Faces from the Chasmas

Comparison of the three "Clowns," from a visual perspective and with respect to the MSSS ancillary data.

M13-01494, “Clown.”



Longitude of image center: 75.98°W
Latitude of image center: 5.28°S
Scaled pixel width: 5.70 meters
Scaled image width: 2.92 km
Scaled image height: 82.67 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 322.39°
Local True Solar Time: 13.18 decimal hours
Emission angle: 0.09°
Incidence angle: 20.07°
Phase angle: 20.07°
North azimuth: 93.01°
Sun azimuth: 332.52°
Spacecraft altitude: 379.34 km
Slant distance: 379.34 km


M02-00343, Original “Clown”



Longitude of image center: 75.86°W
Latitude of image center: 6.04°S
Scaled pixel width: 5.72 meters
Scaled image width: 2.92 km
Scaled image height: 145.63 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 150.54°
Local True Solar Time: 14.59 decimal hours
Emission angle: 0.18°
Incidence angle: 42.84°
Phase angle: 42.72°
North azimuth: 93.09°
Sun azimuth: 28.15°
Spacecraft altitude: 380.14 km
Slant distance: 380.15 km

E10-02357, "Clown."



Longitude of image center: 76.02°W
Latitude of image center: 4.68°S
Scaled pixel width: 3.01 meters
Scaled image width: 3.08 km
Scaled image height: 35.88 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 272.82°
Local True Solar Time: 13.78 decimal hours
Emission angle: 17.95°
Incidence angle: 32.93°
Phase angle: 45.99°
North azimuth: 93.03°
Sun azimuth: 321.85°
Spacecraft altitude: 382.57 km
Slant distance: 400.01 km

Observations:

The three faces are obviously images of the the same identical feature, with observed differences in resolution, camera angle, and lighting. A cursury look at the data reveals that M02 and M13 were imaged from aproximately directly overhead, (emission angles of 0.18 and 0,09 respectively), while E10 has an emission angle of 17.95. Also, E10 has higher resolution by nearly a factor of 2. Rather than dissipating the image the higher resolution brings it into better focus, indicating there is more detail to see. Moreover, E10 is obviosly foreshortened (shorter and wider) as a result of the increased emmision angle, as one would expect.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No Escher equivalents among the Martians, then? [LB] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you are referring to art that can reasonably be interpreted in more ways that one, in the case of the Clown I agree. I have seen a few instances of "Janus" faces (from Roman mythology) in my recent search. There does seem to be a narrow face coming out the back of the Clown's head. In other words two profiles facing in opposite directions are visible in all three versions shown above. But the Clown seems to be the dominant face.

This could simply imply subtlety of the artist, a very human trait.

Also in all 3 hi-res strips shown, in the immediate area of the Clown are several faces human or animal, (not shown here), and they are all repeated in all three images--unless they are off-screen. This confirms the existence of the whole montage.

Neil

Neil, Richard,

Both of you correctly interpreted my reference to the Terran artist M C Escher. For those of you who may not be familliar with his work, he uses (used?) optical illusion, image morphing and tricks of perspective to create some very strange drawings.

LB

Perhaps they were Abstract artists who blew up Mars' parent planet and sister moon to create a solar system wide work of art.

Why do planets explode? To create art!

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why do planets explode? To create art! [JR]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As usual, that's absurd and I never said that. This kind of reasoning reminds me of that of the Mainstream Men who imprisoned Galileo, and the troglodytes who burned Bruno (both of whom history has shown to be correct).

Nevertheless, I appreciate your wit, and that's why I respond to you sometimes JR.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why do planets explode? To create art! [JR]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As usual, I never said that. This kind of reasoning reminds me of that of the Mainstream Men who imprisoned Galileo, and the troglodytes who burned Bruno (both of whom history has shown to be correct).

Nevertheless, I appreciate your wit, and that's why I respond to you sometimes JR.

Neil
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Wow, Galileo and Bruno. You certainly imagine yourself in good company. However, if we are to believe there existed a race of aliens so obsessed with art as to use an entire planet as an easel, I don't see any objection in logic to asserting that they might also blow up planets in furtherence of their obsession. Are you now also claiming to know the motivations of the aliens?

JR