My pareidolia knows no bounds.

HOW TO DETERMINE FEATURE SIZE, WHEN THE WEBSITE ONLY GIVES YOU PIXEL SIZE

The trick here is to maintain the full resolution of the image even when you crop. Programs like HiView and the one Malcolm uses allows you to set 1:1 ratio on your crop, so that you maintain full resolution such that 100% in your photo editor sets your screen pixel size to the same value as the one the website gave you, using these steps.

1. Download full resolution image strip.
2. Crop as necessary while maintaining full resolution. When you have a manageable crop...
3. Open image at 100% on your monitor in a photo editor.
4. The easiest way to do this is to make the crop small enough (while retaining full resolution)such that it fits on the monitor at 100%
5. Right click on image to get properties, and record number of pixels in X and Y.
6. Measure the width or height of your image on the monitor.
7. Measure the width or height of your feature in question.
8. Use same algebraic relationship, solving for XP (number of pixels of feature):

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

9. Once you have the number of pixels of your feature, multiply by Known Pixel Size, and you have the size of the feature.

The key to this working is in maintaining full resolution, and doing measurements on the screen at 100%.

Another thing to be careful of is that websites like Photobucket compress your images. This image I posted as an example is much clearer before you pass it through Photobucket. But that's a separate issue. If you come up with the right answer, Photobucket is after the fact.

Remember, all we really need is a fairly accurate number, as in:



<b>The guy standing in the cave is approximately 5 meters tall, or 50 meters tall, etc. Pixel size is 25.7cm/p, or whatever.</b>

rd

Later I'm going to see if I can find my PaintShopProX.

This is some good stuff, Rich. Thanks.

I wonder ... if we can get the others to cooperate?

It is not totally ridiculous to imagine we could so some serious science here if they do. A small group of MOTIVATED explorers ... and lots of data/territory to explore ... and an understanding of how easy it can be for two people who THINK they are talking about the same thing to be wrong about that (the whole accurate communication/explicit or named definitions thing we have been playing with recently).

Who knows, even I might get interested in this again.

<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 />
I wonder ... if we can get the others to cooperate?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's hard to say. There is a very strong inclination to think because I see it it must be so.

It's interesting because in re-reading the "Faces" thread, I realized, wow, this argument had been going on a long time before I even started this Topic. But both Greg Orme, and TVF said "there is no level of detail sufficient to prove artificiality, in and of itself."

I had a little problem with that some years ago, but over time agreed with the sentiment. I still sort of have a problem with it in the sense that if we saw something so mind-numbingly obvious, could we still say it?

The problem with pareidolia (modern) though is that once you "see" it, it gets clearer and clearer, to the point that you really start to wonder. Proponents of AOH think, "hey get with the program, will ya?"

But go back later and look at some of this stuff, and I have no doubt that it proves nothing.

But yeah, when I look at this latest of Malcolm's, I think, yeah, could be, could be. Maybe they really are numbers and letters. According to Sitchen's legends, the first God of the Annunaki to come here ended up being banished to Mars and is buried there. He was the first one to survive the trip through the asteroid belt and land on Earth some 450,000 years ago. Or so the story goes.

rd

But then go back and re-read the Two Doctor's analysis of Skullface, and look at the subsequent non-confirmation by HiRise, and you think, hell yeah, pareidolia (all) can be that elaborate.

Oh and one other thing, for what it's worth, Neil and I used to routinely discuss the size of the object and pixels. At first because we were curious, but later as a matter of course.

<b>[rderosa] "... Neil and I used to routinely discuss the size of the object and pixels."</b>

Unlike other discussion forums on the net, this one WANTS to be both open and scientific. I haven't always pushed the scientific side as much as the open side (especially here). Regrettably, a lot of our members have no formal scientific training.

So tell me, you wanna-be scientists, are you willing to do some actual work to see if we can understand what these pictures are showing us?

I'm skeptical. (About your willingness to do some work.) But on the other hand this topic is a passion for many of you. So I might be wrong. I frequently hope I am wrong about certain things.

***

I'm probably going to go with Rich's idea about requiring basic data (our definition, no appeals) to be included with each image posted here. Over time, I can see the possibility of this bar being raised higher and higher.

IF YOU DON'T, your image would be subject to deletion.

***

Comments? Discussion?