The implications of finding absolute proof.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />MRO HiRISE image ESP_013772_1795 and ESP_022910_1795 and corresponding anaglyph Jpeg 2000[/b] Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I've been looking at the raw data of this anaglyph in HiView with just the default contrast stretch. Wow, there are some cliffs where it's like standing on top of El Capitan in Yosemite, looking down the sheer face of the mountain wall. What topography!

I don't know what it tells us, but it is wild. Using the scroll bar, with magnification set to 60% one can literally scroll over the peak of a mountain down the side. It's awesome. In some instances you almost get vertigo. Obviously, you need 3D glasses to see it, and it works better if you are moving the scroll bar. Once you get locked in to the 3D by moving around you can really see the topography changes. I'm going to try to find the corresponding MOLA to see what the height of these peaks are.

rd

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Malcolm, before I comment on any content, I have a simple basic couple of questions I'd like to ask you. I read all of the text in your last message, and for the most part, I understand what you're saying and what you did to the images. Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you did was correct, made sense, and that in some sense you actually "fixed" the images.

Ok, here are my questions:

1. Do you believe the raw data was actually a "negative" (a mistake) as produced by NASA. In other words, do you believe they acquired the image strip, and then at some later time, converted it to a negative (either by accident or on purpose for whatever reason), and then you came along, noticed it was a negative, and re-converted it back to positive. [This is an important point for me to get the full picture here]

2. Is it possible to give us a justification for your gamma correction? I'm speaking in scientific terms. Can you explain the process by which the resultant gamma correction might be needed? And if so, what got corrected. [I'm not trying to put you on the spot or "test" you in any way. What I'm getting at is the fact that I'm wondering if your whole process could be explained in scientific/photographic terms, like where you identify what went wrong at NASA and why and how it needed to be "fixed" by you. This would go a long way towards validating your methodology, and removing "subjectivity." I am also trying to understand if this was an inadvertent error or possibly designed to mislead on the part of JPL ]

3. You make the claim that after manipulation with the $60 software that: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now the true surface of this Chasma area can be seen in its correct topographical undulation possibly for the first time.[/quote]OK. That's a bold statement and one that if true has astounding implications, and calls into question the very competence of the people running the HiRise program. So, I would like to ask you if you'd be willing to do something. Can you do a demo for us? Take one small crop from the starting point, with a sentence or two and maybe some arrows pointing on the image, showing the problem that you think you uncovered. Then the next frame, show us that same crop corrected for gamma. And then one more image of the same crop showing your final negative/corrected image. I'm not suggesting a large project here, just a simple demonstration of exactly what you did, in three parts or so. Can you do that? Sort of a "chain of evidence" type of demo. Short, succinct and annotated.

I apologize if this sounds like a lot of stuff, but my problem is that unless I can tell whether or not there is some actual justification for these steps, again in scientific terms, it's hard for me draw any conclusions. In other words, who knows what might get introduced by these steps? Is examining a negative (that was supposed to be a positive) even valid? I have no idea, but I hope you can shed some light on it, cause it seems like you've devoted one hell of a lot of effort into this.

rd
[/quote]
<u>__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</u>


Rich, The question is a good one but should be directed to HiRISE as to why the original JP2 seemed extra light and apparently reversed into the negative. And that as much as I could say regarding this.

You state in your question that I <i>"came along and fixed it".</i>

This needs to be defined as it involves a fundamental aspect for this evaluation. Firstly, I did not fix anything. This would imply that I modified something that was broken.

Modifying an image file would require applying an effect to the image such as sharpening or blurring and there are many more that will change the structure of the individual pixels. This I have not done. The only variance was changing the original JPEG2000 image file to a non compressed .TIF image of 806,933 KB

Back to the image where now I have a transferred .TIFF image which has retained the light balance of the original JPEG2000 in effect, they look the same. The next step was to switch the image via a one step inverted tool that now produces the image but from the negative into the positive.

Here are the results of these steps:

[Note1, I needed to clip a small area of the .TIFF file in order to transfer the image (due to size) to Meta Research they are the same clipping as follows:]

[Note 2. Due to limitations in Irfanview, it is not possible to clip any part of a JPEG2000 image of this size]

Clip A. Here is the clip as received from HiRISE

[/URL]

Clip B. Here is the same clip now inverted

[/URL]

Clip C. The same clip now with the Gamma curve reduced by 40%

[/URL]

Rich, I am going to outline something important at this point (one of which you are probably aware of but just for the record)

In changing the "LIGHT CONTENT" in an image file, it is NOT altering the properties of the file nor the pixel construction. Changing the light is not an applied "effect". The only result is the "way" the light is received by the human eye.

This change in the image can be achieved by lowering the gain from the light spectrum to the dark spectrum thus the viewer can see varying facets of the SAME FILE, A similar result occurs when converting from the positive to the negative and vise-versa So no data is modified.

Now here is where the challenge lives:

This will require one to possibly step outside of the scientific box and tread into "New Territory". <i>I feel confident in stating, that this image file could quite well turn out to be the subject of many debates to come.</i>

To my calculation, this photograph (data) of a large strip of the Martian surface, has nothing comparable to anything that exists here on Earth, so there is no example set as a precedence.

On the one hand, we have a "straightened anaglyph" from HiRISE. This file in suedo 3D clearly shows a convex image with super tall mountainous ridges (albeit questionably "thin") covering most of the Chasma (at least in this image).

On the other hand, we have an entire landscape with the <u>appropriate topographical curvature</u> showing real caves and interiors in the concave view.

And so,

There is none, neither should there be, any preference over which of the two is the "correct" view to observe, because; <u>BOTH IMAGES OF DIFFERING REALITIES RESIDE IN THIS SAME DATA FILE</u>.

If I am correct, none of this capability has ever been achieved by human hand here on Earth where a similar size of real estate terrain is utilized.

If we concur on the above, we should start to look at <i>how</i> this "multiple dimensional affect" actually works.

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />
You state in your question that I <i>"came along and fixed it".</i>

This needs to be defined as it involves a fundamental aspect for this evaluation. Firstly, I did not fix anything. This would imply that I modified something that was broken.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right. But I'm still confused. You said that you converted to a negative, and I'm trying to understand if that was a reasonable thing to do. If I sent you a picture of me and my family and cat, you certainly wouldn't produce a negative of it in order to see it better. Right?

So the way I see it, if you "needed" to convert a HiRise image into a negative, there either had to be a mistake by them, or you're making a mistake by doing it. There's no sound reason that I know of to make negatives for the purpose of analyzing a landscape. If you know of one, maybe that's the place to start making your case.

To my thinking, this is getting way more complicated than it needs to be.

By the way, Malcolm, do you ever plan on telling us what you see in these images? What specifically leads you to believe there's an "intelligent alien" involved?

rd

[/quote]Right. But I'm still confused. You said that you converted to a negative, and I'm trying to understand if that was a reasonable thing to do. If I sent you a picture of me and my family and cat, you certainly wouldn't produce a negative of it in order to see it better. Right?

rd
[/quote]

But you did'nt send me a photo of your family so I've posted mine here. Let me know what you would like to do with it?

[/URL]

So let's look at what we received in "un-edited format" from HiRISE
Here's the top right hand corner of ESP_013772_1795

[/URL]

And here is the same image reverted back into the positive.

[/URL]

In my opinion, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out!

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />Rich, I am going to outline something important at this point (one of which you are probably aware of but just for the record)

In changing the "LIGHT CONTENT" in an image file, it is NOT altering the properties of the file nor the pixel construction. Changing the light is not an applied "effect". The only result is the "way" the light is received by the human eye.

This change in the image can be achieved by lowering the gain from the light spectrum to the dark spectrum thus the viewer can see varying facets of the SAME FILE, A similar result occurs when converting from the positive to the negative and vise-versa So no data is modified.

Now here is where the challenge lives:

This will require one to possibly step outside of the scientific box and tread into "New Territory". <i>I feel confident in stating, that this image file could quite well turn out to be the subject of many debates to come.</i>

To my calculation, this photograph (data) of a large strip of the Martian surface, has nothing comparable to anything that exists here on Earth, so there is no example set as a precedence.

On the one hand, we have a "straightened anaglyph" from HiRISE. This file in suedo 3D clearly shows a convex image with super tall mountainous ridges (albeit questionably "thin") covering most of the Chasma (at least in this image).

On the other hand, we have an entire landscape with the <u>appropriate topographical curvature</u> showing real caves and interiors in the concave view.

And so,

There is none, neither should there be, any preference over which of the two is the "correct" view to observe, because; <u>BOTH IMAGES OF DIFFERING REALITIES RESIDE IN THIS SAME DATA FILE</u>.

If I am correct, none of this capability has ever been achieved by human hand here on Earth where a similar size of real estate terrain is utilized.

If we concur on the above, we should start to look at <i>how</i> this "multiple dimensional affect" actually works.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Malvcolm, I copied this whole message because I want there to be no doubt what we're talking about.

Yes, I understand that can do these sorts of things with light without altering the data [as long as you don't saturate during the process).

OK, so now we got that out of the way. Yes, you can make negatives without altering the data.

Now to my 1 question:

If we were flying over this terrain, like the HiRise camera, which would we see, mountains or valleys? Which is reality? That's all I want to know.

Above the second image of the strip you said this:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And here is the same image reverted back into the positive.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

By "reverted <b>BACK TO THE POSITIVE</b>" are you saying JPL left a negative of the original reality for you to convert BACK from? Until we come to terms on this point, we're never going to get anywhere else.

Regarding your pic of you and your family, while it's interesting (negatives are always "interesting"), I would never be able to pick you and your family out of a line up just by virtue of looking at that picture. Reality has been altered to such an extent, that it rendered the data useless for the purpose of identification.

Capiche?

rd

Malcolm, in case you're still having trouble getting my essential point, it's this:

I want to know which image represents the reality of what we would see with our naked eye from the distance represented by the magnification of the original image.

Then we can take that original image and process it for the best overall, contrast, brightness, gamma. BUT NOT MAKE A NEGATIVE OF IT FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS.

Unless of course, you can give us a scientific justification for how creating negatives gives us some insight into the AOH debate.