PDA

View Full Version : Decorative stone column?



bonker
2004-May-25, 04:16 PM
Take a look at the lower left corner of this image. There is an object highlighted in light blue, and boxed in a green rectangle.

Be sure to expand it to full size or save it, and view it under zoom on your imaging software so you can see the details.

I find this object interesting.

Comments?


http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/a/davebn/sculpture%20color%202P134616234EFF2700P2376L7M1.jp g

bonker
2004-May-25, 04:30 PM
Enlarged image:


http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/a/davebn/stone%20column%20enlarged.jpg

SeanF
2004-May-25, 04:34 PM
Access Denied. Bandwidth limit exceeded.
:(

bonker
2004-May-25, 04:49 PM
Thanks for letting me know, though.

I'll try to fix that.

01101001
2004-May-25, 04:51 PM
I find this object interesting.

Comments?

Why do you call it "sculpture"? What makes you think it might be a decorative stone column? What is interesting about it to you?

Just so everyone's on the same page, the image in question, and others like it, originally came from these NASA/JPL Spirit Sol 93 thumbnails (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p093.html). The raw image appears to be here (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/093/2P134616328EFF2700P2376L4M1.HTML).

bonker
2004-May-25, 04:59 PM
Here is the enlargement:

Now that you can see it, what do you think?

http://www.uploadimages.net/images/781341stone_column_enlarged.jpg

Eta C
2004-May-25, 05:07 PM
It's a rock that bears a superficial resemblence to a human profile when viewed from a particular angle. As such is no different from the hundreds of similar rock formations found all over the earth. Sorry to be blunt, but I frankly see nothing special about it.

ToSeek
2004-May-25, 05:17 PM
It would be nice if you would provide a link to the original as well.

bonker
2004-May-25, 06:52 PM
I'm posting another image to help you guys see this one.

In the following image, I've changed the orientation of the object, so that it looks more upright. (This may help some of you who did not see that the thing had toppled to the ground).

I have drawn a yellow line through the object to divide it so that you can see where the dividing symetrical line should be. (This should thwart the optical illusions of a crazy mass that some of you may be seeing).

I have also drawn blue lines to indicate corresponding symetrical points.

One set of blue lines show an ornamented "hershey's kiss" shaped object just above where the nose would be. (There is no nose- as this is not a human face). Note not only the symmetry of this specific ornament, but that the location is centered on the object.

Another set of blue lines has been drawn to indicate the location of the top and bottom of an orb (a sphere) that seems to be in the thing's mouth. Note also that the orb is located along the symetrical axis.

There are numerous other symetrical points, and "beads" which are of even number, twists and curls, and a perfectly formed half-goblet like shape in the center of the forehead.

I could go on, but I think the picture would be more helpful:


http://www.uploadimages.net/images/413612stone_column_enlarged_symmetry.jpg

jumpjack
2004-May-25, 07:02 PM
Oh my God! :o It is... :) It looks like... :D It could be...

...another rock.

patrick
2004-May-25, 07:37 PM
It looks like my tennis sports bag

01101001
2004-May-25, 07:38 PM
I have drawn a yellow line through the object to divide it so that you can see where the dividing symetrical line should be.
No way. It seems like your reasoning on this "line of symmetry" is that the part we cannot see must be a mirror-image of what we can see, because this rock is an image of a face.

But, why is it a face? Because it is symmetric!

Come on. The part of the rock we can see on the far side of your line of symmtery isn't even symmetric. As best I can tell, the blue lines only point to symmtery that is in your mind.

Do you have any evidence this is not a natural rock?

bearcub
2004-May-25, 07:45 PM
Looking at the raw image, without all of the coloring and blurring effects ........... it looks like a rock. Granted, an interestingly shaped rock, but a rock none the less.

kucharek
2004-May-25, 07:45 PM
Just another proof that the brain tries to identify faces in everything it sees. Is pretty important for survival, at least, has been. Maybe they should send politicians into the imaging teams. Those are highly trained to remember faces.
If you look at all the different morphologies animals have developed here on Earth, I'd say it's highly unlikely that any aliens morphology would resemble the human one. The difference will be much larger than just a boney forehead...

Harald

bonker
2004-May-25, 07:54 PM
I don't understand why you would ask if it is a natural rock. Of course it is a natural rock.

In order to be a carved rock - it would have to be a natural rock.

In fact, it would remain a natural rock, even after the carving takes place.

You seem to suggest it could only be a carved stone column if the substance of the carving was not natural stone.

There are numerous examples on earth, of human beings carving into natural stone. If you are not aware of these, go googling. They often used a hammer and chisel, and other such tools for the task. Believe me, it was not uncommon, particularly before the advent of concrete.

I also don't understand why you think the symetrical points can't be seen. There are thousands of symetrical points in view on both sides of the object. (Simply because there are still points out of view, does not mean you shouldn't consider the numerous points that are in view). In a single view, there will always be points of a 3-dimensional object that can not be seen.

The many symetrical points are there for you to see if you simply look. A few are even labeled. I've noted several for you.

I suggest you pull it up in some good imaging software and zoom in on it so you can see it better. Then study it for awhile before you comment further.

bearcub
2004-May-25, 08:11 PM
As I stated in my previous post, I did take a look at the raw image (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/093/2P134616328EFF2700P2376L4M1.HTML). It looks to me like your "color enhancement" filled in a bit more that the original image shows.

Those two protutions along the top part of the rock have very distinct seperations that do not appear in your image.

Laser Jock
2004-May-25, 08:15 PM
I don't understand why you would ask if it is a natural rock. Of course it is a natural rock.

In order to be a carved rock - it would have to be a natural rock.

In fact, it would remain a natural rock, even after the carving takes place.

You seem to suggest it could only be a carved stone column if the substance of the carving was not natural stone.

Confusion in definitions. We would define a natural rock as one that has only natural weathering and no artificial alterations.


There are numerous examples on earth, of human beings carving into natural stone. If you are not aware of these, go googling. They often used a hammer and chisel, and other such tools for the task. Believe me, it was not uncommon, particularly before the advent of concrete.

Don't need to google; I went to Egypt a little over a month ago. The carvings there are just incredible.


I also don't understand why you think the symetrical points can't be seen. There are thousands of symetrical points in view on both sides of the object. (Simply because there are still points out of view, does not mean you shouldn't consider the numerous points that are in view). In a single view, there will always be points of a 3-dimensional object that can not be seen.

The many symetrical points are there for you to see if you simply look. A few are even labeled. I've noted several for you.

I would disagree. You have drawn some lines on an irregular looking rock and called them symetrical points.


I suggest you pull it up in some good imaging software and zoom in on it so you can see it better. Then study it for awhile before you comment further.
I suggest you look at this (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/093/2P134616328EFF2700P2376L4M1.HTML) picture and you will see it's just a normal (uncarved) rock.

BTW, blowing up jpeg's are not a good way to analyze photos.

bonker
2004-May-25, 10:42 PM
This image was cut from a larger panoramic image from the Keith Laney site. This is an image that he colorized, and I think it is interesting.

The website source of the larger panoramic image is:

http://www.keithlaney.com/spirit_color_images.htm


This is the cut out version which I uploaded to the web so you can see the specific rock at issue:

http://www.uploadimages.net/images/995621color_column_upright.jpg

jumpjack
2004-May-26, 07:19 AM
Looks quite different now.
Now I can actually see... a colorized rock. #-o

Amadeus
2004-May-26, 11:41 AM
As hard as I try all I see is a rock.
(I work with images every day and use high edit editing software.)

Irishman
2004-May-26, 03:01 PM
I have drawn a yellow line through the object to divide it so that you can see where the dividing symetrical line should be.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't a line of symmetry be, in fact, a line? As in one straight line? Your "line of symmetry" is a hodgepodge zigzag through the features on the rock. That in itself is a very strong indication there is no intentional symmetry to the rock, but it is an artifact of your imagination, picking and choosing what you want to be.

A look at your marked "symmetrical points" shows they don't look very symmetrical at all. The top of your image, the left side has a smooth curve, the right has a step function - it zigzags. That's not symmetry by any definition I'm familiar with. Your second points down from the top, one is a smooth edge and the other is a corner. Symmetry? How?

The two points at the top of the face region, first they are dramatically offset from the features above. Second, they don't correspond well in size - the right corner is longer and higher than the left.

There's only an eye socket on the left, the right has filled in texture. Maybe he's a Borg, but otherwise I can't see symmetry of two eyes.

There's no nose, which you point out, but where the nose should be you shift the "symmetry line" over to the right. On faces, the symmetry line bisects the nose (or nose region). ???

The mouth is nowhere near where the mouth should be. There is a crevice that sticks from the centerline up to the left at a diagonal. It's like Sammy Davis Jr. to the max. The mouth runs up to the left cheekbone. That face looks like something by Picasso. Picasso's faces are not known for symmetry.

There's very little symmetry in the image. The points you mark as corresponding don't match each other. The line of symmetry you define is a zigzag through random features. The features that resemble facial features are misshapen, non-symmetrical, and out of place. Or missing.

In short, this is a game of "Fill in the Features" to make a face.


and "beads" which are of even number, twists and curls, and a perfectly formed half-goblet like shape in the center of the forehead.

Beads? Twists and curls? I can't locate them.

I see the half-goblet shape. Now why should there be a half-goblet shape in the middle of the face? In fact, the half-goblet shape is not very good. It consists of a curve (the bell of the cup) and a straight line (the stem) with an edge for the bottom of the goblet. That's a pretty simple shape, not very complex. However, note that the curve for the side of the goblet extends up to the left, without a break, just a corner. This goblet has a protrusion on the lip. Hmm, not very goblet-like.

Instead of looking at that face, I point out just above the corner of the goblet. Three dark holes in the rock. OHMYGOD, it's a human skull! See, eyesockets and the nasal cavity.

When I look at the colorized version, it takes on the appearance of The Joker (from Batman). See his pointy nose to the right, the crooked smirk, the slashed brow and sharp chin? It's the Joker.

ToSeek
2004-May-26, 04:57 PM
I have drawn a yellow line through the object to divide it so that you can see where the dividing symetrical line should be.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't a line of symmetry be, in fact, a line? As in one straight line?

Your face is bilaterally symmetrical, but if you draw a line down the middle of it, it's not a straight line.

bonker
2004-May-26, 05:12 PM
I understand your concerns and confusion and I appreciate you giving it your best effort to see what I am showing.

However, you must understand that the photo of the object was not taken head on. It was taken from the side of an object that has toppled over onto the ground, with the "face" of the object only slightly tilted toward us. The purpose for the yellow line, is to help you orient yourself to the object. In order to follow it, you must visualize the object in the correct orientation. You also have to take into account that objects further away from you will appear smaller.

This is a three dimensional shape. The yellow line will have to zig zag as it goes over the shape. (Try this yourself with your own picture of a person lying on the ground). This is due to the object's position. If I could go out there and pick it up, and turn it toward the camera in perfect balance, I would do that for you. However, I am limited to accept the photograph as I find it.

I have pointed out before that there is not enough of the "face" to even consider the symmetry there. (In fact, it is more of a tribal grimace than a face). I'm not sure why there is so much discussion about that aspect of the image.

The symmetry I am finding is in the ornamental parts of the object, and in the shape of the object above and below the "face." (There is a large ornamented head dress above the "face" of the object).

I am glad you see the half-goblet which is above the head and funnels down into the center of the forehead of the grimace. There are a number of beads just below that.

I have collected a great deal of additional evidence that this is a sculpted object. After further analysis, I will post it in an effort to help you see the object.

I have nothing to gain or lose by giving my efforts to show others what I see. But I do appreciate the fact that many of you are giving it your honest efforts to try to understand the image.

I have shown the image to others in person (along with some of the other evidence I have), and while they are standing beside me able to ask questions, they are able to see the image as it is.

You may be interested to know, that they have a more difficult time believing that the image is actually a thing on Mars, than that the thing is a sculpted stone.

Unfortunately, in showing this image over the internet, there is information that does not seem to come across in the written word, or straight lines, that I can better get across with the spoken language, and my fingers to point out the symmetry and the correct orientation. The dimensions of this thing take some time to see.

Again, I do appreciate your honest and detailed feedback. It helps me understand what I am failing to convey.

LTC8K6
2004-May-26, 08:21 PM
You are making way too many assumptions, or believing someone who has made way too many assumptions.

If it takes that much effort, coloring, pointing, and line drawing to get people to see an ornamental carved statue that fell over, it's probably not an ornamental carved statue that fell over.

The test should be blind.

I only see some rocks all jpegged and zoomed up. :D

xbck1
2004-May-27, 01:09 AM
1: If you're trying to see detail in an image, get a higher-resolution version; low-res jpegs are not something that you can extract any amount of detail from.

2: If you're trying to see detail in a low-res jpeg, fuggetaboutit. You can't magically increase the amount of detail in any image by blowing it up. Jpegs use pixels (they're raster graphics), they are not vector graphics.

3: Your yellow lines are along some very randomly placed ridges in the rock. If you look closely at your image from Keith Laney's site and of your own, you'll notice that this rock isn't symmetrical. Where the "forehead" would be (that smooth highlighted part above the rest of the "face") is all screwed up. The far ridge that looks like an eyebrow is at a very different angle than the other one, and it's also taller. The area beyond the far eyebrow ridge also seems to meld with it instead of what you would think it would do (look like a seperate piece)

You'll notice that the area in the following image that's in a box is not in shadow. In fact, the rest of the rock isn't in shadow either.
http://www.cowlook.com/images/boxed.jpg
If you look at any of the rocks in the original image, found here (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/093/2P134616328EFF2700P2376L4M1.JPG), you'll notice that the light is coming from a very distinct direction: approximately the upper-left corner. Furthermore, the rock in question is angled towards the camera. This seems to imply that the "eyebrow" ridge that is closest to the ground is a ridge that is being lit by the sun followed by more ridges going towards the right of the image.

If you look at this (http://www.cowlook.com/images/boxed2.jpg) image you'll notice that the rock has a point on its upper-left corner, if I'm not wrong about the lighting. If I'm right about the lighting (which wouldn't be hard to get right, considering the abundance of shadows), then it has a sort of point that is protruding towards the camera. Why is this significant? If that point is casting a shadow in the rest of the rock like that, then shouldn't it stand to reason that any other rock with a protuberance sticking towards the camera should cast a shadow on itself in the same way? What I'm trying to say is that, based on the rest of the image, that "face", or whatever it's supposed to be, is angled towards the camera and it's casting shadows on itself, thereby making seem like it's slightly symmetric (which it's not*).

*See third paragraph.

jt-3d
2004-May-27, 02:11 AM
And still nobody has spotted the bunny.

Invader Spleen
2004-May-27, 07:11 AM
i just spent 3 hours in a lab looking at rocks, i get home looking to relax, and what do i see.......another rock

Amadeus
2004-May-27, 11:54 AM
And still nobody has spotted the bunny.

He's still hiding under the lander :D

ToSeek
2004-May-27, 01:06 PM
And still nobody has spotted the bunny.

He's still hiding under the lander :D

Only coming out in the evenings, just like Earth bunnies.

Rue
2004-May-27, 05:38 PM
Yep, works for me.

http://www.edsel.ca/add_misc/col.jpg

Irishman
2004-May-27, 07:49 PM
!#%$$%!!@% JUST LOST MY POST!!!!

Take 2:



Your face is bilaterally symmetrical, but if you draw a line down the middle of it, it's not a straight line.

What kind of funky face do you have? Of course the line should be straight. It runs from your forehead, between the eyes, down the bridge of the nose, between the nostrils, across the pucker of the lips, and down the chin. That's the definition of symmetry.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/symmetry

Noun 1. symmetry - (mathematics) an attribute of a shape or relation; exact correspondence of form on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/symmetry

WordNet Dictionary
Definition:
1. [n] (mathematics) an attribute of a shape; exact correspondence of form on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane
2. [n] balance among the parts of something

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
2. (Biol.) The law of likeness; similarity of structure;
regularity in form and arrangement; orderly and similar
distribution of parts, such that an animal may be divided
into parts which are structurally symmetrical.

Note: Bilateral symmetry, or two-sidedness, in vertebrates,
etc., is that in which the body can be divided into
symmetrical halves by a vertical plane passing through
the middle;

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/bilateral+symmetry

WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [n] the property of being symmetrical about a vertical plane

Biology Dictionary
Definition: Describes an organism which is divisible into equal mirror halves in one plane only.

Symmetry means sameness. Typically it is reflection symmetry, i.e. mirror image. Humans are only approximately symmetrical - i.e. the basic structure is symmetrical but the details are not precise. Faces have varying degrees of symmetry, for example one ear might be slightly higher than the other, or the nose might be crooked. These are deviations from symmetry. Most of the time these deviations are too minor to perceive, but sometimes they are prominent enough to stand out. The more symmetrical a face, the more esthetically pleasing - it's been documented by tests.

But symmetry means sameness.



However, you must understand that the photo of the object was not taken head on. It was taken from the side of an object that has toppled over onto the ground, with the "face" of the object only slightly tilted toward us. The purpose for the yellow line, is to help you orient yourself to the object. In order to follow it, you must visualize the object in the correct orientation. You also have to take into account that objects further away from you will appear smaller.

This is a three dimensional shape. The yellow line will have to zig zag as it goes over the shape. (Try this yourself with your own picture of a person lying on the ground). This is due to the object's position. If I could go out there and pick it up, and turn it toward the camera in perfect balance, I would do that for you. However, I am limited to accept the photograph as I find it.

Okay, I agree - for an object that has three dimensional texture, i.e. projections out of the plane, a line along the surface tracing the plane of symmetry will zigzag along the contours. From an offset, the line won't be straight, but zigzag. But when we apply this to your image, it only makes things worse.


I have pointed out before that there is not enough of the "face" to even consider the symmetry there. (In fact, it is more of a tribal grimace than a face). I'm not sure why there is so much discussion about that aspect of the image.

It's probably from the Hoagland Face On Mars issue, we're all primed to talk about faces. Look at the index on this page and you'll see a couple other thread titles about faces. So naturally that's what we're primed for. Add to that your OP was rather vague about what you were pointing out. The distinctive feature that stands out in the image is the textured bit that resembles a face. So that was the assumption.


The symmetry I am finding is in the ornamental parts of the object, and in the shape of the object above and below the "face." (There is a large ornamented head dress above the "face" of the object).

Okay, let's discuss the overall structure, and I'll justify my above comment about the symmetry being worse. I'm going to describe features so we are talking about the same things. I will call the face thing the "mask". We'll use your second orientation, with the "column" upright. Let's take that image and try to look at it with the yellow line rotated till it lines up straight, i.e. the axis of symmetry.

The second set of marked points down still don't correspond. Specifically, the side on the left is a smooth curve from the top. Even if we assume the backside of the right face is smooth, so a rotation would project a smooth profile from the top point down past that corner, that right side has a projection out of the plane toward the viewer. This projection is only on one half the column. It would be evident from the sunlight if it were present on the left - it is not. Ergo, the symmetry of those two points is questionable.

Look at the mask. The corners marked for the top of the mask, or corners of the goblet, are not aligned with the plane of symmetry. The mask feature is skewed from the line of symmetry of the column. Also note that the right side again protrudes outward toward the viewer, while the left side does not. Plus, the mask feature is tilted, but the corners are at the same height above the base of the column. Thus the right side is longer. If it were a mask, the right would be taller, and the top of the mask sloped. Hmmm.

What else? Well, the blue line of the outline of the feature is misleading. It follows the mask contour, and down a shadow line near the mask. This makes it seem to be the edge of the column, and the unhighlighted region behind it is a separate object in the background. This is not the case. A closer look at the original, or even the colorized version from keith.laney you link below, shows that the back edge of the rock in fact follows the shadow line curve to the right. The original jpeg shows that region to be brighter than the side of the "column" with the mask, because it is the top of the rock and is more direct to the sunlight. The other part is down the side and is thus not as fully lit, especially with the shadows. That line of the rock does not match the left profile of the rock at all. And notice that your marked corresponding points do not line up properly, even if we use the defined blue line instead of the true rock edge. Your projection seems to indicate that the bottom of the column is somewhat narrow, with the mask feature widening to the widest point at the crest, followed by a taper to the top point. But if we use the blue line as the outer edge, then in the mask zone we cannot see enough of the other side of the rock to make any judgment about it's similarity or symmetry. It would be on the backside of the rock, out of sight.

Okay, the bottom of the column is the blue line that is roughly 30 deg skewed to the horizontal of the image. Four points define the bottom two corners and next points up, which roughly follow a vertical line up. But the next two points are the tops of the mask, and they are definitely offset to the right a substantial amount. Even accounting for the rotation of the column, they still project farther right than left. If they're about the same distance from the "ground", then they are widely skewed right. If the rotation of the column accounts for the skewing and they are more centered, then the corner on the right must be higher than the corner on the left. Look at the image - the distance between those corners and the points below are the same, but the angle is skewed that same 30 degress off to the right that the whole column is skewed left. And then from there to the next two points, the corners of the top piece. They are centered more to the lower points, but remember the right side projects outward while the left does not.

Of course the whole inspection is difficult because the texturing of the image has much variation - with sharp zones and fuzzy zones side-by-side. This is not typical of good image enhancement. Further, I note that the surface texture and even the features do not conform well to the NASA jpeg. or even the colorized image. Look at the features. The surface looks different.

The NASA jpeg and keith.laney image both show a much "grainier" image, the pixelation of the jpeg evident at that magnification. You can see the shadow zones blend smoothly with the lighter areas. Whereas on your image, there are stark contrasts, with sharp edgelines on the dark zones separate from brighter spots. The lines are more sharply defined in your image. This indicates you did more than just enlarge the jpeg. When I enlarge the jpeg above 200%, it just gets too pixelated to make much out. It would help if we knew what processing you performed, and the image source you used. It was the NASA jpeg, correct?

It looks to me like you're getting jpeg artifacts from overprocessing. Jpeg is a lossy compression algorithm. In order to keep the image sizes small enough for internet linking, the data is necessarily truncated. The jpegs are fine for viewing, but enlarging will not pull out more detail - the jpeg format has erased that level of information. Digital processing tools just play games with the pixels, they can't pull out information because it isn't there. It looks to me like your image has been processed digitally and it has created contrasts that aren't there - the dark zones are sharpened and edged, changing the texture appearance and adding features.

Things that just don't look right...

Look at the right edgeline in the region of the corner on the mask. Your picture doesn't match keith.laney or NASA jpeg image there. It looks off. Look at the double line on the left edge of the goblet. On the original and keith.laney image, it is not as defined and has more of a kink in it. Look at the zone of the grimace - I took the colored image and increased brightness, and the features aren't the same. It's close, but the texturing is different, and the small features seem lost in your image. Look at the region I pointed out above the mask that looks like a skull in your image. In the colored image, there's just a dark blur. I'd post my image if I could. If someone wants to host it, I could email a copy.

In short, it appears you have an overprocessed jpeg image that has been "enhanced" to create features that aren't there. The symmetry you see is not there in the original, and relies heavily on your particular interpretation of the image. The supposed symmetrical features are not, in fact, very symmetrical - with height variations and planar elevation changes. This is nothing more than a typical rock with some interesting texturing.