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 very interesting!!! Mars

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 


As explained...yes. It is two cameras.




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Unless you have intimate knowledge of how the the camera and the rest of the system involved creates, transmits, receives, and processes the images, it seems a bit rash to classify a dot in the image as a UFO.

Do you know if the image sensor creates hot pixels when high energy particals hits it or for any other reason?
Do you know if aliasing causes stars to appear/disappear depending on what pixel, when and where on the pixel their light lands?
Do you know the limitations of the camera's image processing electronics?
Do you know what compromises the camera's rendering firmware exploits?
Do you know if the rovers compression software creates image anomalies. If so what anomalies?
Do you know if the communicaion system causes image anomalies if reception isn't perfect?
Do you know if post processing techniques cause anomalies?
Etc, etc, etc.

From what I've read of your previous posts here you are not even aware that the images where taken from two different cameras.

UFO seems like quite a jump when conventional explanations have not been ruled out SCIENTIFICALLY first.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 


As explained...yes. It is two cameras.


What do you mean then re shutter speed?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 

A very fast moving object...shutter speed. You really have no idea what the significance is?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
.
Maybe this will help a bit...
This link right here.
.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dainoyfb
Unless you have intimate knowledge of how the the camera and the rest of the system involved creates, transmits, receives, and processes the images, it seems a bit rash to classify a dot in the image as a UFO.

Do you know if the image sensor creates hot pixels when high energy particals hits it or for any other reason?
Do you know if aliasing causes stars to appear/disappear depending on what pixel, when and where on the pixel their light lands?
Do you know the limitations of the camera's image processing electronics?
Do you know what compromises the camera's rendering firmware exploits?
Do you know if the rovers compression software creates image anomalies. If so what anomalies?
Do you know if the communicaion system causes image anomalies if reception isn't perfect?
Do you know if post processing techniques cause anomalies?
Etc, etc, etc.

From what I've read of your previous posts here you are not even aware that the images where taken from two different cameras.

UFO seems like quite a jump when conventional explanations have not been ruled out SCIENTIFICALLY first.


Good post - but the same questions can be put to you and anyone else taking part in this discussion, the only people who know that information is NASA - so by that reasoning what basis do you or anyone else have, just like me, to say it is a camera defect?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 

A very fast moving object...shutter speed. You really have no idea what the significance is?


Do you mean if its moving at such incredible speeds then it shouldnt be visible on the photo?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 

No.
Does the term motion blur mean anything?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 


I'm not saying it is a camera defect. I design imaging systems and I'm not qualified to make that assumption. These systems are so complex that even the people that have been collaborating on the project for years so that all of the systems required to get an image back to Earth work together properly are often surprised by how it acts.

I am saying that I have no respect for someone who wastes our time screaming "UFO" when they haven't even gone to the effort of ruling out conventional explanations before posting it.

edit on 19-8-2012 by dainoyfb because: I repaired the reply code.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
I think it is fair to say this is a UFO - it is certainly an unexplained flying object.


No, because we do not know it's indeed an "object", neither do we know it's something "flying".
Really, it's only a dot/smear on the pictures - and camera/CCD/transmission error, stuck pixel etc. is just more *likely* than it being a "flying object" on Mars

edit on 19-8-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dainoyfb
I'm not saying it is a camera defect. I design imaging systems and I'm not qualified to make that assumption. These systems are so complex that even the people that have been collaborating on the project for years so that all of the systems required to get an image back to Earth work together properly are often surprised by how it acts.

I am saying that I have no respect for someone who wastes our time screaming "UFO" when they haven't even gone to the effort of ruling out conventional explanations before posting it.


You havent read my previous posts properly in that case - the object is unexplained - is it not?

Phage - yes of course I do - but isnt it blurred and has a trail behind it?

Look guys I am not saying this is flying saucer - I havent said this once, so get off my back a little :-).

I have opened a valid discussion about something that still remains unexplained.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

reply to post by youwillneverknow
 


Could you please stop it, you two? Phage, please state you opinion clearly. And youwillneverknow, by yourself a camera and see how it works. Shutter speed is the speed at which the camera iris will shut itself to make a frame. To see stars, you need to have very slow shutter speed. If something moves in front of a camera, the shutter will make it appear as double or multiple images. Phage, are these image interlaced or progressive?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
I think it is fair to say this is a UFO - it is certainly an unexplained flying object.


No,

How do you know its flying and how do you know its an object?

It might be unexplained but that's about it



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by snewpers
.
Maybe this will help a bit...
This link right here.
.


The answer is at the link in this post. Seems no one here wants to learn anything that aligns against their current understanding. (shrugs shoulders)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 


but isnt it blurred and has a trail behind it?
The "trail" which appears in one image is not in the correct direction.


Look guys I am not saying this is flying saucer

But you did say "it" is a "flying object".

edit on 8/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by youwillneverknow
 


but isnt it blurred and has a trail behind it?
The "trail" which appears in one image is not in the corrected direction.


Look guys I am not saying this is flying saucer

But you did say "it" is a "flying object".

edit on 8/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


It is my ASSUMPTION that it is a flying object - it is your ASSUMPTION that it is to do with the camera.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
You havent read my previous posts properly in that case - the object is unexplained - is it not?


Did I imagine this?

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
I think it is fair to say this is a UFO - it is certainly an unexplained flying object.


It is not fair to say it.
It is not fair to say it/they are flying.
It is not fair to say it/they are objects.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dainoyfb

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
You havent read my previous posts properly in that case - the object is unexplained - is it not?


Did I imagine this?

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
I think it is fair to say this is a UFO - it is certainly an unexplained flying object.


It is not fair to say it.
It is not fair to say it/they are flying.
It is not fair to say it/they are objects.



ok - but I havent said this is a flying saucer with a little green man in it



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It is a U - can we agree on that lol? Unexplained



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
ok - but I havent said this is a flying saucer with a little green man in it


I don't think you were ever acused of that but ok, agreed, you haven't said that.

My point is that when armchair experts (who have no clue how complex modern technology is, how falible it is, or how it works) express their theories without taking the time to properly base it on scientific research, it just trickles down hill to all the other people who are willing to believe what they hear, it once again deals a devastating blow to the TRUTH which I hope we are all here to find. I realize that this has become an instant gratification society and it is much easier to type a bunch of ramblings rather then get off your butt and do actual research but I feel a responsibility to continue to call people on it anyway.


edit on 19-8-2012 by dainoyfb because: I fixed some grammar.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join