The implications of finding absolute proof.

I would bet anything that this is the positive:



<font color="red">The lower portion is dark because it's less reflective for some reason. Could be the slope, could be the reflectance of the of the material, could be in the shade</font id="red">. You see this sort of thing on most of the MOC images because they covered a larger swath, and it was very difficult, if not impossible for one setting of the camera to be optimized over that distance.

If you want to subject it to a vote, be my guest. I don't see what that will accomplish. I'll send an email to the webmaster at HiRise.

rd
[/quote]

I would bet anything that this is the positive:

That's a bold statement Rich....bring it on!

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 />Sorry presuming here...did you get response from HiRISE? Perhaps that was my mistake, I thought you contacted them on this issue.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No answer yet. But the default assumption should be that it's a positive. Why wouldn't it be? You still haven't addressed what you think happened to make this mysteriously end up a negative.

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 />I now pose the same question to you?

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If that's really a negative, and you reversed it to a positive, then I would consider that to be a valid step. In that case, I would <b>only </b> look at your reversed image, and would consider their negative to be irrelevant.

This doesn't mean that I would agree with all your conclusions, but at the least, I would agree with your methodology.

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 />That's a bold statement Rich....bring it on!

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">OK, I'll bet you a steak dinner at any restaurant of your choosing (or mine, if I win). Wives get a free steak dinner also.

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 />As of this moment, we have not addressed these "concave" undulations on the premise that the method of "light balance" i.e. inversion factor was fabricated rendering further analysis "null and void".

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But there's more. I still have no idea whatsofreakingever what any of this stuff has to do with the supposed alien life. Even if you were right to invert it, what does it prove?

Undulations?

I'm reminded of a scene in a Woody Allen move where Diane Keaton is helping Woody push the Volkswagen over the cliff. She says, "Did you know that 'God' spelled backwards is D-O-G?" As if this was a major revelation. Woody sort of smacks his lips and says, "Yeah...and?"

That's how I feel about all the stuff you posted so far...<i>Yeah...and?...</i>

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 /><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 now pose the same question to you?

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If that's really a negative, and you reversed it to a positive, then I would consider that to be a valid step. In that case, I would <b>only </b> look at your reversed image, and would consider their negative to be irrelevant.

This doesn't mean that I would agree with all your conclusions, but at the least, I would agree with your methodology.

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

So, what we need is further proof that the two files are in fact, NEGATIVES and not POSITIVES.

This can be demonstrated as follows:

If the two files were correct as received from HiRISE, that is to say, they are bright and almost white at the very top, then is this case, the <u>HiRISE ANAGLYPH made up of the two stereo images</u> would <i>"show the white level configuration"</i>.

In fact THE HIRISE ANAGLYPH SHOWS THE FILES IN THE NEGATIVE! as demonstrated here:

Here is a .png of the HiRISE anaglyph showing the location in the green square with the clip is located.

[/URL]

Here is the green square clip in the anaglyph mode showing the details.

[/URL]

As confirmation - here is the same clip now in greyscale mode (or 2D)

[/URL]

IMPORTANT!

Notice also, that in the top image of the full escarpment anaglyph, the very lower region is now bright white and <i>contrary</i> to the original stereo files - CONFIRMING THAT THE STEREO FILES USED <u>WERE IN FACT "MODIFIED"!!!!!</u>

I believe this is adequate enough proof to confirm that the two stereo files ESP_022910_1795 and ESP_013772_1795 were made available from the HiRISE site with the top sections ONLY, in an "inverted" rendition and that further study of the two files in their negative view can be now be analyzed in their intended stereo 3D anaglyph mode. Clippings of which I have posted earlier in the thread.

IZZY'S STEAKHOUSE SAN FRANCISCO - NEXT TIME YOU'RE IN TOWN.

CHEERS,

Malcolm Scott