Exclamation Mark on Mars
MRO HiRISE image (ESP_020794_1860)
(http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/ESP/ORB_020700_020799/ESP_020794_1860/ESP_020794_1860_RED.thumb.jpg)
Image source: http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_020794_1860
(http://thecydoniainstitute.com/images/ExclamationMark150.jpg)
(http://thecydoniainstitute.com/images/ExclamationMarkMRONote2013.jpg)
Whats the deal with the Blur in that image ?
Quote from: Somamech on July 24, 2013, 09:24:06 PM
Whats the deal with the Blur in that image ?
Yeah, I looked at it and My first thought was, "Wonder what They blurred out there....."
Lol
Big Lots!
Sorry I had to say it.
Quote from: Somamech on July 24, 2013, 09:24:06 PM
Whats the deal with the Blur in that image ?
What blur? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on July 25, 2013, 02:03:59 AM
What blur? ???
The same cloudy white stuff that shows up on many Mars photos. And often, if a photo is not blurred with white thatchy/smoky stuff, it is blurred/blocked with black shadow.
Quote from: zorgon on July 24, 2013, 09:13:21 PM
(http://thecydoniainstitute.com/images/ExclamationMarkMRONote2013.jpg)
Zorgon,
Who made the geometric measurements in this image?
Night Time Deuem, make of it what you will
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Nighttime-2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Nighttime-2.jpg.html)
Flows
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Flows.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Flows.jpg.html)
IMHO, you should have one also...
I can not find anything in the white that looks out of place. It is relatively flat.
This entire area looks like a depression that once might have been full of water. The worm lines looks like wave crests that had rippled the sand then frozen in time. The flows go toward what looks like the top, not away from it. Optical illusion anyone..
In the white area it also looks like it was hit pretty good and the splatter goes out of frame top. What ever hit it must have been softer than this rock because it looks like it just splattered. No huge crater. But there is one in the white. If the material was something like chalk then I can see the white being left all over. The rest of the splatter I can only pick up with the Deuem photo. It has been covered over with dust.
It may be a low trajectory Meteor impact on an ancient ocean/sea, not deep enough to engulf the meteor's potential energy, but enough to allow it to be slowed creating a 'Back Wash' of debris from initial impactor ?
Interesting none the less, Deuem's processed image really messes with my optical's !! ??? :o :P Is cool though Deuem !! ;)
1WW
Quote from: rdunk on July 25, 2013, 06:33:24 AM
The same cloudy white stuff that shows up on many Mars photos. And often, if a photo is not blurred with white thatchy/smoky stuff, it is blurred/blocked with black shadow.
There's nothing blurred in the original image, just an overexposed area, and that can be corrected when you look at the JPEG 2000 image instead of the small version posted on the thread.
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 25, 2013, 11:27:08 AM
It may be a low trajectory Meteor impact on an ancient ocean/sea, not deep enough to engulf the meteor's potential energy, but enough to allow it to be slowed creating a 'Back Wash' of debris from initial impactor ?
I think it's a mesa, so without any depth. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on July 26, 2013, 08:59:08 AM
I think it's a mesa, so without any depth. :)
I can plainly see the Strata lines of accumulated terrestrial debris with in the image, it is the geological layering that comes with time. Similar to the tree rings we see on our own planet, but mostly represented by what we know now as the K/T Boundary, I went to Google Mars too see if I could pull it up and then Sketchup the area with numbers, for some reason, the website for this image doesn't work any longer. ??? So, will have to agree to disagree , at the moment anyway, regardless, it is now a 'Plateau', and it appears to be caused by something, Water ways, Meteorite/Asteroid or Aliens!! :P I can see there is complexity of a planets normal accumulative processes,
"Strata" as it were. ;)
Will keep trying to access website for Long/Lat information. :)
1WW
Quote from: ArMaP on July 26, 2013, 08:59:08 AM
I think it's a mesa, so without any depth. :)
I looked at the HiRise Jpeg 2000 image and to me it's clearly a depression. As old as Mars is, it's impossible to tell exactly how this depression was formed geologically speaking. Everyone is just guessing without analyzing the actual core samples one would have to have to tell the exact composition and age.
IMHO
Rock..
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 26, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
I looked at the HiRise Jpeg 2000 image and to me it's clearly a depression. As old as Mars is, it's impossible to tell exactly how this depression was formed geologically speaking. Everyone is just guessing without analyzing the actual core samples one would have to have to tell the exact composition and age.
IMHO
Rock..
Based on shadow analysis - those lumps near the top are unlikely to be depressions - I agree, Sgt. It is a depression.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 26, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
I looked at the HiRise Jpeg 2000 image and to me it's clearly a depression. As old as Mars is, it's impossible to tell exactly how this depression was formed geologically speaking. Everyone is just guessing without analyzing the actual core samples one would have to have to tell the exact composition and age.
IMHO
Rock..
I am with you Sgt. !! ;) It's seems to be a depression, wish we could get a closer looksie.. ??? LOL Wheres "Z" with that sports Mosel? ! LOL :P
1WW
Did you notice the 2 flows I circled. They go down? No? If that surface was high I would expect the flows to be reversed.
In the Deuem shot it almost looks like something hit and got burried which caused the bottom dot to rise. It might be one of each. But the land inbetween seem to be almost level or at least connecting both sides That black area might be whats left over of a hole. Need radar info....
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 26, 2013, 03:51:39 PM
Will keep trying to access website for Long/Lat information. :)
Latitude (centered): 6.042 degrees
Longitude (East): 92.076 degrees
:)
Quote from: ArMaP on July 26, 2013, 09:04:16 PM
Latitude (centered): 6.042 degrees
Longitude (East): 92.076 degrees
:)
Thanks ArMap, and you are right, it is a depression, got Google Mars image for Hirise and plainly shows what we are thinking is a Plateau or an Oasis/Island is definitely a play on the eyes and shadowing.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/MarsExclamationMark_zpsd25e747b.png)
I suggest that if one has Google Earth/Mars to look around that are, when I was zooming in there is a lot of thing's (Anomalies) that seem to be blurred out, but I am not sure if this is because I personally requested desired coordinates or if it is something that is intentionally being masked from view. ???
Also seems to be a Tectonic fracture that run's from the Exclamation area down to another area that is rather strange looking, what these are, "I can't say for sure." But is an interesting area area. 8)
1WW
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 26, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
I looked at the HiRise Jpeg 2000 image and to me it's clearly a depression.
Looked at this image.
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5066/4o54.jpg)
The arrow points follows the direction of the light, coming at an angle of 109.1º (if I didn't made any mistake) CCW from the top of the picture.
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 26, 2013, 10:57:02 PM
Thanks ArMap, and you are right, it is a depression, got Google Mars image for Hirise and plainly shows what we are thinking is a Plateau or an Oasis/Island is definitely a play on the eyes and shadowing.
I was saying that it's a mesa (or plateau), not a depression. :)
Quote from: deuem on July 26, 2013, 06:12:04 PM
Did you notice the 2 flows I circled.
Yes. :)
Here are all the areas you marked, at 100% zoom taken from the JPEG 2000 image.
I numbered the areas you marked to make it easier to identify them.
(http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/9301/u7lw.jpg)
In the following images, like in the image I posted in a previous post, north is to the top of the image (rotated some 97º CCW when compared with "exclamation mark" image).
Area 1
(http://imageshack.us/a/img5/5974/2i6y.jpg)
Area 2
(http://imageshack.us/a/img27/3176/a1ku.jpg)
Area 3
(http://imageshack.us/a/img41/4422/jq2b.jpg)
I hope this helps. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on July 26, 2013, 11:26:09 PM
Looked at this image.
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5066/4o54.jpg)
The arrow points follows the direction of the light, coming at an angle of 109.1º (if I didn't made any mistake) CCW from the top of the picture.
I say You have the light backwards. See that cluster of lumps on the left in the lighted area? Based on Their shadows, the light is coming in opposite, and it is a depression We're looking at - unless those lumps are depressions - which I sincerely doubt.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 27, 2013, 12:03:12 AM
I say You have the light backwards.
The position of the sun at the time the photo was taken is one of the informations available on the image page, it's the "Sub-solar azimuth".
QuoteSee that cluster of lumps on the left in the lighted area?
These small craters, seen here at 100% zoom? :)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8421/r9jj.jpg)
They look like lumps to Me, not craters.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 27, 2013, 12:24:39 AM
They look like lumps to Me, not craters.
And the rocks look like craters, I suppose. What about the dunes? :)
(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3587/om0d.jpg)
Quote from: Lunica on July 25, 2013, 07:38:03 AM
Who made the geometric measurements in this image?
Got that via google... no idea
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 27, 2013, 12:24:39 AM
They look like lumps to Me, not craters.
Going 100% off my Deuem process I find both Craters and Rocks. The boulders are well rounded and look like they have been in the surf for many a year. The Boulders and Craters are circled in the next photo. So I think IMHO we have both... The shadows tell the story for me. The craters give a round shadow like the moons creat and the rocks show a distint shadow fall.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/CraterRockOverlay.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/CraterRockOverlay.jpg.html)
Quote from: deuem on July 27, 2013, 10:14:53 AM
The shadows tell the story for me. The craters give a round shadow like the moons creat and the rocks show a distint shadow fall.
Aren't the shadows all on the same side?
Quote from: ArMaP on July 27, 2013, 02:43:33 PM
Aren't the shadows all on the same side?
"Only in the 'Shaded' Areas ArMap!!" :P LOL
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 27, 2013, 02:47:54 PM
"Only in the 'Shaded' Areas ArMap!!" :P LOL
Version 1.1:
Aren't the shaded areas all on the same side? :P
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Daytimeworkedhard.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Daytimeworkedhard.jpg.html)
This is a daytime process worked very hard. I am sorry to anyone who can't read it. Compare it against the shadows. Dr. Deuem is out of the office now and un-available for interigation on this print. Sorry. I suggest to read into it what you may. It does take several years of training the eye but you can see that the shadows are different. Some are cast while others are round. Following the lips per say.
Good luck, Deuem
This is the original, the one with the shadows/shaded areas and the one I was talking about.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img703/8421/r9jj.jpg)
They are the same photo
Quote from: deuem on July 27, 2013, 04:37:04 PM
They are the same photo
No.
The one I posted is a crop from the original image downloaded from the HiRISE site, the image you posted is a computer generated image based on the image I posted.
The process used to generate the image you posted changes the colours/shades of grey, so it cannot be considered as the original. As your process changes colours/shades of grey to an arbitrarily chosen colour/shade of grey, a shadow/shaded area may become brighter than a non shaded area and vice-versa.
If the process changed the colours/shades of grey in a proportional manner, like the change of brightness or levels, then the shadows/shaded areas would still look darker than the non shaded areas.
That image is not a good image to analyse the shapes and shadows/shaded areas on the original image.
I sit corrected, I started with the same photo, Are you happy now?
Your photo r9jj 755x531 jpeg 282k from reply #22
This is what I get for trying............Do you just sit there waiting for me to post something so you can write something silly about my work?
Who in their right mind or even coorupted mind thinks that a Deuem photo is the original? I started with the same photo. I am glad I have a lot of hair so when I pull it out I have a lot left over. I wrote,
QuoteThis is a daytime process worked very hard.
. I never wrote that this is the original photo from Mars.
Quote
That image is not a good image to analyse the shapes and shadows/shaded areas on the original image.
This one made me laugh, thanks.
You missed the disclaimer.
Quote
I am sorry to anyone who can't read it.
Also missed
Quote
worked very hard, meaning it was over processed to show what it could.
You also missed
Quote
It does take several years of training the eye
And the best one missed is
Quote
Dr. Deuem is out of the office now and un-available for interigation on this print. Sorry.
In other words, it is what it is, if you don't like it or don't understand it sobeit.
Thanks for the Hugs and Kisses post...
For anyone else, I hope you can make out what I am talking about. See the difference in the colors.The casted shadows are the clearest. This is my opinion after doing this for years.
WIthout radar confermation it is a guess based on interpetation. Like reading an X-Ray.
Oh no did I say x-ray again.
Second disclaimer The deuem process is not an x-ray. I have been down that road before.....
Dr Deuem needs a drink............
"You say potaaato, I say potato, you say tommmaaato, I say tomato. Let's call the whole thing off!"
It's a depression guys!...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Rock
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 27, 2013, 08:34:36 PM
"You say potaaato, I say potato, you say tommmaaato, I say tomato. Let's call the whole thing off!"
I say "batata" and "tomate". ;D
QuoteIt's a depression guys!...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
With those shadows? ???
Quote from: deuem on July 27, 2013, 07:56:44 PM
I sit corrected, I started with the same photo, Are you happy now?
It's not a question of being happy, it's a question of calling things what they are.
QuoteThis is what I get for trying............Do you just sit there waiting for me to post something so you can write something silly about my work?
No, I write silly things about what anyone posts, you're not special. :)
QuoteWho in their right mind or even coorupted mind thinks that a Deuem photo is the original?
Then why did you say "It's the same photo"?
QuoteYou missed the disclaimer.
I did not,
Quote from: ArMaP on July 27, 2013, 08:36:30 PM
I say "batata" and "tomate". ;D
With those shadows? ???
yes
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 27, 2013, 08:47:42 PM
yes
Well, I guess that means that one of us is wrong. :)
I will look for more photos of that area.
Quote from: ArMaP on July 27, 2013, 09:23:44 PM
Well, I guess that means that one of us is wrong. :)
I will look for more photos of that area.
Seeing how this is all guesswork. You might be right about one or the other, but try this on for size. What if the big feature is a depression & the small one is a Mesa? Or vice-a-versa. Then we could both be wrong & right at the same time ;)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 27, 2013, 10:11:01 PM
Seeing how this is all guesswork.
It's not guesswork, the direction of the sunlight is one of the (many) properties of the LBL file for that image. You can see that file (for the mapprojected image, like the one I posted) here (http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/RDR/ESP/ORB_020700_020799/ESP_020794_1860/ESP_020794_1860_RED.LBL).
QuoteYou might be right about one or the other, but try this on for size. What if the big feature is a depression & the small one is a Mesa? Or vice-a-versa. Then we could both be wrong & right at the same time ;)
I thought about that, but then it would be even more difficult to explain the shadows. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on July 28, 2013, 12:21:36 AM
It's not guesswork, the direction of the sunlight is one of the (many) properties of the LBL file for that image. You can see that file (for the mapprojected image, like the one I posted) here (http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/RDR/ESP/ORB_020700_020799/ESP_020794_1860/ESP_020794_1860_RED.LBL).
I thought about that, but then it would be even more difficult to explain the shadows. :)
Sure its' guesswork, no one here is an expert on anything. (shake the tree)..It's all guesswork...some people think waaayyyy too much of themselves...lol ::)
The age old argument between "MESA" or "CRATER" still rages on I see :D
Our eyes are easily tricked into seeing concave when there is convex and visa versa.
Sometimes rotating the image helps a LOT
Like this Dragon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKanr-kNEJs
Or the Famous Charlie Chaplin Mask
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clo
The other way to solve the problem is use stereo images :D
I know Google Moon and Mars are suckee programs for anomaly hunting but maybe if we find this area on Google Mars it will give us elevations "D
Quote from: zorgon on July 28, 2013, 01:12:24 AM
Like this Dragon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKanr-kNEJs
I made one of those, it's amazing how it (our brain) works. :)
And yes, I always rotate the image, as I noticed some years ago that I am easily fooled by the crater/dome problem, so I always check first by other means. :D
According to HiRise:
Exclamation Mark on Mars
ESP_020794_1860 Science Theme: Landscape EvolutionQuoteTurn this image sideways (so North is to the right) and the highstanding landforms look like an exclamation mark.
The origin of these hills may be difficult to understand on such ancient terrain. The straight edges suggest fractures related to faults. Maybe this feature was lifted up by the faulting, maybe the surrounding terrain has been eroded down over billions of years, or both.
Written by: Alfred McEwen (12 January 2011)
Solar incidence angle: 56 degrees, with the Sun about 34 degrees above the horizon
Solar longitude: 210.0 degrees, Northern Autumn
http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_020794_1860
(http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/ESP/ORB_020700_020799/ESP_020794_1860/ESP_020794_1860_MRGB.abrowse.jpg)
Here is a close up section (shown in brown above)
(http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/ESP/ORB_020700_020799/ESP_020794_1860/ESP_020794_1860_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg)
@ Zorgon,
So the image I pulled from Google Mars is not a Depression? When I changed Sun positions the shadow followed the line of the Crater all the way around? I may be doing this wrong, so if anyone can tell me how to do this correctly, would be greatly appreciated. 8)
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/MarsExclamationMark_zpsd25e747b.png)
Thanks a head of time. ;)
1WW
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 28, 2013, 03:55:48 AM
So the image I pulled from Google Mars is not a Depression?
No. :)
QuoteWhen I changed Sun positions the shadow followed the line of the Crater all the way around? I may be doing this wrong, so if anyone can tell me how to do this correctly, would be greatly appreciated. 8)
From what I could see the Sun position on Google Earth is not that good at showing shadows because it uses images that already have shadows, so we get a strange (and ugly) result.
Quote from: zorgon on July 28, 2013, 01:15:32 AM
I know Google Moon and Mars are suckee programs for anomaly hunting but maybe if we find this area on Google Mars it will give us elevations "D
Here it is, seen from the north, as it's easier to see that way.
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8257/9ja9.jpg)
Thanks ArMap!!
I tried to go to Ground view,but for some reason couldn't do it, kind of new to the Google Earth program, so may be getting a lot of question's from me!! LOL :P
Now, for the topic at hand. 8)
I seen the 'Fault Crack' in the original image and on Google Mars, and with you facing this object from the North it seems it is rather an obscure lift to it, it may be an 'Uplift' from Tectonic shift, not sure anymore, but definitely can see what you are saying here.
"Is there a way you can get all cardinal directions of the image and then we can see each vantage point?" Until I get the Google thing figured out, you could probably do this in a blink of an eye, opposed to me having to do it, pretty much being after I learn how to get the images the way you have captured them. :P
Looks as if your eye Alt was at -2631 m, so that distance should remain constant.
Thanks again.
1WW
I got onto Goggle Mars and ran a lot of elevation lines. It is all over the place and looks nothing like the pretty photo. So I don't know which one to look at. Either way it shows an elevated area. Jagged at best. I still don't have a grasp on the 2 flows and the other trial.
So when in doubt, change the subject.
How you miss this. SSE of !, not very far... 4 sides, hum?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SSEof.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SSEof.jpg.html)
Quote from: deuem on July 28, 2013, 05:01:27 PM
I got onto Goggle Mars and ran a lot of elevation lines. It is all over the place and looks nothing like the pretty photo. So I don't know which one to look at. Either way it shows an elevated area. Jagged at best. I still don't have a grasp on the 2 flows and the other trial.
So when in doubt, change the subject.
How you miss this. SSE of !, not very far... 4 sides, hum?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SSEof.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SSEof.jpg.html)
hmm i like to see a HiRISE image of this one :D
Quote from: deuem on July 28, 2013, 05:01:27 PM
I got onto Goggle Mars and ran a lot of elevation lines. It is all over the place and looks nothing like the pretty photo. So I don't know which one to look at. Either way it shows an elevated area. Jagged at best. I still don't have a grasp on the 2 flows and the other trial.
So when in doubt, change the subject.
How you miss this. SSE of !, not very far... 4 sides, hum?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SSEof.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SSEof.jpg.html)
What were the Coordinates for this image Deuem? Not associated with image posted ???
1WW
138.5 miles sse
2 45 01 24 n 93 57 32 e
Quote from: deuem on July 29, 2013, 10:47:25 AM
138.5 miles sse
That's why I couldn't find it, I wasn't expecting to be that far.
Apparently, no HiRISE photos from that area. :(
As for your "flows", I don't see anything strange with them, specially the one I marked as "1", it really looks like something flowed down from that area. ???
On Google Mars it is only 3 inches away. Real close!
On a planetary scale, 138 miles is close for me, I can even walk it, Ride a bike or take a car.
lol
Quote from: deuem on July 29, 2013, 04:21:05 PM
On Google Mars it is only 3 inches away. Real close!
On a planetary scale, 138 miles is close for me, I can even walk it, Ride a bike or take a car.
lol
Portugal is a small country, if I move 138 miles to the east I will end up in Spain. :)
Not a HiRISE photo but a CTX photo, also from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, showing the "four sided" feature, at 25% zoom.
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5310/l0k9.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on July 30, 2013, 09:18:45 AM
Not a HiRISE photo but a CTX photo, also from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, showing the "four sided" feature, at 25% zoom.
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5310/l0k9.jpg)
Very cool ArMap! Maybe I count some more sides also. Maybe this is the famous 4,5 side pyramid from mars! :)
Nice youtube video about exclamation marks on Earth in comparison to Mars:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juo0VBNjvTs
That's an interesting video, although I don't agree with some of the things it says, as the Mars "exclamation mark" is not as perfect as they make it to be.