My pareidolia knows no bounds.

As I guess you have already made your mind up here and as we are not inundated with members scrambling to post, here is a clue:

A cliff wall and a crater cannot share the same location on the surface.

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



http: //i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsevidence01/linne__jpgcopy_zpsaa8c9a5c.jpg


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 />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

<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 />Hmmm...well it certainly helps on my computer so it begs the question.Malcolm Scott

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's a physical law. It has nothing to do with what software you're using. I studied microscopy for years, and I worked in the field for many. I have a California Certificate in Electron Microscopy. I've been zooming and enhancing and processing data since the 80s. I think I might know a little about it.

If you have the original uncompressed data, and you zoom in to the point where you start to get empty magnification, simply using a magnifier isn't going to help. You might think you're seeing it better, because it's bigger, but you can't increase resolution. There's only so much data.

When I look at JP2 files, I don't even really like to go up much beyond 100%, even though you can see somewhat more by going to 200 or further. At 100% it's <b>real.</b>

rd

<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 />If you have the original uncompressed data, and you zoom in to the point where you start to get empty magnification, simply using a magnifier isn't going to help. You might think you're seeing it better, because it's bigger, but you can't increase resolution. There's only so much data.
rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Let me rephrase this slightly. While it's true that "magnifying" a given image isn't going to increase resolution at the pixel level, it does do something moderately helpful. It allows you to find small macro features (like a hole in the cliff wall) that you might gloss over while looking at the un-magnified image.

But the reason why I said what I said, is because I don't really approach things that way. I first try to understand how big something is, and then see if I can find objects of known size. I'm not really looking to magnify a lug bolt. I'm looking for cars (figuratively speaking).

rd

<b>[Marsevidence01] "If I were correct here, I would need undeniable PROOF,
And then BINGO! There is was......."</b>

Well finally.

Undeniable PROOF

***
<u><b>THE SMOKING GUN!!!</u></b>
***

OK

Alright

Let us have it

We have always known you had it all along, and were just teasing us with all your other stuff. Thank you for finally allowing us to to see it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /><b>[Marsevidence01] "If I were correct here, I would need undeniable PROOF,
And then BINGO! There is was......."</b>

Well finally.

Undeniable PROOF

***
<u><b>THE SMOKING GUN!!!</u></b>
***

OK

Alright

Let us have it

We have always known you had it all along, and were just teasing us with all your other stuff. Thank you for finally allowing us to to see it.



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

Please let me get this straight here, I'm not referring to absolute proof about a civilization on Mars, I'm referring to proof in context only to this particular anomaly which by all accounts, I think is really interesting. But Larry, this is NOT a easy "thing" to see. What one needs to to do here is adjust your viewing perception as what I am describing is just, well...plain strange almost looking at a "floating island" one see's in SciFi movies. And btw, you will need 3D glasses...hope you have them, I'm sure you do.

I've checked the data here and once you see and focus on several of the crater/cliff "overlaps" for want of a better description, we see a true anomaly (at least from my view).

So once you see this, your eye should then start to grasp the multidimensional nature of the surface.

There is a possibility in my mind, that the surface (at least in this region) is actually a sort of "holographic reality" if that makes any sense.

I'm open to interpretation on this guys, to me, a face or a figure is what it is, but this, all bets are off.

Malcolm Scott