Rover captures light source on Mars!!

reply to post by lemmin


It doesn't raise bells when you see another one, not at some random point in the sky or in the foreground but at the exact same part of the landscape?

reply to post by GoldKnight

I used my Google Chrome zoom functionality to zoom in at 500% (this is the image I wanted to attach to this post) -- the results are EXTREMELY clear, with no pixel distortion.

Google Chrome uses an algorithm which invents information "between" the original pixels by interpolating brightness values. entropymine.com...

This is the information that the image actually contains. You cannot get more detail than this from the original image. But since the original uses jpg compression, it too probably contains some artifacting.

Please keep in mind the source -- NASA.jpl -- this may well be the best-ever evidence put forward so far of alien life by anyone.

I've seen better. Not that I've seen anything convincing.

Another light? mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

symptomoftheuniverse
Another light? mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Nah....that's some dude wearing white pants.

They are shooting towards the sun. This is more easily explained by a lens anomaly such as internal lens group reflection, or a piece of dust on the outside of the lens flaring with sunlight. Even a piece of floating debris could illuminate with the sun's back-lighting. And yes, it could also be cosmic ray. I have captured them here on earth with my own camera.

Do we know the shutter speed? If it was a long shutter speed, it would explain the "streak" as the sun set or rose in the frame, and moved the internal reflection.

Its a dead pixel. Its in the same spot on every image.

HDR of image:

reply to post by Miniscuzz


It's Not the First time NASA has seen a Light Source on Mars .....




i297.photobucket.com...

reply to post by Miniscuzz


It's a Dust Devil tornado.

For sure

I'm thinking made in Mexico. We still get a lot from Mexico, I suppose Mars pictures could be part of this. My daughters down in Mexico at the moment, I'll have her keep an eye out for a rover crawling around.

It looks like a geyser. COOL!!! Now they need to drive over there and ACTUALLY DO SOME SCIENCE!

Well, it seems like a light source of some sort. But how many rovers are on the planet so far? I think the count was at 3, one old USA one, one old USSR(Russian Republic) one and one new USA one(landed last year, which is the one taking the picture). The new one required a seperate lander to get through the atmosphere. So you have a main vehicle and a lander vehicle which seperated when itgot to a certain altitude. The lander had a parachute, and the main was designed to crash several miles away from the lander. This may be the crashed main vehicle reflecting light. Oh by the way did you see the squirrel? It is SE of the light source and west of the closest hill. Strange. Troy Lawson

Phage

Can anyone explain why it does not appear in the image taken by the left NAVCAM at the same time?
Left

edit on 4/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I'm new to all this, but the difference appears to be the elevation of the camera. You can see the dark ground line behind and slightly above the hill before the mountains in the shot with the light but that line is lower in the shot we cannot see the light, meaning the hill is obstructing the view at that angle or elevation.

reply to post by Miniscuzz


Maybe it's like a heated plasma that is being released from beneath the surface like the hot springs, or a volcanic expulsion.

I am going to go with lense artifact as my unprofessional opinion. Reason being, the camera seems facing toward the light(you can see the halo effect in the sky), which I assume to be the sun? It would have to be a really really bright object to appear way more white, than that lit area of the sky. I might be wrong about this bit, but I don't think it's physically possible for a reflection to be brighter than the source of light it is reflecting.

reply to post by Exeges1s

I think you misunderstand. The NAVCAM consists of two cameras mounted at the same level on the mast. The two images were taken at the same second. There is no difference in elevation.

I don't see how this could possibly be debunked or debated.

So you're already closed off to anything other than aliens. Not a good attitude.

Things it could be:

Some kind of error with the photo or camera, which has been pointed out.

Electrified dust devil

Some sort of volcanic activity.

Sunlight reflection.

Gas vent.

We know all these things actually exist and can/do/have occurred on Mars.

Things we don't know exist:

Aliens.

Phage


This is the information that the image actually contains. You cannot get more detail than this from the original image. But since the original uses jpg compression, it too probably contains some artifacting.

Everyone trying to claim it is "clearly" a geyser, a dust devil or something needs to look at this image and take a reality check. It is a handful of pixels and no amount of "enhancement" can add any form or shape to it.

However much you mess around in photoshop and "zoom" in your best CSI fashion you are not extracting any more information. It is what it is. A camera artefact.

The overloaded central pixels are blooming into the adjacent ones. Notice how the blooming is less prominent on the bottom two hot pixels, where they are surrounded by darker image, but where the surrounding pixels are already rather lighter (above the horizon line) then the extra light from the hot pixels is added to that.

symptomoftheuniverse
Its a dead pixel. Its in the same spot on every image.

Can someone confirm this? If so, then I'm sold on dead pixel, however those are a lot of dead pixels nearby each other. If not a dead pixel then I'm leaning towards cosmic ray strike.