Mars the anomalies The moon too., part II

[Mee_n_Mac]

Let me ask a question and pose a thought.<br /><br />First I'm unsure what the relationship is between the pictures on the right (with the red squares) and the ones on the left. Am I to understand that the lefties are blow-ups/crops of the region demarked by red in the righties ? If so I note that the bright spots are more intense in the latter than they are in the former ? Was there any image enhancement done, other than the cropping ?<br /><br />Second; at first glance it looks like sharpening halos around the bright spots. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

dfrank<br /><br />In both cases, each pixel represents 25 cm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

If you go to the HiRISE site, you can access each image by its number. In my posts the photo on the right shows a portion of the overall view of each image, and the red box represents where the photo on the left came from. I did no processing on the photos other than to 'print screen' to Paint, then crop off and enlarge the selected areas.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bobw]

It might be a rock... there seem to be a lot of them at the bottom of that gully looking section.<br /><br />From looking at the data sheet from picture PSP_001493_1815 it looks like the first four and the last three ccds were set to binning mode 2 and the "exposure" was 1/4 that of the center three ccds. Since your spot is in the left 30% of the image each pixel in the full view is an expanded and interpolated version of one pixel which was the sum of four pixels on the camera before it was transmitted to earth. So while the length for the right 40% and left 30% of the full size image is technically 26.9 cm/pixel the accuracy of those pixels is less than for the center 30% of the image. The chart at the bottom of the page here says the image scale range is "from 26.9 cm/pixel (with 1 x 1 binning) to 53.7 cm/pixel (with 2 x 2 binning)"<br /><br /><pre>GROUP = INSTRUMENT_SETTING_PARAMETERS<br /> MRO:CCD_FLAG = (ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON,<br /> ON, ON, ON)<br /> MRO:BINNING = (2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, -9998, -9998,<br /> -9998, -9998)<br /> MRO:TDI = (32, 32, 32, 32, 128, 128, 128, 32, 32, 32,<br /> -9998, -9998, -9998, -9998)<br /> MRO:SPECIAL_PROCESSING_FLAG = (NOMINAL, NOMINAL, NOMINAL, NOMINAL,<br /> NOMINAL, NOMINAL, NOMINAL, NOMINAL, NOMINAL,<br /> NOMINAL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL)</pre><br />Edit:<br />Thanks for the link to the viewer. I am glad to be able to see all the pixels without downloading 1/2 gig. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Close up of what looked like the hole. <br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=42.972502,-122.000427&spn=0.286369,0.617981&t=k&z=10&om=0 <br /><br /><br />Close up of the crater and it might actually be a real crater? <br />Notice that if it is, it is old.</i><br /><br />It is called Crater Lake, it really is a crater, formed by the collapse of Mt Mazama during an eruption ~5700 BP<br /><br /><i>And where do we build? <br />On the crater.</i><br /><br />And your point?<br /><br /><i>Closer look at the edge of the crater. <br />>http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=43.313188,-121.666718&spn=0.142389,0.30899&t=k&z=11&om=0</i><br /><br />This isn’t Crater lake, but another, much larger caldera<br /><br /><i>Even closer. <br />http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=43.31094,-121.711693&spn=0.071197,0.154495&t=k&z=12&om=0 </i><br /><br />OK<br /><br /><i>Closer look at the hole. Which is a lake. <br />>http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=42.937826,-122.136211&spn=0.035817,0.077248&t=k&z=13&om=0</i><br /><br />Crater lake again. What’s your point?<br /><br /><i>We look for patterns, Trinity River at Junction City. <br />Sand dunes? <br /><br />>http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=4</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Well the point I was trying to make was NASA sets themselves up for doubt. I put a lot of things on the table the other night. To discuses Mars anomalies it would be nice to check our ideologies at the door to the best of our ability.</i><br /><br />How does NASA set themselves up for doubt with respect to Mars missions. Everything to do with the data is completely transparent. Most of the scientists who design and build the instruments that do to Mars on NASA spacecraft and interpret the data are not NASA employees. Many are not even in the US. <br /><br />You did not put anything of substance on the table the other night, just a whole lot of woolly statements without evidence to support them. If you want “anomalies†come up with them. Explain in what sense the feature is anomalous, and list criteria by which we can test different explanations. <br /><br />What has ideology got to do with interpreting Mars images? Give examples.<br /><br /><i>If you would like we can take them one by one. Lets go back to 1976. The famous blue sky. NASA made color an opinion. It can never be anything else. True color is just an opinion from that day forward. To say an image is true color is a fraud. True to who? True to you maybe. </i><br /><br />NASA did not make the colour of the Martian sky an opinion. The colour of the Martian sky was determined by calibrated measurements. Every colour image from the surface of Mars since then can be calibrated. That is why Mars landers carry calibration charts. True colour images from the surface of Mars are as true as it is possible for the technology allows. If you think the colours are a fraud then you don’t know much about Mars.<br /><br />Look at the attached image. It shows the light intensity of the Martian sky (and soil) at different wavelengths. As measured by the twin cameras on each of the Viking landers. The intensity peak in all four instruments is 0.7 microns. For reference, wavelengths of different colours are viol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>I was a subcontractor working on the communications truck crew. On that day. We were monitoring thunderstorms around one of the relay stations. That was my job. We had two alternates and we had to stay on the air regardless.</i><br /><br />Who were you working for? You were 66 at the time, right?<br /><br /><i>All I saw was a man come over turn the tint knob and the sky was pink. Now that’s what I saw. If something else was going on I have no knowledge. We did not have a separate raw feed back then. Now they have several and a time delay to boot, wonder why?</i><br /><br />The issue is that 1) the original colour image showed a reddish tinted sky, in a rush to get an image to the media, the colour was adjusted for the sky to look blue - the media would not have believed a reddish sky. However on checking the calibration the reddish sky was the accurate one. It may have looked like knob twisting to you, but there is a lot more that does into the process that you seem to appreciate.<br /><br />Why we have raw data feeds abailable now? It's called progress. Time delay? It was just as big a time delay then as how. the speed of light has not changed, nor has Mars gotten any closer.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Jon,<br /><br />It is fun as I said to speculate. I think what pierround was trying to say and quiet well I thought that the MRO image of the hole may not be a hole at all but a lake. A lake of what he did not say.<br /><br />This much I know for sure. There is nothing about mars that can’t be questioned and there is nothing that anyone can say about an anomaly on Mars that can not be bombarded by a thousand questions to cast doubt. You do a fine job of that. The truth is you have no idea what is in that hole or how it formed so don’t expect anyone else to. He put up an Earth comparison that looked a lot like the hole on Mars. I have seen no images from you.<br /><br />Someone mentioned earlier that it’s all our best WAG anyway. What you are doing is too easy. It is real easy to tear and idea apart. It is real easy to believe every thing you read, well not for everyone think God. Some things don’t make sense. If you want to believe everything NASA says that’s fine. Some people ask, why?<br /><br />Ill make a deal with you. You put up an anomaly of Mars and I will rip it to shreds. I will make it look like the silliest thing to be posted on this forum and it will take very little effort on my part.<br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[dfrank]

Jon just a couple of things. You said,<br /><br />======================================<br />“This illustrates the problem most of us have with your post. You say that you see anomalies, things that don’t add up. Fine. You then make a statement about wind erosion and dust and no liquids on Mars which is a complete non sequitur – there is plenty of evidence for all three playing a role on the Martian surfaceâ€<br />========================================<br />The water mentioned on the surface of Mars has not been at Meridiani, just in craters in other places. I still hear statements that water can not exist on the surface of Mars. Some images just speak for them selves. You say you are an image man I thought you could recognize fluid signatures on an image. It was obvious I thought, did not know I would need to use a big red arrow on that one. <br /><br />The rovers are in known places and when I post a rover picture I would think you would default to that location. The surface of Mars is all inclusive my image was in a certain location. No mention of Liquid water around those blueberries. The image says otherwise.<br /><br />I call that an anomaly. <br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[JonClarke]

How about you answer the questions I - and several others - have been asking you?<br /><br />That would go a long way to the open debate we all want.<br /><br />Once you have started answering questions and engaging in questions then I might give you an anomaly or two.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Jon,<br /><br />If you want to ask me questions ask me two at a time. A list of questions gets a little confusing to me. <br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">It might be a rock... there seem to be a lot of them at the bottom of that gully looking section. </font><br /><br />Maybe but it have to be oriented just right and be the only one that's just so. It's so much brighter than anything else. My first guess would be a dead pixel or dropped data bit(s) that gives a pure white value. This gets sharpened to produce the black and white pattern noted. The problem is that there seems to be more than 1 dead, co-located pixel and that seems unlikely. Perhaps the binning resolves this part ? Or the JPEG compression does. I'd need to look at the raw data to know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

dfrank: <font color="yellow"> If you want to ask me questions ask me two at a time. A list of questions gets a little confusing to me. </font><br /><br />The number of questions in a given post is irrelevant. Simply take them one at a time like I do. That is another reason for definitively separating your responses from the quote you are responding to.<br /><br />Let me make a suggestion that might make this easier for you. Copy an entire post that you want to respond to. Paste that into a page on your word processor. (I use MS Word) Then you can easily separate each question from the rest simply with the return key, leaving enough room to place your response. Then tackle each question or comment in turn until you have answered or responded to them all. Then copy the entire section and paste it into the reply window on Uplink. <br /><br />That has several advantages. You can read the questions and comments on your word processor, which can be set up to make them easier to read. It keeps all the questions and comments in order. It prevent shaving to retype everything if Uplink has a glitch and loses your post. It gives you a handy reference on your computer to check what was said by whom. I keep a running “Working Document†on my computer just for that purpose. After about 100 pages, I start a new one. I am currently on Working Document 68.<br /><br />Now, I also asked several questions and responded to several of your comments. I am still waiting for responses to most of them. Can we expect them anytime soon?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

Mee_n_Mac<br /><br />Do you, or anybody, know if the data in the jpeg2000 downloads is different from the online images?<br /><br />That is, if you go to the trouble of downloading the (sometimes) 2 Gig image, and you get down to the pixels, is it any different?<br /><br />My understanding is the the binning is done at Mars, and we cannot extract that extra level of data here on Earth. Correct?<br /><br />I have a pair of white spots in PSP_1691_1320 that I will show here. These spots are by far the brightest spots in the deeply shadowed area of the image. I cannot understand how a spot could be so bright while in shadow. <br /><br />Here it is with a locator image as well as a blowup. To anyone who questions the oddity of these spots, I encourage you to go to the image and put the window in highest resolution mode, then scan the dark area until you stumble across the spots. You will be shocked at how bright they are. When I first saw them, my "ET" sense didn't even kick in. They were so obviously out of place I just thought "image artifact". Now I beginning to question that. There is an odd similarity to the pixels surrounding the spot on the left. It could be a symmetrical object or it could be some function of the image processing algorithm. <br /><br />Perhaps someday, this area will be re-imaged and we will be able to determine whether it was spurious. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Mental Avenger,<br /><br />I saw a bunch of sudo-explanations about true color from you but it sounds like all the other stuff I read. <br /><br />The sky wasn’t blue we made it blue, nothing new there, seemed more like opinions than questions. If you have a question just ask.<br /><br /><br />MA said:<br />The number of questions in a given post is irrelevant.<br /><br />Dfrank says:<br /><br />I think we can use this as an example. I call that an opinion. It may be irrelevant to you but it is not to me. I am 97 years old, that a few sols past warranty. I still have my cognitive ability but I don’t have the patience I use to. <br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[mental_avenger]

dfrank: <font color="yellow"> I saw a bunch of sudo-explanations about true color from you but it sounds like all the other stuff I read. </font><br /><br />Really? I assume you meant “pseudoâ€. Since that means “falseâ€, you are essentially claiming my explanations are false. So now that you have made the claim, you must present credible evidence to back up your claim. You claim my explanations are false, prove it. Oh, and on Uplink, you cannot brush off your claim by saying that is “your opinionâ€.<br /><br />Perhaps my explanations sound like all the other stuff you read because it is correct.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

About 5 years ago, when the Odyssey 2001 sent it’s first images back from Mars, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the color of the images. So I set out to find out what was really going on. I was the first person on Uplink to come up with the correct explanation, because I went right to the man who set up the THEMIS camera. This is the information I gathered. Enjoy<br /><br /><br />Regarding THEMIS, several well placed and cheerfully worded phone calls to JPL got me a personal return call from Mr. Greg Mehall, Systems Engineer at Arizona State University. He said, “You must know somebody important here, I got messages from half a dozen people saying ‘you’ve got to talk to this guy’â€. <br /><br />Today I had a very interesting discussion with Mr.Greg Mehall, Systems Engineer at Arizona State University regarding the THEMIS system. Mr. Mehall built the VIS camera from a Malin Space Science Systems unit. Mr. Mehall and his group are the ones who give the commands to the Odyssey spacecraft to capture the images.<br /><br />The PIP states that <i>†there are no major technical obstacles to performing the required spacecraft maneuvers to obtain off-nadir imaging, as is being done on Mars Global Surveyor.â€</i> However, the team has decided not to perform off-nadir imaging due to the possibility of damage to the gamma ray spectrometer. The GSR is sensitive and cannot tolerate heat. The radiator that cools the GRS must be pointed to deep space. Rolling the odyssey allows Mars to impinge upon the window of the radiator which would overheat the imager. Therefore the spacecraft will not be rolled off nadir until mission objectives have been met, ~2 ½ years.<br /><br />The Visible Imager has a 4 MB buffer. In the along-track direction, the VIS frame size is limited by its 4 Megabyte data buffer size. The along-track dimension can be 15-65 km, depending on the number of bands used (65 km is the maximum for a single-band image). On any given s <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Thanx M_A.<br />What a wonderful and educational description of the camera.<br /><br />That's 50 times more than I ever knew before about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Mental avenger,<br /><br />Sudo is an acronym for same-old. It is something we use at NOAA. False would be an opinion. I keep saying that, wonder why?<br /><br />I think I see what is going on here. Just read and try and understand this old man.<br /><br />When things don’t look right we look for answers. The first step is to make phone calls and ask questions. The next step is to research. The final step is to reach a conclusion.<br /><br />Since I am 97 years old I am going to take a few liberties, the over 95 rule, If you don’t like it tuff, that’s the rule.<br /><br />When you get past 70 or so you start having a different perspective. “The grumpy old man syndrome†After you listen to all the reasons explanations and all you ask yourself does that make sense. I will use pierround’s comment as an example, hope he don’t mind.<br /><br />“Do you think they sent a camera to mars without a zoom?†This man has already reached this level, I have no idea how old he is, I may have been a little slow. Would they? Let us use the pioneers as an example. If you were loading your wagon heading for the west coast, what would you load? The short answer would be the best stuff you had relative to what you could carry. Translation, if the military had it you did. You are not going to spend nearly a billion dollars to go to Mars and take grayscale Jpegs of the dunes in Russell Crater, duh<br /><br />You get what you get and they get the rest. You can make excuses and give reasons for anything. You have done it and so have I. We sounded good didn’t we, so do they. It all comes down to what you will buy. <br /><br />Dfrank<br /><br /><br />

 

[telfrow]

Wow, you're 97?<br /><br />I don't think you've told us that more than 30 or 40 times.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Telfrow,<br /><br />You got a problem with my reference? Don’t be coy Roy. How many times you think I have listened to why the sky on mars is pink and the dirt is red? HST does a good job of showing the tan red planet.<br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[telfrow]

I'm 57. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Telfrow,<br /><br />I am here to have fun and understand Mars. This is just a hobby. I am an atmospheric Scientist. The thought of another world, why it is there and why we are here attracts me like a mouth to a flame<br /><br />I am 97 years old, that was for you. The best we have been able to come up with so far for the beginning of the universe in the mainstream is the big bang. That is a little pathetic when you think about it, don’t you think.<br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">Do you, or anybody, know if the data in the jpeg2000 downloads is different from the online images? <br /><br />That is, if you go to the trouble of downloading the (sometimes) 2 Gig image, and you get down to the pixels, is it any different? <br /><br />My understanding is the the binning is done at Mars, and we cannot extract that extra level of data here on Earth. Correct? <br /><br /></font><br /><br />My answer to the above questions is .... I dunno. That said now let me speculate. I'll swag that the normal jpegs are different from the JPEG2000 files at the bit level. There's some compression going on in the normal pics and a different algorithm is used for the JPEG2000 (yes I know, duh <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). I'll also guess that the normals are lossy and perhaps the JPEG2000's aren't. Normals are for a quick look and the (perhaps lossless) JPEG2000 for real science. That all said I doubt the bright bits are a result of compression but rather "magnified" by it. I wonder if there's a dead pixel map or dropped bit(s) file available to the public. <br /><br />Now maybe Jon or the DataDawg will give you the true answer ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[bobw]

The camera is going by the ground at 3,500 m/sec. Instead of trying to swivel the spacecraft to keep the camera on one spot long enough to get an exposure they only take a picture of a line at a time, save the lines and build up a picture. To do that the "line" on the focal plane has to be kept perpendicular to the direction of travel. The spacecraft controls can only keep it aligned to 1/4 pixel of error, it is not perfect. That pretty much keeps an object in the same column of CCD pixels as the spacecraft zooms along its orbital path.<br /><br />Putting a zoom lens on the thing would be a very bad idea because as you magnify the image you magnify the tracking error too. Something that was supposed to be one pixel wide could "wobble" over to the pixels on the sides making the image blurrier, not better. It isn't just the camera, it is the whole system. <br /><br />Edit: minor edit for clarity; keep object in column instead of keep column in row <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>