Observation Window of a Mars Base or Giant UFO Found on Mars?

[rdunk]

Here it is.

ArMaP, if that is it, then your pic must be upside down, because the geographic features of your pic still do not compare to the geographic features Z's pic. 

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, if that is it, then your pic must be upside down, because the geographic features of your pic still do not compare to the geographic features Z's pic.

Well, in a photo of the ground there's no "up" or "down", so the image I posted cannot really be "upside down".

I don't know if the image Zorgon posted was rotated in some way, but, as I said in a previous post, the image I posted was rotated so it has north at the top of the image, as if we were looking at a map.

The difference between the raw image (the photo taken along the flight path of the satellite that carried the camera) and the image I posted is 182.95º, so yes, we can say that the image I posted is "upside down" when compared with the one posted by Zorgon on the opening post.

[rdunk]

Well, in a photo of the ground there's no "up" or "down", so the image I posted cannot really be "upside down".

I don't know if the image Zorgon posted was rotated in some way, but, as I said in a previous post, the image I posted was rotated so it has north at the top of the image, as if we were looking at a map.

The difference between the raw image (the photo taken along the flight path of the satellite that carried the camera) and the image I posted is 182.95º, so yes, we can say that the image I posted is "upside down" when compared with the one posted by Zorgon on the opening post.

Well, I guess the biggest difference is.........Z's photo  shows an anomaly area with circumference features up on top of a cliff/hill, and where you have located the anomaly, it looks to be down on the surface. Also the wide white features in Z's photo point downward, and in your photo they are on the surface and pointing upward.  ? ? ? ? ?

And just a point about taking photos of the ground - - straight down shots would take away most of the up/down, but any angle from the camera to the ground absolutely puts a height component into the accuracy of the photo!

[ArMaP]

Well, I guess the biggest difference is.........Z's photo  shows an anomaly area with circumference features up on top of a cliff/hill, and where you have located the anomaly, it looks to be down on the surface. Also the wide white features in Z's photo point downward, and in your photo they are on the surface and pointing upward.  ? ? ? ? ?

That means that what is seen on Zorgon's photo is an illusion. When I started looking at photos of the Moon several years ago I noticed that sometimes I had some trouble identifying correctly the shadows, so I always rotated the images to see if it made any difference, and sometimes it did, my preconceived idea of what should be top and bottom (for example) made me see things in a specific way, but things were not as I thought they were, so when I looked at the photo in a different way I wouldn't see (or see, according to the type of situation) different things.

And just a point about taking photos of the ground - - straight down shots would take away most of the up/down, but any angle from the camera to the ground absolutely puts a height component into the accuracy of the photo!

For this specific photo the camera was pointing down at an angle of 89.63º, so the "height component" extremely small.

PS: all mapping missions take most of the photos as close to the vertical as possible, as it makes the projecting of the image over the sphere that represents the theoretical astral body easier.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

That means that what is seen on Zorgon's photo is an illusion. When I started looking at photos of the Moon several years ago I noticed that sometimes I had some trouble identifying correctly the shadows, so I always rotated the images to see if it made any difference, and sometimes it did, my preconceived idea of what should be top and bottom (for example) made me see things in a specific way, but things were not as I thought they were, so when I looked at the photo in a different way I wouldn't see (or see, according to the type of situation) different things.


Yes I agree ArMaP, I rotate all my photos to get a better perspective. I attach the photo in Cad as then lay there down too in an isometric plane. It does make a difference!

[The Seeker]

Gentlemen, even after rotating the image Z posted I still see 2 rectangular structures with a straight edge in between them...

perhaps it is an illusion; perhaps not...

just another point to debate until we have a way to see it with more than a long distance photo...



seeker

[rdunk]

Gentlemen, even after rotating the image Z posted I still see 2 rectangular structures with a straight edge in between them...

perhaps it is an illusion; perhaps not...

just another point to debate until we have a way to see it with more than a long distance photo...



seeker

Seeker, just to be sure, are you referring to one of Zorgon's pics in the OP having rectangular structures and straight edges, or could it be in one of the pics I posted in #1 & #2 replies. For sure my #1 reply has rectangular objects and straight edges.

[ArMaP]

Gentlemen, even after rotating the image Z posted I still see 2 rectangular structures with a straight edge in between them...

It would help if you could point to them, as I don't see any rectangular feature on that photo.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

ArMap, that link to the img doesn't work for me....

[ArMaP]

ArMap, that link to the img doesn't work for me....

It looks like the link gets an extra "http", try the one below.

(try right-click and save target or equivalent, as it looks like the browser tries to load the image as a text file, probably because IMG and IMQ files start as a text file)
ftp://ida2.wr.usgs.gov/cdroms1/MGSC_1109/m18005/m1800558.imq

[The Seeker]

Observation Window of a Mars Base or
Giant UFO Found on Mars?

Odd Anomaly on Mars
MOC narrow-angle image M18-00558
Layer and light-toned outcrops in Aram Chaos


CREDIT: Bret Colin Shepperd

This image is from the OP as posted by Z; mayhap it is just me getting senile, but I still see straight edges and 90 degree angles...

seeker

[zorgon]

This is what that photo looks like when the photo is rotated so north is at the top of the image.
(I used the IMG file, converted it to GIF with NASAView and rotated it in PaintShopPro)
m1800558

And this is what that area looks like in the above photo.

Well YOUR copy has a lot less contrast than the official Malin copy that I used but if you turn your image over the object is still there.

Since these images are taken from OVERHEAD  does it really matter which way is "north" up? 

As to right angles and rectangles  THIS is also a right angle and a rectangle



Now this image is ArMaP's NASAview that I simply increased the contrast  I can still see the anomaly clear as day  I clipped it and added the inverted clip  Looks the same to me...

And the little rectangles I boxed are interesting



Turn it , twist it,  fuzz it, doesn't matter  Its still there

And it sure looks like a shadow beneath the part that appears to overhang

[zorgon]

Hey Z, I just began looking at the source image you posted, and I saw this, which certainly caught my eye.

Yup it caught my eye too

[ArMaP]

This image is from the OP as posted by Z; mayhap it is just me getting senile, but I still see straight edges and 90 degree angles...

Where?

[ArMaP]

Well YOUR copy has a lot less contrast than the official Malin copy that I used but if you turn your image over the object is still there.

It has less contrast because, as I said, I didn't do any processing besides rotating it so North is at the top of the image, and yes, the object is still there, I never said it wasn't.

Since these images are taken from OVERHEAD  does it really matter which way is "north" up? 

It does if you want to try to find the area on a map or something like Google Mars. Also, it helps understand if we are looking at an optical illusion or not.

As to right angles and rectangles  THIS is also a right angle and a rectangle

That photo shows things that we recognise as things that we know have right angles, the photo from Mars is taken from overhead, so there's no perspective like in that photo.

Now this image is ArMaP's NASAview that I simply increased the contrast  I can still see the anomaly clear as day  I clipped it and added the inverted clip  Looks the same to me...

Sure it looks the same, I never said it didn't, I only disagree with your interpretation.