Pareidolia and imagery anomalies on Mars: Case study#1 Bonestell Crater Part 1

reply to post by ArMaP


yes...we are definitely looking at the same area.

your ps states the area on the image is 6 x 8 meters.

is it the whole area within the frame?

cause the the circled image itself in my post stands about 10 meters tall

and please note, if you start zooming in and out of that area, its not the only image you can get.

theres a whole lotta of them around....but this "fuzzy" lady stands out.

reply to post by alphaMegas


The 6 x 8 area is the one you circled, the images I posted show a 125 x 100 metres area.

One question: how do you know the height of any of the features you see?

reply to post by ArMaP


from google application toolbar - linear measurements.

i calibrated it against and or with known data such as human heights,lamp post, cars etc from other application (google earth)
and found it very accurate.

reply to post by alphaMegas


The problem with that is that only measures the ground, so what it shows is the distance between those two points, regardless of possible differences in altitude.

I tried it with the place where I live, and a place that is 116 metres from the sea level appears as being 220 metres high. It also shows the highest point as the second highest (there's a 10 metres difference between the two), so I don't have any reason to trust the 3D representation Google Earth shows.

reply to post by ArMaP


if you take linear meaurements directly between two points, unless you are measuring a flat surface, you will have to consider a term they use in surveying works as "sag" or sagging.

Google apps follows this principle and any slight diversion of the topographic contour will be commesurated by their program which by the way is really brilliant mate.

one way to check is to take the readings of the elevations of the lowest data and the highest data you assume as your bench mark.

presently, engineering works now use google topography and contouring works instead of the old "survey teams", they serves as verifying team now...trust me, we're doing it here...

reply to post by alphaMegas


Could you apply that measuring methods and tell me how high above the river's surface is the base of the monument seen in this image?

Coordinates are 38°40'48.08"N, 9°10'12.60"W

Using better sources, this



appears as this:


The above image has a resolution of roughly 6 metres per pixel, so it shows an area of around 2298 x 1992 metres.


This image


looks like this:


The resolution is the same, so it shows an area of 6144 x 3168 metres.

Image source: Mars Image Explorer

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by alphaMegas

 

Could you apply that measuring methods and tell me how high above the river's surface is the base of the monument seen in this image?

Coordinates are 38°40'48.08"N, 9°10'12.60"W

Very gladly mate,,,
now heres some data for you:

Btw , are we talking bout the Cristo rei monument?

if so then here we go...

My bench mark data for the monument's base is EL. 102 meters (google apps provides this)(Blue line)
the river's surface is EL.10 (Blue line)(downstream where the river meets the sea the elevation would be zero)

so the base monument is just about 92 meters above or high from the rivers surface.

now if you measure it coming down by taking a long measuring tape from the base to the river bank (red line) it will measure something like 267 meters.

and by dividing 267 meters by 92m you will have a vertical ratio of 1:2.9 sloping side.

it will leave you gasping for your breath when you climb up back to the base.

if you will look at the red lline obliquely, you will notice that it does'nt run on a straight line but arching, which means the apps is compensating from the sags it encounters.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/219442d21276.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by alphaMegas


OK, I understand it now, thanks.

Are you using the Pro version of Google Earth?

Edit: yes, that's the Cristo Rei monument, and that slope is steeper than it looks on Google Earth.

reply to post by ArMaP


Would not Google Earth (of Earth images) provide far, far better resolution in the vertical, than the less-than-accurate images from Google (Mars)??

Due to the fact of the photographs, taken to provide the "street view" imaging? Combined with the far better resolution of the aerial photographs, all are integrated into the algorithms, correct? (Obviously, Google claims the Rovers Opportunity and Spirit provide a close approximation to what Google Earth "street view" provides, at least for the locations where they have been. But, the camera equipment are certainly very different, and provide far more accuracy, for baseline calculations?):

(Example of cameras used for "Google Earth Street View")
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/302da0c2c9a3.jpg[/atsimg]

Surely, there are no motorcycle cops on Mars, either!

Just does not seem to be apt comparisons, between accuracy of Google (Earth) elevations, and Google (Mars).

reply to post by ArMaP


thanks for the photo comparisons.
and quite an eye opener. being in grayscale,at some certain level the face of old macdonald and the young one stands out crisply clear.

But these images that they have got for us, that means the source, is it also what they want us to see?

i observed that the pixels resolution are frozen once it got to 4 kilometers before it really hits the ground level.

its really hard to determine how and where to start looking and get a real perspective of the images' view.


and using your grayscale images, please check on the dark squiggley images on the bottom part of your images and you will find a much weirder images you can set your yes on...
and im putting my own comparison here.in this image you can see four types of false coloring they have employed in their techniques.
The purplish blotch, the grayscale, the red orange hue and the streamline blue strips, and over exposed blinding brightness.
i dont have any issues on the false coloring scheme. sometimes they help...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c59f7443b9d.jpg[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c4ecba689dba.jpg[/atsimg]

Please be reminded that the images ranges from 500 to 1000 meters long.

Beside a thin profile of a humanoid image is a letter "E".

Also this thread is a continuing case study of anomalies so the more data i can gather makes the study more reliable in terms of statistics.
And we are still inside the Bonestell Crater.
The circled area is where the deepest part of this crater is, at -5880Meters.
this is a part of the area where we see the squiglly weird images from hi-res pix.
you might even noticed that there are structures all over this heavily blotched area.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/26c891045ae2.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by alphaMegas


Not sure your original image works for me,I ain't seeing much there-but here's one from mars(supposedly)which I thought was quite special:



commons.wikimedia.org...:FaceMars4.jpg

Always liked that one,but who knows if its real or not...

Regards

Originally posted by alphaMegas
But these images that they have got for us, that means the source, is it also what they want us to see?

It's at least what they do not mind us to see.

i observed that the pixels resolution are frozen once it got to 4 kilometers before it really hits the ground level.

That's one of the reasons I don't like Google for something like this, we do not know when it passes 100% zoom and starts resampling the images, creating artefacts specific to the algorithm they use, besides the ones already introduced by the compression of the images.

The purplish blotch, the grayscale, the red orange hue and the streamline blue strips, and over exposed blinding brightness.

The purplish blotch (I think those are dunes) and the red orange hue look like they come from an ESA (HRSC) photo, while the greyscale and blue strips are from HiRISE.

ESA colour images are made from large greyscale images for red and smaller images for the blue and green channels, while the greyscale photos from HiRISE comes from the red channel and the colour images are made with IR for the red channel, red for the green and red+blue for the blue channel.

The overexposed (or underexposed) areas are probably the result of using different photos from different cameras for the same area and applying the colours from one of those cameras, but this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by alphaMegas
and using your grayscale images, please check on the dark squiggley images on the bottom part of your images and you will find a much weirder images you can set your yes on...

Are these the "squiggly images"?


I brightened the image a little to make them more visible.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by alphaMegas
and using your grayscale images, please check on the dark squiggley images on the bottom part of your images and you will find a much weirder images you can set your yes on...

Are these the "squiggly images"?


I brightened the image a little to make them more visible.

yes they are and the pix i posted (4 posts up) is a part of those squiggley images.

in google format...

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


i've been seeing this image quite a lot, but i cant find the coordinates.
got any info on this?
if so
can you please pass it on?

And this is my favorite...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e74f0fab9a2e.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by alphaMegas
But these images that they have got for us, that means the source, is it also what they want us to see?

Ssssoooo... If you see something that can be construed as mysterious, or possible evidence of civilization, it must be a true image (no matter how bad the resolution); but if a much better photo comes along that clearly shows it to be of natural origin, it must be suspect?

Originally posted by alphaMegas

Originally posted by ArMaP
Are these the "squiggly images"?


I brightened the image a little to make them more visible.

yes they are and the pix i posted (4 posts up) is a part of those squiggley images.

in google format...

Those are sand dunes, similar to the ones here, here and here.

Originally posted by alphaMegas
And this is my favorite...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e74f0fab9a2e.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 19-12-2010 by alphaMegas because: image added

It could be the shadow of a mound lit from a low sun-angle, similar to what you see in my second link (above), or it looks an awful lot like the type of dunes shown here or here.

st. ex goodday...
mysterious eh ? life is a big mystery my friend. even our very own existence is a big mystery itself...so okey i'll take that...



Those are sand dunes, similar to the ones here, here and here.

but not with the "dunes and the shadows". I live right in the middle of the world's greatest span of desert and every day i drive for work i see dunes and "rifflin waves" of sands everywhere i look even above me , and thats during sandstorms...

as for the shadow, well, everybody knows what shadows are...my 9 yr old son loves to chase his shadow everytime i take him out there in the desert and of course he knows very well what a shadow is..
and why would i bring it out to the open if only the best of ridicules is what i'll get...

come on, say, post something , is there something to this picture,which by the way is my "favorite"?

Originally posted by alphaMegas[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e74f0fab9a2e.jpg[/atsimg]

And this is my favorite...

extra DIV