Would you like to point out to us WHAT in the data you reference is abnormal, unusual, or even vaguely of interest?

Simply linking to images of areas where a claim has been made does not prove or even begin to support that claim. (in fact, it may act to disprove the claim). You must show WHAT in the image is relevant, HOW it supports your claim and WHY it is not a perfectly natural feature like many others elsewhere in the same image or in other nearby or relevant images.

It isn't the reader's job to work this out for themselves. It's your job, as proponent of the hypothesis, to explain it.

That's how science works...