My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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 />Here is an example of an impossible geological condition. The scale is wrong but you get the drift.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Where's the source data for this? Is this real, or did you just put this together to make your point? If so, show us a real example of it.

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

No, this crater/cliff I put together (it's moon crater and Earth cliff) to exemplify the condition. You will need to look close up on several areas in the large anaglyph as there are a number of these locations where this intersection occurs. That's where the loupe comes in a handy and yes, I do know what you are referring to with respect to magnification maximums etc. Got it.

Malcolm Scott

Here are a few locations circled, there are more if you need them.

If you are using Windows 7 or 8 the screen magnifier works quite well...

[/URL]

Malcolm Scott

Now, once you "get" the surface dimension anomaly of these so called terraces, go back to the many images I have posted (3D only) and review many of the terraces in abundance and you will begin to "see" that they are "floating" where the terrain at the "base foot" of the terrace is actually NOT continuous and in fact, is "under-lapping" the terrace wall. It's a hard thing to put into words frankly but I can assure you, this is the case.

I have also found this similar condition in other places on the surface especially in the Melas region.
Malcolm Scott

<b>[Marsevidence01] "Please let me get this straight here, I'm not referring to absolute proof ..."</b>

Oh dang. My bad. You actually did say undeniable instead of absolute.

Sorry. I was so sure you were about to finally show us whatever it is that has you so excited.

Dang.

(Um, I called the reporters and told them not to come. They said "no problem, just be sure to keep us on the speed dial".)




sorry.

sorry.


[/quote]

Hope springs eternal.....

Malcolm Scott

It's important to understand that when you magnify something you are taking a certain number of pixels in an area (data pixels to screen pixels), and mapping it to a larger area (data pixels stays the same; screen pixels is larger), thereby lowering overall resolution as this demo clearly shows (using Windows 7 and "Magnifier").

Of course one can use more sophisticated software which will attempt to process the magnified image to give it the appearance of looking better than the straight magnified image, <b>but it's important to remember that it's done through processing NOT by increasing resolution.</b> They will attempt to: interpolate, smooth, enhance contrast, balance histogram, etc. etc. But they can't actually increase resolution without making up data, which nobody would do.

In all honesty, I believe you're better off sticking to the highest resolution data at 1:1, and pretty much leaving it as: <b>what you see is what you get. And put the magnifier away.</b>

In my opinion, magnifying is going backwards, not forwards.



rd