- Thank you received: 0
My pareidolia knows no bounds.
18 years 2 months ago #16126
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<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 />I think this is an important point. It all goes back to the original Cydonia face.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So, my conclusion to this recent demonstration (with counter arguments by Tom), is that <b>the face could be</b> artificial after all. That's as far as I'm probably ever going to be willing to go, before getting definitive proof, either by proving it's metal, or getting 10 times better resolution. There' a rule that's used when manufacturing any measuring device, whether it's a 29 cent ruler, or a million dollar microscope, called the 10% rule. Simply stated, it means that in order to measure an inch precisely, your measuring device must be capable of measuring tenths of inches. Or, in order to measure nanometer precision, the tool must be capable of measuring angstroms.
The same is true here. Let's get 10 times better resolution (with color) than the object we want to see. <b>Then</b> we'll know for sure. That applies at all scales. In other words, if we really want to see the west eye, we have to be able to see one tenth of it clearly (see Sparky on earlier pages, or reference pics). If we just want to see the face as a whole, then we only have to be able to see one tenth of the face clearly.
Here's a demo. This is what we currently have. This is one tenth of the west eye in E0300824:
]
This is what we would need, assuming this was the same size of terrain:
]
Either that, or we're going to have to find the proverbial watch.
rd
<br />I think this is an important point. It all goes back to the original Cydonia face.
So, my conclusion to this recent demonstration (with counter arguments by Tom), is that <b>the face could be</b> artificial after all. That's as far as I'm probably ever going to be willing to go, before getting definitive proof, either by proving it's metal, or getting 10 times better resolution. There' a rule that's used when manufacturing any measuring device, whether it's a 29 cent ruler, or a million dollar microscope, called the 10% rule. Simply stated, it means that in order to measure an inch precisely, your measuring device must be capable of measuring tenths of inches. Or, in order to measure nanometer precision, the tool must be capable of measuring angstroms.
The same is true here. Let's get 10 times better resolution (with color) than the object we want to see. <b>Then</b> we'll know for sure. That applies at all scales. In other words, if we really want to see the west eye, we have to be able to see one tenth of it clearly (see Sparky on earlier pages, or reference pics). If we just want to see the face as a whole, then we only have to be able to see one tenth of the face clearly.
Here's a demo. This is what we currently have. This is one tenth of the west eye in E0300824:
This is what we would need, assuming this was the same size of terrain:
Either that, or we're going to have to find the proverbial watch.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- neilderosa
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Time to create page: 0.470 seconds