Zip Monster
Anomaly Finder
The Cydonia Institute
Posts: 57
|
Post by Zip Monster on Aug 19, 2013 6:49:05 GMT -5
marsrocks, I'm looking for MOC and THEMIS images of the Wedge and Dome formation? Have you found any other images for this formation?
Zip Monster
|
|
Zip Monster
Anomaly Finder
The Cydonia Institute
Posts: 57
|
Post by Zip Monster on Aug 19, 2013 6:51:24 GMT -5
A terrestrial analogue to the Wedge and Dome-shaped (Exclamation Mark) formation on Mars has been found in Kofun Japan! Note the wedge and dome "keyhole" design of this Japanese tomb - which was built around 250 – 538AD. Zip Monster
|
|
|
Post by Marsrocks on Aug 19, 2013 13:54:19 GMT -5
Google Earth provides alternate views under the Global Maps layer: This is the "visible image" - provided to Google Earth from ESA: This is the day time infrared view - likely provided to Google Earth from themis: This is the night time infrared view - likely provided to Google Earth from themis: These are the Google Earth coordinates of the feature if you want to do a complete themis search on the themis map at its website: 6° 4'50.43"N 92° 4'52.42"E The link below is to the closest MOC image I found near the object (though I did not do an exhaustive search): viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/moc/E1101091
|
|
|
Post by Marsrocks on Aug 19, 2013 13:55:13 GMT -5
Zipmonster, what can you tell us about the form in Japan? What was the purpose of this unusual shape?
|
|
Zip Monster
Anomaly Finder
The Cydonia Institute
Posts: 57
|
Post by Zip Monster on Aug 19, 2013 15:03:35 GMT -5
|
|
morbius
Anomaly Investigator
Posts: 139
|
Post by morbius on Aug 27, 2013 21:42:04 GMT -5
Was kinda reluctant in considering this post, as I don't usually want to delve into what may seem fringe material .. even for the dedicated anomaly researcher. It is a take on a find by Marsrocks ( massiveblockformX4.jpg ), and exhibits a strange phenomena we often encounter .. but to date, have not come to any concensus, or positive conclusions on.M ******************************************** Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Marsrocks on Aug 28, 2013 12:25:47 GMT -5
morbius, when I first started looking into this, I didn't understand anything about image processing at all. I did not understand that enlargement is a destructive (computer-guessing) process. When we start with an image returned to us with 100% pixel for pixel resolution - of what the camera photographed, we have our most accurate image for all purposes. I have been told the best way to study that image is with a real hand held magnifying glass - as the computer software enlargement process only guesses at the closest likely pixel - based on the surrounding pixel - and adds pixels that were not actually photographed. Take this image as an example. We have an image at 100% of native camera resolution; the second image at 200%, enlarged to twice the size as the original resolution; and a third image, enlarged to four times the size (length and width) as we were originally delivered by the camera. Notice, at 100% resolution, we have 12,980 pixels that are an exact match for what the camera recorded of the landscape below. Our second image - which attempted to double the size of the first one - now contains 51,920 pixels. Remember, the camera only recorded 12,980 pixels of the landscape. So, where did the other 75% of the pixels come from? Actually, all of the new pixels are computer guesses, based on averaging the various gray shades of surrounding pixels. These pixels were never viewed by the camera - they are simply mathematical guesses of the what the shading of the landscape would be if it were photographed at higher resolution. The original - real and accurate data is destroyed in the process, as all of the pixels are now converted into computer guesses at what might have been there had the camera gone in for a closer picture. The four times enlargement is even worse. Notice we now have 207,680 pixels (207,680 computer guesses) taking the place of 12,980 pixels of real information reflecting the shading of the landscape below. That is 16 times more pixels than the real information could be expected to give us. With that in mind, the reason I enlarge is not to try to gain more information - as enlargement is a process where real information is lost not gained. Enlargement processes allow me to show people what I am seeing even if they have no magnifying glass handy. It is only to help in conveying a thought - but it does not actually convey more accurate information than the smaller picture made of the real pixels (data gleaned straight from the camera CCDs). So, when we look at enlargements, we should keep that in mind, and not be fooled that the larger image contains more information than the original- as information is actually lost by enlarging, not gained in the process. Always go back and compare anything you get in an enlargement to the original sized image. If something you see in an enlargement does not exist in the original sized image (the 100% 1X image), then it is a defect from the enlargement process, and not real information. If you think about it, this really makes good, sound, practical sense. Think about it like this. If we could gain real information simply by enlargement processes - all we would have to do is take a picture of Mars in the night sky, and then enlarge sections of it - into larger and larger sections - until we had the area we wanted to see in front of us. There would be no need to send rockets and cameras to give us a closer viewing point. Knowing this now, go back and look at the three pictures above. Which one is really the sharpest and clearest image? The first one (at 100%) is crisp and clean - and truly the most accurate picture of the three. Most people don't realize this, but some do. This is why we like to see links to the original pictures with each post here. It allows us to go back and look at the unaltered image at its native (100%) resolution.
|
|
morbius
Anomaly Investigator
Posts: 139
|
Post by morbius on Aug 28, 2013 22:19:21 GMT -5
Marsrocks, if we enlarge anything ( pic ) ' from the original ', and the outcome is but a ' best guess ' by the computer, then why is it these, in my case anyways, always seem to turn into human faces and anatomy .. why not random shapes, as would be expected? I understand your analogy demonstrated .. much like stretching a balloon with printing or a pic on it ..yes, but am attaching some counter-indications or procedures that perhaps need be corrected? In the first attached is the ' rock in question ' enlarged from the ' original '. This seems to show a group of people on and around ' the rock.' In the second attached is an extreme close-up which ' faces ' have been coloured in pink. Fact is, there appears hundreds .. all faces? Can this possibly be the results of a random or ' best ' choice computer program/s .. or is something else at work here? /-M ********************************* just thinking of that classic line from Casa Blanca. Mabee they could use it in a sci-fi thriller " Sargent .. go out and round up the usual rocks!!"/ Cheers ******************************************* Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Marsrocks on Aug 29, 2013 9:39:33 GMT -5
morbius, computer software image enlargement is actually not really like stretching a balloon. When you stretch a balloon, the real data is actually still there on the rubber of the balloon. However, when computer programs enlarge images, all of the real data is destroyed in the process, and replaced with best guesses to simulate the original data, and simply rendered at a larger size. When you look at a stretched balloon, the real data is still there for you to see, but when you enlarge an image with computer software, all of the real data is lost.
Also, remember the balloon is more analogous to the original landscape - and not just a picture of the landscape taken by a camera. Digital cameras produce square pixels to replicate the landscape. A different shade of gray is selected for each spot to simulate what is on the ground. Each square only contains a single shade of gray - even though if the area was photographed from closer range - there would be many shades of gray in that one little area. The pixel is representative of the average gray shade for that spot. The balloon holds all of the real information, just as if it was the landscape itself.
Also, you are enhancing the enlarged images. Each enhancement or filter that you apply to an image, renders new false data (not real data) into your picture amongst the thousands of new computer generated pixels. When you dive down to pixel level, and look at that - you are looking at the defects produced by the software, and not at real data.
What I would recommend to you - to prove this to yourself one way or the other - is take a picture similar to the ones from Mars - from any point on Earth - perhaps, a place familiar to you - then enlarge that image - and apply the same enhancements that you do to the Mars images, and see what you get when you dive down to investigate the pixels.
|
|
morbius
Anomaly Investigator
Posts: 139
|
Post by morbius on Aug 29, 2013 13:37:54 GMT -5
My analogy Marsrocks, was referring to the mentioned ' printing ' or a ' pic ' on it , and not the actual rubber itself. That if your balloon says Happy Birthday or such, it will not, when stretch or made bigger, then say in smaller print ' to you ' or such. My question however, was how could a ' best guess ' program consistently produce human faces? I would surmise that actually it is following the dots, so to speak, to a remarkable degree in the algorithm, and is in fact producing these ' faces ' as the closest approximation of what is really there .. and that is ' faces.' If there is some error or missing element in this reasoning, or you have some additional insights as to the consistent production of these faces, then please do explain these alternatives on an observable but puzzling fact that is readily evidenced herein. Cheers *********************************************************************
|
|
|
Post by Marsrocks on Aug 29, 2013 14:47:00 GMT -5
morbius, I believe they are coming from dots added from some enhancement your software is doing to the image. Please give it a shot at applying the same enhancements to a familiar picture.
|
|
morbius
Anomaly Investigator
Posts: 139
|
Post by morbius on Aug 29, 2013 17:46:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the confirmation Marsrocks, but I do not think I have to test or prove it on other pics .. am only satisfied that it works. Have also decided to post some details on this under the heading I was not going to pursue for lack of interest, Image Analysis I, as I don't think this subject belongs, or need be continued, in this thread anymore.
It was however, in this " truly massive-smooth flat geometrically shaped block " reporting that I recognized a skillful researcher. Such perceptive insight and detail work was impressive to me, and among the best I've ever seen. Likewise the presentation is quite near impeccable .. well organized and explained. Just what I feel is an accurate observation .. for what it's worth.
The ' Skull Mesa-skull and bones ' just posted has piqued my interest as well .. will give it a view next. Cheers/ -M **************
|
|
|
Post by vancliff on Nov 16, 2014 11:09:14 GMT -5
If any of you need to enlarge small pics I have the good Photozoom Pro. It has special alghoritms to enlarge small pictures withour pixelation.
|
|
|
Post by vancliff on Nov 16, 2014 13:32:28 GMT -5
I found this weird structure at the outer base of the dot. Enlarged in Photozoom Pro at 800%
|
|
Zip Monster
Anomaly Finder
The Cydonia Institute
Posts: 57
|
Post by Zip Monster on Jan 3, 2017 10:31:34 GMT -5
A wedge and dome, keyhole-shaped formation observed on Mars is now the subject of a new science paper, published in the current issue of the Journal of Space Exploration (Volume 4, Issue 3, November 2016). The paper, “A Wedge and Dome Formation Set within the Flat Plains of Libya Montes,” reveals the results of a three year analysis of NASA images that identify a conjoined triangular and circular structure on the surface of Mars. When compared to a collection of similar keyhole formations produced by terrestrial cultures, such as the ancient Kofun Tomb in Japan, the Martian structure not only duplicates their design but, reveals a lost legacy perhaps shared between two worlds. The Martian structure is documented in four separate images provided by NASA and the European Space Agency that confirm the keyhole formations symmetry and its unique set of geometric measurements. The authors contend that the available data set of NASA images confirm multiple points of geometric consistency within the structure and suggest a high probability of artificiality. Contributors to the paper include two members of the Society for Planetary SETI Research, William Saunders (geomorphologist) and George Haas (sculptor), as well as two members of The Cydonia Institute, Michael Dale (geologist) and James Miller (image analyst). A direct link to the Journal of Space Exploration paper is provided below. Link:http://www.tsijournals.com/journals/journal-of-space-exploration.html Zip Monster
|
|