Originally posted by richierich
This site uses ONLY the official government photo's and merely points out the OBVIOUS structures and other evidence.
The problem is what they say and/or don't say.
Look at this, for example.
He starts by showing an official Mars Global Surveyor MOC photo and compares it with the photos from some Earth trees.
But he doesn't say that the scale of that photo is 2.77 metres per pixel and he doesn't give us any idea of the resolution of the Earth trees photo. How can we compare things when we don't have the whole data?
And the fact that it may look like trees (and I don't think it does) doesn't mean that they are trees, but its presented as a "super dense tree forest top canopy" without any evidence.
Then he shows a Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter HiRISE photo, because those have a better resolution (although he said some time ago that he didn't work with the higher resolution photos because they were in a format (JPEG2000) that nobody knows and most people would not look at those), but once more he fails to tell the reader what the resolution is.
He also shows areas that do not have any reference, so it's hard to find that exact place.
He says that the photos show "soft rounded pillow raised shapes" and not "peaked or ridge material", but he doesn't show those areas that have other features, like craters and mounds, that show that what the photo shows is "peaked or ridge material".
Doesn't that mean that he is lying when he says "Note that their coverage of the terrain is complete with no geology visible at all"? Aren't craters and mounds geological features?
And although he doesn't say what's the resolution of the images he posted, I don't think he was using the full resolution of the JPEG2000 image, because this is what it looks like when seen at full, 25 centimetres per pixel, resolution.
(This is the same area as above, but at full resolution)
That's why I don't trust him, we have better reports here on ATS.
