From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:17:09 +0100 Archived: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:28:53 -0400 Subject: Re: Curiosity Films Martian UAP Or Dead Pixels? >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:36:57 -0400 >Subject: Re: Curiosity Films Martian UAP Or Dead Pixels? >>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>To: <post.nul>, >>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:42:20 +0100 >>Subject: Curiosity Films Martian UAP Or Dead Pixels? >>http://tinyurl.com/8umutf3 >>The top 'fisheye' sequence is interesting. This little >>bright speck seems to have a systematic relationship to the >>horizon as it moves left to right through the view, so I don't >>see how you could explain this as pixel drop-out. If caused by >>the camera it could only be an optical artefact, not electronic, >>since the motion follows the optically distorted horizon. But as >>usual there is little info, not even any clock or description of >>what specialised function this camera may have (Curiosity has a >>shed-load of different cameras). Intriguing though... >The sequence of 10 images farther down the page show what could >be consecutive frames from the same video. Yes. I'm assuming that for that headline sequence they missed out the middle images where the spot is difficult to see against the sky brightness. But when you look at the whole sequence it's possible to trace it continuously. >If the time between >frames is constant and the assumed object is moving >perpendicular to the line of sight, then we can see with a ruler >that the velocity of the object is not constant. It accelerates >until the 6th frame, decelerates slightly, then accelerates >again. Very interesting observation, William. If this is variation is monotonic it is what I would expect to see because of angular compression towards the periphery of the field in an extremely wide-angle view such as this appears to be. It could mean that the 'true' rate is more nearly constant. Howsoever, another optical distortion is another reason for thinking that, whatever this spot is, it is probably not in the electronics. A friend of mine pointed out that CCD/CMOS chips are vulnerable to damage by cosmic rays which could knock out random pixels . Even so, the only way I could see a moving spot like this being a camera artefact is by electromechanical scanning, i.e. if they pan the camera to build up a panorama slice by vertical slice. Then if there is a flaw like a dead pixel on the sensor it is recentred in each new slice and seems to track across the field when the whole image is reconstructed. But this is _not_ what has been done here. There is a complete panorama in each successive view. These are time slices only, not space slices, and no reason for the camera to haver moved. I'm thinking that the wide-angle distortion must be an optical mapping (i.e. an image formed by a lens) not an electronic mapping . What sort of crazy-assed digital scan algorithm would deliberately produce an image like this from an optically flat field? Completely pointless. So for me, at the moment, this does _look_like_ something moving in the Martian atmosphere. Or maybe beyond... What about Phobos or Deimos? Can't see it myself - a flat trajectory low on the horizon doesn't seem to fit any kind of Mars-centred orbit (without bothering to check orbital inclination etc). Same seems to go for the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. In any case judging from the sky brightness the sun angle looks inappropriate. Still puzzled... Martin Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp