Weird things on mars!

Most of what you are seeing is because it's pixelated. Pixels are square, therefore where they meet will be a right angle. Look for the scale, count the pixels per "artifact", to see how much area is being covered with only one value. It makes a big difference sometimes.
AND.....I have taken the train from Chicago to California and back. This goes through much mountainous terrain, both alpine and desert. Rocks all along the way do sometimes break in straight lines and right angles. I'm sure it depends on the crystalline structure of the rock. Think about salt for an example. All the little cubes that come out of your shaker at the dinner table were broken from larger pieces, that were also cubic. Nothing was cut, molded, cast, carved.......they just happen to break into little cubes.
Since crystalline structure is an image of the basic molecular form, and molecules are presumed to be the same universally, it follows that Mars probably has rocks that break along straight planes, with right angles.

reply to post by stars15k


I''m being serious here....... are you mentally ill?

May not be close to the "hits of mars" photos. But I think it is a worthy contribution!

Thanks for sharing and enjoy your posting about working with photos for a living!
Love that angle of it. Especially when someone is in favor of martian "high strangeness" like I am.

I got that terminology from Linda Moulton Howe on her Coast to Coast shows. Wish there were more mars artifacts shows on Coast to Coast. But it is great have a few crumbs thrown in here at ATS.

reply to post by thetiler


Not sure if that was a dig at me or not? I do work in photo chemical analysis. And like I said, I can't say I'm expert at photo's like this, but it sure looks odd to my eye!

Originally posted by Neutradol
reply to post by stars15k

 

I''m being serious here....... are you mentally ill?

Star15k is actually right on the money. Look up salt crystal formation if you like. they are tiny squares, formed naturally. Seems to make sense that crystals can (and do) take square shapes, this leaving open the possibility that crystals on other planets can also break off at right angles.

reply to post by gavron


I can make a circle out of a crystal set at a MUCH larger scale than is depicted in these pictures! These break off and make acute 90 angles to form a "boundary". And if it is a crystal formation that has give rise to these Anomalies, why did they break off at the EXACT point to make a boundary and at such a large scale in a specified area and no surrounding area where there is no lakes or dry lake beds/rivers where salt would ever be present. To say that crystals formed this is insane. Remember my first post. I told you I am chemical analyst. I have seen crystalline structures in minute detail. I see them every week. Nature is built on Pent-structure which can spawn all sorts of anomalies... Like snow... (Crystal hex) etc. It does not make the least of difference when it comes to a picture that was taken from orbit and is clearly visible with no zoom.

reply to post by Neutradol


He didn't say crystals formed it, it is the result of pixelation.

The pics are very obviously pixelated. Low quality internet pics will always pixelate when you zoom in on them.

Sorry but Star15k 1, you 0.

reply to post by ANOK


Did I mention that you can see this from orbit? Yes, I did. Did you bother looking at the original nasa/usgs link? If you did, you would see that these are original orbit pictures from the MRO. There is no zooming. And there is no natural formation on mars or earth that explains this. Nature doesn't "Form" structures like this. None that you can see from the orbit of mars with a x6 oz lens anyway. Maybe you would see this under an electron microscope, (at 10,000,000) magnification anyone would see anything they wanted.

Originally posted by Neutradol
reply to post by Klassified

 

By chance... do you know under what conditions these pictures were taken? Filters? Lenses, Iso, etc? Not that I can see it affecting the outcome of the overall image... but it would be nice to know. These were taken in 02 by the way. So I assume taken by the MRO. That is the only info I can garner from the photo's/era.

Not a clue. NASA probably has some of that info on their site though.

reply to post by Neutradol


No, NASA didn't zoom in the photos but you did, and that is what pixelated them giving you the effect you are seeing.

reply to post by topherman420


Look at the original. You can see it from orbit... 24,213 KM above mars, still captured this. NO ZOOMING. It's still visible.

This is the funniest comment....

"Most of what you are seeing is because it's pixelated. Pixels are square, therefore where they meet will be a right angle. Look for the scale, count the pixels per "artifact", to see how much area is being covered with only one value. It makes a big difference sometimes. "

That is from stars15k

Do I need to say more about the above comment? Other than he is a troller or an absolute idiot? "He said "Count the pixels per artifact and ""Pixels are square, therefore where they meet will be a right angle"".

wow.

reply to post by Neutradol


Well insult posters all you want but that doesn't change the fact that others are agreeing with them. I see nothing square in the first picture....the second picture i see a distorted/pixelated zoomed portion. Maybe use some sort of paint program to outline the weird objects in case we just aren't getting it.

reply to post by topherman420


I'm not insulting. I just don't appreciate being made an idiot of with ill made facts, especially from that guy who seems he is just spouting made up facts because he has some serious life issues.

And I never said "square".That must be in your mind for some reason.

reply to post by Neutradol


No one is seeing what you are seeing. If you ever seen other threads like this, the posters at least outline the important details that bolster their OP and you have not done that because all people can focus on is the pixels, which is the most obvious and pronounced 90 degree edges (i guess i was too liberal with "square") in that picture. Therefore instead of arguing with people and derailing the thread, draw in the structures you see and go from there.

reply to post by topherman420


Exactly why I don't scrawl all over the image. I wan't them to see it if they can. You obviously can't. Which is OK.

Originally posted by Neutradol
reply to post by topherman420

 

Exactly why I don't scrawl all over the image. I wan't them to see it if they can. You obviously can't. Which is OK.

Then if your images are left for interpretation by others don't get insulted or angry that they aren't seeing what you are and go a step further to bolster your own interpretation of them.

reply to post by topherman420


Once again.... it isn't about what you are saying now... this is about what you said earlier.....

"No, NASA didn't zoom in the photos but you did, and that is what pixelated them giving you the effect you are seeing."

And I explained my position, but you seem to keep pushing it for some reason.

reply to post by Neutradol


When I had said that, it was in relation to when you defended that the pictures were not zoomed in by NASA:

Did I mention that you can see this from orbit? Yes, I did. Did you bother looking at the original nasa/usgs link? If you did, you would see that these are original orbit pictures from the MRO. There is no zooming. And there is no natural formation on mars or earth that explains this. Nature doesn't "Form" structures like this. None that you can see from the orbit of mars with a x6 oz lens anyway. Maybe you would see this under an electron microscope, (at 10,000,000) magnification anyone would see anything they wanted.

which wasn't the point the other posters were getting at from my view. Everyone is disregarding the first un-zoomed picture altogether if you haven't noticed, and are focusing on the pixelation. If that was not the focus of you picture, you could highlight the portions that are relevant so we can set aside that matter. If it is the pixelation we are to be focusing on then it is now up to you to tell us what you think it is to you and enforce your theory with more evidence to your case.

reply to post by topherman420


Sorry if I wasn't clear. I thought I was. Why is there Pixelation?

There was 3 passes over this area, 8 hours apart, and you are saying that the cameras all pixeleated every time they went over this area?

Here is the first image....

ida.wr.usgs.gov...


Here is the SECOND image (around 7hrs 45mins later)

ida.wr.usgs.gov...

And the third image..... (32hrs 44mins later of crater essiem)

ida.wr.usgs.gov...

Like I said. This is no Pixelation!

There has probably been more recon shots but don't have time to look for them right now. But I WILL tomorrow.

reply to post by Neutradol


Okay so I believe the confusion is gone now over the pixelation since you are referring back to the clearer image (the first pic in OP). Is it the sand dunes (somewhat triangular in shape) and the shadowing? Those were the most prominent to me sitting there for a few minutes staring, especially in black and white.