Exclamation Mark on Mars

[deuem]

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

[ArMaP]

This is the original, the one with the shadows/shaded areas and the one I was talking about.

[deuem]

They are the same photo

[ArMaP]

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.

[deuem]

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,

This is a daytime process worked very hard.

. I never wrote that this is the original photo from Mars.

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.

I am sorry to anyone who can't read it.

Also missed

worked very hard, meaning it was over processed to show what it could.

You also missed

It does take several years of training the eye

And the best one missed is

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............

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

"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
Rock

[ArMaP]

"You say potaaato, I say potato, you say tommmaaato, I say tomato. Let's call the whole thing off!"

I say "batata" and "tomate".

It's a depression guys!...lol

With those shadows? 

[ArMaP]

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.

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?

No, I write silly things about what anyone posts, you're not special.

Who 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"?

You missed the disclaimer.

I did not,

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I say "batata" and "tomate".
With those shadows? 

yes

[ArMaP]

yes

Well, I guess that means that one of us is wrong.

I will look for more photos of that area.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

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 

[ArMaP]

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.

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 

I thought about that, but then it would be even more difficult to explain the shadows.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

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.
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

[zorgon]

The age old argument between "MESA" or "CRATER" still rages on I see

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



Or the Famous Charlie Chaplin Mask



The other way to solve the problem is use stereo images

[zorgon]

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