Rover captures light source on Mars!!

Riffrafter
reply to post by Rob48

 

Great find! Adding the 2nd image, the plot thickens (or clarifies depending on where you stand on this).

2 different images, taken on 2 separate days from 2 separate vantage points both showing the same light source in approximately the same area on Mars but in 2 different areas of the image? Really? So we're supposed to believe that a cosmic ray struck on 2 separate days from 2 separate vantage points yet only affecting areas of the image that happened to show this spot?

The only thing keeping me from totally throwing game, set & match to this being an actual artificial light source on Mars is the fact that both images come from the same camera.

But even with that in mind, methinks Lucy has some 'splaining to do....

Look at the direction of the sunlight - it's coming from straight ahead. So something in the ground could be blowing out ice crystals, and the sunlight is reflecting off of them. I'm thinking that it might be a "sun pillars". The brightest part of the image is at the bottom, then there is a conical column of hazy light.

No different from what you see on earth:

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Combine that with a wide angle lens, and the sun becomes a single pixel.

reply to post by stormcell


Except the sun seems to be pretty far to the right of the white pixels. Every sun pillar I have ever seen is directly above the sun.

So if it is not a cosmic ray and not a sand devil, then it becomes a real mystery.
Some kind of vented sub-surface gas? CO2? Can the rover reach it?

reply to post by Miniscuzz


Looks to me like a 'geyser' like we get here on Earth but it's most likely as a NASA expert put it:

a "cosmic ray hit"

I don't think it has anything to do with 'Aliens'

reply to post by Rob48


Perspective? Maybe it is on the horizon and the rover is just driving to the right a little. If it is due to perspective would that eliminate cosmic ray as the source of the light since they only show up in one frame that would last ~1/30 of a second. Wouldn't this would mean that there is actually something there giving off this light? From the angle in your second picture the light also looks smaller and more dense than the first.

Does anyone know anything about ice geysers on Mars? Does it ever appear just by itself or tend to be in groups?

reply to post by freetheuniverse

I agree that it is a strange coincidence. I don't know how far the rover has moved between those two images. Obviously you can see the same mountains in the background so the general direction of view is the same but with the effect of parallax it is hard to know how far apart they are. I am not near a computer to study the images in detail and see if I can match up any foreground detail.

As I said my first instinct was a hot/stuck pixel of whatever cause (be it cosmic ray or simple camera hardware fault) but the second image makes it rather more intriguing.

When I first saw this, the first thing that came to mind was "The Watcher" from the episode Logopolis of Classic Doctor Who... the last episode involving the 4th Doctor (Portrayed by Tom Baker), before he regenerated into the 5th Doctor (portrayed by Peter Davison) Later in that serial.



I wonder what it could be...

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by Phage

 

Maybe it's my eyes, but it seems to me rock is in front of the light source, partially blocking the lower part of the light source?

edit on 6-4-2014 by zilebeliveunknown because: image credit: member Skuly

You are right. If you take Pages image from page 1, clic on it and drag it out to side against a white bacground, You will be able to see that there is a hill top just behind the first one. It also seams like the Right camera is a bit lower than the one shoving the light?

Shouldn't there be a 2nd photo that goes with this new shot of the 2nd light, the way there was 2 shots of the first for stereoscopic projection purposes? Seems like that would be the simple way to get more evidence on the cosmic ray theory. So far we've seen 3 photos when there should be 4 floating around.

reply to post by conundrummer

It appears only in one image of each of the stereo pairs.

Two separate images, both of which could be captures of cosmic rays, or a hot pixel issue - that's really not that surprising a thing imho.

What is surprising to me is that 1.) If a pixel issue, then affected spot on the sensor inside the camera has moved between photos and

2.) if they are cosmic ray captures, the rays intersected the sensor at different locations in the camera in the two photos, yet at the same spot on the same subject area in the photo, and both on the nearer [dark] horizon.

It's a Grey Teleporting down to the surface.

Phage
reply to post by conundrummer

 

It appears only in one image of each of the stereo pairs.

I have a question: would the cameras use the same sensors?

If so wouldnt both cameras give the same image?

Ismail
Gawd... This kind of thread really makes you wish that the scientific method were actually taught in schools as a holistic approach to life. Instead, we're treated to avalanches of stars on the first page because it looks cool therefore aliens, zilch attention to the follow-up, and Phage bashing, because man, that guy and all his honest research is such a buzzkill.

ATS has become so impatient and opinionated it's freaking terrifying.

Anyways. Occhams razor : Cosmic ray, not Mos Eisley.

edit on 8-4-2014 by Ismail because: (no reason given)

Agreed, but substitute "ATS" with "Humanity".

reply to post by spy66

Both cameras of the pair use the same type of sensor, they do not share a sensor.

Both cameras provide the same view of the landscape with a slight difference in perspective because of their horizontal separation. That is the reason for the pairs, to be able to create stereo images.

Because the "light" appears in only one image of the pair it indicates that the source is internal rather than external. Only one sensor was hit by a cosmic ray. If the light had been external it would appear in both.

reply to post by Phage


I liked the cosmic ray idea at first but on closer inspection I'm not sure.

The object exhibits a brightness gradient. There is an almost solid white rectangular core, and the light surrounding this appears to decrease in brightness in a very 'linear' way which ends cut off by a straight vertical line.

Furthermore, the bottom of the light source is seemingly a perfect 90 degree angle to the cameras horizontal reference plane. The images you posted of cosmic rays being captured on camera contain almost completely solid white rays, with practically definite outlines that are still fluid rather than straight lines at 90 degree angles.

If this hit the camera sensor in our case, we shouldn't see such a light gradient, should we? At first it seems to suggest to me the idea of significant distance between the camera and the light.

It could be a complete product of the pixelization at that point, but looking at it with maximum zoom definitely shows a strong rectangle of white in the middle with two equally out reaching gradients of light on both sides of it. You can literally see this gradient overlapped onto the dark backdrop, with what also appears to be 90 degree straight 'edges'.

There is also a light gradient reaching upwards. This made me think it could be a geyser reflecting light, but it's not in the other image...

I'm not really quite sure anymore. I'm convinced however that if it was a ray hitting the sensor directly we should observe a much 'fuller' light gradient (if a gradient at all - perhaps just a fuzzy edge), that doesn't end with 90 degree lines at the zoom it requires to witness it.

Interestingly, the gradient doesn't extend nearly as much to the bottom, if at all, and ends on an apparently perfect flat edge. Perhaps, this is why I believe some have suggested it appears to be behind something.

There's a lot of straight 90 degree lines. The pixelation at that point should be more 'smooth' round the edges (more non uniform distribution of the horizontal brightness gradient) rather than cut off by a straight 90 degree edge. If you get what I mean.

Obviously, all things will exhibit some sort of pixel gradient at the edges on extreme magnification (and its a function of the objects shape usually) but this one just seems overly strange to me.

I'm tempted to say a unique image artefact of some sort, but the fact it came out like that is ridiculously unlikely. Infact, it looks like vertical lines of completely dead and 'partially-dead' pixels. But if they were truly that, they would appear on the consequetive photos by that right hand cam.

Am I missing something here? I'm limited on how much I can magnify the light source at the moment so perhaps it exhibits more random gradients on closer magnification rather than the blatent rectangular and 90 degree to the horizontal light gradients I'm seeing.

Otherwise it can't be a cosmic ray hitting the sensor specifically or any dead pixels. Well, technically it could still be a cosmic ray but the odds are surely astronomical that it would appear in this way for us.

Which leaves me stuck with the weird realm of 'image artefacts' - where everything and anything is possible until a professional actually corrects us.

# it - it's an alien.

reply to post by setibuddies


Is there any evidence that the "light" is in the same place on the surface in the two photos? The same general area and at the horizon but not the same place unless you can match up the foreground?

Phage - what are your thoughts on the coincidence of both lights appearing on that horizon line?

reply to post by Miniscuzz


It looks like a dust devil. The ones on mars have voltage and glow at night:

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.youtube.com...

edit: After seeing Phage's post and the fact that this does not exist in the second image I am going to have to agree that this is probably a cosmic ray striking the camera or an artifact coincidence for this image.

This makes it appear that it is situated somewhere closer than the distant ridge. Not that it is.

Makes me want to poke around some of the older images to see if it shows up in any of them. Although, if it is something actually on the horizon, then it might just now be being seen.

As for stereo images, there's another way to get them other than relying on the two navcams. Just get different images from the same camera that has moved slightly horizontally.

reply to post by Moelson


The vast majority of claims are misidentifications of conventional phenomena - probably 95% of them or more. This is why the "experts" are so visible and easy to believe. As for the few pictures or evidences suggesting something unconventional, they're too scant and blurry. It forces you to conclude either the aliens (or supernatural forces) are extraordinarily clever at avoiding our awareness or some evidences just do not supply enough data to be nailed down. For example, if I take a picture of a single star in the sky, it's unlikely to supply enough evidence to determine which star it's. Or if I take a very blurry picture of a person, identifying that person might be impossible. More information is needed.

I'm with Phage. He may be wrong, but I think he's got a better chance of being right than most. I'm genuinely amazed he's on target oftentimes. I myself might be able to guess a cosmic ray, after a very long and tortuous session. Thanks to the internet, everyone now can exploit the work of others. The only reason I'd conclude it was cosmic rays is because other people arrived at that explanation.