Yes, Mars Anomalies

[ArMaP]

I don't think the data coming from Mars is in jpg format.  I suspect They can choose what format to issue the images in.

I don't know if they have the possibility of sending in anything besides JPEG (although the file naming scheme they use allows for uncompressed images), but, according to the information available in the LBL files, these are JPEG images.

[ArMaP]

Before I get hung, It is a find and it would even put me on a track to find a better photo, Maybe ArMaP can.

A better photo? Here it is.

(click for full size GIF)

[Amaterasu]

The side not in shadow is not in direct sunlight either, it's only getting reflected sunlight.

Not sure what You're saying here.

If the sun is reflected directly to the camera by one surface that surface will appear much brighter and can "burn" the photo on that spot. For another surface to do the same it needs to be in a similar position between the light source and the camera, so it reflected the light directly to the camera.

So...  You're saying there are two rocks side by side with equal width, that both "shine" like streaks of paint, but that nowhere else in that whole panorama does any other rock get it just right?  Really?

Can't buy that, ArMap.

Irrelevant.

Not even.  If rocks at certain angles create such white, to say that a closeup scan of six hour's length showing NO OTHER such rocks is in itself anomalous.  If two side by side rocks can do it, in THAT amount of area, One would expect to see at least a general scattering of other rocks that manage the feat.

There are none.

Why should there be more?

Um...  Statistically, One would expect the "correct" angles to be offered on a fairly regular basis.  It would be very freaky to have two same-shaped rocks together being the ONLY rocks hitting the "sweet zone."  Rather like grabbing a handful of glitter and only two flakes, side by side, reflecting back the light.

The general face, yes, but I think that we are looking at is not a flat face, but a stepped face, with the face of the "steps" pointing to the camera and the top of the "steps" getting direct sunlight.

And I say We are looking at a flat surface painted and fully in shade.

[Amaterasu]

From: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/images/Bonestell_1772A_L456atc.html



The original is much bigger and I don't know why clicking it will not bring up the original size.

[Somamech]

I love this Photo of Mars from Nasa 

[Somamech]

Oddly in 2009 a friend of mine at the time, was living in Sydney, Australia and he could breath, run a forum, and be an all round great human.

This wikipedia page give's an approximation of what he he saw on the day:

2009 Australian dust storm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Australian_dust_storm

[Somamech]

Mar's must be some Quantum Computing Nightmare. 

Look at it this way, It has an Atmosphere as refernced here on Wikipedia:

Atmosphere of Mars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

And Even Nasa Say that Mars Magnetic Fields are Extinct, Yet Mars roll's on and looks much like Earth in True Colour image's  :O

Maybe, just maybe the model is wrong, and ya been sold a lemon in place of an orange ? 

The various Martian magnetic fields do not encompass the entire planet and are local (right image). The Martian dynamo is extinct, and its magnetic fields are "fossil" remnants of its ancient, global magnetic field.

SOURCE:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/hassler02.html#.UpETvOLlP1A

[Somamech]

Or hey to put on another hat, maybe it's not normal to have this magnetic field encompassing a planet and we are in fact "Harnessed in the Slums"

[ArMaP]

Not sure what You're saying here.

I always have problems explaining the shadows.

What I mean is that the sides of the rocks facing the camera are not getting direct sunlight, they are either in the shadow of some bigger rock or in the shadow of the rock itself. As, in the case of this "stripes" rock, I don't see any other rock projecting a shadow over that rock, I said that the rock is not in the shadow, although the side facing the camera is in its own shadow.

The ground is in direct sunlight and appears much lighter, I think the two areas that make up the "stripes" are also getting the sunlight directly, only in an angle that makes it more noticeable.

I hope that makes sense.

So...  You're saying there are two rocks side by side with equal width, that both "shine" like streaks of paint, but that nowhere else in that whole panorama does any other rock get it just right?  Really?

No, just one rock that is shaped (on the side facing up) more or less like a couple of steps of a stairway, and that the top of both "steps" are in a similar angle, and that angle makes it reflect the light directly to the camera.

Not even.  If rocks at certain angles create such white, to say that a closeup scan of six hour's length showing NO OTHER such rocks is in itself anomalous.  If two side by side rocks can do it, in THAT amount of area, One would expect to see at least a general scattering of other rocks that manage the feat.

The amount of time you took is irrelevant to the final result, and I was talking about one rock.

There are none.

It's possible, I haven't measured the brightness of all the rocks in the panorama.
The ground near the "stripes" rock has some spots almost as bright.

And I say We are looking at a flat surface painted and fully in shade.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

[ArMaP]

And Even Nasa Say that Mars Magnetic Fields are Extinct, Yet Mars roll's on and looks much like Earth in True Colour image's  :O

Why shouldn't it look like Earth?

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Oh wow.

Lots of detail in that pic, thanks Armap i will study it later

Apart from the 'shiny' rocks, does anyone else notice the 'tyre tracks' going from (IMO) right-to-left in the upper half of the picture?

Looks to me like (A) old rover tracks, which seems unlikely unless the damn thing was going in circles, and (B) it was not the Rover but maybe something else, something more recent.....
Just thinking out loud, great input guys...........

[ArMaP]

Apart from the 'shiny' rocks, does anyone else notice the 'tyre tracks' going from (IMO) right-to-left in the upper half of the picture?

What picture? Things are getting a little confusing with so many images.

[ArMaP]

The original is much bigger and I don't know why clicking it will not bring up the original size.

I suppose it should be this one.

[ArMaP]

It's possible, I haven't measured the brightness of all the rocks in the panorama.

I found that on the left side of the panorama, near the rover tracks, we can see some rocks brighter than the "stripes".

[deuem]

Ok, I am officaly lost here. With so many photos that are so large my internet connection is boiling over. It must be nice to click a page and get it instant. I have to wait and wait or even re-boot for each page. When a conversation goe back several pages. I have to forget it and move on.  Maybe 1 thread, 1 Mars photo and nothing else would be the best.

Doing a moving collection with such large photos is killing me and I can't do it from here. Sorry, Deuem And ArMaP I can not get such a large photo out of your image bucket. I need the link to Nasa if you have it. I have no idea about a stripped rock. And how shadows refect light back to the camera is in question also. The only light in a shadow is reflective to begin with. I think we need another term there. Reflective reflective is too long.

Since all light that a camera picks up is either dirrect or reflective, shadows and shade need to be defined better. It has to be a double bounce or more.  In some areas the shaded areas, not the shadows have a lot of detail yet others seem bland or blured.
Deuem