The implications of finding absolute proof.

<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 pareidoliac</i>
<br />"There are no proofs, merely interpretations." Nietzsche.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is only ONE question that needs to be answered - is there intelligent life elsewhere other than Earth? Once this question is answered, then the gates will open (and so will the can of worms)

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. Maybe. But talk is cheap. Anyone can theorize and distill it down to simple "either/or" types of questions. But once a person attempts to rise to the level of convincing others, through peer-review, books, journals, etc., that, as I said, is where the rubber meets the road, because not only do you have the difficulty of convincing a receptive audience using books and/or papers and journals, but you're going to run into an <b>un</b>receptive audience who have a vested interest in you being wrong, or crazy.

It's going to take a hell of a lot more than we've seen so far.

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>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Rich, Interesting. Would you like to collaborate on that proof?
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think I'm the right person. My last collaboration led me to being a full-blown believer in the wonders of pareidolia.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />"There are no proofs, merely interpretations." Nietzsche.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I believe there are absolutes that rise above the level of "interpretation."

For instance, at the top of Nevada Falls Yosemite, there's a little bridge that goes over the stream that roars over edge down the 600ft drop to the rocks below. There's a sign there that says: "If you fall, you will die."

I'd say that's about as close to an absolute as you're going to find, but there are many many more.



rd

I believe there are absolutes that rise above the level of "interpretation."


rd
[/quote]

I agree, here is something close -

<b>The enigma of the MRO HiRISE image ESP_013772_1795 and ESP_022910_1795 and corresponding anaglyph Jpeg 2000</b>

I am now quite certain that as this information comes to light, these particular stereo images files could quite possibly be seen as one of the most important finds in the history of planetary research and in particular, the search for intelligent life in the cosmos. I am hopeful that I will be making a significant contribution to this outcome.

In March of last year, I downloaded the above files together with many others from the HiRISE site at the University of Arizona. My goal was to examine these files for any indication of anomalies which could be consistent with possible intelligent life.

For the record, this has been my my passion and was meant to be nothing more than a great interest which I have harbored since a young age.

Upon opening these files in Irfanview and then saving them into an uncompressed .TIFF image file, I immediately noticed something a little odd with the gamma spectrum in file ESP_013772_1795. It appeared that the lower third of the image was considerably dark while the top two thirds were exceptionally light. Upon closer inspection of the upper area, it struck me that the image was in fact, a negative. This I rectified and could immediately see a better resolution which I then adjusted in the gamma curve resulting in an almost perfect "picture" of the Chasma lower wall of which this image was captured. Here are the properties of when the image was taken:

[/URL]

From this point, I spent several months analyzing the volume of information that could now be seen in it's positive rendition. There appeared to be a variety of strange formations scattered from one side to the other in various locations which, "looked like" structures or contrived buildings certainly not artificial but nonetheless intriguing as their form, in many instances gave me the impression of implied designs especially when I looked at the vertical buttresses at close magnification. I termed them <i>Terraces</i> and posted my findings on Meta Research.

<i>It must be said here, that I am by no means a scientist with credentials. My profession is that of an interior design architect so I am quite conversant with shape, form and design especially in a 3D environment.</i>

As I continued to look ever closer with increasing magnification, there were "problems" with the "positive image". In many places, there were curved streaks of bright white with distinct "tails" and in the negative view, were seen as black and which I presumed were the shadows of the mountainous topography. There was a problem with this also as they did not seem to match up or correspond to the stated solar angle of 46 degrees. However, I could not confirm this as frankly, it was a little out of my field of expertise.

The image file started to really bother me as I could see something here which did not make any sense at all. To my eye, the entire surface of both stereo image files seemed completely "unnatural" for want of a better word. They appeared to me to be false or incorrect somehow. Still I continued to find some strange and unusual designs or patterns especially from way above as if seen from quite some distance above the surface. My thinking was of that of the Nazca plains. When close to the surface there is nothing to be seen but scattered rocks and it is only until viewed from way above one can make out the beautiful creations on intelligent design. In many ways, this was what was occurring in these image files. Depending on the altitude of the observer, apparent creations could be seen and then the closer I zoomed in, the design was lost but then I was taken back with smaller apparent designs of similar context but at a much smaller level. Something along the lines of fractal geometry - dare I say.

It was around this time (November 2013) I was contacted by email from a long standing member of Meta Research who had found the image I posted of the "High pressure jet found in Hebes Chasma" with great interest. (He wishes to remain anonymous at this time). We spoke on the phone and was very helpful with my research. He asked me if I had ever viewed the 3D anaglyph of the stereo images, I said I had not but suggested I do as the file may contain some additional information.

Now there are some instructions that go along with the HiRISE anaglyph and I have posted those instructions here for reference www.uahirise.org/pdf/HiRISE_Anaglyphs.pdf Straight forward enough I thought (really?) But there you are. So with a new pair of simple anaglyph red\cyan glasses, I opened the file and was shocked!

As I perused over the landscape, I immediately noticed something very strange indeed.

What was instantly apparent, were extreme mountainous protrusions and very deep corresponding valleys. How on earth (Mars) could these mountains remain upright I thought! Extreme height and almost as thin at the base as they were at the top impossible I said to myself, they would snap and collapse by even the slightest force. Perhaps something was wrong with the image file or the fact that I was seeing the topography via a false quasi 3D and was somehow distorting the image during the mapping process.

At this point, I decided to evaluate the possibility of creating my own anaglyph file and reverted back to the instructions.

Now the two greyscale "map projected" stereo image pairs do not match up by any stretch and according to HiRISE, the best way to rectify this is by use of special ISIS "Coreg" software which I could not locate and was sure of its high expense.

So after giving the problem some thought an idea occurred to me that could resolve the matter at hand.

I decided this could be achieved with the use of some simple video software by creating a 3D environment in Sony Vegas. This would allow me to reset each frame of view independently and match up the stereo field wherever I chose on the landscape thus ensuring the best 3d effect for either a snapshot or I could record the time line in a video if I so wanted. The results were astounding. All done with a $60 software program!

And what did I find?

Now the true surface of this Chasma area can be seen in its correct topographical undulation possibly for the first time. And I shall add here; I am not even sure that the good folks over at HiRISE are even aware of this incredible enigma and, it is an enigma.

What is now visible is a truly amazing landscape with so much to observe and ponder upon. Absolutely beautiful caves that are just enormous! Each has spectacular interiors, each has a story to tell that is just spellbinding. NOW....the image files make complete sense. Now the curvature of the topography is COMPLETLY CONSISTENT. Gone are the tall fragile mountainous peaks and in my opinion and I will stress here, that it is <i>just my opinion</i>, that this entire landscape is a complete facade and is intended to be so. A hologram of incredible proportions by means of the simple placement of light so that the eye interprets the convex when in fact, it is actually concave. How is this done? Well it is an optical illusion, nothing more but...and this is a big but, it is done by design by the makers who wish it to be so! And if I am correct here, ultimately, we will need to reevaluate almost everything we see concerning the Martian surface.

There is more.

Each cave has its own ambient light source. This is what I was referring to earlier concerning the curved bright white streaks. They are each emanating from the right hand side of each cave and look to be somehow radiating from the cave wall as if by means of a phosphorous coating or "glowing rock". This is how the surface is visually altered by applying light in specific locations thus creating shadows that give the illusion of a convex topography. Basic "light up/light down" procedure. There are several images posted here that support this analysis and are clearly visible.

Now I am sure that one of the first concerns here is that I have made a mistake. I thought this too.

However, let me say again; the topographical curvature of the "lay of the land" is consistent 100% with a concave undulation and can be seen in every instance and especially in image "Industrial Area" where the cliffs can be seen on the left hand side <u>as they descend down</u>. Each cave is consistent with the walls as they fall inwards and NOT the other way around.

In many caves, one can see possible design and in image "Industrial Area" we see something else and it is here that I will leave this for a later time to discuss as the implications are so enormous and so fantastic.

The following 3D anaglyph images are hereby posted for the first time for scientific evaluation and comment.

Thank you.


Spraying:

[/URL]

Cave side AA

[/URL]

Cave Dual AA

[/URL]


Cave Light AA

[/URL]

Cave ledge AA

[/URL]

Cave light DD

[/URL]

Cave Side BB

[/URL]

Top Cave SS

[/URL]

Spraying 2

[/URL]

Cave light MM

[/URL]

Industrial Area AA

[/URL]

Manny Moe and Jack

[/URL]
Live Wall AA

[/URL]

Lower M,M,and J


[/URL]

Left of MM and J

[/URL]

Deep Cave AA

[/URL]

Eye for an Eye AA

[/URL]

Eye for an Eye close

[/URL]

Arms crossed AA

[/URL]

Statue Area AA

[/URL]

Left top M M and J

[/URL]

Cave Art AA


[/URL]

Dinohead AA

[/URL]

Spraying 3

[/URL]

Cave right M M and J

[/URL]

Work area AA

[/URL]

Terraces NN

[/URL]

Left side Plasma

[/URL]

Left side plasma close

[/URL]

Statue cave enigma

[/URL]

Pump station A

[/URL]

Structures through the spray
[/URL]

Grand Cave

[/URL]

Bird Cave AA

[/URL]

White City A

[/URL]

Statue Area 4

[/URL]

Spraying close

[/URL]

Dino Head 2

[/URL]

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 />Upon opening these files in Irfanview and then saving them into an uncompressed .TIFF image file, I immediately noticed something a little odd with the gamma spectrum in file ESP_013772_1795. It appeared that the lower third of the image was considerably dark while the top two thirds were exceptionally light. Upon closer inspection of the upper area, it struck me that the image was in fact, a negative. This I rectified and could immediately see a better resolution which I then adjusted in the gamma curve resulting in an almost perfect "picture" of the Chasma lower wall of which this image was captured. Here are the properties of when the image was taken:

...

From this point, I spent several months analyzing the volume of information that could now be seen in it's positive rendition. <b> Malcolm Scott </b>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Malcolm, before I comment on any content, I have a simple basic couple of questions I'd like to ask you. I read all of the text in your last message, and for the most part, I understand what you're saying and what you did to the images. Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you did was correct, made sense, and that in some sense you actually "fixed" the images.

Ok, here are my questions:

1. Do you believe the raw data was actually a "negative" (a mistake) as produced by NASA. In other words, do you believe they acquired the image strip, and then at some later time, converted it to a negative (either by accident or on purpose for whatever reason), and then you came along, noticed it was a negative, and re-converted it back to positive. [This is an important point for me to get the full picture here]

2. Is it possible to give us a justification for your gamma correction? I'm speaking in scientific terms. Can you explain the process by which the resultant gamma correction might be needed? And if so, what got corrected. [I'm not trying to put you on the spot or "test" you in any way. What I'm getting at is the fact that I'm wondering if your whole process could be explained in scientific/photographic terms, like where you identify what went wrong at NASA and why and how it needed to be "fixed" by you. This would go a long way towards validating your methodology, and removing "subjectivity." I am also trying to understand if this was an inadvertent error or possibly designed to mislead on the part of JPL ]

3. You make the claim that after manipulation with the $60 software that: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now the true surface of this Chasma area can be seen in its correct topographical undulation possibly for the first time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">OK. That's a bold statement and one that if true has astounding implications, and calls into question the very competence of the people running the HiRise program. So, I would like to ask you if you'd be willing to do something. Can you do a demo for us? Take one small crop from the starting point, with a sentence or two and maybe some arrows pointing on the image, showing the problem that you think you uncovered. Then the next frame, show us that same crop corrected for gamma. And then one more image of the same crop showing your final negative/corrected image. I'm not suggesting a large project here, just a simple demonstration of exactly what you did, in three parts or so. Can you do that? Sort of a "chain of evidence" type of demo. Short, succinct and annotated.

I apologize if this sounds like a lot of stuff, but my problem is that unless I can tell whether or not there is some actual justification for these steps, again in scientific terms, it's hard for me draw any conclusions. In other words, who knows what might get introduced by these steps? Is examining a negative (that was supposed to be a positive) even valid? I have no idea, but I hope you can shed some light on it, cause it seems like you've devoted one hell of a lot of effort into this.

rd

Malcolm, to simplify what I'm asking even further, we need to know what the real image as captured by the camera was. Are you creating a negative of the real image, or are you fixing a negative and correcting it back to the true positive as taken by HiRise? Which is "reality"?



Here is your CaveLight AA:



And here is a Negative I made of it:



Did I restore it to the original "Positive"? Or did I undo your restored "Positive" and create a real "Negative"? Which image corresponds to us looking down on it from a helicopter?

Capiche?