Reopening the HALE CRATER question on mars.

Yes there are other thread's on this but I thought I would just upload a section of one of the ESA Mars Express image's that I have altered by increasing contrast by 60 percent and darkend by 40 percent to enhance the structure,

The original's can be found here,
www.esa.int...

Now for the image



Well not impressive but hey what are those marks, Oh I know there Jpeg compression mark artefacts,

WRONG?.

there are other images of the crater from varying angle's with the sun also at different angle's and upon using this same zoom and enhance technique the same structure's appear also at different angle's which would not happen as a result of compression or sampling equalization therefore whatever they are is physical in nature.

The way in which a image is sampled uses a technique called analogue to digital sampling and in that process subtle variation's can be lost or homogenised therefore the greater the sampling range the greater the image accuracy and also the method of image capture, i.e. the CCD or len's chip that sample's the light lensed onto it can have in built tolerance variation's that effect the overall image.

these were taken by state of the art scientific imaging equipment not a cannon eos so go figure.

Now as is my habit I will leave the rest to you, I only wish the upload limit was not so small on the image's.

reply to post by LABTECH767


Show us several images taken from different orbiters/equipment and different angles instead of just saying there's other pictures that show the same bar-code looking 'features'.

We can then line the photos up if they all have the same little blocky things and see if there's any change as would be expected with image artifacts from different equipment, or if the 'features' are persistent across platforms.

reply to post by Druscilla


The first one is from
137-021104-0533-6-3d2-01-HaleCrater_H

here is the second

which I have not done justice too with the quick edit
from
136-021104-0533-6-3d1-01-HaleCrater_H

I got the idea when I remembered a guy doing this on you tube who was convinced there was a city there but I am not so sure but it does not look natural either, I downloaded 9 images from the European space agency so will have a tinker and may upload more later.
I would upload the raw data but file size is a limiting factor.
Anyway if you have Gimp or Photoshop do it for yourself.

reply to post by LABTECH767


There's no need to use Gimp, or PS, or any other imaging tool.
Just link the RAW images directly from the sources and then we can all participate in comparing the raw, relatively 'untouched' images.

reply to post by Druscilla


Here are a couple of URL direct to the image's but there are more if you look,.
www.esa.int...
www.esa.int...(print)
spaceinimages.esa.int...
spaceinimages.esa.int...
And I dare you to do it on a larger scale just under the central peak's browse the whole image you will find these pattern's over a fairly defined area and I know similar images have been proven to be JPEG artefacts but it does not hurt to look does it and try playing with the hue to bring out more feature's.

reply to post by ArMaP


The description of the image does not state it is a rendered or computer generated height map but that may be wrong as I am not defending any statement's merely offering something to mull over,
the ESA statement concerning the image is as follow's
This perspective view, taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESA’s Mars Express spacecraft, shows Crater Hale on Mars.
I have a feeling You may be correct as there is no sky in the image unless it was cropped out.

I have taken the liberty of downloading the image you redirected to and though it does look lower res there are no rectilinear or other structure visible in it, early mariner and Viking probe's were state of the art of there time but the resolution for the famous face image was so low at the altitude of there orbit you could lose several heavy dumper trucks in just one pixel, let's just say for hypothesis that these mark's were the Martian equivalent of crop mark's, i.e. discoloured ground from buried remains' they would simply not have shown up on one of those but this image does show cratering to a greater extent than is visible from the ESA mars express image's render and as it is the original image well that close's this thread and answer's several question's thank you.


the square and rectilinear structure are therefore a product of both the stretching and the quality of the model,

Maybe we look out there because we are afraid of being alone or just want to know we can achieve more than we have.

I'm not an expert on topography or terrain features of Mars or whatever, but to me it looks natural. What are you seeing that looks unnatural? I'm always disappointed with these threads.

I want to see whole spaceships or something.

Come to think of it, blurry images are a great tool if someone is hoaxing. For that matter, delusion people can hold onto blurry images better because even good explanations can't remove the blur.

reply to post by jonnywhite


And the illusion/Delusion but it was a question that had to answered as this has been floating around the net for a while and now thanks to ArMaP's highter than average intellect it has (I had to resist the urge to quote south park though poor Kenny), still I also would like to see whole spaceship's but the day we do may be our last, remember what happened when the Amerindian's encountered the European's and that was people whom had something in common i.e. they were both human, the most dangerous thing humanity has ever done is broadcast that we are here, there is a habitable planet here and we have already refined the raw material's for anyone whom can take them from us.

ArMaP thank you for your explanation I fully accept it as I found this while searching the net and fell for it, I intend to leave this up for a while as anybody else doing a Hale Crater search would also find your CORRECT explanation, Lies and delusion's bind us but the truth set's us free.

reply to post by LABTECH767


Here's the two pictures together, with a closer orientation, and the patterns do match up even though the angles are different. I know that they are supposed to be filter artifacts, I just didn't expect them to be in the same areas on each picture, maybe one was taken off the other for publishing purpose??

reply to post by smurfy


Nice the way you turned the image around but my shot's were poor and now I fully accept ArMaP's explanation so there is nothing there just a computer generated illusion.
Which strangely make's me feel better.

This was the original video I saw that sent me off on this wild goose chase, now we know what these artefact's were caused by but still worth looking at, live and learn.
www.metacafe.com...

this is also interesting.
www.bing.com...
watch it to the end but remember that this is google map's not nasa jpl as one site claim's.

ArMaP's explanation stand's

But and try as I might I can not find a video I saw some time ago that showed a linear cut in the martian surface over and through jagged terrain were it cut through peak's but was devered by Traugh's in the landscape, it led to a haphazard collection of semi linear structures that if on earth we would assume to be a ruin and upon close zoom despite the resolution it seemed the surviving portion's were set in two lane's with a central reserve, now I can not find this but will continue to try, it may be a natural rift but then again.

www.bing.com...

reply to post by LABTECH767


Sorry for an off-thread post but look, you don't use apostrophes in plurals! Usually, just add an 's' to the word and you will have the plural version of the word. You are driving me crazy with your apostrophes man, and it detracts from your sometimes useful points... (Notice I didn't say - your sometimes useful point's).

Forgive my criticism if English is your second language.

reply to post by Watcher26


I don't have a problem with criticism and know my grammar is atrocious so It should be me that apologises there, still as long as the meaning is expressed that is the point after all, Always preferred electronics and physics to English grammar and spelling anyway and if it had not been for a seven year old self discovering the Hobbit then it would be even more appalling.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by Watcher26

 

I don't have a problem with criticism and know my grammar is atrocious so It should be me that apologises there, ....

My fault. I'm a bit of a pedant, and am always correcting the people who work for me...