Mysterious Moving Object On Mars 2014 HD

Looking at this again I am pretty sure this rock formation has been called into question before.
a reply to: VoidHawk

originally posted by: lindalinda
Looking at this again I am pretty sure this rock formation has been called into question before.
a reply to: VoidHawk

When I enlarged the two photo's in photoshop the first thing I noticed was that the rock in both pictures looked exactly the same, yet both photos had been taken from different angles. The rock is an image thats been inserted and a bit of blurring has been added to its edges.

it might just be the camera angle but I think someone got creative with photoshop.


picture #1 origin: unknown


picture #2 origin:JPL


picture #3 origin:unknown


it might just be the camera angle but we have 3 pictures showing the crack is different lengths in all 3 pictures.

In the 2 pictures which show the longest crack we have a dark blurry thing between the rocks in one picture
and no dark blurry thing between the rocks in the other picture.pictures #1 and #2 seem to be taken from almost the same angle and elevation,but the length of the crack is noticeably different.

I think at least one of the pictures has been photoshopped, either by adding something or removing something.

a reply to: purplemer

Do those pictures come in colour?

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Bilk22
NASA photoshopped the images? The links provided by the OP are from the NASA site.

Is it impossible that somebody at nasa was having a laugh? Or possible that the nasa site was hacked?

Well the pics are from the NASA site. How could someone mess with them? Also why just those pics?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: VoidHawk

Um.... Evidence you can photoshop an image does nothing to address how the JPL sourced images differ.

They were taken by the rover cameras guess what the rover MOVES so what can be seen can change due to perspective, camera angles etc it's NOT rocket science

Well the reason why the "object" disappears in the middle photo, is the camera angle is pointed too low to see the large object that is further in distance and larger in size then it appears.

You notice in the upper background of this image all of those very large boulders in the background?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

It's like driving down a neighborhood street with a large mountain in the background. The objects closer to you such as houses and trees appear to pass by you very quickly. However the large and distant mountain in the background will seem as if it hasn't moved at all. That is how perspective works with large objects in the distance.

The moving object is just a large boulder that is further away, and larger, then it at first seems. And if the camera angle had not been cut so low in the middle picture, it would have still been visible in its more distant position in the background, rather then only seeing the rocks in the foreground.

Not sure why this is in the Hoax bin. The images are on the NASA site just as they're depicted in the OP.

As for the claims of perspective shift due to the rover moving, that's just plain ridiculous. The object is of similar size to the rocks/objects closer to the camera and the subject object is not far off in the distance, but in fact immediately behind the foreground rocks.

So this gets hoaxed because there's no reasonable explanation?

originally posted by: Bilk22
Not sure why this is in the Hoax bin. The images are on the NASA site just as they're depicted in the OP.

As for the claims of perspective shift due to the rover moving, that's just plain ridiculous. The object is of similar size to the rocks/objects closer to the camera and the subject object is not far off in the distance, but in fact immediately behind the foreground rocks.

So this gets hoaxed because there's no reasonable explanation?

Really? "Ridiculous" you say?

Take a good look at the two panoramic views taken by Spirit of that same group of rocks.

Right click on each image and open up in a different tab so you can really look at them in full size:

Sol 1833



Sol 1843



Notice how far the rover has moved and the angle of perspective that has changed. It's quite a bit of change.

Did something move? Yes, the rover.

Using the two different images from two different times, when it was the rover and perspective that moved, and then claiming it was the rocks that moved is: a LIE. Falsification. Or in other words Hoax (something that the video makers, ADG(UK) love to do, to increase their hits on their YouTube channel).

originally posted by: Bilk22
Not sure why this is in the Hoax bin. The images are on the NASA site just as they're depicted in the OP.

As for the claims of perspective shift due to the rover moving, that's just plain ridiculous. The object is of similar size to the rocks/objects closer to the camera and the subject object is not far off in the distance, but in fact immediately behind the foreground rocks.

So this gets hoaxed because there's no reasonable explanation?

I suggest YOU look back on the previous threads but before you do that LOOK at the op pics look at the relative positions on the objects in the pictures go outside see if you can recreate the effect which is down to camera location and perspective. You just can't see it that's all !

It seems on here MANY members wander through life with their eyes shut when they can't understand such a simple thing as perspective and the DON'T seem to notice the objects are not in the same location in all the pictures!

originally posted by: Bilk22
Not sure why this is in the Hoax bin. The images are on the NASA site just as they're depicted in the OP.

As for the claims of perspective shift due to the rover moving, that's just plain ridiculous. The object is of similar size to the rocks/objects closer to the camera and the subject object is not far off in the distance, but in fact immediately behind the foreground rocks.

So this gets hoaxed because there's no reasonable explanation?

Well I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of the objects location and size. I see a couple boulders that are clearly perched on the other hill in the background that match or exceed the pixel size of the object in question. Also the object in question matches the appearance of the background boulders with its dark colored surface.

I think that is much more likely an explanation that the alternative...which is what exactly? Sentient rock life forms on Mars that are advanced enough to have either teleportation or cloaking technology? Aliens or NASA employees accidentally kicking a rock for a propaganda photo shoot and misplacing it for the next photo? I'm not sure what phenomena is even being asserted to be taking place here?

To address the last statement by Bilk22, I think it has a very reasonable explanation though I have no insight into the moderators criteria for Hoaxing a thread myself. I am a believer in extra solar life visiting our little solar system and planet myself, but I'm not sure if that is what is being suggested to be evidenced in these photos? If you take a picture of a tree from 3 different spots, objects will indeed appear to move or disappear or change size relative to their position and actual size of the cameras originating location in relation to a marker such as a tree or boulder. It's a very simple idea and if you have a cellphone with a camera on it, you could experiment with this idea in your own room right now.

a reply to: eriktheawful

OK this is what you suggested.




Now draw some lines for me to show me how the perspective is that drastically changed and how that perspective shift would influence the view of the object in question.

Larger snip for your use.

originally posted by: spleenika

originally posted by: Bilk22
Not sure why this is in the Hoax bin. The images are on the NASA site just as they're depicted in the OP.

As for the claims of perspective shift due to the rover moving, that's just plain ridiculous. The object is of similar size to the rocks/objects closer to the camera and the subject object is not far off in the distance, but in fact immediately behind the foreground rocks.

So this gets hoaxed because there's no reasonable explanation?

Well I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of the objects location and size. I see a couple boulders that are clearly perched on the other hill in the background that match or exceed the pixel size of the object in question. Also the object in question matches the appearance of the background boulders with its dark colored surface.

I think that is much more likely an explanation that the alternative...which is what exactly? Sentient rock life forms on Mars that are advanced enough to have either teleportation or cloaking technology? Aliens or NASA employees accidentally kicking a rock for a propaganda photo shoot and misplacing it for the next photo? I'm not sure what phenomena is even being asserted to be taking place here?

To address the last statement by Bilk22, I think it has a very reasonable explanation though I have no insight into the moderators criteria for Hoaxing a thread myself. I am a believer in extra solar life visiting our little solar system and planet myself, but I'm not sure if that is what is being suggested to be evidenced in these photos? If you take a picture of a tree from 3 different spots, objects will indeed appear to move or disappear or change size relative to their position and actual size of the cameras originating location in relation to a marker such as a tree or boulder. It's a very simple idea and if you have a cellphone with a camera on it, you could experiment with this idea in your own room right now.

I'm not suggesting it's ET life either. However I do find the pics a bit anomalous. The OP video seems to point toward what could be afoot

a reply to: Bilk22

You really can not tell that Spirit went from here:



to here 10 days later?



Not only did it's angle of view change, but the amount of distance from the rocks?

When you move, fixed objects will appear to change their position.

Grab a video camera or just a camera, and go outside. Use some trees or something that is not moving, and try it yourself. Snap a pick, or start the video, fix the camera on something with other non-moving objects behind it or in front of it, and then start moving several meters in a direction and watch what happens.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Bilk22

You really can not tell that Spirit went from here:

to here 10 days later?

Not only did it's angle of view change, but the amount of distance from the rocks?

When you move, fixed objects will appear to change their position.

Grab a video camera or just a camera, and go outside. Use some trees or something that is not moving, and try it yourself. Snap a pick, or start the video, fix the camera on something with other non-moving objects behind it or in front of it, and then start moving several meters in a direction and watch what happens.

Why is your red line in two different places in respect to the rover? Maybe try again?

I agree. I guess they're calling Nasa a hoaxer. OK.

a reply to: Bilk22

a reply to: Bilk22

Let's try looking at the position of the rover (if your eyes are really that bad). Take a look at the rocks I have circled:



Now take a look at 10 days later how far the rover has moved by seeing the same rocks in the next picture:



I can't make it any clearer than that for you. The rover moved. Period. Not the rocks. It took some pictures, then 10 days later after it had moved a good bit of distance, it took pictures again.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Thank you for this!

I completely get it now. Well done.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Bilk22

Let's try looking at the position of the rover (if your eyes are really that bad). Take a look at the rocks I have circled:

Now take a look at 10 days later how far the rover has moved by seeing the same rocks in the next picture:

I can't make it any clearer than that for you. The rover moved. Period. Not the rocks. It took some pictures, then 10 days later after it had moved a good bit of distance, it took pictures again.

Ok then. The rover moved to the left so the object should be covered by the rock to the left, yet it's even more visible than in the prior pic. Something in that perspective isn't adding up

a reply to: Bilk22

It's been shown and explain now for 5 years.

Here, go back and read this thread here on ATS from 2009

Or this one back in 2011

Or more recently this past May, 2014

It's been discussed and debunked several times now.