|
Over-Saturation Effect (detail) - Sol 589
|
Palese effetto da Sovra-Saturazione, dovuta ad oggetto metallico, cristallino (dunque altamente riflettente la luce del Sole) oppure emittente Luce Propria. Ma leggete cosa la NASA ha scritto...
"One possibility is that the light is the glint from a rock surface reflecting the Sun", NASA imaging scientist Justin Maki said to the Houston Chronicle. And then: "When these images were taken each day, the Sun was in the same direction as the bright spot, (such as) W/N-W from the Rover and relatively (maeaning???) low in the Sky".
In a statement made to Space.com, Maki added another possibility, i.e. that the light could be caused by the way Sunlight managed to hit Curiosity’s camera.
"The Rover Science Team is also looking at the possibility that the bright spot could be Sunlight reaching the camera's CCD [Charge-Coupled Device] directly through a "vent hole" in the camera housing, which has happened previously on other cameras on Curiosity and other Mars Rovers when the geometry of the incoming Sunlight - relative to the camera - is precisely aligned”. he said.
Della serie: "Troviamo un'obiezione (cioé stupidata) assurda e complicatissima che nessuno (o quasi) capirà mai. Così tutto va a posto". BRAVI! Obbiettivo raggiunto. Ma NON per "tutti"...
Ma c'é di più.
"The photo in question was taken on April 3 by Curiosity’s right-hand Navigation Camera, and shows what looks an awful lot like a bright, shining light off in the distance. NASA itself has not commented on the nature of the light, but UFO watchers have wasted no time suggesting it’s not natural and, therefore, a sign of alien life.
"This could indicate there there is intelligent life below the ground and uses light as we do," Scott Waring wrote on his UFO Sightings Daily website. "This is not a glare from the Sun, nor is it an artifact of the photo process. Look closely at the bottom of the light. It has a very flat surface giving us 100% indication it is from the surface”.
“Sure NASA could go and investigate it, but hey, they are not on Mars to discover life, but there to stall its discovery,” he concluded.
Others aren’t quite convinced. The editor of All About Space magazine, Ben Biggs, told The Daily Mail that people shouldn’t be leaping to such dramatic conclusions so quickly. “While the ‘light’ is as yet unexplained, it's quite a leap to assume that it has an intelligent source,” he said. “The public can afford to speculate wildly but NASA is an organization internationally renowned for credible science. It needs to exhaust every other likely explanation before it can begin to explore less realistic phenomena.”
Although NASA has yet to release a statement, Doug Ellison of the agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory dismissed the idea that the light was proof of intelligent life. On Twitter, he told NBC News the beacon is a “cosmic ray hit,” noting that there is no light on the image taken by the left-hand navigation camera, which was also captured at the exact same moment.
Della serie: "Prima cosa negare, poi - semmai - investigare".
Ma, dico io, su cosa? Su un effetto di sovra-saturazione che conoscono anche i dilettanti? Ma non era "più facile" dire la cosa più ovvia ed anche più probabile? (magari anche un "out-gassing", tipo quelli che occorrono sulla Luna e danno vita ai TLP?) ... No. Tutto, tranne l'ovvio e l'altamente probabile. Raggi Solari incidenti su una "roccia" altamente riflettente (stupidata planetaria!); raggio (casuale) di Luce Solare che "inganna" la fotocamera del Rover (taccio per decenza...); Raggio Cosmico che "colpisce" la camera CCD del Rover (una possibilità su "n" miliardi...) e così via.
Ed allora io "deduco" - da quanto sopra - che o non sanno fare il "loro" mestiere (ergo sono incompetenti), oppure non sanno a cosa attaccarsi per giustificare e spiegare un evento altrimenti difficilmente (esclusa la sovra-saturazione) spiegabile. Povera NASA! E, soprattutto: poveri noi!
p.s.: io (a scanso di equivoci) NON dico né ho mai detto (rectius: scritto) che trattasi di "Segnale di Vita Intelligente"! Io ho solo scritto che le "spiegazioni" date dai "Fenomeni" della NASA sono improbabili (rectius: stupide). Tutto qui. Ne avete di "migliori"? Scrivete (senza limitarvi a leggere e, magari, a criticare o scopiazzare). Grazie.
|
|