Cigar shaped UFO photographed by NASA?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Jchristopher5
Not sure why people piled on quite so much — no call for that really. Anyway, the reason Phobos appears so elongated is that it orbits Mars very fast: in just over 7 and a half hours.

Im not sure of the exposure time for this image, but looking at the time stamps there was just less than two minutes between photos, and the streaks almost "join up" if you overlay the images so the exposures must have been almost as long as that.

I wonder why such a long exposure time?

a reply to: smurfy

It may have been because the rover was night side of the planet, and required as much exposure time as possible in order to record an image containing acceptable levels of detail.

a reply to: smurfy

No, these night-time shots are subframe portions of just one navcam as far as I know.


As for covering up UFOs, aliens etc, that's just stupid. One of the main goals of exploring the solar system is to look for signs of extraterrestrial life. If any evidence were found it would be the scientific discovery of the millennium.

I'm quite sure there is alien life elsewhere in the universe, but all the evidence so far has failed to find any in our solar system outside Earth.

But out solar system is such a tiny piece of the universe that you would hardly expect to find alien life here. It would be like dipping a teacup into the ocean at random and expecting to pull up a fish.

There is some kind of party going on in the background, and this makes me put my money on some balloons. Think about it. A balloon vender let his big column of white balloons go at the end of the festival, and some of the balloons are becoming untied. That seems to be the best explanation to me.

Looks like a weather balloon that is dropping its weather telemetry payload. These balloons are not completely filled and form an elongated shape with a bulge at the upper end, and are often made of mylar or other highly reflective materials. Notice how the shape on the video is slightly curved to the right, indicating warping by winds. When they reach a certain altitude, these balloons automatically jettison their equipment via a small parachute, and the equipment is retrieved while the balloon goes on its way to oblivion.

While I understand the explanation from yesterday, a new story on this photo capture was posted on the Examiner, by Dr. Michael Salla.

Link

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Just another example of why Examiner.com is not a news source. Anyone can post any old tripe on there with no fact-checking or editorial control.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: smurfy

No, these night-time shots are subframe portions of just one navcam as far as I know.


As for covering up UFOs, aliens etc, that's just stupid. One of the main goals of exploring the solar system is to look for signs of extraterrestrial life. If any evidence were found it would be the scientific discovery of the millennium.

I'm quite sure there is alien life elsewhere in the universe, but all the evidence so far has failed to find any in our solar system outside Earth.

But out solar system is such a tiny piece of the universe that you would hardly expect to find alien life here. It would be like dipping a teacup into the ocean at random and expecting to pull up a fish.

No, I was just asking about Navcam B left, I dinny know about any Aliens.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: smurfy

It may have been because the rover was night side of the planet, and required as much exposure time as possible in order to record an image containing acceptable levels of detail.

Yes, I was thinking from the point of view of photographing Phobos which although a very dark surface, is still very bright from Mars, easily captured by Curiosity in a couple of seconds.

a reply to: smurfy

A couple of seconds is a long time in photography circles.

I mean, I have a compact camera, but a friend of mine has a massive hardon for phototgraphy. The fellow does not use a couple of seconds of exposure unless there is not enough light available in order to make a shot possible.

a reply to: smurfy

That part wasn't directed at you

So, these are Vesta and Ceres detected by Mastcam?


The images with the other two cylindrical "objects" were detected by Navcam and in two different Sols.

These are the same anomalies?



mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Images NewShare0Share0 0 6First Asteroid Image from the Surface of Mars (Annotated Version)
04.24.2014
First Asteroid Image from the Surface of Mars (Annotated)
The Mast Camera (Mastcam) on NASA's Curiosity Mars rover has captured the first image of an asteroid taken from the surface of Mars. The night-sky image actually includes two asteroids: Ceres and Vesta, plus one of Mars' two moons, Deimos, which may have been an asteroid before being captured into orbit around Mars. The image was taken after nightfall on the 606th Martian day, or sol, of Curiosity's work on Mars (April 20, 2014, PDT). In other camera pointings the same night, the Mastcam also imaged Mars' larger moon, Phobos, plus the planets Jupiter and Saturn.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
I think the riddle maybe solved then

But star for you OP, more people/digger/observers like you are much needed of we're ever to find a smoking gun

Nice catch

What do you mean "nice catch"? The images were posted by NASA on the public website where all the other rover images are posted, and news articles about the Phobos captures were posted on the usual places (Red Planet Report etc) too. Don't make out like this is some secret pic that someone has unearthed!

Posting a picture that you think looks a bit funny without taking a few minutes to ascertain what it is does not constitute "research" in my book.

Rant over

Anyway now let's do some DENYING IGNORANCE...

Here is what you should have seen from the approximate location of Curiosity at 4:52:15 on 2014-04-28 (obviously the Stellarium landscape doesn't show the hill in front of the rover)

And here is the image captured at that time: mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Four minutes later at 4:56:09:

And the Curiosity image: mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

How about the latest series of images from sol 619? (Sorry the GIF comes out so huge!)



It's a rising moon, and again, looking at Stellarium we see Phobos rising in the west at just the right time:

Time of first image in series:


And last image in series:


Conclusion: Both "cylinders" are just Phobos, captured by the rover as it set and rose respectively.

Why does it appear as a streak? Because the exposure length is very long: two minutes for the Sol 613 images and more like three minutes for the Sol 619 ones. Phobos's angular diameter as seen from Mars is about 0.1-0.2 degrees (it varies), and in two minutes it travels about 1 degree across the sky. So the length of the image should be very approximately 5 to 10 times its width, and a little more for the sol 619 images. Looks about right to me...

I'm just wondering how you conclude they are 'objects.' Anomalies on an image, that's all. An understanding of photography would stop these speculative statements.

originally posted by: Colbomoose
I'm just wondering how you conclude they are 'objects.' Anomalies on an image, that's all. An understanding of photography would stop these speculative statements.

See above. Each "anomaly" consists of six consecutive frames, which just so happen to perfectly match the position, angle, speed and direction of Phobos as it sets and rises. And we know that MSL is deliberately taking images of the moon as it rises and sets. Who is speculating exactly?

a reply to: Rob48

Well done Rob. Well done.

A quick visit to the Unmanned Spaceflight Forum will clear up any questions or confusion. The folk there know what they're talking about.

They are long-exposure shots of Phobos setting and rising.

Here's a colour short-exposure of the same event from the Mastcam:


P.S. Shame a similar topic at Space Exploration forum was locked by the mods. It's clearly a space exploration topic, not a UFO one.

Why do we always look for answers using our concept of physics if there are beings out there thousands of years more advanced than us then we need to start thinking out of the box our physics just wont cut it

originally posted by: davyboy
Why do we always look for answers using our concept of physics if there are beings out there thousands of years more advanced than us then we need to start thinking out of the box our physics just wont cut it

Are you suggesting that Phobos is an advanced being or some form of spacecraft, rather than a rocky moon of Mars?

Well well well, here we have a nice dusty subject- the Mars Cylinder! Having just discovered these photos, I have a few questions!

Let me blow the dust off...

Ok, first off, the smug of some commenting here is sooooooo thick, one would need a diamond edged axe to cut through it! Whatever happened to the kind scientist, the explaining scientist, the gentle scientist who would enlighten others who question how he knows what he knows?

He seems to have been replaced by the smug hipster who is utterly secure in his own self and knowledge.

So much for the legacy of Carl Sagan...

Then again in Segan's day, it was much the same- I should know.

Hmmmmmm... First off, do any of you KNOW the resolution of the camera involved here? It seems to me some of you may have enough math and optics knowledge to breakdown just how big Phobos should be in this camera- given the altitude of the moon. It would seem to me as well that we could find the exposure settings for this set of photos from the camera. What was the stop? How long was the exposure- that sort of thing. How can you say it is a timed exposure if you have not provided the data for the shot? You are just spouting opinion- like those that claim it is a cylinder from an alien civilization. NASA surely must have the exposure time for these pics.

Sloppy work gentlemen.

And you wonder why people think there is a conspiracy?

And where is the kind expression of ideas, arguments, THOUGHT?

Instead we see people most sure of themselves that have provided no data, just a statement saying that, "What you see is not what it looks like."

But by the powers of reason and logic, the bywords which all science lives by, the onus is upon those that would deny what looks like a cylinder is NOT a cylinder! Where is your evidence to refute that what is obviously a cylinder streaking round Mars is not a cylinder?

HINT- Browbeating and acting like anyone who says "I see a cylinder" is a moron is what got you science type people in this mess in the first place- it's why those claiming to be scientific have no weight in society any longer.

YOU see a cylinder too- or you really are a moron! The shape in the photos is that of a cylinder!

So where is your evidence that it is not a cylinder? Saying something is so is not evidence- it is the beginning of an argument. (Hopefully a peaceful one.)

And gentlemen, we weigh this by the rules of a court. Stellarium has NOT been proven to be foolproof or even accurate! You would need to first identify WHO puts Stellarium out- oh wait I did. It's a bunch of volunteers. While I applaud their efforts, that's not proof of accuracy. It is a bunch of volunteers. We know nothing of them, who they are, etc. If they made a mistake, who checks them?

The same lies with Google. Who checked them? How do we KNOW their software is correct? This is making an appeal to authority- the same way an Inquisitor did with the Pope. The Pope was an authority- AND HE SAID THIS IS SO. Well even authorities need to make an argument for their case. A Policeman is an authority- do you want him appealing to that fact when you are on trial? So is the judge and the Prosecutor- should we accept what any of them say as fact because they are authorities?

Are Google and Stellarium fact checking at all? If so, how? Who's employed to do that? What are their credentials?

No, the proof of what this is lies with NASA itself. They own the camera, they know the camera settings. They know where Phobos was at the time of the photos. And they can tell you everything you want to know about the make and model of the "Right Side Navigation Camera."

The Dead Pixel Thing: That's an interesting argument. However, did NASA declare what obviously looks like stars in this shot to be dead pixels- or did you? This is what so many of us do. We set ourselves up as experts because we heard somebody once say something. If these are dead pixels, where is that evidence? The onus is upon you that claim what look like stars are really dead pixels- they look like stars.

So until the camera guy for NASA says, "Those things that look like stars are really just dead pixels" or you can find an actual camera expert that can reasonably attest the same thing, you are setting yourselves up as expert strawmen- easily knocked down by even a simpleton such as I.

Let's play "Where's Phobos!?!" So given the two dates involved for BOTH sets of the "Mars Cylinder," are there any Astronomers in here that actually study Mars and Phobos and are not using software like Stellarium to prove their point? After all if I am an astronomer and my job at NASA or JPL or CalTech was to study Mars, I should be able to tell you EXACTLY where Phobos was in relation to NAV Camera B's orientation at the given date and time of each photo.

Lastly... What's a NAV Camera doing pointed at the sky, hmmmmmm? I mean this camera's purpose is supposed to be about avoiding rocks and not getting irreversibly wedged somewhere right?

So why is it pointed skyward?

Science is supposed to play by the rules of logic, reason, argument, thought. Smugness and browbeating have zero purpose in the search for truth- which I thought that's what science was supposed to be- according to some...

Let us then tackle what should be a simple enough subject, given the near decade that has passed since these photos were taken. The data should certainly be out there. I have laid out the case- prove that what looks like a cylinder orbiting Mars is not a cylinder.

And as a subset, explain how what looks like stars in the photos are not stars, but dead pixels in the camera.

For those of you that don't know, an image sensor is composed of tiny, photo sensitive circuits. These circuits burn out- not unlike losing a pixel in your monitor. Except they don't go dark, they go bright. The argument of the Prosecution is that what looks like stars are really dead pixels. But I remind the jury that while this is an interesting, and possible point, the Prosecutor has presented no evidence that this is true. We are awaiting proof from the Prosecution that these are dead pixels.

Prosecutor, present your arguments please.