Frank, I think you assume I am some kind of believer. Not so. I will even overlook the pejorative content of your comment. Remember, the two foci of my query have to do with an artifact, the photo, and the tehcnician who processed it, regardless of her point of view about anything. You, of course, do not have to participate at all in the query if you so choose.
I will assume that no one on the forum is willing or able to divulge any knowledge about Liz and how she processed the photo.
So, that leaves us with the photo itself. Assuming that it has not been altered between 1998 and the present, and assuming that the actual, original density of pixels were able to be stored in a file available on the internet (comments?), then it might be possible for someone on this forum with the right equipment to take a close look at the photo, and to be so kind as to share findings. Just as a favor.
I'm not after an opinion or rhetoric, just hands-on technical analysis results.
Cordially,
JK
Off Topic » in reply to Nothing here for you brother King.
re: Nothing here for you brother King.
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Any credibility here? : http://www.iwonderproductions.com/mars.htm (n/t)
- Looks like another Hoagland want-a-be.
- Blow up any photo made of pixels far enough, and you get geometry. (n/t)
- Care to make any other comments?
- **Moved from space**
- Aha.
- Thank you, gentlemen, for your concise and thorough replies to the expanded question. (n/t)
- lets start over
- Aha.