have a nice day!
edit on 16-4-2014 by carl6405 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2014 by carl6405 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:42 PM

Interesting that cosmic ray strikes always seem to be in the general area of the horizon.

But if it were a cosmic ray strike, (we have to consider all possibilities) then yes I do believe it can go through a mountain. They go through everything, right??? Or it could have come at a more vertical angle coming down from the sky moving in front of the mountain then hitting the camera sensor. It could have come from any angle, even from behind the camera.

The main problem i guess i have with a cosmic ray strike is that there are two of these in such a short amount of time. I don't know what the odds of that would be, but I suppose it's possible there have been more that we have not noticed. Is there some reason why we don't notice these as often on photos taken from Earth? Like the consistency of atmosphere?

Maybe it is some type of geyser of water or methane with sunlight reflecting off it? Or uncut, pure slushy syrup of the same type used in the kwik-e-mart slushy machine? That stuff is not for amateurs... you really gotta be able to handle your sh#.

It looks like a flame, like the other one, it looks like the planet farted, and someone lit a lighter near it's ass at the moment of expulsion, therefore igniting said fart resulting in an impressive blast of flame shooting upward, likening mars to some college frat boy trying to impress us visitors with his best party tricks.

On Earth, when a cosmic ray hits the atmosphere, the initial cosmic ray doesn't reach the ground, instead it ionizes the first atom it hits high up in the atmosphere, knocks an electron out off that atom, then creates a cascade of less energetic rays each of which repeat the process until the energy isn't enough to knock electrons out of place. When the electron returns to another lower energy orbit it gives off light - that results in the green or red glow you see from the Northern Lights. Each vertical streak is the result of a single high energy particle.

On Mars I would guess there would be a similar process.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:56 PM
Thanks Arken for doing all the hard work.
I'm sure there is a lot of things on Mars we don't know or are not told about.
Keep up the good work.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:59 PM
I don't want to ask a potentially stupid question, but are there any reflective rock types on Mars? Quartz and the like?

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by carl6405

These are the folks, that said flight was not possible, the world was flat, and any form of communication other than shouting would never be heard beyond two blocks... of... corn stalks

Your argument is completely backwards.

These are the folks that didn't just say flight was possible, they made it happen. Who didn't just say the earth was round, they launched men into space to see it with their own eyes. Who didn't rely on shouting but invented the telegraph, the telephone, the communications satellite.
Who didn't just say it was possible to explore other planets using remote controlled vehicles, THEY MADE IT HAPPEN, and not only that but they made the high-resolution photos available to you in your armchair!

"They" are called scientists and engineers, and they made all of this happen. Not the people hiding in the dark being scared of alien bogeymen. What have they made happen?

If we still believed the superstitious and the fearful, the woo instead of the evidence, then none of it would be here. The internet would not be here, satellite TV would not be here, mobile phones and computers would not be here. None of that stuff was built using superstition.

edit on 16-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by Rob48

Actually, those folks that made it happen and took man kind to the next level, were the "What If" folks. The people that could think out of the box. That inst the people that I am referring to. I am referring to the flat out rude people on this forum that attempt to shut other people down by calling their idea stupid and preposterous.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in