HOWEVER, as I analyze even your lightened version I still think that's a depression the clasts came out of. That IS the physical edge of a depression, not just the edge of the shadow that was originally there.
It's the edge of the shadow that was originally there. It's the boundary between the un-lightened and lightened version.
The clasts still appear to be suspended above the depression.
Oh, the clasts are definitely slightly above the Vishnu surface. That's why your idea of encroaching sandstone picking them up off the Vishnu is so silly.
The lightened area where the shadow was is the schist at the bottom of the depression, it is not continuous with the surface
Sorry. Nope. I see several continuous features crossing that line, some of them I've outlined in green
If you have any evidence other than "it sho' looks depresssionish to me", trot it out.
the inner border is way too sharp to be a shadow. Also that shadow is just way too dark, showing no features at all of the supposed surface that would have to be there.
Shadows in bright sunlight have sharp edges.
Also that shadow is just way too dark, showing no features at all of the supposed surface that would have to be there. Yet even the vertical edge the clasts are stuck in, which is in shadow itself, is so light it would reflect light enough to pick up features in that dark shadow even in the original photo, if it really was a shadow on the same level, but that is not the case. All this is so obvious I see I can't trust anything you say about a photo image.
BS. Obviously you don't know anything about dynamic range in photographs. I do. The HDR picture I posted shows that the shadowed area is illuminated, showing features within. The original image didn't have the dynamic range required to
Of course, in your scenario the bottom of the "depression" wold be illuminated in the original picture.
Then tyou go on to outline in green a part of the higher surface on the bottom left along with the lower shadow in the depression, claiming they are on the same surface. Sheesh, this is ridiculous.
The features in the shadow are obviously extensions of the features in the light, as my ellipses indicate.