SPIRIT SKY & SURFACE
EVIDENCE
Report #074
September 25, 2004
A while back I received an e-mail from David in the UK, a friend of this effort, showing me an official image with one or two anomalous objects in the sky. Unfortunately, I sort of gave that evidence the brush off because I had already reported on such sky objects in my report #062 titled "Spirit Sky Artifact Evidence" and because I see a lot of this and have gotten too accustomed to it and apparently a bit too careless of it. In other words, I had a sort of been there, done that, moving on crappy attitude.
David's contact stuck in my head though and I began to realize upon reflection that what I may have become accustomed to in looking at thousands of images, that of course isn't the case with general viewers at this website. I also began to realize that my one lone report #062 on similar sky object evidence was inadequate in the total perspective because it may give the impression that that's all there is. If so, then I apologize for this reporting inadequacy. The truth is that the Rover panoramic, navigation and hazard cameras all occasionally have this kind of evidence in them when they catch a view of the sky.
The historical counter argument has been that this is debris on the camera lens and the proof of this is that the other camera taking shots at the same time of the same spot does not show the same objects. Of course, such tiny objects are easily visually removed from the other camera's imaging but you're not suppose to consider that possibility. Be aware that, under substantial JPEG compression and thereby reduction in resolution so typical of the official imaging, JPEG too severe compression artifacts will cluster around any later localized additions into or subtraction from the image and the official imaging does show such change evidence.
Occasionally debris on the lens may even be true but by far the bulk of this evidence comes and goes too quickly in too many different patterns and is not in subsequent repeat shots of the same spot clearly indicating real objects in fast motion quickly in and out of camera range. Further, many of the objects are blurred and elongated at an angle across multiple adjacent pixels indicating that they are smaller objects within the atmosphere close enough to the camera for it to be registering their movement as directional blurs.
So I decided to pick out just one Sol day of Spirit imaging to demonstrate just how thick this kind of evidence can be and that it is not limited to just an occasional one or two images or sky objects. The above first image demonstrates a scene with the sun sitting right on the horizon. Imaging like this looking into the sun's glare apparently sometimes creates an imaging artifact like the light color vertical processing bar error seen in this image, so don't get concerned that the vertical bar itself is something anomalous.
In the above scene all the sky objects pointed out with green arrows are dark possibly because of the filters used in looking into the sun's glare. Note that there are seven sky objects in the above scene but there were actually four more (off the image to the right) for a total of eleven. The image was too wide to get them all in but all of these can be verified in the official imaging using the first link at the bottom of this report in the "Documentation" section.
The above second image is not so much in the Sun's direct glare now, no doubt because it is now below the horizon casting the landscape below the horizon line in the foreground in dark shadow. The objects are very tiny in this view because it is presented at the distant official resolution and I kept it at that in order to get all the objects within the view. Closer views do not provide an increase in detail that might lead to better identification.
Note that most of the tiny size objects are light color while four close to the horizon on the right are dark. This difference probably is a result of their positions in the atmosphere as some may be in the Mars shadow closer to us and others may be higher above the horizon and also further away from us still in the sunlight. Note that most objects are rounded and fairly static looking while one at the left image side edge and another in the top left corner are directionally blurred objects appearing to represent movement. The more static looking objects may also be in movement but toward or away from the camera and therefore not registering movement while the two blurred objects may be crossing across at right angles to the camera view and thereby registering movement.
As you can see in these representative day Sol 230 examples, there is plenty going on in the Martian sky. Such specks in the Mars sky imaging are probably left in this imaging simply because they are so tiny and indeterminent as to identification from the secrecy point of view and no one is going to get a closer view of them in this poor quality severely compressed JPEG imaging. Even so, if there is enough evidence here to enable determination that these objects are actually in movement and flight, then this movement alone within the planet's atmospheric envelope means that they almost certainly represent life of some kind on Mars. So, make no mistake about it, this evidence may be visually tiny in size but it can have very big implications.
The above third image has been severely compromised visual resolution wise but is still informative. The Rover official imaging carries no official clarifications or explanations but I think we can assume that the largest and brightest object just above the horizon line is probably the Sun since there is a lot of imaging of the Sun on day Sol 230 in other official science data not shown here. Although this cannot be determined for sure, the second largest object may be the Mars moon near alignment with the Sun behind it.
However, if the largest object is the Sun, notice how it has much less light flare radiating out from it than in the above first image even though it is further above the horizon line and should be producing more flare. Obviously, if it is the Sun, very strong camera filters (probably over into the infrared range) subduing light source flare have been used. Yet, even while registering this fact, note that the much smaller objects pointed out by the green arrows are producing a lot of light/heat/energy source in spite of the same filters. This fact is significant evidence. Obviously, this imaging is registering primarily light/heat/energy sources as opposed to purely visual information.
If the second largest object is a moon, I doubt it but it is possible that some of the smaller objects in the sky above the horizon line might be distant heavenly bodies such as stars, planets, etc. But, note how some of these once again demonstrate elongated blurred images very suggestive of something in flight and apparently close enough for the camera to register it as directional blur. That is not likely to happen if these are very distant objects in space implying that these objects may be closer to the camera and within the atmosphere. However, take special note that there are four objects below the horizon line with the terrain as a back drop producing a lot of light/heat source energy signature that cannot possibly be explained by space objects.
These are clearly objects either low in the atmosphere flying just above the land or they are objects on the ground. Since the terrain below the horizon line is so uniformly dark and cool in this imaging, I think that we can logically rule out any ground based light/heat sources and this is confirmed in the next fourth image below of the same area now without any objects below the horizon line. It is logically hard to imagine that these are anything other than atmospheric objects flying low above the ground. Further, objects in flight that can register such strong light/heat source signatures in spite of the strong camera filters used are not apt to be natural and strongly suggest artificial objects with very high reflectivity factors and/or internal heat sources.
It should also be noted that, if this had been a normally viewed day time scene (it is day time because the Sun is above the horizon) showing normal visual detail instead of light/heat signatures, these distant smaller objects below the horizon line with the big heat source signatures so readily seen here in this kind of imaging would probably have not been visible and lost against the rocky terrain background and all of its jumble of detail. Fortunately for us, this kind of light/heat source imaging has inadvertently revealed their existence against the same background.
Sorry secrecy guys but you slipped up here on this one. This is mostly the way any anomalous evidence comes to us here in the public in both the satellite and rover imaging, via a mistake made in obfuscation tactics. The image tampering is very good in hiding and creating misdirection illusions as well as being very complete but nothing is perfect.
The above fourth image is the same scene but now, beside the two larger objects still seen in the same position just above the horizon line as in image three, we see only three smaller objects with such light/heat/energy signatures. Note that all three are above the horizon and in different positions relative to those in my third image. Note also that there is no smaller object evidence below the horizon line and that the terrain itself below the horizon line shows no light/heat sources within it indicating that it is universally cool even with the sun above the horizon. So what does this tell us?
Remember, the third and fourth images here obviously provide information on light/heat/energy sources rather than visual detail. The two largest objects are probably heavenly bodies such as the distant Sun and the nearby moon but one or both may be something else to. I bring this up because, if the largest object is the Sun and far off in the distance, then the "moon" on the side facing us and being much closer to the planet's surface and nearly in line between the Sun and Mars should be in deep shadow on the side facing us and should not serve as such a strong light reflective source in these two images just from reflectivity alone up from the planet's surface. If this imaging is revealing energy sources as it clearly appears to be, why is the moon as a cold dead rock in cold space registering such a strong heat source signature only just a little smaller than the Sun itself? Could there be more to this "moon" than it being just a dead rock in space? Could it be something else entirely?
Obviously, the fact that this imaging reveals primarily light/heat/energy signatures precludes any argument that any of the smaller light/heat/energy signature objects are dust or debris on the camera lens and that cannot be used here as an explanation. Such inanimate debris would not register very much at all, if any, in this kind of special imaging. Yet these smaller objects are registering strongly as light/heat/energy sources and that is significant.
Further, the visual evidence of the two largest objects being in the same position in both the third and fourth images confirm and verify that this imaging was taken within moments of each other. Obviously, the two largest objects are relatively static in both views indicating very close if not simultaneous shots while the smaller light/heat signature objects move around in the field of view. That would suggest great speed involved with these objects and the ones below the horizon line demonstrating heat signatures against a cool terrain background in the third image clearly indicate atmospheric flight just above ground level.
Add to this information that the third and fourth images are also showing abnormally large file sizes. That usually means that the graphic software is seeing far more individual object detail in these images than normal and just about double the detail in the first and second images. In other words, it is seeing a lot of individual objects that we are unable to see visually here even though this is primarily a sky scene that should be essentially empty and have very little detail in it, if what we are seeing is all that there is.
Although I had already previously found this image for myself, I also want to give credit to Natalino in Italy for also bringing this fourth image to my attention in some good heads up work. At that time back in August, 2004 when we found this evidence, there was only the one above fourth image like this and a washed out defective one at the site for the official science data. Since then the above third image with evidence below the horizon line was added to the science data giving us this A to B comparison ability and compelling me to report on this evidence.
The bottom line here is that I suspect all of this sky evidence in these representative day Sol 230 images represent objects in flight and within the Mars atmospheric envelope as opposed to anything out in space. That clearly implies life. I cannot say with confidence whether they are biological or artificial in origin from this visual evidence because the severely degraded JPEG compression imaging quality effectively prevents an decent closer look. However, I should think that the intensity of light/heat/energy source signatures of the smaller objects suggest artificial heat sources as opposed to natural ones that we might be familiar with. At the very least, I am satisfied that none of this evidence can be explained by debris on the camera lens or any imaging or processing artifacts.
The above fifth image and the ground based bright shiny object in it was brought to my attention by G. Marzano in the UK on 4/6/04 and is not an original discovery by me. It demonstrates a small long and skinny very bright and shiny object laying right on top of the Martian soil as seen from the Spirit Rover camera systems nearby.
Although relatively close to the Rover, the edge of which is unseen just out of sight at the left bottom area in the above image but clearly visible in the original image, it is a quite small object and one difficult to get a decent closer look at here in this poor quality severe compression JPEG imaging. Its bright and very shiny surface quality and shape clearly suggests artificially worked metal and therefore suggests that this is an artificial object of some kind standing out sharply and anomalous in the terrain it sits in and not anything natural to that terrain.
It looks like a small tool that is slightly larger on its ends than in its middle area that might be cradled within two human hands. Note that it is right on top of the soil and not in any way partially buried and that suggests that it may have come to be there fairly recently. I've looked all around this site and could find no evidence of a dig-in type spot where such an object might have fell from height and then bounced over to this spot. Note that there are no Rover tracks visible anywhere near it, so it is not likely something from the Rover either.
This appears very likely to be an artificial object. The question is, is it space debris or junk from landers or previous probes from Earth? Did a Martian drop or discard this object? Is this really a scene from Earth and someone just got careless and dropped this tool and forgot it? Obviously, I can't say with any confidence based on just this poorly seen visual evidence.
What I can say is that it is unquestionably and immediately suggestive of artificiality and that is very important. Additionally, since it stands out so clearly in the terrain that surrounds it, sits right on the top surface suggesting possible recent origin, is so suggestive of artificiality, and so close to the Rover with nothing between the Rover and the object to impede progress over to it, does it make any sense to you that those highly educated scientists operating the Rover would not move the camera over to it and take a close image of such an obvious object so suggestive of artificiality?
It was the very same situation with the apparently artificially work heavy timber in my report #072 titled "Opportunity Mixed Evidence" on the other side of the planet from the Spirit Rover's location. Only in that situation, the Opportunity Rover tracks clearly indicate that the rover actually crossed right onto and over the timber and still no close imaging of it. The complete absence of such imaging in such circumstances is alone very telling evidence.
Actually, they can probably see the small bright artificial object in the above fifth image just fine in the real raw imaging with all that great detail not being made available to the public that paid for it and who really own these images. Even if they did examine it with closer imaging, that also isn't going to be shared with us either. So either way you look at it, it's secrecy and censorship with public property that isn't theirs to make such decisions with. The only other explanation is incompetency. Is either explanation what you want your tax dollars to go for? Is any of this acceptable to you?
DOCUMENTATION
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/230/2P146800209ESF8600P2696R7M1.HTML: This link accesses the official science data image start page for the first image in my report.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/230/2P146800531ESF8600P2696R7M1.HTML: This link accesses the official science data image start page for the second image in my report.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/230/2P146800116ESF8600P2697L8M1.HTML: This link accesses the official science data image start page for the third image in my report.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/230/2P146800063ESF8600P2695L8M1.HTML: This link accesses the official science data image start page for the fourth image in my report.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/panoramas/spirit: This link accesses the official science data Spirit panoramas images start page for the fifth image in my report. Note that on this page you must scroll down to the date "26-Feb-2004" and there are three choices of image quality there. I sourced my image from the "Large (3.6 MB)" file but the other smaller faster loading files are faster loading, more convenient and will probably be sufficient for verification.
