Found something moving in sky images from the Curiosity Rover (NOT overloaded pixels). Sol 154

reply to post by impaired


First of all you must accept the rules in this forum and don't say the word stop to any opinion
you can discuss with solid evidence based on facts. I'm not spoiling your party but providing
facts on this subject, I posted a most convincent video explaining the white and black dots
as the well known dead pixels issues in most Mars rovers pictures. I invite all the members
reading this thread to watch my video on page 2 demonstrating how dead pixels can be
mistaken as UFOs and these dead pixels are very frequent in many images taken by the
rovers cameras and it doesn't matter wich camera. This is the case with these pictures by
the Curioosity Rover and my video on page 2 proves it, it's a fact.

On the other hand impaired actually doesn't know what are the dots in the images he posted
wich clearly result in speculations, he even suggests these dots may be dust, speculations.
Nobody here concluded these dots are not dead pixels, on the countrary most of the opinions
favour the dead pixels explanation despite the efforts of impaired to prevent his party to crash.
i don't care if impaired is extremely pissed off , I provided facts images and links supporting
the explanation for these images posted by him, extremely small and I mean more that small
almost microscopic as anybody can see in the images on page 1, welll those microscopic
dots in the pictures mean nothing, I can post many many similar pictures with microscopic
dots that are simply dead pixels but what is the case, the explanation is more than obvious.

I invite again all the members to watch my video explanation of the white and black dots wich
are simply dead pixels on page 2 and make your own judgement.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by free_spirit


Keep going back to blown pixels which is what the OP is NOT talking about... I'm talking about "x", you're talking about "n".

That's fine. The ATS community will judge for themselves. I think they already know that what you are posting and what I am posting are two different things.

Probably just spots on the sensor, dead pixels, I get them all the time

Originally posted by free_spirit
reply to post by impaired

 

I invite again all the members to watch my video explanation of the white and black dots wich
are simply dead pixels on page 2 and make your own judgement.

What is your explanation as to why the white dead pixels move from place to place in the image while the black dead pixels do not? Are these pixels sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent? Your video only includes a single image so it's impossible to say whether those dots stay in the same position from image to image.

In the OP image you very clearly have 3 dead pixels that stay exactly in the same place from frame to frame, with one that appears to move around. Your video does not explain this nor has anything you posted. I think impaired's frustration is that you're just dismissing this phenomenon without actually providing a real answer.

If you can show another sequence with moving dead pixels then you will have a case.

Originally posted by evictiongnostic

Originally posted by free_spirit
reply to post by impaired

 

I invite again all the members to watch my video explanation of the white and black dots wich
are simply dead pixels on page 2 and make your own judgement.

What is your explanation as to why the white dead pixels move from place to place in the image while the black dead pixels do not? Are these pixels sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent? Your video only includes a single image so it's impossible to say whether those dots stay in the same position from image to image.

In the OP image you very clearly have 3 dead pixels that stay exactly in the same place from frame to frame, with one that appears to move around. Your video does not explain this nor has anything you posted. I think impaired's frustration is that you're just dismissing this phenomenon without actually providing a real answer.

If you can show another sequence with moving dead pixels then you will have a case.

Thank you - yes. This is it.

You nailed it. Thanks.

And he deleted and disabled my comments from his Youtube video. I wasn't rude - nothing of the sort. I just said, "This is not what we are talking about - why do you keep insisting?"

It almost seems like he has an agenda. Not being paranoid, but why would you censor your comments if you had nothing to hide (in this case, being wrong)?

If I'm wrong about something, I will promptly admit it. I have done it before right here on ATS. I may have looked stupid, but I value my integrity and honesty over how I look.

I try.

We are here looking for truth and answers.

What he is doing - I don't like. He's not being honest and he seems to be getting angry when I call him out. Then he goes right back to blown pixels...

I just reported his video as being inaccurate and I explained how he disabled comments, which is not how it should work, considering he was complaining before (in his last post) about "following rules".

That is not being objective. And I will not stand for that. He can come back here again and try again with his same song and dance.

Read his last post and read what I just typed.

Originally posted by free_spirit
reply to post by impaired

 

First of all you must accept the rules in this forum and don't say the word stop to any opinion
you can discuss with solid evidence based on facts

.i don't care if impaired is extremely pissed off I invite again all the members to watch my video explanation of the white and black dots wich are simply dead pixels on page 2 and make your own judgement.

I'm not mad. I think we all know who is, though.

So, back to the topic. What do we have here?

reply to post by evictiongnostic


So you claim this microscopic white dot is a real UFO? Fine let's put the cards on the table.
What do you and impaired got? Three images from Curiosity SOL 154 showing microscopic
black and white dots, the claim is that while the black dots are indeed dead pixels the
white dot is not. What kind of criterion are you using to claim as a fact that this extremely
small or microscopic white dot is not a dead pixel, allegedly that it seems to move, really?
I don't see the same thing, i just see another white dot like the hundreds appearing in the
Mars rovers pictures but in any case if you both are claiming this white dot is a UFO like
the UFOs we know I don't think you have a case here, the claim is extremely weak and
seems more a case of Pareidolia. We need more substantial evidence, more convincing
proof that just a tiny little microscopic white dot that can be anything and at the same time
nothing to be proven as a fact, that's the way it is and if you both are happy believing it is a
real UFO over Mars go ahead and make your lfe more simple.

Here is another video I made from Curiosity SOL 141 demonstrating these dead pixels are
present all the time in most Mars rovers pictures, in my vfirst video on page 2 I showed
white dots and in this one i show black dots. Here it is for a better judgement, watch it
in full screen for a better definition.





By the way, the comments and arguments are made here in ATS sir, not in a Youtube channel
unless you are just a kid so any discussion, argument or comment is going to be posted only
here in this ATS forum so go ahead.

And also - hold the phone - The video he posted are of images from another rover! They're not even from Curiosity! They're from one of the MER rovers.

He's playing dirty. As the OP of this thread, I feel it is my duty to bring awareness to this - as people have starred the post when it's grossly misrepresented. That's just not right what he is doing.

Edit - Read his post below. He says it said that some images were from other rovers. Apparently I missed that. If so, I admit that. But that's still deviating from what is in question.


Double edit: He did NOT specify which rover. Go to the Youtube video from page 2 which is the one he is talking about. This is the title of his video from youtube:

Published on Jan 20, 2013 Mars rover The white dots explained

There is no description and no audio. So, I take back my apology.

reply to post by free_spirit


I NEVER SAID ALIENS.

UFO is unidentified. - I already posted that. I am using term very loosely and that was explained right in the OP.

I am reporting your posts. This is ridiculous. You are trolling me.

Still showing blown pixels. This has gone far enough.

No explanation on why you deleted your Youtube comments and disabled them all together?

Edit - I see you edited your post to explain why you disabled them.

I think I know why you disabled them.

Hey - I said "Think", not "Know". We ARE paying attention to the words I am using, right? I am being super cautious with that.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by free_spirit
Definitely you are acting as a bad kid, that's too bad. About the videos and in case you
can't read english, I said pictures from the mars Rovers showing black and white dots
that are dead pixels and I provided examples from Mars Rovers to prove the point.

It says that? Now? If I missed it, then here's my apology. I take back THAT post - if you didn't just quickly edit your topic (which I honestly don't know if you did or not, and I'm not saying you did). Personal insults I see as well... Oh boy. And he says I'm angry.

Originally posted by free_spirit
Now, I know you will be furious again forgetting this is a discussion forum so don't be a
bad kid, control your temper and behave yourself before you have a heart attack.

You like to assume. And I see what you're doing here. I can assure you I am FRUSTRATED. Not mad. Big difference. And you resorting to personal insults is just diminishing your credibly every time. You keep saying I'm angry, but who's having the temper?

Originally posted by free_spirit
You still haven't proved anything here so the discussion is still open, show more cards.

I made this thread so we CAN find out. I didn't make this thread to show proof - I don't have any! I made this thread to ASK. It's right here all over the thread. I never said it was anything. We're trying to figure out what it is NOT.

So I asked the ATS community to help.

Thanks for stopping by, though. If you feel compelled to keep posting, by all means go for it. You won't see me try to censor YOU.

Besides, we have a thread here to get to.

Thanks for your explanation, but I simply don't agree - to put it in one sentence. If you want to keep going, I can't stop you, but it may make you look "angry".

Thanks anyway, though.

reply to post by free_spirit

I don't see the relevancy. In the OP, there are 3 different pictures, showing the dots in a different position. You post a 'video' of a single image with pixels that obviously don't change position.

reply to post by NJoyZ


You're absolutely right. Thanks Good idea.

ATTENTION PLEASE:

Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

The back and forth bickering has gone on long enough. Keep this conversation on the topic and off each other please.

Everyone is welcome to post their opinions whether others agree or not. If you don't agree, don't respond unless you have something meaningful to add to the topic. Post your opinion or evidence and leave it at that instead of bickering in the thread. You need not agree with each other to remain civil.

More of this and post removals will follow.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Thank you.

Back to the topic, will make an animated GIF of more from other Sols and see if we have a pattern.

Ok. Here are 20 images from the NavCam (Sol 160) at 750 milliseconds apart. That is 17 more images than we had for the Sol in the OP.

There are more things here. I'm thinking meteors or dust... But I still am not sure.



From 5:49:04 to 5:53:05. That's 241 seconds.