My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<b>[rderosa] "If I was a Moderator God, I would institute one rule: If you want to post images from Mars, you have to do the kind of analysis I did ..."</b>

I've wondered about something like this myself. I frequently wonder about such things as feature size and picture resolution as I look at the various images we have here. It really does make the image more useful. And interesting, IMO.

Would you be interested in defining a set of rules to implement this?

***

And then there is the question of enforcement.

Should the analysis be mandatory? (If you don't your picture gets deleted. Very easy, but harsh.)

Or should it be customary? (If you don't many of us won't talk to you about it, except maybe to mention that you need to do it. Not so easy, but also not so harsh.)

Either way I might miss some, so you guys would have to point them out. Being a snitch is not fun.

I suppose we could do a combination. Nag the offender for a while, then delete if they won't give in.

What if someone posts bogus numbers instead of actually doing the analysis? Can the 'rules of analysis' require enough info to be able to tell?

<b>MS: apparent inclusion in many of the glyphs, are the depiction of actual western alphabet NUMBERS! The number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are observed ... </b>

Now you're talking ... I see two 5s, a 2, and "AF".

<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 /> And take pictures from a few feet away.

Then, maybe we will be able to answer some of the questions we have been asking ourselves.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I suspect that's what it would take. Although, I have to admit the alpha characters in Malcolm's image are compelling.

rd

<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 />
A formula that averages neighboring pixels ought to do better than one that removes some and enlarges others.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, in reality it can get complicated. Most programs have a "Custom Filter" that shows you a grid representing 64 adjacent pixels. In the simplest case you might sum or average the inner 9 or something like that. Or maybe the 8 pixels surrounding the center one has either 1 or -1 in it.

But the bottom line is that the simplest form is the one I described. If you think about it, imagine taking a picture of your house with a camera that takes 2600 pixels in the x direction, and the house just fills the frame. You now have a picture of your house with 5 million pixels. (2592 x 1944 = ~5 million)

Now move a couple hundred feet away and take the picture again, this time the house only fills a small part of the frame in the middle. So now maybe your house occupies 163 x 122 pixels, or a mere ~20,000 pixels.

It's not hard to see that if you go back to that original close up, there's an awful lot of pixels you could delete before you even start to notice it, and if you remove enough, using some evenly distributed system, random chance is probably going to wind up making it look not too different than the image comprised of only 20,000 pixels (163 x 122) in the first place.

I'm not positive, but I think when you convert a *.Gif or *.BMP to a *.jpg and the file comes out much smaller, I think they are doing something very basic to reduce the number of pixels.

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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br /><b>MS: apparent inclusion in many of the glyphs, are the depiction of actual western alphabet NUMBERS! The number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are observed ... </b>

Now you're talking ... I see two 5s, a 2, and "AF".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


A most interesting phenomenon but it is much more than just numbers.


[/URL]

I have zoomed in on one area of this image and increased the blue spectrum. Now we "see" more. To the left of the large 2, very apparent now are patterns that seem to represent two dimensional "cartoonized" caricatures. Almost childlike in nature.

Of course the question now should be; are these images real (objective) and if so are there any more in other areas? Well the answer to this is absolutely AND they are highly numerous! So much so, that the majority of this particular escarpment www.uahirise.org/ESP_025310_1690 is littered with them! And, as one explores further in the adjacent regions, more and more evidence of stylized cartoons (albeit in strange and in an alien form) are frequently observed.

Eventually, the researcher will draw to this conclusion. It does take some forensic close up work but the signature is what it is!

Once the researcher finally comes to this point in time where a true acceptance of Alien life is and has been present on this planet, after the initial shock, things actually start to get a little easier and findings become far more numerous.

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

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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />Would you be interested in defining a set of rules to implement this?

What if someone posts bogus numbers instead of actually doing the analysis? Can the 'rules of analysis' require enough info to be able to tell?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, I thought about this.

Let me give you some idea of the issue and then maybe you would have a better idea of how you want to finalize it.

The first question is whether or not we're dealing with Mars Images from one of the space websites as opposed to a picture one took oneself. In the case of a personal picture the first thing a person has to do is find out how big the scene is, by measuring it or Googling it like I did with the Mr. Rushmore pic. If you know how big it is, it's simple math:


<ul><li>Look in "properties" on your image to find the number of pixels in x and y. </li><li>Divide the width of the scene by pixels in X. </li><li>Divide height of the scene by pixels in Y </li></ul>

You now have the all the information about the image: size of the object, and size of the pixels in X and Y in reference to the object.

For a Mars image, it can also be very easy if all the info is provided at the location of the image online. For instance:

Here's the link to a MOC Wide Angle image. Note the box with Ancillary data for MOC wide-angle image R10-05243:

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r10_r15/images/R10/R1005243.html

They give you:

Scaled pixel width: 241.76 meters
Scaled image width: 117.62 km
Scaled image height: 118.28 km
Image width: 480 pixels
Image height: 480 pixels

Suppose we wanted to figure out approximate size of the mound in the upper left, and/or the number of pixels.

Using simple algebra, you can calculate the size of the feature in question in one of two ways, with dimensions, or with pixels as in this image using these first steps:

1. Download from the link: "View full-size image, processed but NOT map-projected (lossless GIF, best quality, slow download)
2. Open the image in a photo editor program and <b>set the image to 100%</b>
3. Measure the feature and the width of the image strip in X on your Monitor Screen using a ruler. (you can repeat this later in Y is you want to)
4. Now solve for X using the relationship (see red equation on image):

("Measured Width of Feature")/X = ("Measured Width of Image Strip")/ ("Actual Width of Image Strip")

Or you can use pixels

5. Solve for XP (number of pixels) using same relationship with respect to known pixels (green equation):

("Measured Width of Feature")/XP = ("Measured Width of Image Strip")/ ("Known number of pixels of image strip")

Note that both answers are close enough, approx. 15.25km. All we really care about is relative size anyway.

In the next message, I'll describe what you would have to do if the website doesn't tell you the actual land-based measurement, like the one that Malcolm linked me to. It tells me the pixel size, 25.7cm/pixel, but that's it. So this has to be handled differently.

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_011359_1695

With respect to how would we know if the numbers are accurate, a link with the known baseline numbers would do it, or the calculations would show the correct method was followed.

In any event the image should include:

1. Pixel size (at the object) at 100%. Both MOC and HiRise give you this number.
2. Approximate size of the feature in question in X and Y, or either if one gives enough perspective (Width or Height).







rd