Moving Objects In Mars Rover Photos?

Second is perspective, the dark rock is simply further back hidden by a little depression in the terrane. The point of view is dramatically different.

I can make animated gifs if you'd like.

Dust on the first one is the best answer. If you view the area closely a lot of jpeg artifacts are apparent, the dark spot even appears to be in a cut-and-paste rectangle, but the rectangle doesn't appear to be lining up with other reoccurring image/CCD artifacts that show up on both images, not exactly in the same spots.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Yes, left down to that. A speck of dust or a Martian cockroach. Looking just to the right of the object in question is an almost identical "little black rock". Though dust can resemble little black rocks, it however seems like they are both the same type of object.

To the right? No, not the same. Since it appears in both cameras it would seem to be on the ground. It looks like the shadow of the small rock next to it.
marsrovers.nasa.gov...
marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Look at the big rock to the left of this "insect", the shadow of that rock is being cast at the 7 o'clock direction. The black object in the sand is under the tip of the slope, which couldn't make this a shadow from any rock.
marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Yes, left down to that. A speck of dust or a Martian cockroach. Looking just to the right of the object in question is an almost identical "little black rock". Though dust can resemble little black rocks, it however seems like they are both the same type of object.

To the right? No, not the same. Since it appears in both cameras it would seem to be on the ground. It looks like the shadow of the small rock next to it.
marsrovers.nasa.gov...
marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Looking at your first link, I was pleased to see that I could zoom it in some more.

As far as it being a shadow, I don't think so. As you'll notice it's got a slight smaller particle extending from the top. I had not noticed that before.

I'm leaning towards dirt on the lens now. Being able to see it more clearly shows that it is more "super imposed" than the rest of the rocks, more importantly the similar rock to the direct right of it.

reply to post by ThinkingCap

As far as it being a shadow, I don't think so. As you'll notice it's got a slight smaller particle extending from the top. I had not noticed that before.

I'm leaning towards dirt on the lens now. Being able to see it more clearly shows that it is more "super imposed" than the rest of the rocks, more importantly the similar rock to the direct right of it.

I noticed that protrusion on that object too when I tried cleaning it up and zooming in more. But dust? Phage said it's on both cameras so it must be on the ground. Am I interpreting this correctly? It can not be dust on the lens?

reply to post by JibbyJedi

The "insect" is not a shadow. I was, and I thought that ThinkingCap was, talking about the small rock to the right of "insect".

As I said, that small rock and its shadow appear in the images from both cameras. The "insect" only appears in the image from the left camera. Since both images were taken at the same time this means that the "insect" is not on the ground. Now, you could think it is an insect which flew by and was caught only by the left camera but I don't think the exposures are short enough to do that.

reply to post by Phage



Difficult to tell. I think that we're looking at either a dust particle or a Martian Insect that is only camouflaged from the right side.


Either way. There's life there. Perhaps not RIGHT there, yet it's only a matter of time before NASA slips up like they did with their great UFO footage.

I mean, they were the kings of photo shop in the '60s. Think about what they can do now.

reply to post by Phage


I found a discussion about this here:
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

...the general severe processing compression of the image causes .jpeg compression artifacts to cluster around such intervention sites within the image revealing the presence of manipulation.

The compression artifacts are faint because what ever was removed was small. The processing level carelessness only comes into the picture by virtue of leaving empty bright white pixels behind like a beacon to draw a researcher's attention to the spot.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

reply to post by JibbyJedi

Good ol' Skipper.
So they "removed" the thingy from the right camera but not the left one.

You'll also note that he is completely wrong about the moving rock but he does go on (and on), doesn't he? It's amazing how convoluted his logic gets to support his delusions.

This is a gif I made of the first two images...

You really can't tell much from this one. I think that these images are from a stereo camera. The antenna or whatever it is gets in the way when the view switches.



Now this one is quite odd....



You can clearly see something in the area of the three big rocks. It starts off around the big gap in between the rocks and then it moves from right to left.

So what do I make of this?
I have no clue.
But like I said it's quite odd.

Enjoy.

reply to post by Phage


I just picked the parts of his breakdown that pointed out the anomalies that were intriguing. It doesn't make sense to remove it from one and not the other. Why the manipulation in that general area at all though?

Can you link me to the time stamp evidence that these pictures were taken at the exact same time? I can't seem to find those.

The second images I'm sure now I've seen before, of course, there from 2009. Probably when I saw that mars anomaly site. Why some people waste so much time on this stuff is beyond me, unless he;s selling something, which I didn't care to look for.

As for his jpeg artifact logic, I wonder if he downloads jpegs from other websites?

reply to post by JibbyJedi

There is no manipulation except in Skipper's mind.

Decode Image Filenames

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

There is no manipulation except in Skipper's mind.

Decode Image Filenames

Thanks, I see they were taken at the same time now.
So unless it was a "bug" flying by one camera at that time, then it does appear to be a splotch on the lens. Although.... I do not see that splotch on the lens in any of the other shots from the left camera.

The image which seems to be next in the sequence from that left camera doesn't have anything on the lens in that area.
marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by mikemck1976
This is a gif I made of the first two images...

You really can't tell much from this one. I think that these images are from a stereo camera. The antenna or whatever it is gets in the way when the view switches.

Now this one is quite odd....

You can clearly see something in the area of the three big rocks. It starts off around the big gap in between the rocks and then it moves from right to left.

So what do I make of this?
I have no clue.
But like I said it's quite odd.

Enjoy.

the first one is of stereo images, that shows that the 'bug' is a photographic artifact. For the other pictures, the larger field of view, and more distance in the examples Armap used, gives a much better idea of the terrain. The 3D picture also shows that the 'moving rock' is quite behind and more distant than it appears in the mono pictures, and the slopes are easily seen. You'll find them from Phage's link on the first page at this thread.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

It happens.

With:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
Without:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...


With:
marsrover.nasa.gov...
Without:
marsrover.nasa.gov...

Ok maybe there are bugs on Mars.

This is the picture just before the "insect" shot in the sequence series from the left camera on the index page.

marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Look all the way to the left "above" the hill in the sky.
It's partially cut off at the top of the photo but has that same oblong shape as the "insect" anomaly. I'm betting I will find more of these "moving dust spots" on the lens.

edit- I see you beat me to it. So there is a lot of these out there. OK, that's all I needed to know. Interesting but can be misleading. Thanks for the links.

This is the exact same anomaly as the bug -
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

Same shape and all. Good catch.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

It's not an anomaly (unless you're a clean freak). It's dirt.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

It's not an anomaly (unless you're a clean freak). It's dirt.

When it comes to clean lenses I am a clean freak.

Do these cameras have self cleaning lenses? I'd assume they do, otherwise the lenses would be caked with dirt after a little while.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

It happens.

With:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
Without:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...


With:
marsrover.nasa.gov...
Without:
marsrover.nasa.gov...

Actually the second 'with' picture is very interesting in other ways. You can see a much finer type of material blown into ripply dunes, with the round, but coarser, material on the top. Both materials are subject to the flattening from the rovers wheels though, A bit of a puzzle. BTW the 'flaw' in that picture looks to have some motion blur!

reply to post by JibbyJedi

I've never heard of a self cleaning lens.

Remember that Mars is a very, very dry place. There isn't much that is going to cause dry, dry dirt to stick to a (more or less) vertical piece of glass for long. When the camera moves I would think the vibrations would tend to knock anything off.