The implications of finding absolute proof.

Let's try a different approach:

A. Here's the Upper Right hand corner of ESP_013772_1795

A.


B. Here's a similar size taken from the center of ESP_013772_1795

B.


C. And here's one taken from the Lower Right of ESP_013772_1795

C.


Is it your contention that these are all "negatives" that need to be returned to "positive?" Because if the top one (A) is a negative than they all are, since they all come from the same image strip ESP_013772_1795

rd

Observation Toolbox for ESP_013772_1795
Acquisition date: 04 July 2009 Local Mars time: 2:35 PM
Latitude (centered): -0.512 Longitude (East): 283.011
Range to target site: 287.4 km (179.6 miles) Original image scale range: 28.8 cm/pixel (with 1 x 1 binning) so objects ~86 cm across are resolved
Map projected scale: 25 cm/pixel and North is up Map projection: Equirectangular
Emission angle: 22.9 Phase angle: 24.6
Solar incidence angle: 44, with the Sun about 46 above the horizon Solar longitude: 297.3, Northern Winter
For non-map projected products:
North azimuth: 96 Sub-solar azimuth: 330.6
For map-projected products
North azimuth: 270 Sub solar azimuth: 147.3

Note there is nothing here that would lead us to believe that the top of the strip was exposed or treated differently than the middle and bottom.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><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 />Or do you still beleive the origional image from HiRISE was "in the positive"?

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You don't want me to re-write my questions do you? That's how things get confused. I find on message boards that the single best way to avoid confusion is to read and respond to everything in the thread.

Sometimes it's more work than people want to engage in, but that's how I do it.

For instance, I never said anything at all about what I "believed" regarding the images in this topic. I merely asked you questions regarding "the reality of the landscape in question".

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sorry, the word "believe" doesn't sit well with me either. Kindly ignore this.

Ok, yes the contention is; what is the "reality" of the "landscape" for these image file(s)?

My response to this is the following:

1. There are obviously two highly defined topographies which indicate two opposing views, both of which contain topographical accuracies in both the convex and concave that appear in the 3D mode and seem to be connected to whether the stereo files are set in either the negative or positive when viewed in 3D.

2. There is cause for concern that the original JP2 image file(s) seem to show that the files have been made available from the HiRISE site in a "negative format". This is apparent as the images posted earlier which again, seem to suggest. Upon changing the file from the very bright "negative" (proposed) to the "positive" (proposed) the result is; there is considerably more detail made visually evident and, the detail is conducive with topography that makes "visual sense".

3. Discuss the contention that the image files in question could possibly incorporate a new and as yet unknown dynamic which could be the production of intelligent alien design.



Malcolm Scott

Here's the entire image strip ESP_013772_1795. Because of their size, I had to cut them in half and put it back together again, just for this demo. I did this with Screen Image Capture, and then reconstructed the image in PaintShop.

Here's the whole image in its original form as posted by HiRise:

Original



Here's a negative of the previous image (done in PaintShopPro).
Negative



All creating a negative does is it reverses which end of the dynamic scale is washed out.

OK, now I'll answer the question you asked me of what I think. I think the original is a Positive and the second one is a Negative. I believe you made a negative out of a positive, and thereby altered the data from "reality" to "a negative of reality."

I don't believe a negative of reality depicts "reality" better than reality itself does.


rd

All creating a negative does is it reverses which end of the dynamic scale is washed out.

rd
[/quote]

I agree with your statement above and confirms my point.

Fyi, I have been analyzing these two image files now for a little over 18 months. I can confirm, there is tremendous detail in the images however, most all of the "richness" of detail and proposed anomalies are located in the upper two thirds of the image.

The lower section has very little in the way of "interesting" topography compared with top section.

So, I disagree with you in your comment that the original JP2 file is in fact the positive.

My view is the opposite as this can be shown very clearly here in these two clips of the top section. The lighter of course is the unedited version as received from HiRISE. The darker, is the converted file.

I think the evidence speaks for itself.

<u><u>If not, please put it to a vote in the forum and state what you see!</u></u>

[/URL]


[/URL]

So the question is, why is the top two thirds light and inverted while the bottom (uninteresting) section remains in the dark?

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 />
The lower section has very little in the way of "interesting" topography compared with top section.

So, I disagree with you in your comment that the original JP2 file is in fact the positive.


So the question is, why is the top two thirds light and inverted while the bottom (uninteresting) section remains in the dark?

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would bet anything that this is the positive:



The lower portion is dark because it's less reflective for some reason. Could be the slope, could be the reflectance of the of the material, could be in the shade. You see this sort of thing on most of the MOC images because they covered a larger swath, and it was very difficult, if not impossible for one setting of the camera to be optimized over that distance.

If you want to subject it to a vote, be my guest. I don't see what that will accomplish. I'll send an email to the webmaster at HiRise.

rd