It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Miniscuzz
Could that be a pixel gone bad?
Or maybe corruption of the data coming from Mars?
Could also be a geyser or water vapor with the sun shining on it.
reply to post by Miniscuzz
Made a stereoscopic gif to more easily see its place or lack thereof in 3 dimensions.
Shiny rock ?
edit on 6/4/2014 by skuly because: adding
"Shooting stars" in space? Really? In any case:
Please provide some sort of proof that what was captured there were cosmic rays and not just dust, metoroids, or distant shooting stars please.
Cosmic rays are very high energy particles which come from a variety of sources (e.g. solar flares, supernovae). They are of interest to lots of astronomers, but mostly just noise for us. We see lots of them in every image and occasionally, 3 or 4 of them hit the CCD in just the right places in consecutive images to fool us into believing there is a real object there. The cosmic rays can show up as points or as streaks.
What is being debated is whether a cosmic ray caused the problem. The rovers are hit by cosmic rays on a pretty regular basis.
Do you know how often a cosmic ray has actually hit any rover? Once...and that's still being debated
The graphic to the right shows the radiation dose rate measured by RAD on the surface of Mars. Radiation detected by RAD during the first 300 Sols was almost entirely due to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs).
Five minutes in order to obtain a number of tracks. The NAVCAM is not a DLSR nor is the NAVCAM on Earth's surface. Cosmic radiation levels are higher on the surface of Mars. This is a 30 second exposure from the NAVCAM at night. Exposures during the day are shorter so catching cosmic ray strikes is more rare.
According to NASA, in order to capture a cosmic ray or it's light with a camera such as the NAV-CAM, you must have the shutter open for 5 MINUTES and on the highest setting to light possible.
No. Anti-blooming is not there to remove cosmic ray strikes. It is there to minimize oversaturation carrying from pixel to pixel. It also cannot handle it in all cases. For example, note the horizontal blooming near the bottom center of the image:
The image processors in the cams are there specifically to wipe cosmic rays from photographs...specifically "blooming".
I believe there is organic material and perhaps life on Mars, and that NASA is hiding the truth from the public ... but this is just a digital artifact. It is not a light source.
I don't understand how this can be taken as anything more than a digital artifact. These are all over other images. I went back ONE day and found another one after three clicks.
It's curious how both of the flashes appear right at the horizon line. That's kind of an interesting coincidence and not something you'd expect from a random cosmic ray strike. It it possible for it to be a processing artifact of some kind?
I'd bet the house on this being a geyser, but I could never trust NASA to tell me the truth. I'm too skeptical. I've believed there to be water on Mars my entire life. In 5th grade I was told to rewrite my report that I did using books from the library. They proceeded to call my parents and ban the books. It was a big argument and I absolutely refused to rewrite it. I got in a lot of trouble, but there is water. Even if this is not a geyser I do believe 100% that there are geysers and that this planet can and will be morphed back to Earthlike. I think this is where we originally came from, it was destroyed in war, and then we morphed Earth. We did not have enough of a foothold to maintain our level of tech. The exact opposite will take place again in the future.edit on 7-4-2014 by ezwip because: (no reason given)