Noisy pictures

http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/pancam/2004-06-05/2P139689568EFF6200P2360L7M1.JPG

Looks like there is something dirt on the lens.
Could it be humidity or what?

There seems to be some foggines on the other camera too.

If you're talking about the rectangular area at the center, it's a digital noise most likely caused by communication dropout/glitch during downlink. They'll eventually get the missing data down and will update the image.

I have noticed this also but it is never in the same area or camera. I believe it to be one of two things.
1) missing data in the download from the rover
or
2) There is a remote possibility that it is a deliberate blurring. I am not saying it is but there are some photo editing programs that have a blurring tool that can produce this effect.
Richard

If you are going to post far fetched ideas, you might as well mention singularities passing in front of the camera, moisture on the lense, and distortion from alien heat rays - those being the most plausible of the implausible.

Oh come on now Daniel I didnt say it was a deliberate blur all I said was it is a possiblity. The chance that nasa would do this is a whole lot higher than an alien heat ray.
Do you think that Nasa has no secrets? I for one think they should.
It was many years until they released the fact that Apollo astronauts were seeing flashes of light even with their eyes closed. I'm not sure exactly what type of particles they were but it was kept secret until they figured it out.
Most likely it is a data problem but when I have seen this in the past it is usually a blacked out square.
Richard

About the flashes of light seen by the Apollo astronauts, I'd say that they were cosmic rays, the same thing that we see in Opportunity and Spirit's long exposure photos.

Um3k
I believe you are right I just didnt want to state that because I wasn't sure. My only point of referencing it was that it was kept secret By nasa until they were sure what caused it.
Has anyone here heard of the Brookings report?
richard

I'm aware of the report. I'm also aware that if you give conspiracy theorists a micron, they'll take a parsec.

NASA is too busy being tripped up by bungles to have a successful conspiracy. The only real conspiracies there are probably along the lines of... Hey Bob, don't tell anyone you saw that I dropped this wrench into the wing, and I won't mention that your drunk at work.

Daniel
I direct question...
If nasa discoverd an artifact proving the existance of life on a planet other than earth, do you believe they would release this information to the public upon discovery? Wouldn't there be social problems to consider?
Richard

It's clearly a swarm of cicadas -- naysayers ... :roll:

Hi

"social problems to consider" ?????

Richard, you are a worry!

Even if anyone at NASA thought it was their job to control the American Public in such a way (really, is that likely??) or even cared about it, I can't imagine anyone working for NASA being so utterly incompetent. Why would anyone attempt a "coverup" in such a foolish fashion?

In fact, your comment makes me quite cross.
Healthy skepticism is one thing. But there's a line, beyond which you are into "conspiracy theory". When you are no longer guided by reason.

NASA is being very generous indeed, unprecedently open. I for one am grateful.

-----Martin/

It could be missing imformation.
However, Icer is an image compression program that they are using, to save data space, in their downloads. It removes pixels and partial pixels, and creates the grainyness that we see. Its also a Raw type format, so the images are not proccesed, until nasa uses its imaging software on them. This Raw format causes the oversaturation of the images, and with there many filters on top of this, makes any detail quite hard to see. They also darken images.

We have yet to see a high quality image from nasa, the file would be huge.

All the images, including the colored ones from kieth lainy, are images from the same sites we get them from

The highest quality veiwing seems to come from the cross eyed images
Am i wrong, or did i miss something?

Nothing sinister, just protection of imformation, that a few have first dibs at.

although the 20 years in the cooler for that ice pic, seems odd.

http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/micro_imager/2004-06-07/2M139687557EFF6104P2919M1M1.JPG

The controller programming the Spirit MI should be FIRED!

M McKenzie
Cross about what?!All I did was ask IF Nasa ever found an artifact would they release upon discovery. What the heck is the matter with that question??!! I am quite sure there is a protocol for this scenario and I would NOT put that in the "cover-up" category. Why do you get all defensive over this??
I for one am grateful for Nasa to share these photos that you and I paid for with our taxes (assuming you are a taxpayer)
Don't go throwing me into the tinfoil hat crowd either just because I asked a simple question.
I find your aversion to my question quite odd to tell you the truth and I noticed that no one cares to answer it.
Nasa held on to the viking photo that shows frost around the lander for Twenty Years before releasing it to the public!
Sheesh!
Richard

:roll:

:roll:

Richard,
I think that with today's fiscal climate, that NASA would have it plastered all over every major news outlet.

Right now NASA is trying to justify, and failing at it, a moon-mars manned exploration program. A major finding like that would give NASA (and its major contractors) a blank check for unlimited manned space operations.

Not only that, NASA is specifically creating missions right now, slated for late next decade, specifically to find signs of life in extra-solar planets. This is not an agency trying to cover up signs of life.

Here's a favorite underhanded trick used by the media these days (and by Richard):

Say you want to put forth some idea you have no proof is true, but you want to throw it out there and get it in print anyway, to get people to believe it. You say what you're trying to make people believe, then throw in a caveat saying it's "unconfirmed" or "possible", or from "an anonymous source".

For example:
"There is a remote possibility that it is a deliberate blurring. I am not saying it is but there are some photo editing programs that have a blurring tool that can produce this effect."

You haven't endorsed or even outright said it, but more than half of your average readership will take it as gospel, assuming it wouldn't be in print if it wasn't true. Both American political parties, and particularly our beloved press, use this tactic regularly. Scientists, as a group, usually don't.

Wouldn't it be better if you just say what you mean, and mean what you say, then stand by it?

Rob I moved this thread to the penalty box where it belongs.
I made a statement concerning blury images that was not appropriate and I apologise for that and did not mean to start a great controversy over it. I have a program that I use for photo enhancement and it has a tool for making images blury and I chose the wrong thread to metion it and I do not wish to spend days explaining it either.
I have the power to delete this thread altogether but I did not.
Lets leave this alone
Agreed?
Richard

I'll say it.

They crop images.
They do not release all the images.
They release only partial data, that fits their theorys
The images they release, are resolved just enough to hide minute details.
They darken images.

The list goes on.

Its not a conspiracy persay, But this is a Nasa, USA, scientific mission.

The images and data, will be studied by USA, (and british, since many images and data is transfered through them), scientists FIRST, and Only then might we see in detail, what is in these images.
Its only common sense, why post Everthing they have?

There is a bradley report.
The military, nasa, jpl, nsa, are all part of the Whole

That said i realy don't want to harp on it.
I am very proud of the group of techies, that pulled this off. And very thankfull to the ones who pushed for showing us they can, in real time. They did not HAVE, to go as far as they have, to bring this mission into our lives. This a whole new way of exploration, and i am sure it will only get better. mann