PDA

View Full Version : Martian square



bonker
2004-May-13, 01:38 PM
This is from the Bob Wonderland site. There is an image about three-fourths of the way down the page showing what appears to be a flat square area on the ground.

The text above the image says:

"The area that has attracted most comment on the internet is much further South than the one described above and involves a dense, broken landscape of mesas and hills. It is best covered in the second daylight IR image to be released to the public which is indexed as I0204002 in the PDS. The images below show the area in question."

http://www.bob-wonderland.supanet.com/THEMIS_5.htm

Has this image already been discussed on this board? (If so, can you link me to the discussion thread).

Can anyone confirm that this is a real image from NASA (which he cites as "I0204002 in the PDS")?

What are the geological/natural explanations for the appearance of this square?

It seems I have heard that nature does not tend to follow straight lines (except crystalline structures), and that right angles are also an oddity.

What are the thoughts of this board on the square?

Is it even real, or is it some kind of photographic defect?

ToSeek
2004-May-13, 02:19 PM
The image is on the THEMIS website here (http://themis-data.asu.edu/img/I01024002.html).

If you look at it closely, you'll realize that very little of the square actually exists in the geology.

lek
2004-May-13, 04:42 PM
Heh, whole area is so full of detail that stuff from that pic will be seen lot more i bet...

Here's (http://puudeli.zoo-gate.fi/~leknu/hehe.jpg) my contribution : :evil: <-- for comparison :D (left of the "square" near the edge of that pic)

Tom Ames
2004-May-13, 05:10 PM
I like this phrase from that site:


The irregular outlines of most of the outcroppings means that it is not immediately apparent that this is an organised landscape. However, if the reader views the imagery in a relaxed manner then it soon becomes apparent that everything is arranged around an invisible system of grids.

(emphasis added.)

The "relaxed manner" seems to be the key to seeing most of this stuff. Or in other words, a "suspension of disbelief."

Swift
2004-May-13, 05:46 PM
I like this phrase from that site:


The irregular outlines of most of the outcroppings means that it is not immediately apparent that this is an organised landscape. However, if the reader views the imagery in a relaxed manner then it soon becomes apparent that everything is arranged around an invisible system of grids.

(emphasis added.)

The "relaxed manner" seems to be the key to seeing most of this stuff. Or in other words, a "suspension of disbelief."
Actually "relaxed manner" means asleep. :D

ToSeek
2004-May-13, 05:53 PM
I like this phrase from that site:


The irregular outlines of most of the outcroppings means that it is not immediately apparent that this is an organised landscape. However, if the reader views the imagery in a relaxed manner then it soon becomes apparent that everything is arranged around an invisible system of grids.

(emphasis added.)

The "relaxed manner" seems to be the key to seeing most of this stuff. Or in other words, a "suspension of disbelief."

Yes. I had a woman on GLP trying to persuade me that Comet Bradfield was headed directly for Earth because if you looked at the SOHO images and tried to persuade yourself that it was headed this way, you could eventually succeed.

Irishman
2004-May-13, 09:44 PM
Frippin' power outage from weather! I had a post mostly ready to go, and have to start over.

Let's look at that square. The top corner is defined by the top left edge and part of the right. The line on the left is defined by a reasonably straight edge along a series of bumps (boulders?). The line on the right is given by an edge line transition between the floor and the valley. The left line is fairly straight across the series of boulders all the way to the left corner. The right line segment looks fairly straight. Thus the upper corner is pretty well defined.

The lower corner is also strongly visible. It is defined by a dark sequence of points making a line for the right, and a strong shadow line along a rock outcropping on the left. It looks reasonably square. Thus that corner is visually distinct.

What about the right corner? It is completely absent. Both right lines break up before the halfway point to the right corner, leaving it completely empty. Thus that corner is only defined by the imaginary intersection of the extended lines from the other two corners. Okay, so that one isn't worth anything.

What about the left corner? Note that there is a strong shadow line from a ridge that runs close to the correct path, but in fact is not selected as the definining line. It is not quite straight with the bottom left line. Rather, the line runs parallel to that line to a place where some smaller bulges meet. Notice that that corner could be defined by any of a number of features, depending upon the selection of the observer. The one marked is just the closest rock to the line projected from the bottom corner. Notice that a straight line projection actually runs over some of those rocks that are shown as depicting the left edge line. So that corner is not strongly defined, and is up to the imagination of the observer.

That leaves to strong appearing corners and most of the top left edge line as the definition of the square. If the features were offset one way or the other a bit, it could easily be projected as a rectangle with the same conclusion. Note that the human mind likes neat geometric figures.

But let's look more closely at the previously defined lines to see just how precise they are. Start with the top left. Before I said that line along the edge of the boulders was fairly straight all the way across. At first glance this is true. However a closer inspection reveals that the line in fact has a slight upward curve. I fact, there's a wiggle in the line. From the top corner, the first three big rocks across are straight, but then there is a slight downward rock, followed by a direction change for the line. So that line is not straight across, but has a wiggle and a slight offset at the halfway point. Hmmm.

What about the top right edge line. It is the transition from dark plain to ligther surface leading into the valley. Notice that the line is not that smooth, but has wiggles all along it, almost like a cliff line. (Note that I'm not saying it is a cliff line. Can't tell from this angle and resolution.) So this corner is not as neatly defined as the site would have you think.

Okay, what about the lower corner? Okay, that strong shadow line along the rock on the left? Well, it's not straight, but curvy. Nice S shape. So what's left is a dark strip along the lower right to define the whole square. Kinda thin.

Furthermore, look at the 3-D projection below. The square features all but disappear, with only the small line I just mentioned being discernable. Oops, the square went away.

If you want to have fun, try projecting a few shapes of your own around that same set of rocks.

I just came up with a hexagram. It uses the same top corner. For the bottom left edge, take the squares bottom left edge and move to the outside edge of that large outcrop. The bottom right edge line is defined by a line of rocks about a half a cm visually below the square line. The corners for the sides that cut off the side corners are defined by the lower right corner of the big rock midway on the lower right side up to an appropriate spot on the top right line. On the left come down from where the top line has the first wiggle, across the line of boulders there and down to where it intersects the lower left corner line coming up. Okay, it's difficult to describe. Make up your own shapes.

One other comment about the square appearance. The linearness of the features is aided by the fact that these straight lines appear when viewing near the lower resolution of the image. Again, we take an image at the lower end of the range and pick and choose details to project what we want. Get a 5 to 10 times resolution improvement on these features and see if the square remains.

Tom Ames
2004-May-14, 12:12 AM
I just came up with a hexagram...

Oh my god!

What are the odds that a square and a hexagram would be visible on the same surface?!?!!!

It must be the remains of an artificial city of Osiris-worshipping UFO pilots! What other explanation could there be?