From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:04:58 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:32:10 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO On Mars? - Stanford >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 10:34:03 -0600 >Subject: Re: UFO On Mars? >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 19:57:58 -0500 >>Subject: Re: UFO On Mars? >>>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >>>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:31:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) >>>Subject: Re: UFO On Mars? ><snip> >>>Unlike the object in the Whittlesea Australia UFO photograph, we >>>can almost definitely rule out a flying bird or a bug as an >>>explanation for this spot in the Martian sky! This UFO on Mars >>>can also be clearly seen in the original Spirit Rover picture >>>that is posted at NASA's JPL web site below. >>http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/n/033/2N129300816EFF0327P1730L0M1.HTML >>It looks like a case of simple 'pixel drop-out' Alfred. I don't >>think anything 'green' with antenae is going to come popping out >>of it any time soon. :) ><snip> >Ordinarily I'd defer to your superior pixelship, John, but damn, >"it don't look like no pixel dropout to me, bruh..." The dropped >pixels I'm familiar with have been non-informational, all black >or white, real holes in the data. There's differentiated gray in >these pixels (of the oh ever so *trusted* NASA original) like in >the rest of the photo, really seeming to be something >photographed in the frame that was there at the time. Could you >have another look at the original, and give me a second bird's- >eye-low-down-on-this-caper? <g> >http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/n/033/2N129300816EFF0327P1730L0M1.HTML Hello Alfred, Although you did not inquire of my opinion, I would like to say that you are quite observant and, I believe, correct. That thing does not seem to be pixel drop-out, and whatever is there appears to show atmospherics (gray gradients) commensurate with other distant horizon and near-horizon landforms. As to the 'problem' of the other stereo pair not showing the 'whatzzit', perhaps I read somewhere that these are not isochronus (taken at the same time) stereo pairs but 'artificial' stereo pairs, possibly made by a common lens merely shifting its position or some other such arrangement, perhaps to save the weight of a second lens system. That could account for a 'UFO', for example, not showing up in a so-called stereo pair. Someone might want to check on the accuracy of my memory on that, however. I forget where that was said or I'd provide a link. If someone wanted to think in a rather suspicious vein, one might actually consider that the JPL 'stereo pairs' could be deliberately be non-isochronus (simultaneous) in order (in the event that an unmentionable something should show up) to say (while hoping people presume that they are simultaneous), that, "It's not real or it would be in both stereo images." I'm not saying that's what is happening, but I wouldn't put it past them. I have what looks like a different image from that same part of the horizon and taken in the same general time period that shows a somewhat similar but more diffused object, phenomenon, or effect, but, if I recall correctly, somewhat over to the right. It was one of the first black and white photos released from the first of the two landings, if not the first. As to that dark thing at the upper-left image edge in several photos, it seemingly shows no gray-level variances, unlike the image discussed above. Thanks for your input, Alfred. We've "looked at it from both sides now", to paraphrase an old song about clouds. And this matter may be worthy of a longer, harder look, as well. Finally, it seems to me that the disputed near-horizon image, aside from seemingly showing atmospherics, is comprised of multiple pixels on multiple lines and might be interpreted as showing something that could have radial symmetry around a vertical axis, with a possibly conical or tapered shape on the upper side along that axis. In fact, and although the image is vague, it reminds me of objects reported in several multi- witness, close-range UFO sightings which I have kept on file. Of course, we humans tend to perceive ambiguous things according to our preconceptions and/or inner tendencies (presumably an evolutionary adaptation for survival through early recognition of dangerous or even potentially rewarding situations). So, I hedge that visual interpretation with great caution and mention it only as a tentative interpretation of what might be there.** [Of one thing I feel confident, Don Leger, this particular image is not a bug, even though some may differ. :) ] Ray Stanford **In memory of my beloved eldest brother, Clinton, who unexpectedly passed into the 'hereafter' a week ago tonight, and who wisely taught me, again and again, as a child to, "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." Maybe that's why (after a few 'false starts') I eventually chose cameras, magnetometers, and a gravimeter, etc. with which to pursue UFOs as physical phenomena in 'real time' and not only as history (i.e., as reports). Hopefully, none will be offended if in this context I say, "Thanks, Clinton. You are deeply missed, and your gentleness and good humor were a light to our whole family and to all who knew you well."
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp