Robert wrote:
They've no doubt tried out many other algorithms, so it isn't correct to call this the MSSS algorithm. Sorry about the confusion.

Alex writes:
No confusion, I just wanted to explain (in a general sort of way) the algorithm that MSSS uses for "sytematic" processing of images found in their online archive. In fact, Malin, Edgett, et al. have at times (and often do) use their own custom designed routines (with their own coefficient scaling) for data that appear in their peer-reviewed papers.

Robert wrote:
Of course not. We were talking about using the MOC-O-Matic on raw data.

Alex writes:
True, but then again (based on bitter history) everyone else may not understand what "...we were talking about..." I post on the assumption that others besides the actual posters themselves read the various posts.

Robert wrote:
Your protectiveness toward MSSS is commendable, but I assure you, once again, that it's not necessary.

Alex writes:
My apologies, but perhaps you should not take things personally. Again, based on bitter history in participating in online discussions, my response, while posted directly to your comments, is intended for a wider, perhaps less informed audience.

Robert wrote:
Yes. I was ranging a bit afield there and thinking of the theme of "martianspiders.com" in total, which has some examples of what, I believe, Kiefer's talking about. Including that original image of the radial features that got AC Clarke buzzing about gigantic trees...I do find Kiefer's idea much more plausible!

Alex writes:
Anything is more plausible than "trees", though Kieffer's (note the spelling of his last name) model is not a little exotic.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii