Part 65- OSIRIS Map Anomalies and Corrections


Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL.

UPDATE- 5th NOVEMBER

The lead author of the relevant paper in this post, Ramy El Maarry, kindly acknowledged my comment in the Rosetta blog post thread linked lower down, and agreed to three of my four main points regarding these anomalies  (including the Anuket neck border anomaly that Marco Parigi had also highlighted). He has sent an erratum to the publishers and put our names in the acknowledgements for the paper for which we are most grateful. 

Ramy also explained very comprehensively the other four apparent, minor anomalies some of which I had suspected were intentional OSIRIS map changes rather than anomalies. His comment, in answer to mine is linked here:

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/09/29/comet-landscapes/#comment-605825

And of course, he kindly answered Marco’s comment with his Anuket anomaly too and that comment is further down below the one linked above. He also acknowledged Marco’s important discovery of a recent rockfall at Anuket. 

END OF UPDATE/////

INTRODUCTION

This post is regarding the OSIRIS maps presented in this Rosetta blog post:

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/09/29/comet-landscapes/

There are several errors in the maps. These were outlined by me and by Marco Parigi in the comment thread for the above-linked post. I found eight errors and Marco found one of them independently. Our two comments are linked at the bottom of this post and mine is reproduced in full a little further below here so that you can refer back to it and mentally tick off the eight points as they’re corrected in this post.

Marco’s find was one of the more large-scale and therefore important anomalies. He has already done a blog post on it so I won’t have to address that particular one here. It concerns the Sobek/Anuket border being placed a few hundred metres apart in different renditions (or viewpoints) of the map. Link here:

http://marcoparigi.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

Marco’s post corresponds to my point 3 in the first list of four in my comment.

MY COMMENT, REPRODUCED

(This is reproduced in full for clarity. However, you can skip it and go straight to the separate points of the comment that are addressed below it).

Hi Claudia

I’ve identified several rather important contradictions on the maps presented in this post as well as several smaller contradictions. The more important contradictions are:

1) While Bes is clearly marked in the first map it disappears in the second one, taken over by Geb and Anhur. It’s not perspective, you can see the same features coloured differently. 

2) In the montage, right hand column, middle image, “Seth” and “Babi” are actually “Anhur” and “Bes” respectively. 

3) On the third map, Anuket is shown including the second heavily shadowed scarp along its border with Atum and even incorporates the third (non shadowed) scarp. These two scarps are incorporated into Sobek in the fifth map. In that map, the border kisses only the first scarp which is the scarp where Vincent et al’s jets 27 and 31 were located. This constitutes a 4-500 north-south drift in the Anuket border. 

4) Staying with the same Anuket border in 3, above, its border with Neith is similarly southerly in the third map (it starts half way along the Maftet border along the head rim. But in the fifth map, the Neith border has crept north by several hundred metres almost to the beginning of Maftet where that dog-leg in the head rim is. In fact, the parallax of the head rim rebate diminishes the effect. It’s as good as in line with the dog leg. 

There are several smaller contradictions:

1) In the top-right montage, the border of Seth with Babi has been truncated with respect to the older ESA regional map. On that map; Seth used to have a finger protruding 400 metres along the Hapi rim and into the Babi area. This isn’t a contradiction between these recent maps and so might have been an intentional change in the border line.

2) The Seth border is also shown as being too far down Ash in the bottom-left montage frame (difficult to judge with the acute perspective but nevertheless a few hundred metres off because of that acute angle. 

3) In the bottom-left montage frame there’s a green blob on the Serqet rim. This is the smooth area between the pillars of the C. Alexander Gate. It was part of Serqet in the old regional map but this green blob implies that it’s thought to be a part of Anuket peeping round from under the head rim. That’s not possible from this angle- the green blob is definitely the smooth area between the pillars of the C. Alexander Gate. Although this is certainly a contradiction with the old ESA maps, it also appears to contradict the top-left and bottom-right montage frames too, although this area is very nearly over the horizon in both frames. 

4) On the third map, a finger of green depicting Apis extending up into Ash but not there in the bottom-right montage map. This finger is not in any previous map either. 

There are several other anomalies to do with Geb/Bes, Wosret/Maftet and (possibly) Seqet/Ma’at but they are too involved to explain here. 

Hopefully, these contradictions could be corrected, especially the first four. They could lead to future papers inadvertently causing confusion by citing these areas that others interpret as different areas. This would be due to referring to a different map in this presentation (or referring to the old ESA regional map instead).

///// END OF REPRODUCED COMMENT 

As Marco has dealt with point 3 in the first list, I’ll deal with the other three of the four as they’re the most important. The second list may have to wait a while but it’s less important. We start with point 1 and then the rest of the first list, i.e. points 2 and 4 will be presented soon in updates. So point 1 will go out right away, on its own, with the updates following over a few days. 

POINT 1- THE BES/ ANHUR/ GEB ANOMALY

From my comment:

“1) While Bes is clearly marked in the first map it disappears in the second one, taken over by Geb and Anhur. It’s not perspective, you can see the same features coloured differently.”

Here are the two maps. We’ll call the upper one ‘A’ and the lower one ‘B’. They’re not labelled as such in order to keep them close together for toggling. I’ve annotated them with fiduciary points that match morphological features from one to the other. The key follows.


Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Key (A is upper photo; B is lower photo)

Yellow- 3 dots that are at the ends of three distinctive ridges. The top-left one is on the north-western border of Geb in A but well within Geb in B. The other two are on the Geb-Bes border in A but well within Geb in B where there is no representation of Bes. Geb has therefore taken over Bes in B. However there’s some of Bes that remains in shadow along the bottom in B (i.e. below the brown dots which are described further below).

Orange- a ridge that’s entirely within Bes in A but entirely within Geb in B. 

Light blue- two dots. One is a boulder or protrusion at upper-left in both photos and the other is a boulder or ice patch at lower-right in both photos. The upper left one is within Bes in A and on the Geb Anhur border in B. The lower left one is well within Bes in A but well within Anhur in B. 
Mauve -this sharp turn is correctly positioned at the exact top-right point of the scarp as identified in the related paper but this point is on the Bes-Anhur border in A and on Geb-Anhur in B.

Red- a distinctive feature that’s well within Bes in A but well within Anhur in B. 

Brown- this is top edge of the strange protrusion at the south pole. It sits well within Bes in A but runs along the bottom border of Anhur in B.

POINT 2

From my comment

2) “In the montage [header for this part], right hand column, middle image, “Seth” and “Babi” are actually “Anhur” and “Bes” respectively.”

This is clearly a simple mislabelling but is put here for completeness in covering the first list of four points. I’m sure the paper authors are completely familiar with the Seth and Babi positions. For other readers, Babi and Seth are on the right in the montage image referred to in point 2. Babi is light brown and sitting above the ‘A’ of ‘Aten’. Seth is out of sight beyond it except for a tiny blob of red peeping over the horizon in the distance. That blob seems to show, correctly, the southwestern rim of the Aswan crater at Seth. You can see both regions clearly in the top-left image of the montage. In that image, Anhur and Bes are hidden on the other side of the comet. 

POINT 3 (see update below that complements Marco’s post on this).

3) [covered in Marco Parigi’s post, linked again below but included here for completeness] “On the third map, Anuket is shown including the second heavily shadowed scarp along its border with Atum and even incorporates the third (non shadowed) scarp. These two scarps are incorporated into Sobek in the fifth map. In that map, the border kisses only the first scarp which is the scarp where Vincent et al’s jets 27 and 31 were located. This constitutes a 4-500 north-south drift in the Anuket border.”

http://marcoparigi.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

POINT 3 UPDATE (8th October 2016).

After completing point four below, it’s now possible to pin down Marco’s Sobek border shunt to a good degree of accuracy. 

Here are a couple of annotated photos, reused from point 4 but with the extended Sobek border shown. The first photo (named update 1) shows the official map with Sobek in light brown and Neith, the subject of point 4, in blue. Both regions extend a long way northward or leftward towards the green of Anuket when compared with the second photo (named update 2). 

The second photo shows a yellow-dotted line tracing what is the line of the more northerly border for Sobek in update 1. The blue line does the same for Neith but is presented in more detail in point 4. 

The two photos are placed together for toggling up and down and have a joint key below. 

Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Key:

Thick beige or light brown line- (above the ‘k’ of ‘Sobek’). This is an arbitrary line past which Sobek extends down into shadow i.e. across where it says “Sobek”. The beige line is covering a yellow line that is on the official map and looks a bit like an actual border of a very small Sobek. That’s a little confusing, especially when drawing in an extension to Sobek. So it’s been drawn over in the same light brown colour as for the Sobek region so as to depict the lower (western) edge of this small illuminated part of Sobek. You can see parts of the old yellow line peeping through but there shouldn’t be any line here that looks like a border. It’s just a place where the top (east) of Sobek gives way to the shadowed bottom of Sobek.  

Medium yellow- (in update 2) this is the line of the Sobek border as it’s shown in update 1. It starts on the right and follows the actual update 2 line for Sobek. That portion of the border is mostly in shadow in update 1 but assumed to follow the same line as update 2 for this short stretch. The most important part of the yellow-dotted line is the section running along the blue line (actually contiguous with it) and then dropping vertically down the neck, past the two big yellow dots and into shadow. The green area enclosed under this line is officially designated as being part of Anuket (green) in update 2 but is deemed as being Sobek (light brown) in update 1. The section in shadow is an informed guess based on the track of the lower (western) Sobek border in update 1. Of course, it doesn’t follow any carefully identified fiduciary points through the shadow as the rest of the yellow and blue lines do so it’s just for general guidance. 

Blue- (in update 2) this is the dotted line that does exactly the same thing for the Neith border as the yellow line does for the Sobek border. It’s presented in detail in point 4, along with a number of extra photos. 

Large yellow- these are the Vincent et al. 2016 outburst locations numbered 27 (upper) and 31 (lower) in that paper. They’re described in detail in part 4 and are used here as fiduciary points for the yellow line to skim past. It skims south of 27 and north of 31. Since the dots themselves are placed on the same fiduciary features in both update 1 and update 2, it’s not just randomly placed dots but actual features that are constraining the yellow line. 31 is admittedly in shadow in update 2 but it’s very close to what for me and Marco are very familiar features. This means the error in its placing on the actual feature in the shadow is no more than half a dot width. The feature is the third point that collapsed en masse without crumbling. It did so over perihelion (probably a little before the actual perihelion date) and is now less visible through not casting a shadow as an overhang. It’s described in point 4. 

Other colours- please see point 4 photos and keys. These features act as fiduciary points to constrain the Neith border shunt. They were carefully identified so the Sobek border shunt uses these as well to get an accurate placing for its yellow dotted line. 

The extent of the northerly shunt of the Sobek border (including the northerly Neith shunt that it wraps around as a finger) is at least 300 metres.

POINT 4A

This is added before point 4 because it affects it. It’s a significant movement of the Maftet/Wosret border of 100-150 metres and so it’s really an anomaly in its own right. It’s residing in this list as the fifth point but placed before point 4 due to being related to it. This was the Wosret/Maftet anomaly that was mentioned in the main comment but which was deemed too complicated to explain there. It in fact confused me for articulating point 4 so that explanation isn’t fully accurate. Point 4 still stands but one aspect of it is adjusted as a result of understanding this point, 4A. It’s interesting that despite knowing about 4A, it still tripped me up so it’s certainly going to confuse scientists using or citing this map. 

Photo 4- a close up of the Maftet-Wosret border which is at odds with most renditions of this border, including its position in the photos shown below.
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL.

Photo 5- The Maftet-Wosret border from a distance 

Photo 6- A close up of photo 5 with annotations. 
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photo 6 is annotated with the portion of the Maftet-Wosret border that’s visible in photo 4. It’s marked in medium pale orange. This is the true border that isn’t actually marked in photo 4 but its line is nevertheless visible in the frame. The anomalous border in photo 4 is marked in small pale orange dots in a fairly straight line that’s notionally parallel to the true border. It’s some 100 metres or more beyond the true border. 

I’ve also used small pale orange dots for a short curve below the official line. I trace this curve in the lower photos as being the right hand side of that ‘m’ shape plus the curve after it. It would look strange not to annotate the photos below in this manner because this lower curve really does look like part of Maftet in those photos. So this short curve isn’t part of the 4A anomaly which is the longer, straighter section of pale orange above and beyond the official border. 

Photo 7- this is photo 4 again but with the correct Maftet-Wosret border as shown in photo 6.
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photo 8- this is the original used for colouring regions onto photo 7. 
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

The originals are clearer than the coloured versions so they come in useful for tracing the border lines more accurately. Key follows.

Medium pale orange- the true Maftet border as far as it can be extended (up and right from our viewpoint) along Wosret before going off-frame; and straight up towards the top of the frame, which is along the very defined edge of the head rim before again going off-frame. 

Bright green- two fractures or gouges that are often annotated in this blog as fiduciary points in this area (see Parts 17 and 19). They will also be shown in photos below to ensure we’re anchored in the right place with our various lines. 

Photo 9- same as photo 8 but with the anomalous Maftet-Wosret border in small pale orange. 
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photo 10- this is the Part 17 header, used for extra context from another angle. 
Copyright ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0

Red- on the head lobe, this is the head rim. So Maftet and Wosret sit above it and are divided by the medium pale orange line. The red line on the body is relevant to Part 17 and not this post. 

Small orange and bright green- as for other photos above. 

Photo 11- this is one of the photos that will be used in point 4, along with photo 4 as the comparison photo. It shows the same annotations as for the photos above. 
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photo 11 depicts what is in effect a shunting of the Maftet-Wosret border northwards along the head rim. This reduces the degree of the point 4 anomaly, at least with regard to where the Neith border meets the head rim. This shunt is what tripped me up in point 4, below. The Neith border is still nevertheless shunted quite far north when looking further down the neck. 

Photo 12- this is the original for photo 11. Again, it’s clearer. You can see the left hand (northern) Maftet border being traced more accurately along the head rim and the right hand bright green dot has found its home. 
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

POINT 4B

This is a minor correction to the head rim line in photo 4 using its original, photo 8. This caused some extra confusion as explained further down. The two photos are reproduced here together as photos 13 and 14 with new annotations. 


Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

In photo 13, the usual pale orange line shows the Maftet border, including its run along the head rim as in photo 8. In that photo, my pale orange head rim line doesn’t dip in sharply like its coloured-in twin does. Similarly, in photo 13 above, it runs along the true rim and completely ignores the green triangle that’s trying to be part of Anuket. That triangle is dotted yellow and is thereby reclaimed as part of Maftet. That’s because it’s sitting solidly above the sharp head rim line. You can see the head rim line (just) in the much clearer original, photo 14. In that photo, just the apex of the yellow triangle is depicted for orientation. You can imagine the yellow triangle extending to the head rim line. It’s clearly extending across the head with the ‘green’ Anuket neck separated, well away, under the head rim overhang. 

This caused more confusion for explaining point 4 because the only sharp dip in along this portion of the head rim is at the northwest corner of Maftet (just out of frame at the top). That’s the dog-leg referred to in point 4 and most obvious in photo 10. 

Although this anomalous dip looked too small to be that dog-leg, it blends into a ridge that looks uncannily like the frilly ridge just beyond it and off frame (that’s because it’s a delamination from that frilly line and so it’s a translational match). Beyond the off-frame frilly line, there’s a section of Anuket that does indeed seem to encroach on the head rim. So I assumed that this visible section beyond the frilly line was the encroaching part that’s off-frame and that Maftet was now deemed to include this patch. 

If I’d seen the original photo at that time, I would’ve noticed the ‘bright green’ gouge that’s covered by the ‘Wosret’ label and seen it was too close to my supposed dog-leg. But I was hooked by the anomalous sharp turn and knew that it ‘had to be’ the dog-leg because I know there are simply no other dips this sharp in the head rim until the one 800 metres to the north at mid-Serqet (which is the orange match in this blog).

POINT 4 

Point 4 had a slight error to do with the dog-leg as explained above in Point 3 but is quoted here from my Rosetta blog comment in full:

“4) Staying with the same Anuket border in 3, above, its border with Neith is similarly southerly in the third map (it starts half way along the Maftet border along the head rim. But in the fifth map, the Neith border has crept north by several hundred metres almost to the beginning of Maftet where that dog-leg in the head rim is. In fact, the parallax of the head rim rebate diminishes the effect. It’s as good as in line with the dog leg.”

Photos 15 and 16- photo 15 corresponds to the third map referred to in the point 4 excerpt above and photo 16 corresponds to the fifth map referred to. The only thing you have to note here is that the northern (left hand) border of Neith shunts itself north in the photo 16 map. It’s therefore dotted blue in photo 15 to show where it ‘should’ be in that map. Neith itself is coloured blue in both photos.


Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photos 15 and 16 are reproduced further below with a full key for the other dotted features.

The northern border of Neith is officially marked in both maps. However they are in different places, over 100 metres apart. In photo 15 there’s a blue-dotted line that corresponds to the official line as it’s depicted in photo 16. You can see that the dotted blue line is a long way north of the official photo 15 line next to it. That official line should overlay the blue-dotted line perfectly because the maps should show the regional borders in the same place, following the same features. 

Just for clarity, although Neith remains blue in both maps for photos 15 and 16 there’s a difference in the colours used on the official maps for defining the shunted border in question. The official photo 15 border line is in fact a green line (not blue) that’s bordering the blue of Neith. In photo 16, the north-shunted version of the line is blue (not green) and again, it borders the blue of Neith. That’s why my dotted line is blue. It was chosen for annotating photo 15 so as to show where the blue line of photo 16 should be if it were similarly placed. However, that official blue line in photo 16 (now changed to green in photo 15) is a hundred metres away and notionally parallel to my blue-dotted line. 

References below to “up, down, left and right” are with reference to ‘upright duck’ mode with the head lobe at the top and the body lobe at the bottom. The neck then runs ‘vertically’ between the two lobes. Wosret and Maftet are on the head, Geb is on the body. Anuket is the neck. 

Once the dog-leg issue is resolved, the point at which the Neith line reaches the head rim is roughly the same in both maps. However, the border line in the photo 16 map starts substantially further north at the bottom end of Neith, halfway down the the neck. The anomaly shadows the Sobek northward anomaly outlined by Marco (see his blog post linked in point 3, above). This is because the Neith border going up the neck stems notionally from the northern Sobek border in both versions of the border in the two maps. The fact that the Neith border is essentially an extension of the Sobek border means that the green Anuket area beyond them is a straight vertical sweep up the neck from bottom to top. 

The northward Neith border in photo 16 then bulges out as it progresses up the neck. That’s after we start at at the bottom of Neith, along the top of Sobek, and turn the corner to go up the neck. This bulge is also seen in the more southerly counterpart in photo 15. The bulge makes the two lines roughly parallel for the whole extent of their run up the neck and 100-150 metres apart. 

So the anomaly between the two officially drawn borders in the two maps is a 100-150 metre north-south anomaly. The line in photo 16 is truncated near the top by being obscured by the substantial head rim rebate at this point. We’re looking down at the head and neck somewhat so the rim rebate obscures the top 100 metres or so. If you extrapolate the dotted blue line in photo 15 to the rim, it would touch it just a little way north of the more southerly component. The southerly component does a little left turn at the top before reaching the rim which helps to bring the two lines almost together at the rim. 

Here are some more photos to nail down the exact path of the more northerly version of the two lines. I may do the more southerly one in due course but the northerly one is easier to trace. That’s because it was overlaid on a more detailed, hi res photo in the first place. 

Photo 17- this is photo 15 reproduced. It also includes the version without the blue-dotted line for toggling and comparing (but see photo 18 for a more detailed blue line). Originals or very similar versions for toggling aren’t designated separate photo numbers. 


Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photo 18- the exact line in smaller blue dots. It’s laid on the original version of the photo used for the map. Includes non-dotted version for toggling and a more zoomed-out version for context, showing more head rim etc.



Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photo 19- this is the same as photo 16 and its key for all the other colours follows. 
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Key 

(this key includes fiduciary points and lines that are shown in later photos from a different viewpoint so as to show we’re tracing the correct blue-dotted line in photo 15). 

Pale orange- the Maftet border (medium pale orange) and the anomalous Maftet border (small pale orange). This was outlined in points 4A and 4B. 

Light blue- two fiduciary boulders (both near the red line).

Red- a distinctive ridge. 

Green- various curved and winding ridges that enclose dips. The green curve that straddles the border of Neith is an important fiduciary point for getting the line right in later photos. The two ends of the curve extend all the way down to the second and third ridges that are arrowed by the OSIRIS team in the original below. This means these two ridges are joined in a curve at their top ends. Only the curved end is relevant here. There’s also an isolated green line next to the yellow dots and not very visible so it’s dotted with bigger dots. This corresponds to the first or left hand ridge, arrowed in the original. This is a later photo than photo 15 and its annotated relatives below. The obvious protruding, overhanging points on the earlier photos have collapsed in this version (see ‘yellow’ below). 

Yellow- these two dots denote the Vincent et al. 2016 outburst sources numbered 27 (upper yellow) and 31 (lower yellow). 27 sits on the site of the most easterly collapsed point that was identified by Marco Parigi (see link below). 31 sits at the tip of the collapsed point that I identified. Both points used to be pointed overhangs. These collapse identifications were made before the Vincent et al. 2016 paper was published. Marco’s point collapsed fully into a pile of rubble. My point collapsed en masse, retains its original form and is almost completely camouflaged, being flat on the terrain it once overhung. These two collapses makes the ridge appear both shorter and ‘blunter’ in the sense of losing its three points. Marco identified the middle point’s collapse too but that’s a smaller collapse and Vincent et al. don’t show an outburst location for that. These three collapses makes comparison of this ridge in pre- and post-perihelion photos very challenging. The reason for explaining this here is that Marco and I are intimately aware of the morphology changes in this area. It follows that any apparent misidentification of this ridge in the lower photos isn’t in fact a misidentification. It’s the same ridge. There are pointed overhangs for this ridge in those other photos below and no pointed overhangs in this photo. Once we’re aware of this, it furnishes us with a very useful fiduciary point to check on and constrain the other two green lines. 

Photo 20- this is the original used for the photo 19 map. Both are zoomed-in versions of the true original further down, at the bottom of point 4.
Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

All colours are the same as for photo 19. 

Unannotated versions for photos 19 and 20 (not numbered). 


Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL.

Photos 21 and 22- photo 21 is the same as photo 18 but with the same annotations as photo 19. Photo 22 is photo 19 reproduced for toggling between the two so as to check all the fiduciary points match. 

Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photos 23 and 24- this is the same set-up as for 21/22, above but 22 is replaced by its original with the even clearer annotations for toggling and checking the fiduciary points match. 

Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

Photos 25 to 28- the zoomed-out originals used for point 4.


Copyright: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/EL-MAARRY ET AL./A.COOPER

CONCLUSION

This post completes the presentation of the more important anomalies in the recent OSIRIS map updates. These were presented as points 1 to 4 in my pasted Rosetta blog comment near the top of this post. They were dealt with in detail and in sequence in this post but with two extra points numbered 4A and 4B sitting between 3 and 4. This was because 4A and 4B were pertinent to 4 and needed presenting before point 4 for that reason. However, they were anomalies in their own right. They therefore augment the list of the more important anomalies from four to six. 

The second list (of four less important anomalies) was also in the Rosetta blog comment. This list will get the same treatment in due course but will be left for now owing to a large backlog of stretch theory posts. It will be in a separate, twinned post because this one is now rather long. It will be linked below this conclusion. So if there’s no link, it hasn’t been done yet. 

If, however, anyone including OSIRIS scientists, independent scientists or citizen scientists would like the other list dealt with earlier, please leave a comment below or tweet/DM me: @scute1133. I shall then do it sooner rather than later. 

LINKS

Marco Parigi’s blog post on the collapsing points along the first ridge:

http://marcoparigi.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/more-on-rockfall-area.html?m=0

LINKS TO OUR COMMENTS IN THE RELEVANT ROSETTA BLOG POST

 Link to my comment:

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/09/29/comet-landscapes/#comment-604891

Link to Marco Parigi’s comment which was below mine in the same comment thread:

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/09/29/comet-landscapes/#comment-605161

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s