!#%$$%!!@% JUST LOST MY POST!!!!

Take 2:

What kind of funky face do you have? Of course the line should be straight. It runs from your forehead, between the eyes, down the bridge of the nose, between the nostrils, across the pucker of the lips, and down the chin. That's the definition of symmetry.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/symmetry
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/symmetry
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dicti...teral+symmetry
Symmetry means sameness. Typically it is reflection symmetry, i.e. mirror image. Humans are only approximately symmetrical - i.e. the basic structure is symmetrical but the details are not precise. Faces have varying degrees of symmetry, for example one ear might be slightly higher than the other, or the nose might be crooked. These are deviations from symmetry. Most of the time these deviations are too minor to perceive, but sometimes they are prominent enough to stand out. The more symmetrical a face, the more esthetically pleasing - it's been documented by tests.

But symmetry means sameness.

Okay, I agree - for an object that has three dimensional texture, i.e. projections out of the plane, a line along the surface tracing the plane of symmetry will zigzag along the contours. From an offset, the line won't be straight, but zigzag. But when we apply this to your image, it only makes things worse.

It's probably from the Hoagland Face On Mars issue, we're all primed to talk about faces. Look at the index on this page and you'll see a couple other thread titles about faces. So naturally that's what we're primed for. Add to that your OP was rather vague about what you were pointing out. The distinctive feature that stands out in the image is the textured bit that resembles a face. So that was the assumption.

Okay, let's discuss the overall structure, and I'll justify my above comment about the symmetry being worse. I'm going to describe features so we are talking about the same things. I will call the face thing the "mask". We'll use your second orientation, with the "column" upright. Let's take that image and try to look at it with the yellow line rotated till it lines up straight, i.e. the axis of symmetry.

The second set of marked points down still don't correspond. Specifically, the side on the left is a smooth curve from the top. Even if we assume the backside of the right face is smooth, so a rotation would project a smooth profile from the top point down past that corner, that right side has a projection out of the plane toward the viewer. This projection is only on one half the column. It would be evident from the sunlight if it were present on the left - it is not. Ergo, the symmetry of those two points is questionable.

Look at the mask. The corners marked for the top of the mask, or corners of the goblet, are not aligned with the plane of symmetry. The mask feature is skewed from the line of symmetry of the column. Also note that the right side again protrudes outward toward the viewer, while the left side does not. Plus, the mask feature is tilted, but the corners are at the same height above the base of the column. Thus the right side is longer. If it were a mask, the right would be taller, and the top of the mask sloped. Hmmm.

What else? Well, the blue line of the outline of the feature is misleading. It follows the mask contour, and down a shadow line near the mask. This makes it seem to be the edge of the column, and the unhighlighted region behind it is a separate object in the background. This is not the case. A closer look at the original, or even the colorized version from keith.laney you link below, shows that the back edge of the rock in fact follows the shadow line curve to the right. The original jpeg shows that region to be brighter than the side of the "column" with the mask, because it is the top of the rock and is more direct to the sunlight. The other part is down the side and is thus not as fully lit, especially with the shadows. That line of the rock does not match the left profile of the rock at all. And notice that your marked corresponding points do not line up properly, even if we use the defined blue line instead of the true rock edge. Your projection seems to indicate that the bottom of the column is somewhat narrow, with the mask feature widening to the widest point at the crest, followed by a taper to the top point. But if we use the blue line as the outer edge, then in the mask zone we cannot see enough of the other side of the rock to make any judgment about it's similarity or symmetry. It would be on the backside of the rock, out of sight.

Okay, the bottom of the column is the blue line that is roughly 30 deg skewed to the horizontal of the image. Four points define the bottom two corners and next points up, which roughly follow a vertical line up. But the next two points are the tops of the mask, and they are definitely offset to the right a substantial amount. Even accounting for the rotation of the column, they still project farther right than left. If they're about the same distance from the "ground", then they are widely skewed right. If the rotation of the column accounts for the skewing and they are more centered, then the corner on the right must be higher than the corner on the left. Look at the image - the distance between those corners and the points below are the same, but the angle is skewed that same 30 degress off to the right that the whole column is skewed left. And then from there to the next two points, the corners of the top piece. They are centered more to the lower points, but remember the right side projects outward while the left does not.

Of course the whole inspection is difficult because the texturing of the image has much variation - with sharp zones and fuzzy zones side-by-side. This is not typical of good image enhancement. Further, I note that the surface texture and even the features do not conform well to the NASA jpeg. or even the colorized image. Look at the features. The surface looks different.

The NASA jpeg and keith.laney image both show a much "grainier" image, the pixelation of the jpeg evident at that magnification. You can see the shadow zones blend smoothly with the lighter areas. Whereas on your image, there are stark contrasts, with sharp edgelines on the dark zones separate from brighter spots. The lines are more sharply defined in your image. This indicates you did more than just enlarge the jpeg. When I enlarge the jpeg above 200%, it just gets too pixelated to make much out. It would help if we knew what processing you performed, and the image source you used. It was the NASA jpeg, correct?

It looks to me like you're getting jpeg artifacts from overprocessing. Jpeg is a lossy compression algorithm. In order to keep the image sizes small enough for internet linking, the data is necessarily truncated. The jpegs are fine for viewing, but enlarging will not pull out more detail - the jpeg format has erased that level of information. Digital processing tools just play games with the pixels, they can't pull out information because it isn't there. It looks to me like your image has been processed digitally and it has created contrasts that aren't there - the dark zones are sharpened and edged, changing the texture appearance and adding features.

Things that just don't look right...

Look at the right edgeline in the region of the corner on the mask. Your picture doesn't match keith.laney or NASA jpeg image there. It looks off. Look at the double line on the left edge of the goblet. On the original and keith.laney image, it is not as defined and has more of a kink in it. Look at the zone of the grimace - I took the colored image and increased brightness, and the features aren't the same. It's close, but the texturing is different, and the small features seem lost in your image. Look at the region I pointed out above the mask that looks like a skull in your image. In the colored image, there's just a dark blur. I'd post my image if I could. If someone wants to host it, I could email a copy.

In short, it appears you have an overprocessed jpeg image that has been "enhanced" to create features that aren't there. The symmetry you see is not there in the original, and relies heavily on your particular interpretation of the image. The supposed symmetrical features are not, in fact, very symmetrical - with height variations and planar elevation changes. This is nothing more than a typical rock with some interesting texturing.