Mars White "Winged" Anomaly and "Crater" Anomalies

[rdunk]

Hello ArMaP!! Well, I think we are making some progress with our discussion. 

First, I want to say "your way of answering" is certainly not "strange", to me. It is good to see the detail of your thoughts, in your very organized presentations. I just meant that I wasn't going to rebut each of your comments, as my reply preference is to address where we might find more areas of agreement. (I am just not as organized - lol)

I am glad to understand that you do now see the "pentagon" object I discussed in my photo (your term, and I like it). I did look back at your pic, and it is just not very clear. I have found no image as clear as the MOC CTX camera pic, the link to which I included in the OP.

Relative to whether the pentagon is sunken or vertical, we can actually see three of the five sides, including shadows, and they look vertical to me. I believe that if the feature were sunken, we would more likely, and rather, be able to see the inside of the two other sides instead. Regarding vertical height, that would be left to a guess. But, knowing about how wide the feature is, and looking at the height of the shadows, a decent guess would be for it to be about 1/2 as high as it is wide - don'tcha think??

For your other comments, and per your request, I am posting another screenshot of the original CTX pic, with some contrast/shadow changes, to lighten the pic a little. Also, I have reduced the magnification slightly, to make the pic a little more crisp for you

To this screenshot, I have added a circle for the "pentagon", a circle for the white "limp" object, and an arrow to the "upright white winged object". While the #2 object is not totally clear, the shape of its head (on the left) is a giveaway as being seemingly identical to the #1 object.

Hopefully these additions will help in some of these areas.

[ArMaP]

Hello ArMaP!! Well, I think we are making some progress with our discussion. 

Great!

I am glad to understand that you do now see the "pentagon" object I discussed in my photo (your term, and I like it). I did look back at your pic, and it is just not very clear. I have found no image as clear as the MOC CTX camera pic, the link to which I included in the OP.

I think "my" version of the photo is clearer than the one you are using, and knowing that "my" version is closer to the original, it makes sense that "my" version would be better. To me, the "pentagon" is the result of the worse image that you used.

I suggest you download the "PDS Data" version (the one I used). You can open that file with NASAView (free) or with Photoshop (I can explain how if anyone wants to know). I used ISIS, but in this case it didn't made a difference when compared with Photoshop (and Photoshop is easier to use).

Relative to whether the pentagon is sunken or vertical, we can actually see three of the five sides, including shadows, and they look vertical to me.

I think the feature is sunken with vertical sides.

I believe that if the feature were sunken, we would more likely, and rather, be able to see the inside of the two other sides instead.

But we can see them.

Regarding vertical height, that would be left to a guess. But, knowing about how wide the feature is, and looking at the height of the shadows, a decent guess would be for it to be about 1/2 as high as it is wide - don'tcha think??

No, I think it's much lower than that, I will see what I can do with the information about the height of the Sun.

For your other comments, and per your request, I am posting another screenshot of the original CTX pic, with some contrast/shadow changes, to lighten the pic a little. Also, I have reduced the magnification slightly, to make the pic a little more crisp for you

Thanks.

While the #2 object is not totally clear, the shape of its head (on the left) is a giveaway as being seemingly identical to the #1 object.

Thanks for that, it really helped, but I don't see why you say that one is upright and the other one is limp, looking at the shadows they look the same to me.

[rdunk]

Thanks!!

Quote: Thanks for that, it really helped, but I don't see why you say that one is upright and the other one is limp, looking at the shadows they look the same to me".

Of course "limp" is just my term. I do refer to #2 as limp, because, to me it is pretty obvious the head-part of feature seems to be hanging down (ie, limp). And it is the head of #2 that is the most identifiable similar piece  to #1. And #1 seems to have "wings spread", while #2 does not, to my view.

And, I don't yet understand why you say your pic is a better source than mine, as, mine is the best quality original(?) CTX pic I have ever seen. It is far better in detail than most you will see. However, I will look at your pic again, and comment in a later reply.

Thanks again.

[rdunk]

Hi ArMaP! You said, I think "my" version of the photo is clearer than the one you are using, and knowing that "my" version is closer to the original, it makes sense that "my" version would be better. To me, the "pentagon" is the result of the worse image that you used".

Well, I am going to post below both your pic (with large yellow arrow) and mine, because, to me your pic is for sure no better (in my view), and it actually is not as clear to me as the CTX pic I posted. As I pointed out in a prior reply, your pic is "reversed", which does give you an opposite view of where the shadowing is. Maybe that is one of the reasons you are seeing the "pentagon" as being recessed. It certainly doesn't look that way to me, but the seeming perfectly shaped pentagon feature is still just that, reversed/recessed or not.

[ArMaP]

Well, I am going to post below both your pic (with large yellow arrow) and mine, because, to me your pic is for sure no better (in my view), and it actually is not as clear to me as the CTX pic I posted.

That's the problem of subjective things like this, to me, "my" version looks better.

The image you posted has more contrast, which means that it has less subtle details. It also looks like it has some compression artefacts (What version did you use? Did you downloaded on of the available images or did you do a screen-grab?).

As I pointed out in a prior reply, your pic is "reversed", which does give you an opposite view of where the shadowing is.

That's something I do not understand, the image information has a "N" on the "USAGE_NOTE" field, meaning that the image should not be flipped, but the image needs to be flipped.

I'm not sure yet about the direction from where the light is coming, I have to look at it again.

Maybe that is one of the reasons you are seeing the "pentagon" as being recessed.

I don't think so, but it's possible, if I'm looking at the light from a wrong point of view I may be seeing reversed shadows.

It certainly doesn't look that way to me, but the seeming perfectly shaped pentagon feature is still just that, reversed/recessed or not.

It's not a perfectly shaped pentagon, even in the image you posted it's more like half pentagon/half circle, but I think that is the result of image compression.

[rdunk]

ArMaP, as I mentioned previously, my original photo is the one in the link posted in the OP. Even magnified to the maximum, that CTX pic remains very vivid and clear. And, yes, I did use that photo for my "screenshots". It does depict all if the details I have outlined as being anomalous, and of obvious possible intelligent design, ie, the "white winged anomaly", the anomaly "launch area", the "three craters" having very anomalous crater bottoms, and the "fourth crater" that clearly shows to be multi-level, with an expansive upper level having a very flat and smooth surface, that also clearly shows an "exit" into the crater rim.

If we just had that quality of Mars Orbiter photos for the entire planet of Mars, the anomaly research would be even more exciting!! A released Obiter photo of this quality seems to be a little rare.

ArMaP, thanks so much for your comments. You have spent a lot of time "trying to get me straight" on this. But alas, to no avail - lol lol.

While we do see some of these things a little differently, I believe this anomalous area is worthy of note, and should be kept in our thoughts as possibly indicating civilized activity. And maybe that means keeping a watch for later photos, and/or for other similar areas for comparison.

On that thought, there are a few other craters in this area that also appear to have very unusual bottoms, as if they  have some kind of entry "flaps". If you look around with my full pic (magnified), I am sure you can find some of those also.