Three perfectly aligned objects w/shadows in Martian Nasa Picture

[Orion437]

Three perfectly aligned objects? (http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/maps/M0001661.gif)

Wonder...what are those? They even have shadows...

Sorry for my english.

[Van Rijn]

Three perfectly aligned objects? (http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/maps/M0001661.gif)

Wonder...what are those? They even have shadows...

Sorry for my english.

They don't look to be perfectly aligned even at that resolution to me, or perfectly spaced either. They might be a crater chain: (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke/crater_chain/chain.html)

A crater chain is a regularly spaced row of three or more impact craters with similar sizes and apparently identical ages. A crater chain is formed when an asteroid or comet with low tensile strength is pulled apart by tides during a close approach to a planet, separating into a train of fragments which hit a moon of the planet rather than escaping to interplanetary space.

But with a whole planet to play with, it isn't that hard to get an example of three blips to roughly line up just by chance.

[Serenitude]

Ok. What is your definition of "perfect"? To what standard have you measured them, and how? And what is the scale of the objects we are looking at? With a large enough scale, it is easy to find such things.

A totally uneducated, amatuer guess is that it could be from an object that split into 3 pieces shortly before impact? Or they could be signs of volcano activity along a straight fault line? Those are just guesses, though.

Edit: I just ended up parroting Van Rijn - he beat me to it :lol:

[perfessor]

Oh ye of little imagination!

Clearly, they are powerful evidence of an ancient and highly advanced civilization - perhaps the very one that founded Atlantis.

Either that, or what Van Rijn said.

It is interesting the way craters can appear on a photo - I had a shot of a Mars scene as my desktop - it had some craters in it. My boss came by and said, "Where did those mounds come from?"

[Grand_Lunar]

A crater chain. Interesting.
They exist elsewhere too.

[jrkeller]

Three smoke stacks. You can even see the plumes.

[spacemanspiff]

HEY! I wondered what happened to that slug ship I blasted.

[galacsi]

Three perfectly aligned objects? (http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/maps/M0001661.gif)

Wonder...what are those? They even have shadows...

Sorry for my english.

Nothing new , it has been spotted some years from now along with some other"anomalies". See http://www.marsunearthed.com/SelectedImages/SelectedImages.htm
Sure it look strange , no shame to recognise it IMO. it should excite curiosity , but there has been no convincing explanation , so no scientist dare speak about it. Except some half baked jokes when it surface again. I hope MRO will take a better look and we can learn something new about this fascinating planet.

[tofu]

there has been no convincing explanation , so no scientist dare speak about it.

No convincing explanation for crater chains? Sorry but you're mistaken. They are well understood and easy to explain with little more than high-school physics.

Start by reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

When an object like an asteroid moves inside the roche limit of a large body like Mars, it breaks apart and spreads out into a line:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Roche_limit_%28ripped_sphere%29.PNG

This is the same process that broke apart comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 around Jupiter. Eventually, the broken parts of the object will spread out. This is how Saturn's rings formed. However, if the broken parts smash into the planet before they have a chance to spread out, they will, of course, form a line.

See? It's all very easy to understand.

[R.A.F.]

Three smoke stacks. You can even see the plumes.

Not smokestacks...anything but smokestacks. :lol:

[Orion437]

Nothing new , it has been spotted some years from now along with some other"anomalies". See http://www.marsunearthed.com/SelectedImages/SelectedImages.htm
Sure it look strange , no shame to recognise it IMO. it should excite curiosity , but there has been no convincing explanation , so no scientist dare speak about it. Except some half baked jokes when it surface again. I hope MRO will take a better look and we can learn something new about this fascinating planet.

Interesting indeed.

And for the agressive scientific wannabes like Perferssor, here (http://www.marsunearthed.com/SelectedImages/TerraMeridianiObjects/TerraMeridianiObjects.htm#) is a descripition, and they are classified as objects.

[galacsi]

No convincing explanation for crater chains? Sorry but you're mistaken. They are well understood and easy to explain with little more than high-school physics.

Thanks for answering me . But in fact you did not teach me anything , i know about this explanation of craters chain , it is just in this case i dont think it is a valid explanation.

Only 3 craters in the chain , strange looking of each crater etc ...

It is not because you have an "explanation" your problem is solved. If you were a cop and have a murder to solve would you catch the first poor guy with no alibi passing your way and bragging " case solved chief !"

[tbm]

The heck with those three thingies. Scroll down in the pic and take a look at the giant trilobite in that crater!

AIEEEEE!!

tom

[R.A.F.]

...i know about this explanation of craters chain , it is just in this case i dont think it is a valid explanation.

Very good...why do you think it's not a valid explanation? Can you show us the evidence you used to reach your conclusion?

[tbm]

They don't appear to be craters. Furher down in the pic are some obvious craters. The shadows on the objects in question are on the opposite side as the craters. That would make the objects in question sticking up, rather than being a depression like a crater.

tbm

[Orion437]

They don't appear to be craters. Furher down in the pic are some obvious craters. The shadows on the objects in question are on the opposite side as the craters. That would make the objects in question sticking up, rather than being a depression like a crater.

tbm

Exactly.

Excellent conclusion.

[galacsi]

TBM and Orion437 you said it all !

[JustAFriend]

... Because nothing ever lines up in nature....

(I guess those pesky eclipses are made by ETs!!!)

[spacemanspiff]

I have no problem accepting them as naturaly occuring items. such as large rocks. They are in the same region, experience the same weather affects such as wind erosion. This kind of phenomenon may be rare but not impossible.
Like this one.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n65/icjday/trip002.jpg

[BadScience]

I am with tbm on this. A "chain crater" that sticks up should be probably called "inverse chain crater". Same way as you will build inverse well if you need a tower.
But well is quite often a man made structure but these inverse chain craters are obviously not because a man made inverse chain craters are even more rare than natural ones. Honestly.
But science aside, these things are probably enormous, gigantic, bigger than my hat, yet as tbm pointed out the half eaten fish (he naively see it as trilobyte) on the lower part of the image is more interesting since it must be some gigantic fish. Maybe it ate those inverse chain craters - who knows. Mars culture could be years ahead from ours. Already dead for example.

[Serenitude]

Galacsi - a little lighter on the ad-homs and a little heavier on explanations or evidence would be in order, no?

[01101001]

Three perfectly aligned objects? (http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/maps/M0001661.gif)

Why is this in the Conspiracy Theories Forum? What's the alleged conspiracy?

One image and your peculiar interpretation of some features' perfection, do not a conspiracy make.

[galacsi]

Galacsi - a little lighter on the ad-homs and a little heavier on explanations or evidence would be in order, no?

No , not all . The right order is a little less stupid jokes to begin with ; because they are rather annoying.

Then my position is nobody know for sure what is this formation. May be this , may be that but what ?
My personnal point of view or some would say prejudice is it is a natural phenomena , some random occurrence of something which will be explained with better pictures.Because I dont give a single credit to these stories about alien remains on Mars.
But I am not in the business of explaining everything , to have the last word and to expand the lights of reason and science. It is a 19th century thing for me.

[Serenitude]

No , not all . The right order is a little less stupid jokes to begin with ; because they are rather annoying.

Then my position is nobody know for sure what is this formation. May be this , may be that but what ?
My personnal point of view or some would say prejudice is it is a natural phenomena , some random occurrence of something which will be explained with better pictures.Because I dont give a single credit to these stories about alien remains on Mars.
But I am not in the business of explaining everything , to have the last word and to expand the lights of reason and science. It is a 19th century thing for me.

Are you trying to say that reason and science are a 19th century thing? Your post is difficult to understand.

And your position may be perfectly valid, but do you need to attack people personally? I mean, can you post without doing that? Everyone gets aggravated sometimes, and I'm not attacking you or making fun of you, but you don't need to ad-hom people. It's just mean, and doesn't help anything. Not to mention it's forbidden here. I think you can get your points across without insulting people personally. Attack mine or anyone else's ideas - that's fair game. You just don't need to personally insult people. Cool down, my friend ;)

Your point of view is fine, but you have to accept that you're posting it to a scientifically critical board, and your ideas may be challenged. It doesn't mean anyone is challenging you personally. If you can't handle your ideas being challenged, without interpreting that as a directly personal attack, maybe you are posting to the wrong forum?

Edit: If you find the one-liners and jokes annoying, there may be better ways of solving that problem than personal attacks. That can only make things worse ;)

[galacsi]

Are you trying to say that reason and science are a 19th century thing? Your post is difficult to understand.

And your position may be perfectly valid, but do you need to attack people personally? I mean, can you post without doing that? Everyone gets aggravated sometimes, and I'm not attacking you or making fun of you, but you don't need to ad-hom people. It's just mean, and doesn't help anything. Not to mention it's forbidden here. I think you can get your points across without insulting people personally. Attack mine or anyone else's ideas - that's fair game. You just don't need to personally insult people. Cool down, my friend ;)

Your point of view is fine, but you have to accept that you're posting it to a scientifically critical board, and your ideas may be challenged. It doesn't mean anyone is challenging you personally. If you can't handle your ideas being challenged, without interpreting that as a directly personal attack, maybe you are posting to the wrong forum?

Edit: If you find the one-liners and jokes annoying, there may be better ways of solving that problem than personal attacks. That can only make things worse ;)

About the 19th century thing , I can see now it is too much of a french thing for you to follow. So let's pretend I did not write it.

About the remainder of your post , I dont undestand at all what you are saying. I did not attack you or otherbody . What personal attack ???, And my ideas were not challenged , so what is the point of this lecture ?

[R.A.F.]

...And my ideas were not challenged...

??? What ideas?? You've offered none except to say that you did not accept the crater chain explanation...to which I responded...


...why do you think it's not a valid explanation? Can you show us the evidence you used to reach your conclusion?

I still await your reply...

[galacsi]

??? What ideas?? You've offered none except to say that you did not accept the crater chain explanation...to which I responded...



I still await your reply...

If you read all the posts you will see that TBM answer this question and i have just agreed to his answer. SO why must I have to repeat what IMO is a perfectly good answer ?

[Orion437]

Why is this in the Conspiracy Theories Forum? What's the alleged conspiracy?

One image and your peculiar interpretation of some features' perfection, do not a conspiracy make.

Er...and who on earth is talking about a conspiracy?

When did i say that the objects are alien, covered up or something?

I just posted this here because the images are intriguing (indeed, as we can see that several users agree) and maybe the images can be a part of this crazy marcian floklore, just that.

That a modd transfers this to another forum, if they think that its the correct thing to do.

And excuse me...my peculiar interpretation? several user agree that the objects are intriguing, strange.


??? What ideas?? You've offered none except to say that you did not accept the crater chain explanation...to which I responded...

I still await your reply...

TBM make an excelente and intelligent point:


They don't appear to be craters. Furher down in the pic are some obvious craters. The shadows on the objects in question are on the opposite side as the craters. That would make the objects in question sticking up, rather than being a depression like a crater.

tbm


Some people are extraordinary.
I started this thread with this:

Wonder...what are those? They even have shadows...

Just a simple plain curious question. And then some start yelling : they are not alien, they are craters (?) you are a conspiracy crazy (?) and then start picking on each other.

Is this the level of discussion here? Its a shame...

And i think that some people rushed with the crater teory...rushed very bad...they suffer of Hoagland´ paranoia.

Sorry for my english.

[R.A.F.]

If you read all the posts you will see that TBM answer this question and i have just agreed to his answer. SO why must I have to repeat what IMO is a perfectly good answer ?

Because this is a discussion board, and I asked you, personally to "back up" your opinion with some form of evidence...and I did this before TBM posted his "explanation".

But no matter...if you and Orion choose not to participate in this discussion...and you accept TBM's "explanation", then lets take a look at what he said...shall we...


They don't appear to be craters. Furher down in the pic are some obvious craters.

The terrain is markedly different between the top and bottom of that picture. Fact is that there are other craters (besides those 3) in the top of that image which look very much the same as the 3.


The shadows on the objects in question are on the opposite side as the craters.

The Sun angle is obviously from the upper left of the image. I submit that we can't see any shadows in the 3 lined up craters. What we are seeing is dark, underlining material which gives the "appearence" of being a shadow.


That would make the objects in question sticking up, rather than being a depression like a crater.

If your interpretation of shadows is in error, (and it's up to you to demonstrate that it is in fact, not), then to characterize the craters as "sticking up" would also be "in error".

[Orion437]

Because this is a discussion board, and I asked you, personally to "back up" your opinion with some form of evidence...and I did this before TBM posted his "explanation".

But no matter...if you and Orion choose not to participate in this discussion...and you accept TBM's "explanation", then lets take a look at what he said...shall we...



The terrain is markedly different between the top and bottom of that picture. Fact is that there are other craters (besides those 3) in the top of that image which look very much the same as the 3.

(?)


The Sun angle is obviously from the upper left of the image. I submit that we can't see any shadows in the 3 lined up craters. What we are seeing is dark, underlining material which gives the "appearence" of being a shadow.



If your interpretation of shadows is in error, (and it's up to you to demonstrate that it is in fact, not), then to characterize the craters as "sticking up" would also be "in error".

Im participating of the discussion, and i think tbm´s opinion is quite reasonable.

I dont like the stupidity of looking at a rock in mars and say: oh, its an alien building...but does anybody know what on earth is...this ???:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/726/2P190820368EFFAMGDP2441L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443R1M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/726/2P190820368EFFAMGDP2441L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443R1M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/730/2P191168179EFFAMOAP2553L7M1.JPG

[dhd40]

... Because nothing ever lines up in nature....

(I guess those pesky eclipses are made by ETs!!!)

Nothing lines up in nature??? Except for crystal structures!!

[tbm]

"I dont like the stupidity of looking at a rock in mars and say: oh, its an alien building...but does anybody know what on earth is...this ???:"

For starters, it's not on earth.........(gotcha!)


It looks like some sort of imaging artifact or data drop out. There a lot of experts in that field on this board who are better able to field that question.

tbm

[dhd40]

Er...and who on earth is talking about a conspiracy?
When did i say that the objects are alien, covered up or something?

I just posted this here because the images are intriguing (indeed, as we can see that several users agree) and maybe the images can be a part of this crazy marcian floklore, just that.

And excuse me...my peculiar interpretation? several user agree that the objects are intriguing, strange.

TBM make an excelente and intelligent point:
Some people are extraordinary.
I started this thread with this:

Wonder...what are those? They even have shadows...

Just a simple plain curious question. And then some start yelling : they are not alien, they are craters (?) you are a conspiracy crazy (?) and then start picking on each other.

Is this the level of discussion here? Its a shame...

And i think that some people rushed with the crater teory...rushed very bad...they suffer of Hoagland´ paranoia.

Sorry for my english.

I agree fully with you. I haven´t seen any conspiracy aspects in your posts, and I also wonder why your approval of TBM´s points is not respected.
Don´t refain from posting! Your links to mars photos are highly appreciated:clap:

[hhEb09'1]

It looks like some sort of imaging artifact or data drop out. data drop out? what are we looking at? I thought it was the big rock at the top of the ridge



I dont like the stupidity of looking at a rock in mars and say: oh, its an alien building...but does anybody know what on earth is...this ???:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/726/2P190820368EFFAMGDP2441L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443L7M1.JPGIn that second image, there is another rock on the left edge, closer to the viewer, that looks like it might be similar composition to the rock I'm thinking we are looking at.

[Grashtel]

Im participating of the discussion, and i think tbm´s opinion is quite reasonable.

I dont like the stupidity of looking at a rock in mars and say: oh, its an alien building...but does anybody know what on earth is...this ???:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/730/2P191168179EFFAMOAP2553L7M1.JPG
Well firstly TBM is right that its nothing on earth because its on Mars :p

Being serious I think that its a rock like the one just left of the center in the image I left the link to (its in others but not so visible and there are several other rocks similar to it) with its darker colour being explained by it being self-shaded (the picture seems to be looking up sun, confirmation would be nice though)

[Orion437]

Im sorry for the "what on earth is..."expression, is a language issue of mine.
Obviously we are talking about mars :)

[Orion437]

"I dont like the stupidity of looking at a rock in mars and say: oh, its an alien building...but does anybody know what on earth is...this ???:"

For starters, it's not on earth.........(gotcha!)


It looks like some sort of imaging artifact or data drop out. There a lot of experts in that field on this board who are better able to field that question.

tbm

Hehe, sorry for that.

I think that we are not talking about the same, tbm...It doesnt seem to be a photo artifact or data drop oup, there are several pics with it, different pics, from several angles, different lighting,etc.

It could be a rock...but its so "lonely" or "alone" there (sorry,language) and its just rare.

And did you notice something? Its really HUGE amongst other rocks that can be seen...(and it isnt a perspective issue, because in the other pics you can see its really big...)...and the shape its unusual...i dont know...

[Grashtel]

Im sorry for the "what on earth is..."expression, is a language issue of mine.
Obviously we are talking about mars :)
We know (well I do and I think TBM does), it just gave an opportunity to have a little joke at your expense in the generally friendly spirit of BAUT :)

[01101001]

Er...and who on earth is talking about a conspiracy?

When did i say that the objects are alien, covered up or something?

It's not and you didn't. I've been waiting.

You chose to start this thread in this forum:
Conspiracy Theories
Is NASA hiding something? (no) Are there aliens on Mars? (no) Are there rogue planets that will kill us all? (no) Disagree? Post here!

If you are not claiming there is some conspiracy implicated by this image, then this thread is in the wrong forum.

Moderator: Please move to a science forum.

[ToSeek]

Moved from "Conspiracy Theories" to "Astronomy".

[Orion437]

Ok 01101001 , maybe we could continue with this thread please.

[01101001]

Ok 01101001 , maybe we could continue with this thread please.

Maybe we could.

OK. What remains to be said?

[cran]

I just posted this here because the images are intriguing (indeed, as we can see that several users agree) and maybe the images can be a part of this crazy marcian floklore, just that.

The images are intriguing ... as are many thousands of satellite images (of Mars, Earth, Venus, Titan, etc) ...

image interpretation can be fun or frustrating, depending upon what rides on the conclusion ... more so when the scale is an unknown, or if the imaging is conducted in something other than visible light ...

the idea that this image can be "part of this crazy" Martian folklore does suggest that you were inviting interest from conspiracy theorists ... and that would naturally draw their detractors ...


That a modd transfers this to another forum, if they think that its the correct thing to do.

which appears to have happened ...



Some people are extraordinary.
I started this thread with this:

Wonder...what are those? They even have shadows...

Just a simple plain curious question.

... not really, it is a commonly used "leading" question ... an apparently innocent question which "leads" one towards an "obvious" conclusion ...
something you may not have realised ...


And i think that some people rushed with the crater teory...

I agree ... and I cannot agree with RAF's interpretation that the shadows change significantly over the length of the image strip ... or that we are seeing discrete exposures of very dark material ...

to me, they appear to be objects which rise above their surrounds ... ie, outcrops exposed above the surface dust layer ...

depending upon the underlying geology and the age of the outcrops, they might be the resistant remains of weathered rocks (as suggested earlier by someone - apologies for forgetting who) and the line and similarity would then be the result of some previous tilting of that layer ... or they might be the more resistant remains of weathered and eroded faultline volcanoes, like kimberlites or lamproites, in which case you might want to check them for diamonds ... less likely is that they are the unobliterated remains of a fragmented bolide, unless it can be established that there was sufficient depth of water or similar in situ at the time of impact ...

I'd like to see a lot more images of the site ... at different elevations and angles ... and include some radar altimetry ...

[01101001]

And excuse me...my peculiar interpretation? several user agree that the objects are intriguing, strange.


Does anyone but you claim that the three objects are perfectly aligned?

[Jeff Root]

They don't look to be perfectly aligned even at that resolution
to me, or perfectly spaced either.
They are aligned to within 1 pixel, and equally spaced to within
1 pixel, based on my judgement of the spot center locations.

Measured to the nearest half pixel:

Left & Center
Horizontal distance: 52 pixels
Vertical distance: 13.5 pixels
Calculated distance: 53.7 pixels

Center & Right
Horizontal distance: 52.5 pixels
Vertical distance: 13 pixels
Calculated distance: 54.0 pixels

It is entirely possible that "perfect" would be no better.

With the top-left corner of the image being (0,0), I put the
centers at (214, 291), (266, 277.5), and (318.5, 264.5).




They don't appear to be craters. Furher down in the pic are some
obvious craters.
The terrain is markedly different between the top and bottom of that
picture. Fact is that there are other craters (besides those 3) in
the top of that image which look very much the same as the 3.
I see some other dark spots which have characteristics similar
to the three, but none that are obviously craters. The most
similar spot is directly above the rightmost of the three spots,
at (315, 155). Like the three, it a patch of solid black with
bright dunes nearby in a similar alignment. None of those black
spots are similar to the many obvious craters lower in the image.

If those are craters, why do they not have light-colored dust in
their centers? Why do they instead have bright white patches
jutting into their upper-left quadrants?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[hhEb09'1]

Does anyone but you claim that the three objects are perfectly aligned?I did about the same thing as Jeff, and they look very close. So, I guess, two. :)

[Maksutov]

Three perfectly aligned objects? (http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/maps/M0001661.gif)

Wonder...what are those? They even have shadows...

Sorry for my english.I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the concepts of accuracy and precision. Here's an introduction. (http://www.flatsurv.com/accuprec.htm)

Outside of mathematics, nothing is perfectly aligned. It may appear to be so, but given sufficient resolution, it will eventually be found to be less than perfect.

[galacsi]

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the concepts of accuracy and precision. Here's an introduction. (http://www.flatsurv.com/accuprec.htm)

Outside of mathematics, nothing is perfectly aligned. It may appear to be so, but given sufficient resolution, it will eventually be found to be less than perfect.

And Yes nothing perfect in this world of ours and nothing perfect in Mars too !

But mathematics rules the whole sky !

Pupil Orion437 , i suggest you copy that 100 times !

[Orion437]

The images are intriguing ... as are many thousands of satellite images (of Mars, Earth, Venus, Titan, etc) ...

image interpretation can be fun or frustrating, depending upon what rides on the conclusion ... more so when the scale is an unknown, or if the imaging is conducted in something other than visible light ...

the idea that this image can be "part of this crazy" Martian folklore does suggest that you were inviting interest from conspiracy theorists ... and that would naturally draw their detractors ...

which appears to have happened ...

... not really, it is a commonly used "leading" question ... an apparently innocent question which "leads" one towards an "obvious" conclusion ...
something you may not have realised ...

I agree ... and I cannot agree with RAF's interpretation that the shadows change significantly over the length of the image strip ... or that we are seeing discrete exposures of very dark material ...

to me, they appear to be objects which rise above their surrounds ... ie, outcrops exposed above the surface dust layer ...

depending upon the underlying geology and the age of the outcrops, they might be the resistant remains of weathered rocks (as suggested earlier by someone - apologies for forgetting who) and the line and similarity would then be the result of some previous tilting of that layer ... or they might be the more resistant remains of weathered and eroded faultline volcanoes, like kimberlites or lamproites, in which case you might want to check them for diamonds ... less likely is that they are the unobliterated remains of a fragmented bolide, unless it can be established that there was sufficient depth of water or similar in situ at the time of impact ...

I'd like to see a lot more images of the site ... at different elevations and angles ... and include some radar altimetry ...

Cran, thanks for your opinion.
This (http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0001661.html) is the original image with all the necesary data to make measurementes. Hope you can give us more info.



They are aligned to within 1 pixel, and equally spaced to within
1 pixel, based on my judgement of the spot center locations.

Measured to the nearest half pixel:

Left & Center
Horizontal distance: 52 pixels
Vertical distance: 13.5 pixels
Calculated distance: 53.7 pixels

Center & Right
Horizontal distance: 52.5 pixels
Vertical distance: 13 pixels
Calculated distance: 54.0 pixels

It is entirely possible that "perfect" would be no better.

With the top-left corner of the image being (0,0), I put the
centers at (214, 291), (266, 277.5), and (318.5, 264.5).


I see some other dark spots which have characteristics similar
to the three, but none that are obviously craters. The most
similar spot is directly above the rightmost of the three spots,
at (315, 155). Like the three, it a patch of solid black with
bright dunes nearby in a similar alignment. None of those black
spots are similar to the many obvious craters lower in the image.

If those are craters, why do they not have light-colored dust in
their centers? Why do they instead have bright white patches
jutting into their upper-left quadrants?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root, thank you for your opinion, very interesting indeed.

This (http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0001661.html) is the original image with all the necesary data to make measurementes, hope you can give us more info about this.



Does anyone but you claim that the three objects are perfectly aligned?

Yes. Read the thread (something that obviously you didnt), two more users did, at least.

Did i wrong you in another past life? There has been several posts of you in this thread. Not even one of them is about the images itself. Not even one of them brings an idea of what they are, or what they are not. Other users have been contributing to the thread with ideas, measurements and elements; instead, you were flaming and make it weaker all the time. Your agresive attitude is obvious. Is there a mod reading this?

I ask you to leave this agresive attitude.


Sorry for my english.

[cran]

Well, Orion437, thanks for the link ...

I'm afraid I can't offer much more than I've already suggested ...
at under 3m per pixel (2.87m if I recall), the objects do not appear to have a very large footprint ... about that of a standard Australian house?? ...
someone faster and better with trig might beat me to calculating the height of these objects ... based on the angle of the sunlight, the angle of the image, and the length of the shadows ...

Yes, Jeff, I saw those too ... and the bright dunes associated with each also suggest a prominence rather than a depression ...

[Squashed]

Im participating of the discussion, and i think tbm´s opinion is quite reasonable.

I dont like the stupidity of looking at a rock in mars and say: oh, its an alien building...but does anybody know what on earth is...this ???:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/726/2P190820368EFFAMGDP2441L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443R1M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/726/2P190820368EFFAMGDP2441L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443L7M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443R1M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/730/2P191168179EFFAMOAP2553L7M1.JPG

It looks like a bush that needs a little trimming.

[01101001]

Yes. Read the thread (something that obviously you didnt), two more users did, at least.

Obviously?

hhEb09'1: I did about the same thing as Jeff, and they look very close. So, I guess, two.

Is that what you call three people agreeing that they are perfectly aligned? You're wrong. "Very close" is not the same as "perfect".

If you can actually cite someone saying they are perfectly aligned, then I will take back my statement that such a view is peculiar to you. (But, what have you got against the word "peculiar", though. There's no shame in that.)


Did i wrong you in another past life? There has been several posts of you in this thread. Not even one of them is about the images itself. Not even one of them brings an idea of what they are, or what they are not. Other users have been contributing to the thread with ideas, measurements and elements; instead, you were flaming and make it weaker all the time. Your agresive attitude is obvious. Is there a mod reading this?

I ask you to leave this agresive attitude.


I think you should apologize for that. Is there a mod reading this?

[antoniseb]

1. I think you should apologize for that. 2. Is there a mod reading this?
1. It sounds like you're having a grumpy day.
2. Not usually.

[01101001]

1. It sounds like you're having a grumpy day.
2. Not usually.

1. When offended, I can get grumpy. Maybe tomorrow my feeling will have changed. I doubt it.

2. But, there was, if only briefly. That's good.

Be careful, antoniseb. You're not contributing to analyzing the image. Orion437 won't stand for that kind abuse.

[galacsi]

1. When offended, I can get grumpy. Maybe tomorrow my feeling will have changed. I doubt it.

2. But, there was, if only briefly. That's good.

Be careful, antoniseb. You're not contributing to analyzing the image. Orion437 won't stand for that kind abuse.

To 01101001

You are incredible , why all this commotion and fuss about perfection in alignment ? Of course , at the micron level , I am sure this three objects are not "perfectly " aligned. And then what ? You just want to have the last word ? What are you searching for ? If I were paranoiac ,I should think you want to make something angry and get him/her banned.

[hhEb09'1]

get him/her banned.First step is wearing a red shirt. Second, pushing Phil's eggs over. Third, saying "what question?" Fourth, mod taunting. Fifth, typing "ban me" in caps over and over.

[tbm]

The objects in question DO appear to be in particularly good alignment. But I don't place a lot of stock in things in nature that appear to look a certain way. The lower peninsula of Michigan looks like a mitten, for example. Italy looks like a boot. Florida looks like a d..........,well, Florida looks like Florida.

About all I can tell of these objects is that they are hills or mound, perhaps harder than the surrounding matter so they stick out as erosion occurs and that they are (naturally) arranged in an interesting manner.

tbm.

[Orion437]

Obviously?

hhEb09'1: I did about the same thing as Jeff, and they look very close. So, I guess, two.

Is that what you call three people agreeing that they are perfectly aligned? You're wrong. "Very close" is not the same as "perfect".


You are trying to make a problem of the concept of "perfect" or not? I wont enter your game. And thank God, no one in this thread did. You are the only one trolling it or making it weaker.


Obviously
If you can actually cite someone saying they are perfectly aligned, then I will take back my statement that such a view is peculiar to you. (But, what have you got against the word "peculiar", though. There's no shame in that.)



As i say, every person can interpret with no problem at all, the title of the thread and the concept of perfectly aligned or very close.
I dont have to cite anything. And specially with your arrogance. This is a disccussion board, and all the users contributed with ideas and opinions, with respect. Since my first post im asking, what is, what do you think,etc etc.

You are just trying to pick me since your post numer 1. God knows why.

Oh by the way, you contribution to the thread now is - 100.


Obviously

I think you should apologize for that. Is there a mod reading this?

I repeat my self. Your contribution to this thread is below cero. Negative and agresive, and its very clear to everyone here.


1. When offended, I can get grumpy. Maybe tomorrow my feeling will have changed. I doubt it.

2. But, there was, if only briefly. That's good.

Be careful, antoniseb. You're not contributing to analyzing the image. Orion437 won't stand for that kind abuse.

Interesting. A mod warns in you some way, you but you continue on picking on me.

Is there some way to stop this?


To 01101001

You are incredible , why all this commotion and fuss about perfection in alignment ? Of course , at the micron level , I am sure this three objects are not "perfectly " aligned. And then what ? You just want to have the last word ? What are you searching for ? If I were paranoiac ,I should think you want to make something angry and get him/her banned.

Indeed.

Sorry for my english.

[antoniseb]

Interesting. A mod warns in you some way, you but you continue on picking on me.

I gave some friendly guidance, but it wasn't a warning. This thread has devolved into semantics and petty bickering, about a topic not worth considering. I'm closing the thread, and I expect better behavior in the future from Orion437 and others.