Cigar-shaped UFO captured by Curiosity [actually long exposures of Phobos]

[Swike]

Hi everyone!
This is my first post as a long time follower of your discussions and Mick's work.

So, on July 2014 a conspiratorial "documentary" called "Aliens on the Moon: The Truth Exposed" was aired on Syfy with a massive amount of anomalist claims about alien structures and UFOs "captured by NASA". One of the claims got my attention; At time 55:13 they show a series of images captured by the Curiosity rover on Mars which, according to them, show a cigar-shaped UFO "rocketing over the planet".

The information for the documentary might have come from some of these blogs, tabloid news and the usual YouTube channels gathering some thousands views by making some wild claims of NASA coverup etc.. (which is always fun considering the images are publicly available and were discovered by looking at their public web archives). I couldn't find any official NASA statements in regards to the photos (besides what can be seen in the archives).

So, the relevant images here are 6 photos taken by the Right Navigation Camera (B) on the Curiosity rover during Sol 613 (which translates to the 28th of April 2014) and one additional photo that gives some context to the previous ones.


Context photo taken at 04:47:55 UTC:

Photo taken at 04:48:22 UTC:

Photo taken at 04:50:18 UTC:

Photo taken at 04:52:15 UTC:

Photo taken at 04:54:12 UTC:

Photo taken at 04:56:09 UTC:

Photo taken at 04:58:06 UTC:

So, first of all the claim that the object is rocketing away from the planet as they depict in the documentary is false as we can see from the timestamps.
My hypothesis is that this was a planned observation of Phobos at night going down and setting in the horizon with a series of long exposures and not "a cigar-shaped UFO".

I used NASA's Eyes on the Solar System simulator to see how things were configured that day and at the right time (I guess Celestia or Space Engine could better help but I don't have my computer right now).

A few things to note:
1) The rover was indeed taking these photos at night (or dusk) which would explain the need for long exposure if the landscape can be visible.
2) Phobos was indeed getting behind the horizon at that time in a very similar trajectory.
3) The camera was pointing to that direction (East according to the simulation) since we can see the hillside of Mount Sharp on the right side of the context image, as expected from the position of the rover.

I think this debunks the claim that this is a cigar shaped UFO.
Still there is work to be done:

- It would be nice if someone more skilled than me could better simulate the sequence of images with a more controllable software, and match them with the simulated views (also to corroborate that Phobos was been illuminated by the Sun at the time).
- I don't know how to find the metadata of the pictures but maybe there is information about the exposure times there (which would give us a match with the expected trail seen at the angular speed Phobos was moving through the sky). Perhaps there is more information at NASA's PDS.
- There are dead pixels all around the image but I think a few real stars can be seen there. I've tried to quickly match the stars with Astrometry.net without success (because of the dead pixels), but maybe someone can help marking them, which would further confirm the orientation of the camera at that time.
- It would also be nice to have an explanation as to why such small ROIs were selected for these pictures since people were saying that

What is of great concern is that NASA's JPL only released thumbnail sized versions of the UFO images. Normally, JPL provides full sized versions, along with thumbnail versions. In the case of the sequence of five images showing the cylindrical UFO, along with a companion image that shows the night sky just after the UFO disappears over the horizon, these are only 192×256 pixels in size. ... The full scale image versions have yet to be released and are being studied by NASA. Why? This only fuels speculation that the sequence of five Curiosity Rover images did capture an intelligently guided cylindrical shaped UFO of tremendous size flying over Mars.

That's it. And again Hello world! I'm happy to be part of this community now

 

[Ann K]

My hypothesis is that this was a planned observation of Phobos at night going down and setting in the horizon with a series of long exposures and not "a cigar-shaped UFO".

Can you compare the visible stars with the expected angular velocity of Phobos to determine the exposure time? (Confession: I lack the skill to do so myself!) But by eyeballing the streak, it looks as if each photo is directly after the previous one, so about two minutes exposure for each.

- It would also be nice to have an explanation as to why such small ROIs were selected for these pictures since people were saying that

Some of the photos Curiosity took were simply snapshots. Some of them are panoramas using several hundred smaller pictures. I'll bet that a person on the team simply said "Hey, Phobos will be visible, so let's get a picture". The larger composites require some planning and compromises to get as much information in as few photos as possible.

My daughter (Linda Kah) is one of the science crew that make such decisions. She "took" that first photo of Mt. Sharp, the one that showed up on the cover of a dozen magazines, but of course she was one of many people involved in the task; she just happened to be the leader of the science crew for that shift.

 

[deirdre]

does long exposure make sense as the streaks overlap each each?

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedi...613&end_sol=613&af=NAV_RIGHT_A|NAV_RIGHT_B,,,


everyone at the time ..april/may 2014 were calling it Phobos, so i dont doubt that but the "long exposure" idea seems odd to me.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/24jxfa/comment/ch9a2vc/

Posted on April 28, 2014 by rburnham
Mars moon Phobos leaves a trail as it sets in the east over the shoulder of Mount Sharp, in the first of six time- exposure frames taken over a 10-minute period by Curiosity's right-side Navcam. The full series of images is here. (The white speckles are noise in the imager.)

NASA description: This image was taken by Navcam: Right B (NAV_RIGHT_B) onboard NASA's Mars rover Curiosity on Sol 613 (2014-04-28 04:48:22 UTC).

Sol 613 raw images (from all cameras), and Curiosity's latest location map.

http://redplanet.asu.edu/index.php/2014/04/curiosity-sol-613-april-27-2014/

 

[jarlrmai]

The are from the one of the nav cams so not a main camera instrument, it's likely the small size available represents the fact that these cameras are used for navigation purposes and thus not downloaded or stored at full res.

 

[Swike]

does long exposure make sense as the streaks overlap each each?

Overlapping all the images one can see gaps between streaks:

So it seems to me that this is compatible with it been a sequence of long exposures with a small time interval between each take.
Also the long exposure makes sense to me from the point of view that "the cigar" is moving along his long axis direction.

I guess the "weird thing" is that stars don't seem to move after 9.5 minutes (making their own short streaks). But perhaps at this FOV and in this direction we shouldn't expect stars to move across the image to much (Phobos is pretty fast in comparison). Also I don't really know if we are looking at any stars here, it seems to me that they might all be dead pixels (they apear in the ground not only in the sky).

My daughter (Linda Kah) is one of the science crew that make such decisions. She "took" that first photo of Mt. Sharp, the one that showed up on the cover of a dozen magazines, but of course she was one of many people involved in the task; she just happened to be the leader of the science crew for that shift.

That is so awesome! You must be so proud of her. I wish we could have a comment from the person that decided to take these pictures and what they did with it afterwards if anything.

 

[deirdre]

ok Above top secret made a gif..so the pixel overlap between pictures is minimal and could be due to "flare"/overexposure <that's likely the wrong vocabulary word.

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1011263/pg2

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah it looks exactly like a long exposure timelapse with each exposure starting exactly as the previous one finishes.

 

[jarlrmai]

Stellarium supports Mars so we should be able to show this in there

on Sol 613 the Rover was located here (the next waypoint south is Sol 630.)

Google Earth Pro gives a precise GPS for Sol 613

so 137.4028, -4.6388 is close enough for our purposes.

The date and time in UTC was given as 28/04/2014 04:48

View east matches context photo from OP

 

[Mick West]

I guess the "weird thing" is that stars don't seem to move after 9.5 minutes (making their own short streaks). But perhaps at this FOV and in this direction we shouldn't expect stars to move across the image to much (Phobos is pretty fast in comparison). Also I don't really know if we are looking at any stars here, it seems to me that they might all be dead pixels (they apear in the ground not only in the sky).

I think they are pretty much all dead pixels and noise. The camera is in daylight, so you would not expect to see stars.

Here's a video of Phobos from Curiosity

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMdWC7jzzuY

 

[Eburacum]

I've been checking in Celestia, and I can't see a single star that corresponds with these 'dead pixels'. Note that the pixels are also present below the horizon in approximately the same numbers. Presumably these are due to cosmic ray damage or some other radiation.

 

[Swike]

Ups, I was thinking it was darker since the sky seems quite black in those images. Now I see it still was early in the dusk, so yeah, probably no stars at all.

Apparently the Mastcam was also at work taking pictures of Phobos, perhaps that explains the small ROI for the other images since they weren't meant to be the important ones and storage might be limited for the rover.

This images were made at 04:46:53 UTC, 04:47:06 UTC, 04:47:18 UTC and 04:47:30 UTC, alternating between two exposure times. So these 4 photographs of the Mastcam came just before the sequence with the Right Navigation Camera.

 

[JMartJr]

Anybodu have any thoughts on what red circled "object" is? Is it just "schmutz" that happens to show up in a line in three frames, or is it something in the real world? The lack of elongation makes me suspect the former, as does the fact that it is not visible (to me anyway) in earlier frames, just these last three, but if so it sure gives a good impression of being something there!

 

[Ann K]

Anybodu have any thoughts on what red circled "object" is? Is it just "schmutz" that happens to show up in a line in three frames, or is it something in the real world?

Mars is noted for its high winds and dust storms, so it may well be local schmutz.

 

[Ann K]

@Swike
OK, this is what Linda tells me about this photo. It was a regularly scheduled event to take photos of Phobos and Deimos. They would probably have been taken under the direction of Mark Lemmon. He was at Texas A&M, but this article puts him at the Space Science Institute; the article appears to be several years old so I don't know if he is still there.

Mark Lemmon is a senior research scientist at Space Science Institute where he studies aerosols in planetary atmospheres via remote sensing and modeling. His long-time focus has been Mars: for Opportunity and Curiosity, he monitors atmospheric dust load, studies dust properties, measures dust lifting in dust devils, and moonlights in astronomical imaging.

https://www.planetary.org/profiles/mark-lemmon

The regular photography of Phobos and Deimos was done for two reasons, to measure the seasonal changes in the atmospheric opacity on Mars, and to hope to get a better idea about the shape and mass of the two moons.

edit to add: Under Mark Lemmon's profile is a sub-section entitled "Who is the photographer behind Mars Rover photos? It includes this comment:

Finally, some images do get a very detailed attention to composition, with aesthetic considerations and scientific or operational considerations all playing a role. These usually have illumination and shadowing specified, as well as very specific composition. A recent color mosaic across Endeavor crater comes to mind, as does a section of the Phoenix site panorama that showed the Robotic Arm poised above the lander ready for sample delivery. Any sunset or astronomical imaging gets at least this level of detail.

The Phobos and Deimos transits were planned over weeks, with dozens of people involved (in that case there was a balance between getting the desired images and a requirement to avoid damaging ChemCam in the process, as it is very sensitive to direct Sun light).

 

[JMartJr]

Mars is noted for its high winds and dust storms, so it may well be local schmutz.

But I'd still expect it to show the same elongation as the little moon does, if it is in fact moving about during the long exposure. Since it does not, I suspect it is some artifact in the camera or processing?

If so, the coincidence of it "crossing" the frame in roughly the direction of the of the moon and at roughly similar speeds across the field of view may be creating the sense that it is also real object and possibly "way up there."

 

[Ann K]

But I'd still expect it to show the same elongation as the little moon does, if it is in fact moving about during the long exposure. Since it does not, I suspect it is some artifact in the camera or processing?

Hmmm... You may be right. I don't see any sign of it in the first three frames, just in the last three.

 

[Ann K]

Of particular interest are the images of Phobos or Deimos as they transit the sun ("eclipse" isn't really the word for it) as it shows clearer images of the actual shapes. This is Phobos.

 

[jdog]

Of particular interest are the images of Phobos or Deimos as they transit the sun ("eclipse" isn't really the word for it) as it shows clearer images of the actual shapes. This is Phobos.
View attachment 71116

Extraterrestrial chicken nuggets confirmed!

More helpfully, I do love relatively indirect methods of gathering data.

 

[Swike]

Hmmm... You may be right. I don't see any sign of it in the first three frames, just in the last three.

A beautiful statistics exercise, but maybe not for something as unimportant as this "case", would be to try and calculate how probable is to find spurious objects moving across the image with a certain level of electronic noise.

For example, we could take a 192×256 grid (the pixel sizes of the images we are dealing with) and do a Monte Carlo simulation giving a certain number of random pixels to change value each frame (the "noise level"). Then we could make an algorithm that searches for each 6 frames, 3 contiguous frames show "something" moving in a straight line and uniformly (equally spaced intervals) across the field of view. Repeating this experiment thousands of times we could get an idea of what proportion of false detections we should expect. My bet is that the probability of finding something like this in a set of 6 frames is non-negligible and possibly quite high. Maybe the weird thing would be not to find any spurious detection of equally spaced jumps for pixel noise traveling in a straight line in 3 frames. I bet even finding something like this for 4 continuos frames is likely.

But again, someone should do the experiment. Maybe I try to simulate this another day with Python so we have an idea of what to expect. This could also be helpful in many other cases where random pixel noise seem to behave in a predictable consistent pattern for a few frames, so that we have a statistical perspective as to how common these spurious "detections" are.

 

[Ann K]

This could also be helpful in many other cases where random pixel noise seem to behave in a predictable consistent pattern for a few frames, so that we have a statistical perspective as to how common these spurious "detections" are.

Similarly, even in these small single photos we can already see several places where stars conspicuously "line up". They're not in a line in 3-D space, but their 2-D appearance allows our pareidolia to see them as a line; all the imagined constellations depend upon that principle.

Another thing to consider is the possibility of actual objects to be tumbling in space, and if they're small bits of grit in the Martian winds, they might be tumbling quite rapidly. Might they show up as a bright spot when they're presenting a larger face to the sun, but disappear in other orientations?

 

[FatPhil]

A beautiful statistics exercise, but maybe not for something as unimportant as this "case", would be to try and calculate how probable is to find spurious objects moving across the image with a certain level of electronic noise.

For example, we could take a 192×256 grid (the pixel sizes of the images we are dealing with) and do a Monte Carlo simulation giving a certain number of random pixels to change value each frame (the "noise level"). Then we could make an algorithm that searches for each 6 frames, 3 contiguous frames show "something" moving in a straight line and uniformly (equally spaced intervals) across the field of view. Repeating this experiment thousands of times we could get an idea of what proportion of false detections we should expect. My bet is that the probability of finding something like this in a set of 6 frames is non-negligible and possibly quite high. Maybe the weird thing would be not to find any spurious detection of equally spaced jumps for pixel noise traveling in a straight line in 3 frames. I bet even finding something like this for 4 continuos frames is likely.

But again, someone should do the experiment. Maybe I try to simulate this another day with Python so we have an idea of what to expect. This could also be helpful in many other cases where random pixel noise seem to behave in a predictable consistent pattern for a few frames, so that we have a statistical perspective as to how common these spurious "detections" are.

You might even find predictions of the existence of Captain Ahab, or silliness like this: http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/ELS_Witztum.pdf

Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis
Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg
Abstract. It has been noted that when the Book of Genesis is written as two-dimensional arrays, equidistant letter
sequences spelling words with related meanings often appear in close proximity. Quantitative tools for
measuring this phenomenon are developed. Randomization analysis shows that the effect is significant at the
level of 0.00002.

I used to be a prime number hunter, and finding arithmetic progressions (so equally-spaced points on a line) was one of the things I wasted far too much time on, so I recognise this kind of pattern-matching.

 

[Easy Muffin]

simulate the sequence of images with a more controllable software, and match them with the simulated views (also to corroborate that Phobos was been illuminated by the Sun at the time).

Here it is in Orbiter. Ignore the futuristic-looking space glider, that's just one of the default vessels standing in for Curiosity.

I couldn't get it to play in my browser so you might want to download it first. Also note I had to bump the ambient lighting way up so you can actually see the terrain.