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.

 

Something large and white in the horizon of Mars, SPIRIT ROVER IMAGE 2007

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I feel debunked..........
Yea I think you are right......there is nothing there....wait..what is this, my professor personality wants to take..over,aaargghhhhhhhh.....here it coomes.

Well hello ladies and gentlemen, I have found proof to counter the debunks!


Below my scientific evidence to keep the thread alive. Actually I welcome the debunkers because now we have even more evidence suggesting something is there. Is it dust, is it a ship or a base or what? Now that is the question. But something it is and it is shining or reflects to light.


Let me first debunk the debunking theories.

First theory:
1: image is a mozaic/stitching glitch because white anomaly not shown in PIA10216 (I will address that, wait...)
2: anomaly is of digital nature because it is not present it the black and white picture. (I will address that too).

My scientific proof, let it begin:



Lets go to the source. Image was taken with a camera called Pancam.
Picture of the actual camera.


It can create 3d pictures of surrounding (being stereoscopic (has 2 cameras)) or single 2d pictures. It takes one picture at a time through one filter and it has 8 filters.

Short copy paste of the camera:
Source

" the Pancams only measure one single wavelength or color at a time. In front of each camera is a filter wheel with eight different filters (seven colors plus one filter for looking at the Sun), each of which allows only certain wavelengths to hit the CCD.

The filter wheel in front of the camera in the left Pancam eye of each rover has six filters which span the colors that we can see, from blue to green to red. The other filters can detect colors of light that we cannot see, called "infrared."

When we want to take a "true color" picture of Mars, we actually take six pictures of the same exact spot - once with each of the six filters on the Pancam's left eye. Afterwards, we use computer software to combine the separate pictures and to calculate the proportions of primary colors - red, green, and blue - that the rover was seeing."


So it takes every photo through the filters which cover: 8 filters cover 400-1100 nm (near-UV to near-IR)

What does this mean? Well here is a photo and a video (by nasa) of the sun taken with different filters to show how the sun looks like through different filters.

How this applies on Mars: So if something is shining in the distance and wavelengths are of those which cant be picked up with a certain type of filter on the camera, with a different filter they can be seen.

Photo of the sun




Video:



Lets continue:

So now we know the camera on Spirit rover (pancam) has physical lenses which it switched in the camera to let or not to let different kind of light at different wavelengths. What does this matter? Here is a simple explanatory image taken with the pancam itself:



Source



So with this in mind, it does not look like a stitching glitch because you should be able to see more corners of pictures overlapping incorrectly where the white shine is. Also very improbable that a stitching problem in a large 44 megapixel photo would appear just at the exact place where the horizon is. Just where you would expect to see something if there is something.

Photo PIA12016 is used as proof that PIA12014 has nothing. I actually use the photo PIA12016 as proof, that there is.

Explanation: PIA12016 is taken very clearly at the same place. Probably a little later than PIA12014 because its numbering is 2 longer.
Now when we know how the PANCAM camera works, it is clear that PIA12016 has all filters on to produce a "true image" which they believe we would see with our eyes on mars. This means that PIA12014 where the anomaly is clearly shown, has been taken with different filters. I have made a comparison photo of PIA12014 and PIA12016, I selected a small portion of the rovers base. As you see, "true image" (orange version) filters a lot of visible details away.

I have brought down contrast and brightness to highlight this effect:




So, that proves that the picture PIA12016 cant prove actually anything except that it is a picture of limited information. The large object in the distance reacts to light in wavelengths that are only visible with a certain filter combination, it is blocked away if all filters are used to create a so called "true color image" (orange).

Also, since it is taken at different time of day, with different lens combinations, to be factual and technical, sun has probably moved a little. Whatever is shining in the distance, if it would be visible in PIA12016, if sun shines from a different direction or if it was a small local dust storm (or the...spaace ship), it might not be there anymore to be shown.

Scientific proof continues:


Someone posted a black and white photo and said that it does not have the object in the distance so it is a glitch or something. I have to argue back. Since the Pancam pictures are created by taking one picture at a time with a certain lens setting (wavelength), that black and white is clearly a (it is JPG) copy of one of the pictures with a certain wavelenght. Or it is just a black and white picture released by nasa.

Real RAW pictures that actually have the RGB channels, are not availeble. We only have one black and white picture. Well, since the big color pictures are more than a picture, they are a combination of many pictures made by the camera with different lense settings, that BW picture is sadly just a picture.

Explanation picture, taken with Rover pancam:


Source

So that black and white picture is at most one of the color channels. Because it is only one, it lacks information like certain colours. Therefore the white thing in the distance can simply be in the other color channels which are not public in the Rovers site.

So my conclusion:


I think we got lucky. The lens combination (NM, wavelength combination of lenses) in PIA12014 let through certain kind of light. Something is reflecting in the distance. PIA12016 blocks so much information, the data is not there. The black and white picture shows only one color channel (or might actually be black and white) and cant show the light in the distance.

To be specific, the correct lens combination chosen in the PIA12014 picture, that combination shows objects shining even at a distance if their wavelength is different than when you use a lens combination to get a "true color" like in PIA12016.

This is like, if you google: nightvision camera see through clothes. You could use certain minidv cameras with a filter removed and IR activated to see through thin black clothes and you could actually see peoples skin and well..underwear. So the white object in the distance reflects light at a certain wavelenght which was able to picked up by the filters used in PIA12014.


Therefore I vote to keep thread and the mystery alive. Not a mozaic stitching glitch or any other glith. Its something, we just dont know what.

Happy hunting.
Something is very likely....out there. And its big.




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I adjusted the brightness and contrast a little more and here is the result:




edit on 26-10-2017 by SpaceBoyOnEarth because: (no reason given)






hmmm I never believed the pyramid stuff on mars but, that like, damn. Looks like one.

Interesting that the light goes perfectly like a pyramid in the distance. What I mean is, the white thing shining reflects so perfectly, that when I use photoshop to lower contrast and brightness, the pixels in the white area, are of so same colour, that the brightest spot, in the end, is a triangle and symmetrically a triangle, not just "looks like a triangle. Not a disfigured white thing in the distance but a symmetrical triangle looking thing with a 90 degree angle of the top.

This is going over my hear. I better watch men in black 3 or something to get my mind over this.




Edit:

Picture with inverted colors:


edit on 26-10-2017 by SpaceBoyOnEarth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
// meh..
edit on 26-10-2017 by Pandaram because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Too many pictures.. i dont even know wtf is going on anymore. Fooking typical. Rather then hiding it, just bombard it with too much confusion.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Pandaram

There is a lot of text and pictures but sadly it is the only way to make it short. Altough I can try:

tldr:

Picture which shows the white thing in the distance is taken with lenses on the rovers camera, which let in specific kind of light, like light coming from the sun which reflects from a large surface (like the white thing).

White thing cannot be seen in any other photo because: they did not use the same lens combination on the rovers camera. Because of that, even if it is not seen in other pictures, it can still be there because other pictures were taken with different lenses.

For example: if you use night vision goggles you will see stuff in the dark. Even if you dont see them without the goggles, they are still there.

Camera on the rover switches a lens infront of the camera and takes a photo. NASA photos are not digital camera JPG photos like your phones camera, they are photos which are created from color channels and each channel is actually a photo that is taken separately with a camera and with a certain lens setting and the lens creates the color channel (usually done this way).

Therefore the thing in the distance is there even if it is not seen in other pictures.
/tldr
edit on 26-10-2017 by SpaceBoyOnEarth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
After the jfk files joke, all i can say if there would be any kind of a real object or weird phenomenon going , we would nt be gazing at it.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Not sure, looks interesting. Though I am convinced that the large white object in the distance is most certainly racist.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
looks like a snowy mountain range to me. Cool picture



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Your lengthy explanation has several flaws that I will address (if nobody else does it) when I get home at the end of the day.


Edited to add that I only noticed now that I linked to one of the photos and not the page with all the photos that I wanted to post, the real link is this one.

Sorry about that.


edit on 27/10/2017 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth


I suggest you find out how digital/phone cameras create your picture Bayer Filter

Nasa uses different colour filters not lenses same principle as above.

All digital camera filters see shades of grey not colour the pattern of the bayer filter and how the levels of grey look to to chip are converted to colours by the cpu in the camera that's it explained in the most basic terms.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Rocket taking off?



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

The true colours Mars...



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth
How this applies on Mars: So if something is shining in the distance and wavelengths are of those which cant be picked up with a certain type of filter on the camera, with a different filter they can be seen.

Correct, but you are missing one important detail: if something is seen only with one filter then it would appear only on the red, green or blue channel for the final image, and it would look respectively red, green or blue. For something to appear white on a colour image it must appear in all channels, red, green and blue.



Source

You are, again, missing something: the false colour image is not only made with only three filters instead of all five, it was also "stretched", with the minimum of each filter being changed to 0 and the maximum to 255. "Stretching" the true colour image would give you this:





So with this in mind, it does not look like a stitching glitch because you should be able to see more corners of pictures overlapping incorrectly where the white shine is. Also very improbable that a stitching problem in a large 44 megapixel photo would appear just at the exact place where the horizon is. Just where you would expect to see something if there is something.

First of all, I don't know if there are other stitching glitches, I didn't look at the whole image, but areas with little detail are the areas where stitching software fails.

Stitching software works by detecting common features in adjacent photos, then "stitching" them together while keeping those common features aligned. When the photos do not have enough detail the software can't find common features, so it uses whatever it thinks it's the best option. Sometimes, depending on the software used, it may leave empty spaces or fill them with a specific colour, while other software may just repeat part of one of the photos.


edit on 27/10/2017 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Explanation: PIA12016 is taken very clearly at the same place. Probably a little later than PIA12014 because its numbering is 2 longer.

Those PIA numbers meaning nothing, they are sequential but for the time they publish the photos, not the time they were taken. Also, if you read the text for each photo you will see that the photos used are the same. In fact, you just have to look at the panoramas to see they are the same. The only difference is that PIA10214 (not PIA12014, as you said above), the one you posted, is a false colour image, stretched, as they say in the image page, while photo PIA12016 is not stretched.


Now when we know how the PANCAM camera works, it is clear that PIA12016 has all filters on to produce a "true image" which they believe we would see with our eyes on mars. This means that PIA12014 where the anomaly is clearly shown, has been taken with different filters.

Wrong.


I have made a comparison photo of PIA12014 and PIA12016, I selected a small portion of the rovers base. As you see, "true image" (orange version) filters a lot of visible details away.

Wrong again, what you call "true image" has the same details as the non orange version, as you can see below. I used your image and "stretched" both images. The only difference is that the orange version has less contrast.

Also, to someone that knows how the cameras work and how the images are created, those images show that neither was made with all filters or even just with the filters for the wavelengths closer to red, green and blue, as we can see those bright pink areas (that should be blued) and that are a result of using an image from the infrared filter instead of the image for the red filter.


So, that proves that the picture PIA12016 cant prove actually anything except that it is a picture of limited information. The large object in the distance reacts to light in wavelengths that are only visible with a certain filter combination, it is blocked away if all filters are used to create a so called "true color image" (orange).

That doesn't make sense, if one image uses more filters than the other and the white object appears in the image with less filters then it should also appear in the image with more filters, as images from one filter do not block images from other filters, they are all added together.

Besides that, the two images used the same photos, so your theory doesn't apply.


Also, since it is taken at different time of day, with different lens combinations, to be factual and technical, sun has probably moved a little. Whatever is shining in the distance, if it would be visible in PIA12016, if sun shines from a different direction or if it was a small local dust storm (or the...spaace ship), it might not be there anymore to be shown.

Wrong, the two images were made with the same photos, read the text for both images.


Scientific proof continues:

"Continues"? I haven't seen any scientific proof, only wishful thinking.


Someone posted a black and white photo and said that it does not have the object in the distance so it is a glitch or something. I have to argue back. Since the Pancam pictures are created by taking one picture at a time with a certain lens setting (wavelength), that black and white is clearly a (it is JPG) copy of one of the pictures with a certain wavelenght. Or it is just a black and white picture released by nasa.

That was a mistake I made, I posted the wrong link, if you look at the corrected link I posted after you can see the four photos we have of that area, one from the right camera, three from the left camera, from filters 2, 5 and 7. And yes, the image I linked to is a copy, the original images are in a format that is not viewable on any web browser.


Real RAW pictures that actually have the RGB channels, are not availeble. We only have one black and white picture. Well, since the big color pictures are more than a picture, they are a combination of many pictures made by the camera with different lense settings, that BW picture is sadly just a picture.

Yes, it's just a picture, now look at the others on the right link.



So that black and white picture is at most one of the color channels. Because it is only one, it lacks information like certain colours. Therefore the white thing in the distance can simply be in the other color channels which are not public in the Rovers site.

Yes, it's just one channel, but, as I said above, if the object is white it should appear in all channels.


So my conclusion:


I think we got lucky. The lens combination (NM, wavelength combination of lenses) in PIA12014 let through certain kind of light. Something is reflecting in the distance. PIA12016 blocks so much information, the data is not there. The black and white picture shows only one color channel (or might actually be black and white) and cant show the light in the distance.

Your conclusion is completely wrong.
First of all, it's not the lens that change, it's a filter in front of the lens.
Second, if it was not a mosaic artefact it should appear in the original images, and it does not, as you can see below.

Filter 2 (753 nm).


Filter 5 (535 nm).


Filter 7 (432 nm).


By joining all the three images we get this:


And stretching it we get this:


Third, according to your theory, image PIA10216 (not PIA12016) is a true colour image, so it means it uses all filters. If it uses all filters it's obviously not blocking any wavelength.


To be specific, the correct lens combination chosen in the PIA12014 picture, that combination shows objects shining even at a distance if their wavelength is different than when you use a lens combination to get a "true color" like in PIA12016.

Wrong on two things: both images are the same, only one was stretched and the other was not, and a true colour image shows more information than a false colour image (didn't you read the explanations on the pages you posted?).


This is like, if you google: nightvision camera see through clothes. You could use certain minidv cameras with a filter removed and IR activated to see through thin black clothes and you could actually see peoples skin and well..underwear. So the white object in the distance reflects light at a certain wavelenght which was able to picked up by the filters used in PIA12014.

No, it would be like using a camera with nightvision and normal vision.


Therefore I vote to keep thread and the mystery alive.

You can vote all you want, the thread is alive but the mystery isn't.


Not a mozaic stitching glitch or any other glith. Its something, we just dont know what.

It's a mosaic stitching glitch, like the one on image PIA10216 that, apparently, nobody noticed, small inverted pyramids on the horizon.



Happy hunting.
Something is very likely....out there. And its big.

In this case, it's not there, it's only on the mosaic. And it's just a few pixels, not that big.



edit on 27/10/2017 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
My first thought was someone saw the PYRAMID object.....looking all solid, integral and structural to the max........in the photo and started deleting.....idk
edit on 27-10-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
My first thought was someone saw the PYRAMID object.....looking all solid, integral and structural to the max........in the photo and started deleting.....idk

They do a really shoddy work of trying to hide those objects, don't they? Amateurs.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
It's Las Vegas in the distance. Being as you can't correlate with the missing rover parts (about 3 inches) and an inch above the terrain matches perfectly.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
My first thought was someone saw the PYRAMID object.....looking all solid, integral and structural to the max........in the photo and started deleting.....idk


As ArMaP pointed out, the "object" is just an artifact due to stiching a mosaic of images together.

As he has shown, the object does not show up on the individual images that were used to create that mosaic, but only in the finished stitched-together mosaic itself.


edit on 30/10/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join