Nefertiti's Family

Tom writes: "The image width was only 256 pixels, compared to 1024 as the norm."

The Image width of M03 is 512 pixels. The Image width of R12 is 512 pixels. I repeat for those who don't go back to previous posts; this is the other Public Image containing at least part of the Profile. It should be able to be resolved by adjusting contrast and brightness. Let's see if it does. I'll do the test myself as soon as my equipment is set up.

In science, as Tom has said many times, all theories must be falsifiable.

Neil

For those interested in conducting the test themselves here are some specifics:

The link to R12:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r10_r15/images/R12/R1201454.html

Download the gif version of this image; refer to rderosa's post of April 3, time 18:14 to locate the position of the partial Profile Image in this strip; crop and adjust R12 for contrast and brightness to see if it looks like M0305549 (original PI).

Prediction: It will not look much like M03 because the data is not there. This is the conclusion of JP Levasseur and confirmed by Rich. But we should all see the evidence as this addresses a critical question. Namely, is information missing from the Public Request Images and why?

Neil

Here's the R12 image. On the left is the raw data, merely cropped. On the right is my best shot at drawing out the Girl.

Conclusion: We still don't know why these two new strips are "messed up".

You're all welcome to try and un-mess it, using the left image as a starting point.

{Image deleted temporarily} R1201454%20PI%20crop1.gif

{Image deleted temporarily} R1201454%20PI%20cropb.gif

rd

First let me say that Tom clarified for me why the brightness/contrast was the way it was, so I no longer think the new images are messed up. Then I was even more suprised to see that you could bring the new images into photoshop and adjust the brightness/contrast to see more details in the pitch-black areas. (I never understood the original post in this regard, despite having read it oer many times). And as for why the Nefertiti image is not as visible in the new strips (after adjusting brightness/contrast), I do not find this is unusual at all. Any number of factors can explain it (and besides, I *can* see the vague image of the "hat" in rd's adjustment above.)

Emanuel

Rich and I don't expect Dr. Van Flandern to be the final arbiter or judge of all things conspiratorial. We'll take our own risks. We appreciate the help and support he has given already, and we realize that he has enough problems with mainstream science without adding ours to them. So we thank him.

I gave a talk to a group of college professors last night (on my book Apocryphal Science), and brought up many of the issues we have been talking about in this post, along with supporting images. The reception was mixed. Some of them remained open minded, but some of them were biased to the nth degree. It wouldn't have mattered if they saw a perfect duplication of George Washington on Mars. It would still be a "natural occurrence." Why? because there can't be evidence of intelligent life on Mars, either now or at any time in the past. There just can't, period. It is sad to see the state of intellectual paralysis in academia today.


In the next few day's I'll summarize where we think we are at this point and how we think we got there.

Neil DeRosa

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Rich and I don't expect Dr. Van Flandern to be the final arbiter or judge of all things conspiratorial. We'll take our own risks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would even go so far as to say we don't necessarily even think there's any conspiracy here, regarding the additional public request strips R07 and R12. What we're trying to understand is why a public request swath would be taken in such a way as to see less than was seen in the original strip that was the reason for the interest in a pulbic request image. Makes no sense. According to JP Levasseur there: "There really isn't much to choose from there, just three types of image swaths varying in size and resolution."

It would be helpful if we could find out who requested them, and what was the nature of the request, with parameters. I wonder if they are happy with the result.

rd