Mysterious Lines in Noctis Labyrinthus

When I looked at this area I saw something like this...in the bigger picture..
You on the other hand didn't.. One of us is evidently wrong ..

Your rolling stones don't go with this theory..

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Quote by Trinket: It's a good image.. And gives me a sense your attempting to be earnest ..

While I can see how if you crop it just right..
and ignore the path of other objects in the vicinity.

You might possibly come to the conclusion that these rocks rolled ..
or even more likely hopped into position.
But my question then would be ?
Which way is down hill
Are lines created by rocks following gravity is that your belief ?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This statement implies that you definitely trust what you see.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trinket: Everyones ability to see whats in front of them varies..

What quality computer equipment do you have ? video card type
monitor resolution..etc

What is your vision abilities ..
Do you where glasses? Any color blindness..
How do you do with... Lets find waldo puzzles..

Most believe nasa's sand erosion --frozen wasteland..

I think it's just brain washing..


40 craft mars and they still haven't answered any questions Life water .etc.. only Brainwashing, maybe the next craft will do it.. I'm confident what about you ?..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This statement clearly implies you "are confident" you <b>do not </b>trust what you see. So which of these two opposites is your overriding belief? To say that the two statements are internally inconsistent and mutually exclusive seems an understatement.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Rich (from Planet of the Art Thread): What do you think it is?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This seems a reasonable question because that thread is all about showing images Trinket seems to want the viewer to believe are artificial. (if not, then what is the point of it?)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trinket: I think it's "South Polar Residual Cap in the Summer of course..

Why do you ask ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trinket: I think it's
Layered Pit in Noctis Labyrinthus of course

Just like this one..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


With all due respect, I think giving the NASA name of an image as an answer is less than sincere. One would like to know what you really think. Did you mean to show us an artificial structure in the one and mysterious straight lines in the other, and if not, what is it you meant to do? If its just pictures like in "show and tell," I guess that is ok. Still it would be nice if we viewers and readers knew.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trinket: When I looked at this area I saw something like this...in the bigger picture..
You on the other hand didn't.. One of us is evidently wrong ..

Your rolling stones don't go with this theory..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, so now we are back to artificial structures, (which implies again by the way that you trust what you see, but no matter). Fine, I'm in no position to argue about faces. But if so then where was the face or artificial structure in your last post of Planet of the Art? To say that your approach is internally inconsistant seems an understatement. I won't go into the "bait and switch" thing: (first it's about mysterious lines, now it's about mysterious faces). Enough said.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trinket: When I looked at this area I saw something like this...in the bigger picture..
You on the other hand didn't.. One of us is evidently wrong ..

Your rolling stones don't go with this theory..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Trinkets Face enhanced by Trinket


Trinkets face as it really is


Is it really fair to draw in a face yourself and then imply that it is artificial?

You know if I only gave you that version , you would have a point...

Unfortunately as usual....

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trinket: You know if I only gave you that version , you would have a point...

Unfortunately as usual....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Trinkets Face enhanced by Trinket



Ok, so I'll agree that this is a kind of key, which is legitimate, (but a key shouldn't be a license to draw in most of the face, anyway it's fruitless to argue about the merits of your "faces").

But what about the rest of my points?