PDA

View Full Version : Louros Valles



moxy1
2005-Feb-23, 04:59 PM
This Mars Express image is over a year old. In my opinion, it is one of the most intriguing images released to date. MOC has imaged this area as well, but has not released any images at the highest resolution. (neither has the ESA). The public has been shown just one.

There are a number of interesting structures in this valley, of which this is one.

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL468/2247398/4395001/56874811.jpg

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL468/2247398/4395001/55457465.jpg

is anyone familiar with this area of Mars?

Yorkshireman
2005-Feb-23, 05:04 PM
Not sure what you mean by 'structure' and where you are looking on the image. Any more information please?

moxy1
2005-Feb-23, 05:24 PM
The octupus-like formation right center is but one. There is another curious structure to its immediate right. These formations are quite large in size and I was wondering if anyone has weighed in on how they were possibly formed.

Here is a BW image of the same area.

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL468/2247398/4395001/86552164.jpg

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-23, 07:56 PM
...I was wondering if anyone has weighed in on how they were possibly formed.

Natural processes.

moxy1
2005-Feb-23, 08:02 PM
"natural processes"

could you please try to be less specific?

I can't decipher all the detail in your response.

thank you.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-23, 08:10 PM
Hold on. moxy1, in the context of Mars, "structures" is a bit of a code word around here, because some people say there are artificial structures on Mars. I frankly can't tell whether you are trying to imply that or not.

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-23, 08:17 PM
"natural processes"

could you please try to be less specific?

I can't decipher all the detail in your response.

thank you.

Hey, I was just trying to "keep it simple". Is there any reason (in your opinion) that it needs to be more complicated than that? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by "structures"?

moxy1
2005-Feb-23, 08:45 PM
I am not inferring any artificiality...but the "formations" (is that better?) appear to be somewhat incongruous with the surrounding area. Natural Processes can produce many strange forms, I agree, but is there nothing in this valley that piques your curiosity? I am frustrated that MEX has not taken another look at 3 meters/pixel.

Here's another image

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL468/2247398/4395001/55363056.jpg

and another interesting formation (at least to me)

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL468/2247398/4395001/55443019.jpg

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-23, 08:52 PM
Sorry, I'm just not seeing anything unusual in those pictures.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-23, 09:04 PM
The thing you circled just looks like some cracks to me. The other thing is weird-looking, though. Looks like four holes in the ground. But is that unusual? I don't know. Features that appear incongruous with their surroundings are not at all unusual.

If you want specific answers, you'll have to ask a specific question. What is it about these formations that strikes you as odd?

Doodler
2005-Feb-23, 09:04 PM
Those ridges? Large dunes maybe, or rock outcroppings.

aurora
2005-Feb-24, 12:13 AM
If I understand what you are looking at, it appears to be a network of valleys, old river channels. I would guess that the holes are actually land slides.

moxy1
2005-Feb-24, 03:43 AM
nothing unusual.

yes of course. The surface of Mars is riddled w/ green gorges and massive octupii-like formations. The points of reflective light in the valley's basin are quite normal as well (oh yes..just ccd anomalies...or is it cosmic rays?..:)).

How could the object circled be characterized as "cracks"?...in my view it "resembles" a metallic storage tank...not saying it is one, just that it "looks" like one, and is quite incongruous w/ its environment.


this valley demands higher resolution imagery. Farther to the west is evidence of a continuation of the river channels as well as subsurface venting.

As far as the "holes"...well, lets just remember the scale, shall we?

Finally, I have no specific question...I am but a layman w/ his curiosity piqued..seeking professionals to comment on what is hardly "usual".

I realize that image analysis is not "science" per se, but it is all we have, at least joe q. public.

sorry to bother you all.

Taibak
2005-Feb-24, 04:04 AM
I have to agree with the others here. Looks like sand dunes and either rocks or holes to me. Looks to me like the white bits are just overexposed - my guess would be from glare - although I'm not 100% sure. You don't by any chance know what sort of processing, if any, was done to this image? That is, are we looking at a true-color image or a pic where the colors are coded to some other bit of information such as elevation or chemical composition?

-Taibak

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-24, 05:47 AM
How could the object circled be characterized as "cracks"?...in my view it "resembles" a metallic storage tank...not saying it is one, just that it "looks" like one, and is quite incongruous w/ its environment.
In my view it looks absolutely nothing like a metallic storage tank and I have no idea what you're talking about. It looks like some squiggly lines. First I thought they were cracks in rock; looking at them more closely I'd say they're either gullies or the tops of sand dunes. Anyway, they begin well outside the circled area and squiggle their way into it and through it, meandering around inside the circle you have drawn. I see nothing else inside that circle, just the continuation of the squiggly lines that begin outside it.

Could you please link to a picture of a storage tank on Earth that looks like a bunch of squiggly lines? Just for comparison's sake, I mean.

Yorkshireman
2005-Feb-24, 11:07 AM
nothing unusual.

yes of course. The surface of Mars is riddled w/ green gorges and massive octupii-like formations.

Well, the green colour is not real, it is an artifact of the image processing according to the ESA scientists who are running the mission. See also this link here. (http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34531)

Also, I still can't see this 'octopus' from your descriptions, so to speak of the surface being 'riddled' with them is stretching things a bit.


The points of reflective light in the valley's basin are quite normal as well (oh yes..just ccd anomalies...or is it cosmic rays?..:)).

No need to be flippant.


How could the object circled be characterized as "cracks"?...in my view it "resembles" a metallic storage tank...not saying it is one, just that it "looks" like one, and is quite incongruous w/ its environment.

How on earth can you see a 'metallic storage tank' in that image? It looks exactly to me like cracks, perhaps with a scree slope running between them. What shouts 'metallic' at you?


this valley demands higher resolution imagery. Farther to the west is evidence of a continuation of the river channels as well as subsurface venting.

As far as the "holes"...well, lets just remember the scale, shall we?

Finally, I have no specific question...I am but a layman w/ his curiosity piqued..seeking professionals to comment on what is hardly "usual".

I realize that image analysis is not "science" per se, but it is all we have, at least joe q. public.

sorry to bother you all.

I get the impression you're a little irritated by our scepticism. Rest assured, if we saw a clear image of artificial structures on Mars we'd be having a party here. We just don't get our hopes up. History teaches us that every instance of something 'curious' looking on the surface of Mars has, under higher resolution photography, resolved into scientifically interesting, but very definitely natural, features.

RGClark
2005-Feb-24, 01:28 PM
nothing unusual.

yes of course. The surface of Mars is riddled w/ green gorges and massive octupii-like formations.

Well, the green colour is not real, it is an artifact of the image processing according to the ESA scientists who are running the mission. See also this link here. (http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34531)
.
.
.

I don't KNOW that the green coloring in this image is an artifact of processing. Green colors on Mars were also seen both by Hubble and Mars Odyssey:

Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.sci.planetary, sci.space.history, sci.astro.amateur, rec.arts.sf.science
From: rgregorycl...@yahoo.com (Robert Clark)
Date: 11 Dec 2002 18:31:55 -0800
Local: Wed, Dec 11 2002 6:31 pm
Subject: Mars, the "Greenish" Planet?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/8bc95cc1151a8911


Bob Clark

Yorkshireman
2005-Feb-24, 02:51 PM
OK then, first, there are the links to the original source photos.

Louros Valles colour high-resolution (http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/032-060404-0097-6-co-02-VallesMarineris.jpg)

Colour mixed using the three colour filters on the HSRC plus the nadir channel.

Hi resolution stereo colour view (http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/033-hi-VallesMarineris.jpg)

Here is a Themis view (http://themis-data.asu.edu/img/newimg/V01252001?band=3&ext=JPEG&stretch=S2) of the landscape very close to the area above. To the right-centre of the image there are a number of 'bumps' in the valley floor at a similar scale to the 'holes' in the image moxy1 posts above. They could be knobs of harder ground, or bedrock outcroppings, left by wind scouring down the valley. At this scale it's hard to see.

It seems quite likely to me that the 'holes' are similar. Either shadowed, or made of dark dust.

Argos
2005-Feb-24, 03:22 PM
The octupus-like formation right center is but one. There is another curious structure to its immediate right.

Ah, I thought you were talking about that forest... 8) :)

moxy1
2005-Feb-24, 04:35 PM
I am well aware of the skepticism on this site, and find it healthy and constructive. One must remember, though, prevailing paradigms can be quite a stifling influence at times.

I never said the surface was riddled w/ octupii features...I excised one thumbnail image of a clearly obvious formation that is both massive in size and peculiar in structure.

Regarding the explanation that the reflective points are simply overexposed pixels...great..but what is causing these concise multiple overexposures?

If you save the image and zoom in on the area circled, there is a different colored smooth "object" on the ledge...at least that's what I see..maybe I'm blind. It resembles a storage tank to me...it probably just looks like a boulder to you...thats fine.

BTW..the THEMIS image is not of the same exact area as the ESA cropped image. I looked at all available NASA images of the Louros Valles and every one failed to capture the far eastern quadrant, and none of the highest resolution images were snapped of the valley at all, only the surrounding terrain.

Finally, ESA has modified their image text of the rover landing site since I viewed that image last year. The original caption text mentioned nothing about the green color as being an artifact of image processing. I really don't know why any evidence of colors other red, tan, black, or white require refutation anyway.

The green color in the Louros Valles is accurate unless proven otherwise.
Perhaps its a massive mineral deposit, perhaps not. But it is intrigueing, to say the least.

This is just a statement of the facts as I know them...no inference of conspiracy whatsoever.

One final thought, why do we we still call Mars the "red planet", anyway:

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL468/2247398/4395001/86671566.jpg

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-24, 04:59 PM
I really don't know why any evidence of colors other red, tan, black, or white require refutation anyway.

The green color in the Louros Valles is accurate unless proven otherwise.
Perhaps its a massive mineral deposit, perhaps not. But it is intrigueing, to say the least.
Since we know that these Mars images can have inaccurate colors, we should not consider any statement based on the colors in them to be accurate until it has been corroborated.


One final thought, why do we we still call Mars the "red planet", anyway:
Yeah, that's probably not an accurate description, but it's more reddish than Earth. The nickname "red planet" just has a ring to it. I remember in a middle school science class watching a video about the planets that was narrated by Patrick Stewart. When they got to Mars, they showed an image of the planet and Stewart went "MAAARS: the RED PLANET." But the color on the TV set was a bit off, so the image looked distinctly yellow. It was rather funny.

Edited to add missing word.

patrick
2005-Feb-24, 05:36 PM
About the image color: it has to be noted that anything that's appears to be green apparently had been mis-calibrated somehow. Whatever the true color may be, yet it does 'show out' with regard to the overall soil color, which seems to be calibrated suitably.

Anyhow, what I found fascinating about this image are the 'green' features depicted.

On mars, soil properties in general usually tend to have recognizable 'wasteland' features depicting hilltops, rocks, shadows, peaks, crators, canyons, cracks, trenches, pits, etc, leaving identifiable markings on such surface images produced by orbiting satellite images.

The magnified area below however looks as if some sort of 'algae' grows on top of these surface markings, thus covering it, and 'hiding' these 'wasteland' contours and making it look 'furby'. Could this be possible plantlife?

http://www.flextennis.com/tester_temp/vegetaion.jpg

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 05:53 PM
Dag Patrick. :)

I do think the green is the result of calibration for soil properties, and far from the true color of that piece of soil. A bit like those MER pictures showing the dust that the grinder made, at an apparently corretly calibrater soil.

patrick
2005-Feb-24, 06:08 PM
Dag Patrick. :)

I do think the green is the result of calibration for soil properties, and far from the true color of that piece of soil. A bit like those MER pictures showing the dust that the grinder made, at an apparently corretly calibrater soil.

Dag Nicolas :)
If we ignore the coloring issue for a moment, isn’t it notable that the recognizable soil -features are covered by a ‘furby’ like substance associated with the green segment of the image? The effect of possible image-blur, I believe, can be discarded for that matter, since surrounding contours are clearly distinguishable and sharp.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 06:47 PM
If the green is darker brown in reality, it can possibly be wind eroded edges (sandfalls) like we've seen on other mars photos of valleys?

I see what you mean, I'm trying to relate it to things we've seen on other mars photos and this came up in that tiny cosy mind thing of mine :).

patrick
2005-Feb-24, 07:04 PM
If the green is darker brown in reality, it can possibly be wind eroded edges (sandfalls) like we've seen on other mars photos of valleys?

That crossed my mind too at first; however I would expect sand or dust to be gathered in some sort of basin, plateau or channel. The ‘green’ characteristics clearly wrap and outcrop hill- peaks. Accumulated dust or sand therefore isn’t an option I speculate, since assuming otherwise would also mean the dust/sand properties (being green here) have a significant different color-spectrum from the soil it stems around from.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-24, 07:17 PM
Perhaps it's an underlying layer that has been exposed through wind erosion. You can see textural features in the "stuff" but they might be a part of the stuff itself, not necessarily something underneath it.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 07:21 PM
I meant that the green was the underlying soil after erosion, not the blown away sand.

You can do nasty things with colour changes. If you create a steep curve for (in this case) the green component at a certain level of hue/light/RGB or some other (non graphical?) parameter, you can get these results.

a very simple exampe "do for everything darker than 20/20/20: green+100." This is an theoretic example of very harsh color altering to get some results in a graphical way.

patrick
2005-Feb-24, 07:27 PM
You can do nasty things with colour changes.....
Nicolas, the color was not the issue anymore

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 07:35 PM
Patrick, I meant that as a clarification of your "the dust/sand properties (being green here) have a significant different color-spectrum from the soil it stems around from" remark. I meant to show that if the surface ahd a little different appearance at the green parts, it could have been used to colorize those parts green. So I wasn't talking about why it was green, but how eroded or otherwise changed soil could have been used to colorize the image. I hope I cleared up the misunderstanding.

moxy1
2005-Feb-24, 07:44 PM
I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

The "stuff" does appear to exhibit somewhat of an "invasive" nature, however it is formed...almost "mosslike" in appearance.

Does anyone have access to methane data from this area of Mars (if any)? I believe it may have some bearing on one's analysis of the "stuff".

compare that data to data from a valley w/ no "stuff". BTW temperature and pressure data would be of interest as well, no?

Here is a crop from the western section of the valley.

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL468/2247398/4395001/72197951.jpg

You may benefit from slightly adjusting gamma to bring out detail.

There appears there may be some evidence of venting.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 07:51 PM
!! large image !!!
LARGE Mars Express picture (http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/155-090205-03340360-4-3d-01-OphirChasma_Hires.jpg)

If I look around in this famous mars Express image, I see lots of valleys showing darker soil starting from about halfway the slope, spreading out over the bottom. I think it might be that phenomenon what is highlighted green in the images posted here.

PeteB
2005-Feb-24, 09:40 PM
The false green color in some of the HRSC press release images was addressed earlier by the BA:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/green_mars.html

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 09:52 PM
Thanks for that link.

So the "green" areas in fact are the darker soil parts.

moxy1
2005-Feb-24, 11:48 PM
In all deference, that link has no bearing on this discussion.

BA or not.

Hoagland has no relevance to this thread, but nice try.

moxy1
2005-Feb-24, 11:53 PM
I am curious why posters go to great lengths to debunk any hint of the color green on Mars.

I would speculate that these are the same individuals who not so long ago said that H2O is not present on Mars.

give it a rest.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 11:55 PM
can you explain why that has no bearing? We are trying to explain what the green areas are, and a link is provided showing that the green areas are in reality brown areas.

That link wasn't meant to point to Hoagland, it was meant to explain at least the green colour (which also showed those are darker brown in reality). The large image I linked shows those darker brown areas on the bottom of valleys at many places.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 11:58 PM
Moxy1, (your second post came in while typing my earlier reply).

-we point you to a link saying that the green colour is a calibration effect.
-This explanation is backed by the space agency
-you say it is irrelevant
-the next thing we know you are attacking us on "going to great lengths to debunk any hint of the color green on Mars"

Tell me, do you want to know what is to be seen on those images, or do you want green on Mars?

Selective reasoning is no reasoning.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-25, 12:53 AM
would speculate that these are the same individuals who not so long ago said that H2O is not present on Mars.
Who said that?

jt-3d
2005-Feb-25, 02:59 AM
I would speculate that these are the same individuals who not so long ago said that H2O is not present on Mars.

give it a rest.

'Not so long ago'? That's what I say now. All I've was indications that there may have been, not that there is and certaintly no proof. Oh well, that's just me I suppose.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-25, 03:05 AM
'Not so long ago'? That's what I say now. All I've was indications that there may have been, not that there is and certaintly no proof. Oh well, that's just me I suppose.
He said H2O, not liquid water.

moxy1
2005-Feb-25, 04:07 AM
I never said that ESA's explanation about the "green" in that one image was irrelevant, I only stated that they revised their [/i]text.

One citing of another valley filled w/ dark material (not green) does not dispell the evidence presented in this thread.

sheesh, and I thought you people were scientists.

If BA wants to weigh in, fine, otherwise the minions have no case.

BTW...this thread has never been about the "color".

moxy1
2005-Feb-25, 04:17 AM
definition of 'paradigm"

look in the mirror. nick

PeteB
2005-Feb-25, 04:24 AM
Gee, and here I was thinking that I'm a mere Apprentice but evidently have been elevated to Minion. Cool! :-)

And what did you mean about "no H2O" ?

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-25, 05:01 AM
definition of 'paradigm"

look in the mirror. nick
Are you calling us paradigms!!??

Well, you're an archetype. So there.

Taibak
2005-Feb-25, 05:18 AM
I have to agree with Nicholas here. If you want to get into the color in an astronomy pic, the first thing you need to do is figure out what the colors represent. Is it true color or false color? If true, how were the colors calibrated? If false, what do the colors represent? Now, I can only speak for myself, but that's all I was trying to do here. From what the others are saying, it's a calibration artifact. That green isn't what Mars actually looks like.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-25, 09:10 AM
Moxy1, first of all I find your remarks rather personal.

Second,


I never said that ESA's explanation about the "green" in that one image was irrelevant, I only stated that they revised their [/i]text.


EDIT: i found where you said that they revised their text; I thought you said this quote as a remark to the link provided, but you meant the caption on the pics. That's cleared up then. When I said "irrelevant" I was referring to this quote however:


In all deference, that link has no bearing on this discussion.

BA or not.
I was replying on this quote of yours when I stated that you said the info in that link was irrelevant. Now you say you never said the info (ESA explaining the color difference) was irrelevant. But you clearly said the link was("no bearing on this discussion" = irrelevant inhere, right?). Can you explain what you meant here? It confuses me.


One citing of another valley filled w/ dark material (not green) does not dispell the evidence presented in this thread.

What evidence is presented here? You posted pictures and asked our thoughts about them. You got them, and you start attacking us because apparently we don"t say what you wanted to hear ( and what apparently already is proven by "evidence" to you).

If we explain why the green possibly isn't green and point to similar (brown) structures, that is giving a possible explanation of the pics you posted, just as you asked. No reason to attack us here.

It's not that we don't want green grasses or sthe like on Mars, we just don't want to jump to that conclusion when nothing (except for the green color) justifies that.

(edited numerous times because of serious qwerty typos and a misquote, and a totally incorrect sentence)

Yorkshireman
2005-Feb-25, 11:04 AM
I never said that ESA's explanation about the "green" in that one image was irrelevant, I only stated that they revised their [/i]text.

You didn't say that the ESA link was irrelevant, true. But you did say that the link to the BA's explanation of the green colouration was irrelevant. I don't think it is irrelevant. Yes, ESA did revise their text, adding an explanation for the green colouration. Well, one reason for that is the reaction the colouration provoked from those keen to see any green as evidence of plant life. Green, in conjunction with Mars, is an emotive colour. That's why scientists and technicans who work on these missions are always keen to set the record straight with regard to green colours appearing on the photos. Unless you think there is another reason that they revised the text, in which case please let us have it.


One citing of another valley filled w/ dark material (not green) does not dispell the evidence presented in this thread.

The valley is in the same area and has the same geology as Louros. Why should Louros be any different? Likewise the THEMIS image I posted earlier is not exactly the same area as your colour photo, but it is immediately adjacent - mere miles away. I think it is a good guide to what to expect of a Themis view of Louros itself.


sheesh, and I thought you people were scientists.

If BA wants to weigh in, fine, otherwise the minions have no case.

Some people here are professional scientists, and good ones at that. Others (I include myself) are amateurs with a keen interest. Which is why I will tend to defer to the real scientists who are running the mission and have expert knowledge of the cameras.


BTW...this thread has never been about the "color".

Yeah, right. Argument about the colour pervades this thread. If the colours in the photo was dark grey, would we have people here posting about mossy growths?

OK, if colour is truly irrelevant, then let's not argue colour any more. What else is unusual about the photos? Nicholas' explanation of rough bedrock left by wind scour (which can be seen all along Valles Marineris, at all scales) seems to me quite a plausible explanation.

jt-3d
2005-Feb-25, 03:40 PM
I think el Mars is pretty redish, orange, whatever. I mean the wind blows all the time and it blows orange sand so this sand must cover everything.

Point is there are no fields of green. Uh you saw a picture of mars and assumed it was actual color? Well, that's fine but it's not. I saw this picture of this Russian bride once and....uh, never mind.
Still, all these 'flow' areas, to me are those hematite ball thingys (yes, thingys is a scientific term) blowing around in the wind. There are no rivers, lakes, springs, just, uh...blue balls.





I am so banned. Is there a beer thread?

moxy1
2005-Feb-25, 04:55 PM
fair enough, all.

but the reason I am so interested in the Louros Valles is because it appears quite different from any of the other canyon images.

if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it really is a duck.

of course, quite unscientific and unprovable, but for now its all the data we have to go on.

I didn't mean to attack anyone personally..just felt like many of the responses were "canned" as they say.

so endeth the thread.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Feb-25, 04:55 PM
Two points:

First, to moxy1: we have seen literally dozens of people come in to this forum and post wild accusations about artificial structures on Mars. We have seen calmer people do it as well. In general, the majority of these people already believe these features are artificial, and nothing anyone says can put a chink in their armor. These people are not coming to this site looking for a scientific analysis, they come here to either get support for hypotheses or simply to rile up skeptics.

Your posts have that ring to them. From long experience, it does seem to me that you fall in this category, including the snippiness and personal attacks when your ideas are confronted. If you come to a discussion forum which is specifically about debunking bunk, then you had best be prepared for what the people here will say.

Having said that...

Second, to the regular BABBers-- yes, we see a lot of people come in here, make these claims, get personal, and then leave (or get banned). However, that does not mean you can be rude, short, or dismissive to someone new. You need to be patient, and give people the benefit of the doubt. If someone has these questions, refer them to an old thread. Explain what we've already determined. But don't be dismissive.

Perhaps this board needs a FAQ for something like this, with links to threads where we've already discussed common questions. I don't have time to do that now, but I'll think about it.

moxy1
2005-Feb-25, 05:05 PM
right on BA.

btw....do you have any thoughts on these images?

:wink:

Nicolas
2005-Feb-25, 08:13 PM
Having said that, why should the thread end here? We still can have an interesting discussion about those valleys.

Moxy1, what kind of features do you think appear different from the other canyon images? Apart from those 4 dots (which do seem rather strange, but I'd need more resolution to really assess them), the features look like those seen in the large image I posted to me. Can you describe which other features appear strange to you, and what exactly you find strange about them?

Do you think the green areas in those pictures are the same (similar features) as the brown areas in my linked image? Or do you think they might be something else, and if so do you have a propostition what the y might be?

I think these questions are a good point to resume the discussion.
---------------------
to the BA:
A "common questions" sticky for each forum sounds like a very good idea. Not only does it help stopping double threads, it also forms an excellent starting point for new threads or forum research. It might be a lot of working starting it up however.

To all:
I think this thread missed the rails from the start with the misinterpretation of the opening post by some. So I suggest we leave that behind us and focus on the scientific discussion of this topic. Not as a second chance for Moxy1, because I don't think he's lost his first chance, after all things rolled into some kind of snakepit from the start (and misinterpretations had a big deal in this), so reactions on both sides might have been biased. I see it as a second start of the thread.

So Moxy1, feel free to reply on the questions I asked in this post. Take your time to elaborate your answers, so we know exactly what your thoughts on the topic are. I hope this still turns out into an interesting discussion.

moxy1
2005-Feb-26, 04:59 AM
I agree wholeheartedly w/ your comments, nicolas, and apologize for slipping so quickly into the pit myself.

I will be pleased to continue our discussion when I have a chance.

regards.

patrick
2005-Feb-26, 05:59 PM
Moxy1,
I am trying to view the 'artifact' (the one you've circled) on the original ESA image, but I cannot seem to spot it anywhere. Could you specify the location where it is supposed to be? Zooming in on the circled section doesn't look at all as the magnified -'artifact'-image showed earlier from the original image.

Source image:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/032-060404-0097-6-co-02-VallesMarineris.jpg

moxy1
2005-Mar-18, 03:32 AM
patrick, I apologize for the delay in response.

adjust the gamma by 10% or so.

upper center far right.

zoom

explore.

paradigms are hard to release....take a try, what do you have to lose?

am at a different computer without access to my images...will get back to you, as well as the chap who is interested in the correlation between the Louros valley "coatings", and other gorges on mars.

cheers

moxy1
2005-Apr-28, 03:04 AM
bump.

would like to continue discussion w/ interested parties.

moxy1
2005-May-26, 03:02 AM
never did get BA to comment on the Louros Valles.

pity. it is truly an extraordinary place.

Yorkshireman
2005-May-26, 02:30 PM
Sorry moxy1, been away for a while. Let's pick up then. for a start, I don't recall seeing an answer to:



Moxy1, what kind of features do you think appear different from the other canyon images? Apart from those 4 dots (which do seem rather strange, but I'd need more resolution to really assess them), the features look like those seen in the large image I posted to me. Can you describe which other features appear strange to you, and what exactly you find strange about them?

Do you think the green areas in those pictures are the same (similar features) as the brown areas in my linked image? Or do you think they might be something else, and if so do you have a propostition what the y might be?

More generally, are you still of the opinion there are artificial structures in this valley?