[X] My Assistant

[tedstryk]

On my website sometime back, I added a page on the image fragment sent back by the Mars-3 Lander. I released serveral versions, including the best quality processing using othodox techniques I would use on other images plus colorization here:
http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/fragmentc.jpg
However, I released another image, which I called a "What if" image. This image can be seen here http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/m3s5b.jpg It was produced via extreme processing of the original data to make a Mars-like scene, but I made it clear on my website it was only a speculative image. I strongly doubt if the raw data even shows Mars at all - it could be all noise. But since this mode of processing looked strangely Viking-like, I figured I would put it on the web. I was warned by several, who said that while fun, some kooks might take it seriously. My response was that I really don't care what kooks think. Then I noticed this web page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_2
They used the overprocessed image. I feel like it is being presented as a true photograph. This is of concern.

[nprev]

Thank you for this very comprehensive and interesting analysis, Geert.

I'm more convinced than ever that the only way that these landers will ever be found is by somebody tripping over them in the year 2300 or so. We've already seen that very recent meteoritic impacts leave pronounced scars on the Martian landscape, which is a significant contribution to the S/N ratio; given also the large uncertainty in landing locations (to say nothing of circumstances), there's really no assured way to find them from orbital imagery.

Now, since historically every absolute statement I've ever made has been 100% wrong, let's sit back & wait for the break-through.