It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: peter vlar
viewing the link NASA PIC of original photo posted on the NASA site, it is obvious that the image is not several feet from the camera. Plus, the camera can only view objects atleast six feet away from the lense, so the rocks directly around the rover would be the six foot minimum range, as the rover is the size of a car, a camera on top of the car would see the ground about six feet aways from it's own housing. Follow a basic distance judgment up the terrain to a cliff and it is obvious that the structures pointed out in the OP are several hundred feet from the camera, as well as elevated higher, ptobably at least 30 geet above where the rover is. This is all judgment until I see the camera's true specs on a grid that NASA doesn't supply.
originally posted by: skyblueworld
Good find OP, no idea what they are, keep up the good work!!
originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: peter vlar
viewing the link NASA PIC of original photo posted on the NASA site, it is obvious that the image is not several feet from the camera. Plus, the camera can only view objects atleast six feet away from the lense, so the rocks directly around the rover would be the six foot minimum range, as the rover is the size of a car, a camera on top of the car would see the ground about six feet aways from it's own housing. Follow a basic distance judgment up the terrain to a cliff and it is obvious that the structures pointed out in the OP are several hundred feet from the camera, as well as elevated higher, ptobably at least 30 geet above where the rover is. This is all judgment until I see the camera's true specs on a grid that NASA doesn't supply.
originally posted by: Mclaneinc
Removed a quote of an actioned post.
originally posted by: carl6405
OMG!!(Thought just entered the brain)
I haven't read through every post, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologize.
The "Mars Ghost Girl" isn't a ghost at all. The photo is translucent because she is actually moving and caused the still shot to be blurred!! Slow shutter speeds causes any moving object to come out blurred. Anyone that has used a camera knows this!
So.. if it isn't a person.. sure looks like it though.. But if it is not.. it is something else that is moving causing the image to blur! That is a fact!