Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
qxcontinuum

Another flying object on mars

60 posts in this topic

Browsing through the latest pics from Mars this has caught my attention

Interesting enough the object appears in a stationary position pic 1 then moving in a trajectory caught by the camera

RLB_446146588EDR_F0270968RHAZ00311M_.JPG

RRB_446146588EDR_F0270968RHAZ00311M_.JPG

Edited by qxcontinuum
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Earth and the Moon. I could be wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this ...i can clearly see an object far ahead close to the crest of the hill while in the second pic is gone. This is amazing !

FRB_446146561EDR_F0270968FHAZ00302M_.JPG

FLB_446146561EDR_F0270968FHAZ00302M_.JPG

Here in this one the object has moved up in the air

FRB_446048625EDR_F0270024FHAZ00323M_.JPG

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooooo... where is this so called flying object?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I/we get started, will you be questioning every single spot you see on a mars picture? And have you taken previously given advice to learn a bit about photography, digital sensors, lens/processing artefacts, etc, and applied a bit of common sense along the lines of..

- what might cause a spot in one image not be in another? (eg different cameras, different camera/sun angles)

- are dark and bright spots always part of the actual scene, or could they be sensor defects, lens flares, dust specks, HEP strikes (I and others explained HEP strikes earlier..) and so on..

- what would happen when the bright sun, just out of the image frame but shining onto the lens, might strike a bit of dust on/in the lens/filter/s?

Now I'm not saying which (if any) of those might apply above, but it would sure be impressive if you showed that you were learning from your interchanges here, and thence becoming able to be more selective in your choices as time progresses...

So, after considering the wild ideas above along with other topics already covered, and thinking about them, are all of the above images still unexplained, in your opinion?

Teach a boy to fish, etc...

Edited by ChrLzs
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the pictures posted above were taken by a single camera: haze cam rear .The object is not a lens flare or dust speck. I am surprised that you did not noticed the two round orbs from lenses appearing in every image taken in the same position reported to each other including one that is very close to the object. You can notice the object is changing the location and distance comparing to the orb which means is not on the lens....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Earth and the Moon. I could be wrong.

What about Phobos and Deimos?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the second "object" appears in the exact same spot in pictures one and three, which leads me to think it's something with the camera. this isn't anywhere near enough to convince me.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First up, when you first post images like these, please supply image references. Yes, we *may* be able to open the images and then check the image file details to find out (more about that in a second), but not doing so is, at best, just plain LAZY and shows you are not wanting to help out anyone who wishes to find the images quickly. That suggests you are either making it deliberately difficult or are blissfully unaware of how to do real corroborative research. You will look a lot more professional if you do so in future.

In regard to these images, they are not using the normal NASA image filenaming convention.. I'm pretty sure I know where you got them, but I think I'll put the onus back on you.

CITE the images. From their original source and using the correct NASA filenames.

Next, please take a bit of care in your typing...

All the pictures posted above were taken by a single camera: haze cam rear

'HAZE' cam? :) It's a HAZ (Hazard) camera. It is a low resolution device designed NOT for high resolution analysis, just to help out with basic navigation and avoiding hazards, eg rocks that might tip/stop the rover. And you are certain they are all from the rear hazcam?

The object is not a lens flare or dust speck.

What brings you to that conclusion? A real investigator doesn't just make proclamations...

I am surprised that you did not noticed the two round orbs from lenses

Perhaps that is because I didn't mention ANY of the stuff I see on those images - I have not even begun, and WON'T until you properly identify and cite the images.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made an error!!! I just said this:

In regard to these images, they are not using the normal NASA image filenaming convention.. I'm pretty sure I know where you got them, but I think I'll put the onus back on you.

{ERRATA!!!} That is incorrect and I apologise for the error. It appears NASA does use another naming convention on some imagery, so I unreservedly apologise for the implication that these images came from a non-NASA source. BUT the point still stands - Qxcontinuum needs to CITE his images to allow identification.... FTR, here is where the usual image identifiers are explained, and that clearly doesn't match these filenames (those images always start with a 1 or 2 and are 27 characters long), hence my initial assumption the images above had been renamed. Sorry about that.

NOTE that as soon as I find an error in my stuff, I admit it, explain why I made it, apologise and learn from my mistake. Let's see how Qxcontinuum goes with that approach - firstly, about these images all coming from the same rear hazcam, Qxc, have you anything to say...? :D

Edited by ChrLzs
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, here's a little hint about *some of* the cameras in question:

raw-image1b.jpg

That image comes from here at The Mars.JPL website, under the title FRONT Hazard Avoidance Cameras (see, QxC, that's how citing works). How many cameras do you see?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's rename this website to "Explained Non-Mysteries". If anyone even brings up the thought that something could be extraterrestrial, they are pretty much called an idiot.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, here's a little hint about *some of* the cameras in question:

raw-image1b.jpg

That image comes from here at The Mars.JPL website, under the title FRONT Hazard Avoidance Cameras (see, QxC, that's how citing works). How many cameras do you see?

Good god, who really cares? Why do you have to make such a big deal out of the OP's thread by tearing everything apart that he has said? Your just a bully Imao.

Can't believe that your a Gold Coaster, as I am too.

The stinking hot weather got to you or something huh??

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's rename this website to "Explained Non-Mysteries". If anyone even brings up the thought that something could be extraterrestrial, they are pretty much called an idiot.

No, they get called idiots if they're taking explicable phenomena and turning them into "OMFG ALIENS!".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god, who really cares? Why do you have to make such a big deal out of the OP's thread by tearing everything apart that he has said? Your just a bully Imao.

Can't believe that your a Gold Coaster, as I am too.

The stinking hot weather got to you or something huh??

How about you and CrysiiSx2 report any posts you find offensive, and address the topic. Getting back to what the thread is about:

1. what is your opinion of the images?

2. do you think people should cite their images?

3. do you think Qxcontinuum is right when he states unequivocally that they were all taken by the same rear haz camera? (hint - NO)

4. do you think the fact that the images being compared *weren't* taken on the same camera might be important? (hint - YES)

5. have you been involved in previous qxcontinuum threads on this same topic?

And to answer the question - 'who really cares'? The answer would be those who are interested in the topic and working out whether any 'mystery' exists. If you are one of those, feel free to answer the questions above.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the second "object" appears in the exact same spot in pictures one and three, which leads me to think it's something with the camera. this isn't anywhere near enough to convince me.

Yes, very well spotted - pictures one and three (from Q's second post) ARE from the same camera but at different times (note filename clues, the tread marks and mountain in one but not the other and the obviously different shadow angle). Pic two, however, was taken by the next door 'stereo pair' camera - it is NEXT to the one that took pics one and three. So it's hardly surprising that it is clear of the obvious camera sensor defect. It's a different camera, despite QxC's assurances otherwise.

I'll refrain from discussing the rest of the issues as I think it would be good for Q's education if he put some effort in and showed it. He could start by citing the images properly, and then telling us which cameras really took which images and correcting and *explaining* his error about them all being from the same rear hazcam.

Back to you QxC.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one enjoy Chrlzs inputs on imagery. For the serious researcher we get to find out what things are, so we therefore explore the mystery and know better next time. Heck you never know, maybe thru peoples talents at analysing images we may indeed find a true mystery, and thats what the game is all about, weeding out the crap!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pictures were all taken from the following website

http://curiosityrove...CFfBj7AodSnwABg

So qx, whats your thoughts on what they are, keeping in mind the last time we looked at mars streaks in the sky? Have you any enlargements of the 'thingies'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see a squiggle in one of your pics qx, but for those who dont go to this link where you can zoom. Its left of centre top

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/00549/opgs/edr/fcam/FRB_446240209EDR_F0271004FHAZ00302M_.JPG

FRB_446240209EDR_F0271004FHAZ00302M_.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I say that I've looked VERY hard at every aspect of these 5 images and will happily elaborate in some detail on why the 'anomalies' are not anomalies at all - they are known camera issues, most of which we have already seen. They are not real scene detail, not flying, (mostly) not 'objects', and they are identifiable. I will explain and also show enlargements and examples of the effects on other images, after Q has done what he needs to ..

Thank you for the attempted citation, Q. Bit of a shame that the images aren't on that page, but I guess it changes content as they come in... Strangely, your other images seem to link back to the NASA site... Oh well, it was a start. But can you also please answer the questions I asked (if you don't know, just say, I can help...)

Q.1. Which cameras took these 5 images?

After you answer that, can you explain why you said, and I quote:

All the pictures posted above were taken by a single camera: haze cam rear

and then

Q.2. On what basis did you dismiss "lens flares and dust specks"?

(I partially agree, by the way, but a couple of these things are indeed dust specks.)

To Seeder, you are doing my work for me (I bet pericynthion will be here next.. :D) - thanks! You'll notice that the image you selected was NOT one of Q's , and yet there is that exact same image defect, exactly in the same place in the image frame, along with the little fuzzy blob to its left. It's the same camera, of course. Us camera-expert-pretenders generally take that (along with its appearance) as a pretty dang good indication that the 'thing' is a sensor defect, and the fuzzy one as a bit of dust on/in the lens, thrown out of focus. Sensor defects by their nature (ie being ON the sensor) are invariably in exceptionally good 'focus' - more about this later.. and I'll do some animations showing the perfect alignment.

As for the other bright white and jet black (there's a hint..) bits - they are different, but they are incredibly easy to prove as NOT UFO's (examine the ENTIRE images carefully - what do you see?) ... but I'm tired and going to bed - g'nite all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, very well spotted - pictures one and three (from Q's second post) ARE from the same camera but at different times (note filename clues, the tread marks and mountain in one but not the other and the obviously different shadow angle). Pic two, however, was taken by the next door 'stereo pair' camera - it is NEXT to the one that took pics one and three. So it's hardly surprising that it is clear of the obvious camera sensor defect. It's a different camera, despite QxC's assurances otherwise.

I'll refrain from discussing the rest of the issues as I think it would be good for Q's education if he put some effort in and showed it. He could start by citing the images properly, and then telling us which cameras really took which images and correcting and *explaining* his error about them all being from the same rear hazcam.

Back to you QxC.

Chrisz - do you realize that by right clicking on every picture posted you could view image info including the website hosting them and what the poster has wrote in the message body

pic 1 http://mars.jpl.nasa...FHAZ00302M_.JPG

mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/00548/opgs/edr/fcam/FRB_446146561EDR_F0270968FHAZ00302M_.JPG

Pic 2 http://mars.jpl.nasa...FHAZ00302M_.JPG

mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/00548/opgs/edr/fcam/FLB_446146561EDR_F0270968FHAZ00302M_.JPG

Pic 3 http://mars.jpl.nasa...FHAZ00323M_.JPG

mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/00547/opgs/edr/fcam/FRB_446048625EDR_F0270024FHAZ00323M_.JPG

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you not read, Q? I already SAID that yes, we can get the filenames, but that isn't the point. YOU should CITE the images WHEN you post them, not expect others to do your work for you.

Now, answer the questions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while doing the "home work" for the second set of pictures posted on the first page, i need to understand what FRB and FLB stands for . It seems so far the object only appears in the FRB links....

Edit

looks like it stands for Front Hazcam Left B and Front Hazcam Right B

so the object appearing in the image one and 2 has not been taken by the same cameras. The object only appears in the Front B. While the picture taken in the same time by Left B is not showing the object, there's only one explanation.... it's a spec on the lens ... NOT an ALIEN !

There we go; I said it !

5925broke-my-plane-better-tell-the-history-channel.png

Edited by qxcontinuum
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that a giant footprint on the ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.