A Third and a double light source on the slopes of Mount Sharp. Curiosity Sol 603.

a reply to: Rob48

I've opened both images and zoomed into that top right corner of the images on both, the smaller of the bright objects does appear to be a dead or stuck pixel, as it is there on both images we're talking about here. There are a number of other, much dimmer artefacts that appear on both images though, in exactly the same place on both and are viewable on high zoom.

They MUST be camera and or lens artefacts, there's no other explanation since they are present on both images, in exactly the same place, despite the camera pointing in different directions. The bigger light on 603 isn't there on 568, so perhaps there's a new dead or stuck pixel or so, or simply a little dust is there...we'll know if it shows up in the same spot on more images later.

originally posted by: Arken
a reply to: Rob48

Do a Google Image search for "cosmic ray CCD" and you will see dozens of examples.

All at NIGHT or in the DARK. (well known phenomenon)

NONE in DAYLIGHT?

Well, is a photograph of THE SUN daylight enough for you?



Not to mention the several examples from the Mars rover itself that Phage posted.

originally posted by: Arken
a reply to: Rob48

Do a Google Image search for "cosmic ray CCD" and you will see dozens of examples.

All at NIGHT or in the DARK. (well known phenomenon)

NONE in DAYLIGHT?

Are you trying to say that it cannot happen during days? Wouldn't it be strange for them to try to take pictures of stars during daylight? LOL

a reply to: rustyclutch

There should be numerous examples not just from Mars. Did we just discover them or something?

If this is 1913 then yes they are new, but this is 2014 and they aren't new.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Phage has already provided pictures many times. I do not know why nobody would listen to him.

To some on ATS everything has to be a conspiracy even when it isn't.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: rustyclutch

Tell me what you think it is. You do realize that the picture in OP came from Right Navigation Camera? The "light sources" doesn't appear in the left navigation camera. Both cameras take pictures at the same time.

then there is something wrong with the right cam.

3 cosmic strikes (or 4) on 1 cam is pushing it, i think.

a reply to: tsingtao

Yes, I think the right camera has a problem. The stuck pixel at the top right seems to have become permanent, based on the latest sol 605 images, and there are at least three other permanent stuck pixels now, that are in all the sol 605 images so far available. No big bright lights that I can see, though. Here are the full image links:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

And here are the locations to look for the four stuck pixels (won't show up in this small image, but I have circled the locations to check in the above links). I'd only spotted two at first but then quickly found two more. Pixel-peepers will probably be able to find some more...

a reply to: Arken

The larger moon of Mars, Phobos, hangs low in the sky in its about four times a day due to its short rotation period around the planet. It would be the first possible source to eliminate. As for the other source in the image, I don't believe we can blame that on Deimos, the other, smaller, moon of Mars. It is some distance from the planet, but probably would be visible in a camera during twilight.

MY question is why are all of these images with lights seemingly at twilight? Are the images intentionally darkened to show us the "lights" and cause a controversy?

That brings to mind another question. Do the cameras ever operate at night? Carl Sagan wanted lights put on the first landers on Mars, the Vikings. He reasoned that there may be creatures that came out on a Martian night after escaping the searing daytime sun. His suggestion was turned down. Supposedly, lights were a weight that the Viking landers could not accommodate.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: rustyclutch

There should be numerous examples not just from Mars. Did we just discover them or something?

If this is 1913 then yes they are new, but this is 2014 and they aren't new.

OK then where are the numerous examples not just from mars?
Are you suuuuure it's not 1913?

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: rustyclutch

There should be numerous examples not just from Mars. Did we just discover them or something?

If this is 1913 then yes they are new, but this is 2014 and they aren't new.

OK then where are the numerous examples not just from mars?
Are you suuuuure it's not 1913?

I posted lots of examples just upthread. Just search Google Images for "cosmic ray CCD"



You can even record them on Earth, although you need a longer exposure because the magnetosphere and atmosphere shield us from most of them. In this experiment, 10-minute exposures typically showed 5-10 cosmic ray strikes in each frame: darkerview.com...

The point is, cosmic rays are not "rare". Even at the Earth's surface, they strike at the rate of about 1 per square centimetre per minute. That means that every minute, hundreds of them are passing through your body. Scary huh?

a reply to: Rob48

Well, is a photograph of THE SUN daylight enough for you?

No. It's not enough and it is a fake light....

Your frantic attempts to debunk enything make me laugh...

You have no idea of how numerous kinds of FILTERS Soho have.

a reply to: Arken

Hey Arken,

Just for the record, this is the fourth light source picture, not the third.
However I believe this dual light picture is unrelated to the latter three. But who knows..

1:

2:

3:

originally posted by: LordAdef
a reply to: Arken

Hey Arken,

Just for the record, this is the fourth light source picture, not the third.
However I believe this dual light picture is unrelated to the latter three. But who knows..

1:

2:

3:

WoW! I've miss the second one....
WTH is happening in Gale Crater?

originally posted by: Arken
a reply to: Rob48

Well, is a photograph of THE SUN daylight enough for you?

No. It's not enough and it is a fake light....

Your frantic attempts to debunk enything make me laugh...

You have no idea of how numerous kinds of FILTERS Soho have.

Yes I do know quite a lot about how SOHO works. And "filters" have no bearing on cosmic rays striking a CCD. If a simple bandpass filter could block high-energy cosmic radiation then the space industry has been missing a trick all these years!

I am not trying to "debunk" anything; just pointing out that cosmic ray strikes are observed all over the place, not just on Mars. Even on Earth you can observe them at a rate of around 1 every 1-2 minutes with an astronomical CCD set-up. That is a simple fact.

Read what I said: I don't know what the lights are. I'm rather doubting the simple cosmic ray explanation myself because we now have four pictures all from the right navcam. To me that points towards a problem with the camera, perhaps entirely internal, or perhaps still cosmic ray related.

What is pretty clear now is that it isn't anything genuinely on Mars. I had considered the "shiny rock" idea but that never looked likely given the camera separation, the right-cam-only issue, and especially now given that the latest pic has the light not even on the surface!

I am keeping an open mind; you are seemingly closed to any possibility that doesn't include alien light shows. If anyone is "frantically attempting to debunk", it's you with your constant dismissal of cosmic rays.

a reply to: Rob48

So, you admit deep space is not Red. And that is good.

Sorry for that, then. My Language barrier, maybe.

The cosmic rays, leave streaks on ccd camera, due to their fast velocity.
For their detection you need darkess.
In the image in the Opening Post there aren't nor streaks nor darkness.

So, something else...

a reply to: Arken

The cosmic rays, leave streaks on ccd camera, due to their fast velocity.
For their detection you need darkess.

Wrong on both counts. The length of a cosmic ray streak depends on the angle at which it strikes the CCD. If it hits face-on then it might only affect one or two pixels. If it passes through close to the plane of the sensor it will affect more pixels. Basic geometry.

And while it is true that you will see more cosmic ray hits in dark images, that is because the camera shutter is open for longer, increasing the chance of a hit. But a short exposure can still capture them by chance. The bright white 100% saturated pixels caused by the strike will still be visible against anything other than a very light background.

Once again, though, this does not mean Inal saying these images are 100% cosmic rays. I believe something else is going on with that camera. I don't know what.

a reply to: Arken

It's the coincidence cosmic ray Fest, where Statistics only works for the Benefit of Mr. Cosmic Ray
Keep up the good work.

And let's wait fot the fifth then!

a reply to: Phage

Aw Phage you're just one these ( as described by Arken) you party pooper.

according to the "new crowd" here on ATS, these could be cosmic rays.

Doesn't matter you've been a member longer than Arken, don't you get it?

There are skulls, floating rocks, huge spines,etc all over Mars (in hundreds of images), and aliens using mirrors to flash out morse code signals to us.

Science and being rational...puh!

a reply to: Chamberf=6

I'm a newbie?
Sheesh, what's it take to be considered a regular?

a reply to: Arken

So, you admit deep space is not Red. And that is good.

Neither are the images from SOHO. The images from SOHO are greyscale (like the images from the navcam).

The cosmic rays, leave streaks on ccd camera, due to their fast velocity. For their detection you need darkess. In the image in the Opening Post there aren't nor streaks nor darkness.

Cosmic rays leave streaks if they strike the CCD at an oblique angle and if they have enough energy to pass through more than one pixel.

Darkness is not required for a cosmic ray to saturate (or oversaturate) a pixel(s) and create white spots.