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 />I was looking for the approximate distance in kilometers of the width of the square. A square was a little more noticeable that a line.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Oh. Well, that's even easier. Just find the number of pixels from one side of the square to the other.

By the way, I installed HiView and figured it out again. I had downloaded ESP_011359_1695_RED.JP2 (1.5Gb) last week, and I loaded it into HiView. I remember how to save crops again, but I would need a roadmap to ever find that Caveman. Is there an easy way to describe it? Seems like a needle in a haystack to me.

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

Rich, here's a crop of the lower left hand section of the parent file. The pixel dimension is: 4,865 X 3,335

[/URL]

Malcolm Scott

Malcolm,

I viewed your video side by side with HiView and was able to follow it and zero in on the scene.

Here's an image at 100% showing the Man is 50 pixels high, or approx. 41 feet tall, 2/3rds the size of GW's Head on Mt Rushmore. I overlaid my HiRise simulation of GW, which we know to be 60 feet, and it fits! The calculation of the Man's size is in proportion to the known size of GW's head, approx. 2/3rds.

Now here's the rub.

<b>GW's Head in this image is the same resolution as the Caveman's body.</b>

Remember, I reduced the original resolution of GW's head from my camera to match the 25cm/pixel of HiRise.

Conclusion? And you have to let this sink in for a second.

<b>What you are seeing of the Caveman is NOT a blurred unresolved image of a man possibly, but rather it is what it is! We are seeing him as clearly as we're seeing GW's head.</b>

Do you see what I'm saying?



rd

Malcolm, I'd like to try the same thing with the alpha character scene. Can you steer me to that one, too?

rd

Larry, you know what's different this time, as opposed to when Neil and I were going around and around on this subject?

Back then, pixels were still 5 meters or so, at best, so we always had a situation where we really needed more resolution to know anything for sure.

But HiRise has changed that completely. Now we know one very important thing that we didn't know before:

<b>What you see is what you got!</b>

Pretty much.

But here's an interesting thought. We're only fivefold away from standing 50 yards or so away from one of these things taking a 7mb picture with a Nikon Coolpix. We're no longer orders of magnitude away.

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 />Malcolm,

I viewed your video side by side with HiView and was able to follow it and zero in on the scene.

Here's an image at 100% showing the Man is 50 pixels high, or approx. 41 feet tall, 2/3rds the size of GW's Head on Mt Rushmore. I overlaid my HiRise simulation of GW, which we know to be 60 feet, and it fits! The calculation of the Man's size is in proportion to the known size of GW's head, approx. 2/3rds.

Now here's the rub.

<b>GW's Head in this image is the same resolution as the Caveman's body.</b>

Remember, I reduced the original resolution of GW's head from my camera to match the 25cm/pixel of HiRise.

Conclusion? And you have to let this sink in for a second.

<b>What you are seeing of the Caveman is NOT a blurred unresolved image of a man possibly, but rather it is what it is! We are seeing him as clearly as we're seeing GW's head.</b>

Do you see what I'm saying?


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

Absolutely truly facinating! So, are we looking at one gigantic statue?

This is what I expected frankly and mentioned this in my origonal post of this image...facinating!

Now can anyone surmize just what this fella could be made of? Hmmm...

Malcolm Scott

Malcolm, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

We are seeing, whatever it is, clearly. The fact that there are questions still, implies it's most likely nothing.

It is what it is.



rd