UFO Descends On Mars, Curiosity NASA, June 23 , page 2

RUFFREADY

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:52 AM

link

a reply to: Fisherr

Thanks for all that work!! I'm looking ..

MarioOnTheFly

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:56 AM

link

a reply to: Fisherr

so im saying pixel

if you mean dead pixel....than I don't understand your premise...It would have to present on all pics...not just 2...unless later manually doctored out.

ArMaP

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:57 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: RUFFREADY
You took the words out of my brain lol!! Thanks ...we must remember there are a few not so bright people around and they just like to stir the pot, so to say! lol!! or just be mean to be mean

You should also remember that other people. do not know if you are the person that named the video, so you should be clear about your position and point that the thread title is the same as the video, as has been suggested many times to make it easier to find specific videos on ATS.

To me, it looks like more cases of white pixels, like the one I circled in yellow in the following image.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Soylent Green Is People

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:01 AM

link

originally posted by: UNIT76
i'm wondering what happens when a speck of dirt or something manages to find itself on the lens..
"zomg, a UFO has been following the mars rover!!"

There is already a speck of dust on the lens of the right Mast Cam (only the right). The dust has been there since they landed, and appears in every picture from the right Mast Cam (upper-middle part of the images):

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 6/27/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

RUFFREADY

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:10 AM

link

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks for your input!

I thought what I said in the OP was very much enuff..but you "could" be right.

I really have no idea if this is a real object or a camera artifact or pixel thing going on..but it's something!

It does seem like some very smart posters (like yourself) have help answered what the heck it is ..which is the bottom line.

tow69

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:17 AM

link

a reply to: Kromlech

Except for the second shot shows the object below the hills

Fisherr

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:40 AM

link

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Fisherr

so im saying pixel

if you mean dead pixel....than I don't understand your premise...It would have to present on all pics...not just 2...unless later manually doctored out.

Yes, Dead pixel is what i meant, but then what you said makes sense as it would be in other pictures, it's why i said it is on some but not in others.. stuck pixel maybe?
(I would love it to be something else)

edit on 27-6-2014 by Fisherr because: (no reason given)

Bilky

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:43 AM

link

I am on prepaid data and I want the data that I had to expend to watch this bollocks back. I find this offensive in its stupidity.

Urantia1111

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:11 AM

link

I love these jackholes who show up to post what "this more likely is" and deride the OP for the quality of the evidence. We already know it COULD be a "dead pixil" (the debunkers best friend) or dust or reflection. What the video proposes is that here's something that shouldn't be there per what we're told about Mars. But no, let's disregard all potential evidence of ufos because that's the cool thing to do here.

Char-Lee

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 10:30 AM

link

originally posted by: Bilky
I am on prepaid data and I want the data that I had to expend to watch this bollocks back. I find this offensive in its stupidity.

I always feel sorry for those who don't seem to understand they CHOOSE how they spend their time, so why then do they always complain.

abeverage

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 10:34 AM

link

originally posted by: Fisherr
It's in more then one shot even when the rover moved?
but then on some shots it's not there.

But it is in the same place on first two, so im saying pixel.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

OP pic.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

little movement but not there..
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

All the pictures are on page 665.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...#/?slide=665

Did you notice the exposure was higher on the one where it is "Not There"

Interesting...

Char-Lee

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:16 AM

link

a reply to: abeverage

Did you notice the exposure was higher on the one where it is "Not There"

Interesting...

What would that suggest?

abeverage

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:47 AM

link

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: abeverage

Did you notice the exposure was higher on the one where it is "Not There"

Interesting...

What would that suggest?

The "possible" light source would be eliminated at a faster exposure is what I am suggesting.

howmuch4another

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 01:07 PM

link

setting aside the pixel argument or the cosmic ray stuff.

Is it possible that one of the many confirmed dust devils on mars could have picked up a quartz like particle that caught sunlight on its decent to the surface?

Things can be settling long after the dust devil subsides. especially in low gravity.

ArMaP

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:51 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: RUFFREADY
I thought what I said in the OP was very much enuff..but you "could" be right.

It's never enough for some people.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 27/6/2014 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

ArMaP

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:54 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
What the video proposes is that here's something that shouldn't be there per what we're told about Mars.

Then I suppose I missed it.
Could you please point to me where in the video is that proposed?

Thanks in advance.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

ArMaP

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:58 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: howmuch4another
Is it possible that one of the many confirmed dust devils on mars could have picked up a quartz like particle that caught sunlight on its decent to the surface?

I doubt it, for two reasons:
1 - although gravity is lower on Mars, making it easier for things to fly in the wind, the atmosphere is much less dense than on Earth (and we can see that on the photos from Curiosity), so it's harder to float heavier particles.
2 - It would have to be a large particle to reflect the light like that at that distance (any distance that would made a dust devil remnants invisible)

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

howmuch4another

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:00 PM

link

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks ArMap. I appreciate a serious answer as I wasn't being flip.

Pimpintology

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:06 PM

link

Star and flag OP because trolls came right out of the woodwork for no reason what so ever. You even said it could be a camera problem. You did not claim it was proof of anything and the trolls hit the ground running. I rarely post on this site anymore. They are the reason.

ATSZOMBIE

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:19 PM

link

Looks to me like a common 'lens flare' of some kind.