You're right Phil and I'm happy we, Far rimers, challenged "your" Near rimer statment so you were able to find the rigth theory that prove now to be (100%) right. No challenge = no good theory
Just currious to know why Beacon is so bright. Any thought before we know?

I've always made the simplest assumption, Climb, that the Beacon rock was the same as all the other pale evaporite we've been driving over since Eagle Crater. (I'm a long-time follower of William of Ockam; i.e. don't postulate diamonds or polished marble, if good-old garden-variety sulfate sandstone will reflect enough light.)
The vertical edge of an evaporite slab facing northward will reflect plenty of light from the northerly-positioned winter sun back towards the north, from where we were looking, back in May and June. All other surfaces in the Victoria region were hidden or roughly horizontal so they would reflect back minimal light even if they were mirrors. Thus, that roughly 1.0 x 0.2 meter evaporite edge was by far the brightest thing we could see in the south - a true beacon.
The same sort of basic optical principles explain why El Dorado always looked black from orbit or from the top of Husband Hill, but has always looked rather light from Low Ridge. The difference is only that the well-sorted basalt sand of ElDorado reflects back little light, while the iron sulfates reflect back plenty.

All what you write here is convincing. I think we can assume that the contrast between beacon and the sky added to the Beacom showing that brigth since I guess we must be able to find from where we are now, inside Vicky, evaporite that reflect light the same way that beacon did; but we have to have pictures taken at the rigth time and at the right heading regarding sun position.

Oh, what's a power of 10 between friends?

Odave, can I borrow 1000 euros? I'll pay ya back...