Mars Rover Opportunity camera catches UFO?

Vertu,

Why is it not also on the right camera's image?
Thats what makes me think it is dust.

After reading this thread I started checking the raw feed pics
and found another:

link


source:

Left Navigation Camera Non-linearized Full frame EDR acquired on Sol 367 of Spirit's mission to Gusev Crater at approximately 15:17:25 Mars local solar time. NASA/JPL





[edit on 15-1-2005 by freudwasright]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Vertu,

Why is it not also on the right camera's image?
Thats what makes me think it is dust.

Even a tiny dust on the lens could be more disturbing... therefore it is something in the air, away from the camera. Dust can hover in the sky too, but it's not on the lens.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I think it is a speck of dust that was either on the lense for a period of time of was blowing in front of the camera at that moment.. I don't think anything concrete can be deuced from several pixels of information, saying you can tell 'it's metallic' or a 'saucer' from about 4 pixels of information is ridicolous, sorry...

Um, obviously you didnt read very well the introduction. Spec of dust has already been ruled out by NASA itself.

Spec of dust blowing around can easily be ruled out too. Last time I checked, you cant see a spec of dust blowing around. Plus, the washout of the light on this object makes it pretty clear this flying object is at somewhat of a distance, also ruling out a spec of dust, which would be totally invisible more than a few feet away.

READ before you post.

Sorry, I was a little hasty....
Incidently, what's all this about:

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

I thought the rover was well away from it's lander, I havn't been following it lately I admit.. Did they drive back?

EDIT:

Sorry dumb question, I've found out now...

[edit on 16-1-2005 by AgentSmith]

The following quote was taken off the blog originally linked to in the first post:

"One camera would trigger the other camera when it was fired. This would create a delay of just a few milliseconds between the exposures."

Does anyone have a reference to a link at NASA or elsewhere to independently confirm this?

If true, than this would provide an explanation to the question put forth by spacedoubt, as given enough velocity, it is very plausible that the object could exit the frame of the photograph within the allotted time between the shutter release of the 1st (left) and 2nd (right) cameras.

As to your question below, Dawnaj, yes, this was in fact addressed earlier in this thread, near the bottom of page 3 as well near the top of page 4.


[edit on 16-1-2005 by sdrumrunner]

This is probably nothing, but when I examined the pic in Photoshop I noticed something that noone has commented on yet. I´m no expert in picture analyses but I thought it was worth bringing up.

zoomed in print screen of the picture in photoshop

Why is there a checkered pattern when the picture is zoomed in?
This might be something that is due to jpeg compression, I don´t know - have never seen it before while zooming ufo/mars/moon pics.

I have done nothing to the org. image, just the red pencil offcourse

Originally posted by Dawnaj
This is probably nothing, but when I examined the pic in Photoshop I noticed something that noone has commented on yet. I´m no expert in picture analyses but I thought it was worth bringing up.

zoomed in print screen of the picture in photoshop

Why is there a checkered pattern when the picture is zoomed in?
This might be something that is due to jpeg compression, I don´t know - have never seen it before while zooming ufo/mars/moon pics.

I have done nothing to the org. image, just the red pencil offcourse

Well, the program has to put SOMETHING in place of all the missing pixels when you zoom over the 1:1 screen pixel scale, doesnt it?

I couldn't help but to laugh at some of you. Seriously, I was sitting here laughing. Any LITTLE thing you see you'll assume it's a UFO. No wonder why the people who believe in UFO's are labled crazy... It's because of people like you. Taking any little thing you find and saying it's a UFO.

Originally posted by Sabac
I couldn't help but to laugh at some of you. Seriously, I was sitting here laughing. Any LITTLE thing you see you'll assume it's a UFO. No wonder why the people who believe in UFO's are labled crazy... It's because of people like you. Taking any little thing you find and saying it's a UFO.

I think such a comment should be placed in its proper context, as it is only fair to acknowledge that most of the serious posters here -- even those whose belief system readily excepts the existence (and in some cases presence) of extraterresial life -- are rather objective in their analysis, and are the first to admit that there opinions are just that -- opinions.

Furthermore, for every person here who is so quick to jump to absolute conclusions based largely on precursory data, there seems to be at least one person who will never make allowances in their belief system for the existence of ET life, regardless of the vast quantities of documentation and evidence to suggest otherwise.

That having been said, it would be nice if your posts could actually add value to the discussion instead of simply attempting to discredit it in such a dismissive manner.

***

In this particular instance, there is the appearance of consistent lighting conditions as they pertain to the anomoly and the ambient lighting conditions present in the photograph.

Other posters in this thread have linked to images which appear to have something present on the lens or in the foreground, which differs greatly from this particular image, as these other anomolies have a) no depth, and are 2-dimensional in appearance (which in itself suggests that they are most likely in a different focal plane from the focal length of the rover's lens) and b) do not display any signs of sharing ambient lighting conditions as does this particular object (furthermore, this would be consistent with dust or particulate matter on the lens).

The particular object in question not only appears to be at least partially in the same focal plane as the lens, but also appears to share ambient lighting conditions (e.g., appears top-lit and shaded underneath).

Please note that the preceding statement does not make an arbitrary claim as to what the object is or is not. However, the available data -- you know, the "stuff" you use to make informed decisions? -- seems as if it might suggest an explanation that is favorable to the pro-existence camp.

Originally posted by sdrumrunner

The following quote was taken off the blog originally linked to in the first post:

"One camera would trigger the other camera when it was fired. This would create a delay of just a few milliseconds between the exposures."

Does anyone have a reference to a link at NASA or elsewhere to independently confirm this?

The navcams are a stereo pair of camera’s , but i couldn’t find any real technical explanation on how they work, im not a really that technical minded. There are various pdf files about, which may contain more info. Google technical information for mars rover navcam

Well, the program has to put SOMETHING in place of all the missing pixels when you zoom over the 1:1 screen pixel scale, doesnt it?

I dont understand. Im usually not thickheaded but I just dont get it.
But I guess its no conspiracy surrounding it so thx anyway.

I just remembered something.
The filenames contain the "time since launch"..
It's in the left portion of the filename, after the 1N (1 for opportunity, N for Navcam). And before the EFF portion of the name.

I don't remember how to decode it into actual time..I'll have to research that..MAybe this will help.

Originally posted by sdrumrunner

Originally posted by Sabac
I couldn't help but to laugh at some of you. Seriously, I was sitting here laughing. Any LITTLE thing you see you'll assume it's a UFO. No wonder why the people who believe in UFO's are labled crazy... It's because of people like you. Taking any little thing you find and saying it's a UFO.

I think such a comment should be placed in its proper context, as it is only fair to acknowledge that most of the serious posters here -- even those whose belief system readily excepts the existence (and in some cases presence) of extraterresial life -- are rather objective in their analysis, and are the first to admit that there opinions are just that -- opinions.

Furthermore, for every person here who is so quick to jump to absolute conclusions based largely on precursory data, there seems to be at least one person who will never make allowances in their belief system for the existence of ET life, regardless of the vast quantities of documentation and evidence to suggest otherwise.

That having been said, it would be nice if your posts could actually add value to the discussion instead of simply attempting to discredit it in such a dismissive manner.

***

In this particular instance, there is the appearance of consistent lighting conditions as they pertain to the anomoly and the ambient lighting conditions present in the photograph.

Other posters in this thread have linked to images which appear to have something present on the lens or in the foreground, which differs greatly from this particular image, as these other anomolies have a) no depth, and are 2-dimensional in appearance (which in itself suggests that they are most likely in a different focal plane from the focal length of the rover's lens) and b) do not display any signs of sharing ambient lighting conditions as does this particular object (furthermore, this would be consistent with dust or particulate matter on the lens).

The particular object in question not only appears to be at least partially in the same focal plane as the lens, but also appears to share ambient lighting conditions (e.g., appears top-lit and shaded underneath).

Please note that the preceding statement does not make an arbitrary claim as to what the object is or is not. However, the available data -- you know, the "stuff" you use to make informed decisions?

-- seems as if it might suggest an explanation that is favorable to the pro-existence camp.

You didn't have to write me a novel. I just get straight to the point with what I have to say. I'm not going to beat around the bush. It's pretty obvious that there are no UFO in that picture. You don't have to be a scientist to figure that out. There is no need for an explanation when you can clearly see it's nothing. End of story. I'm not one of these geeks that get hard-ons over nothing and try to make it INTO something.

Thanks for bringing this photo to our attention.

I don't know how you guys come up with the cigar shaped idea, because it looks disk shaped to me. Cigar shaped I would expect a longer object.

It definately looks like some sort of craft to me. If it was dust wouldn't we see the same dust on other photos such as the one before & after that photo.

As far as it being three objects that is definately pixelation & not three seperate objects. I could be wrong, but I've been working with computer graphics since 1986 & that's my opinion.

Originally posted by Dawnaj

Why is there a checkered pattern when the picture is zoomed in?

Again this just the effect you get with digital photos the software is trying to shade & blend.

Originally posted by Sabac
I couldn't help but to laugh at some of you. Seriously, I was sitting here laughing. Any LITTLE thing you see you'll assume it's a UFO. No wonder why the people who believe in UFO's are labled crazy... It's because of people like you. Taking any little thing you find and saying it's a UFO.

I tend to read most of these forums with an open mind. With an open mind, you consider all possibilities and if you want to help the discussion a long, you generally apply your skills to the matter at hand.

The very acronym of UFO is indeed non other then UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
NOT, I repeat, NOT ALIEN FLYING SAUCER.
The people in this thread have come to the simple conclusion that this 'anomoly' isn't a piece of dirt or a spec of dust.
Hence the further inspection of the image. From what I have read, their findings are well founded... An object in the sky that is not dirt, has depth, and is lit as it should be if it was leaving the planets surface.

Is that a phone in my pocket or am I just excited to see this image? *pad* Oh, just my phone.

Back on track... To whom ever pointed out a possible shadow on the ground and provided a picture. Nice finding, but unfortunately it is indeed a rock. I will explain in the terms of proportion. If an object the size of a cigar shaped UFO leaving the surface of the planet of some distance away, would leave a shadow roughly the size of the object equal to around the distance from the camera times the height from the ground. Or some such... It is the same method used to calculate the height of a tree, by measuring its shadow and a shadow of a nearby meter pole and multiplying the difference.
In short, the shadow should be MUCH larger. Another example is when a plane flies overhead and casts a shadow... It's shadow is massive because of the distance the light projection has to travel.

Either way, the shadow doesn't match the object that is of some distance from the camera/ground.

I hope my ramblings have made some scence.
That's my 2cents for the thread

Originally posted by Sabac
You didn't have to write me a novel. I just get straight to the point with what I have to say. I'm not going to beat around the bush. It's pretty obvious that there are no UFO in that picture. You don't have to be a scientist to figure that out. There is no need for an explanation when you can clearly see it's nothing. End of story. I'm not one of these geeks that get hard-ons over nothing and try to make it INTO something.

I'll ask again, and this time keep it short: Why bother posting if you're not going to actually say anyting?

What point is it you were trying to make? That everyone else is wrong? Hell, even NASA admitted to there being something in the photograph. But no -- you're too small-minded to actually read the big words in the thread, or do anything to inform yourself for that matter.

Truth of the matter is, you really don't know anything, and are left to speculate just like everyone else. Stating otherwise as you have -- repeatedly now -- just demonstrates your lack of capacity for critical thought.

But is that enough? No... you had to go and try to insult everyone on this board. Nice...

But nevermind, in retrospect, what's the point. Reading what I just wrote, I really doubt you'll get it...

Since this area is the impact point of the Rovers Heatshield,
and there are lots of pieces lying around.




Is it possible that we are seeing a windborne piece of debris,
from this shield? Did we just miss a photo-op of one of those
famous martian dust devils? Or perhaps, just a nice breeze..

Remember the "bunny/crab" thing from the beginning of the mission?
It was a piece of the airbag, that just blew in, then out of the picture.

Just another thought, because I'm still wondering, right along with the rest of you!

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Since this area is the impact point of the Rovers Heatshield,
and there are lots of pieces lying around.




Is it possible that we are seeing a windborne piece of debris,
from this shield? Did we just miss a photo-op of one of those
famous martian dust devils? Or perhaps, just a nice breeze..

Remember the "bunny/crab" thing from the beginning of the mission?
It was a piece of the airbag, that just blew in, then out of the picture.

Just another thought, because I'm still wondering, right along with the rest of you!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, now youre talking. Thank you for bringing this up.

Since dust had already been ruled out of the picture, i was trying to think of some conventional explaination that might explain it, at least until conventional explainations were ruled out and a UFO could be considered.

I did not know that there were so many scattered shreds laying around from the landing, as I have no idea or info exactly what happened to the stuff upon impact, how it broke down, ect. That would actually be something to look into. Find out what the protective landing gear is made of. How strong the winds were if any when that picture was taken. And also, how far from the landing site the rover was at that time.

This could be a possible avenue to finding out exactly what that object is, since I was at a loss as to what could be on the martian surface that would blow around and be that size. Obviously, terrestrial things like leaves, birds, weatherbaloons, planes, ect are out of the question....at least that we know of! .

Maybe it could be a shred of one of those cushon shock absorpbing ballons, as they were made of light enough stuff i imagine to become shreded, and maybe flap about in the wind.

Again this just the effect you get with digital photos the software is trying to shade & blend.

Ok, thx for clearing it up for me.