This is discussed in Episode #127 of “THE EVIDENCE”

@floridafusionart The answers are there, Dave, for those who will clear their minds of biases (easier said than done!) and simply look at the evidence.

Yes, that works, but it's kind of a roundabout way of doing things. It's always better to work with stereo pairs whenever possible. But careful 2D-3D conversions, where assiduous attention is paid to light, lighting angles, geology, apparent perspective et al, will also yield 3D results which are within a few percentage points of being what you would actually observe if you were standing on the ground. This has been determined in my own research by taking one image of a stereo pair (without having observed the combined images), creating a 2D-3D conversion and only then, viewing the original stereo pair and comparing it with the one I've generated. It is almost always a very, very close match.

My comment was referring to the public-at-large, how THEY respond to our images. And while I agree that this image is compelling, in the end it boils down to "I see what I see and you see what you see". The search continues ~

Thank you, Matthew! Sorry for the delayed response. I hope you'll consider coming on over to the channel and taking a look at what we have to offer... https://bit.ly/3710b6s

I agree with Jimmy, Rick. While we have any number of images that might be considered "smoking guns", absent the presence of non-fractal math displayed by the anomaly (which always indicates intelligent agency), it can all be attributed to pareidolia, fantasy, an over-active imagination and the like. The MSM and the general scientific community refuse to even look at our evidence, but we continue to amass that evidence so that one day, sometime in the future, someone will look, at it, scratch their heads and say, "Dang - they actually were onto something!" BTW, 3D is essential in my opinion for the proper examination of any anomaly. X3D is easy to learn, and I hope you'll take a few minute someday soon to acquire this skill. Be well ~

Welcome aboard, Ebbo! We're fixing to get busy around here!

Welcome aboard, Dave! I hope you join us in our quest.

@Robert just wonderful, Robert, and welcome to the amazing world of X.3D!

Off topic, un-cited and poorly rendered.

No! Blurry, too declamatory and not cited. Please see my comment on another one of your posts.

Paul: This forum really isn't the place for blurry photos and flights of wildly speculative declarations. Additionally, you are not citing your work. Each image must be accompanied by a clickable link for others to check the original against your extraction and processing. While we appreciate your passion as demonstrated by your posts, please consider posting clearly-rendered images WITH a citation and please tone down your rhetoric to re-enter the realms of objectivity. Thanks.

Paul, Paul, Paul...

Perhaps if you circled what you're seeing. Right now, I don't really see anything that looks artificial.

That’s really a strange one, Neal. Jimmy has a lot to say about this

@noisemagician I have learned the hard way to up my game, to always seek more conclusive evidence based upon the presence of non-fractality. Of the large amount of anomalies I find and/or view AND often process each week, I end up tossing 30-40% of them when I come back a day or two later with fresh eyes.. It's a lot more work, but the hard-hitting anomalies are worth the search. For the skeptical (NOT cynical. There's a difference!) person assumed to be in our audience, we want to present the best possible evidence. You can't argue with non-fractal math, so if someone chooses to mock or dismiss such an image, it is indicative of their own ignorance, not ours. Thank you for what you're doing!

@noisemagician Every image I publish has an easily-typed short url link in the data bar, and all those used in the videos have clickable links in the description.

With respect, assigning a definitive meaning to such indistinct images is always treading on thin ice. There are more than enough genuine anomalies on Mars to preclude us having to stretch our imaginations in this way. Thanks for posting.

It's within the geological context, and without sufficient detail to make a definitive judgment call. Thanks for posting.

This is totally amazing, Dan! Once again, well done sir!