New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06

rd,

If you would like to know why my image is “more on-axis” than your image, maybe for continuity sake - you should use Paint Shop 7 and utilize the same programs that I used. Second as for the negative - VS - positive question - it really doesn’t matter. The features are still distrainable in either format even thought in the contrast reversal image it’s easer to see.

Zip Monster

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />maybe for continuity sake - you should use Paint Shop 7 and utilize the same programs that I used. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Zip,

I used to have to go back to older versions of software all the time, for various reasons, to prove one thing or another. Sometimes the older version had things right, sometimes the newer one did. I've taken both sides of the argument many times.

In this case, I'm not all that interested in debugging Corel's software. I'm using Ver 10. That's what I posted.

You could always upgrade. (that's the preferred direction).

rd

rd,

a friend of mine has PSP 10. I’ll ask him what tools you should use to recreate a comparable version of the PSP 7 program that I use and provide the steps needed to adjust the vertical axis.

Zip Monster

In reading this thread I see a couple of issues that really keep our feet in the mud and it is fast turning hard.

The idea of setting scientific standards is a good one and that SPSR established some criteria for the face back when is very nice but... the one thing about scientific standards is they must by virtue of the proving of new facts and the formulation of new theories change.... unless the first set of criteria proves to be the final standard. But I look around myself in this world and find that the limits are always changing. One factor with the face being a ruined humanoid face of normal features or bifurcated I would have to offer the many sphinxs of Egypt as an example and from that formulate the possiblity that many such combinations are possible in sculpture.

The idea of requesting the raw data as proof of finding something. What exactly are we to use here? If a presentation is made using a NASA or MGS image and is accepted as proof then rejecting a presentation because it uses that same material is ... ahem.... two faced! You just can't have it both ways. We have to be able to accept some of the material we are provided with as standards. Not everybody is Keith LAney when it comes to processing the raw data. Not everybody is Malin, so if a George Haas uses the Laney or a Malin image as a basis for a presentation than I would have to accept that as a standard in the community.

It seems to me that saying the artifacts were introduced because of a processing approach is just too convenient an argument. Lets set the parameter of just whose images are acceptable and leave it at that, Laney, Malin, NASA????? If I process an image on my own is it OK? How do I avoid the complaint of you introduced those artifacts...

We need to agree to agree somewhere.... and BTW I have done the processing of some of George's images using the best and the worst of the offerings from MGS et al and produced the same results... why don't you all try it for yourselves instead of demanding that the material be endlessly reproduced in any format you may deem to dream up just to deny the actuality of the material?

Jim Miller, You can find anything if you want to!

Just wanted to add that when it comes to programs such as Paint Shop Pro different versions may have different options or different names on them. If you want to totally replicate someone else’s work you will have to make sure you use the same version as he.

May as well add that I haven’t really taken a side in this "who’s on Mars" theory. I believe the theory of some intelligent life form making them isn’t too far fetched and even plausible but I still want more data.

So whatever progress you come up with I’m eager to hear about them, even though I may not specifically answer anything yet.


/Fredrik Persson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PheoniX_VII</i>
<br />Just wanted to add that when it comes to programs such as Paint Shop Pro different versions may have different options or different names on them. If you want to totally replicate someone else’s work you will have to make sure you use the same version as he.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's absolutely true. I just upgraded the software I use for work, and there were four very important features (to me) broken. Plus, to make it worse, I have no choice but to use the new version. They no longer support past versions, once they broadcast a new one.

As more and more companies "outsource" what they consider to be minor tasks (i.e., testing), this will only get worse and worse.

This just isn't important enough to me, to go and downgrade some Paint software for. I think there is fatal flaw in the "mirroring" concept used here anyway. I just wanted to see where those features came from, and now I know: they were brought out by creating a negative of the 1998 image.

Are "negatives" a legitimate device in detecting features in an image? I asked my wife that very question yesterday, and she thinks "yes".

The major problem with Zips "mirror masks", in my opinion, is that he's not using the actual center of the face to make his cuts. You can see very clearly, the line he's using is off to the faces' right (our left). That makes no sense to me.

But the features in each half are real.

rd