- Thank you received: 0
Faces from the Chasmas
16 years 6 months ago #20188
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see at least 12 faces in this image including the two mentioned. All are roughly the same quality.
rd
<br /> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see at least 12 faces in this image including the two mentioned. All are roughly the same quality.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #20016
by gorme
Replied by gorme on topic Reply from Greg Orme
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see at least 12 faces in this image including the two mentioned. All are roughly the same quality.
rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't see anything that couldn't occur naturally though. That doesn't mean they are or are not artificial, I make it a rule not to criticise other people's work. To falsify these faces there would have to part of them that could not occur from a geological process. Some hypothetical artificial artifacts might not be falsifiable and still be artificial. I see no way to prove anything like that so I have no opinion on them.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see at least 12 faces in this image including the two mentioned. All are roughly the same quality.
rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't see anything that couldn't occur naturally though. That doesn't mean they are or are not artificial, I make it a rule not to criticise other people's work. To falsify these faces there would have to part of them that could not occur from a geological process. Some hypothetical artificial artifacts might not be falsifiable and still be artificial. I see no way to prove anything like that so I have no opinion on them.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #20189
by gorme
Replied by gorme on topic Reply from Greg Orme
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />The only possible counter-thesis, that of frequently occurring elaborate pareidolia on earth, has been shown to be fatally flawed, is fraught with misrepresentations, and has never been verified by anything resembling a legitimate scientific method. Awhile back, a poster on this message board (*pareidoliac*) had the opportunity to demonstrate that his elaborate pareidolic images were authentic, (meaning natural forms and not artistic enhancements), but could not or would not do so. The only thing the counter-thesis has ever demonstrated is that the human mind has the propensity to interpret vague forms (in clouds, etc.) as *faces*. [Neil]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
gorme, this is what I'm talking about. This is what is being presented as a "scientific" theory here on these threads with regard to the Artificial Origins Hypothesis as it pertains to Mars. It's almost impossible to believe.
This statement (in the above quote) is like saying Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory" can't be authentic because there are no melted clocks in nature.
Amazing. But I imagine it's possible that some "specialist" will come along some day and make sense out of all this, although I doubt very much if the conclusions would bear any resemblence to what's been said up to this point.
rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't completely agree. The evidence, if it is more than random chance, consistently points to a certain series of events. So if artificiality is confirmed at some point it will likely validate some of those events as well.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />The only possible counter-thesis, that of frequently occurring elaborate pareidolia on earth, has been shown to be fatally flawed, is fraught with misrepresentations, and has never been verified by anything resembling a legitimate scientific method. Awhile back, a poster on this message board (*pareidoliac*) had the opportunity to demonstrate that his elaborate pareidolic images were authentic, (meaning natural forms and not artistic enhancements), but could not or would not do so. The only thing the counter-thesis has ever demonstrated is that the human mind has the propensity to interpret vague forms (in clouds, etc.) as *faces*. [Neil]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
gorme, this is what I'm talking about. This is what is being presented as a "scientific" theory here on these threads with regard to the Artificial Origins Hypothesis as it pertains to Mars. It's almost impossible to believe.
This statement (in the above quote) is like saying Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory" can't be authentic because there are no melted clocks in nature.
Amazing. But I imagine it's possible that some "specialist" will come along some day and make sense out of all this, although I doubt very much if the conclusions would bear any resemblence to what's been said up to this point.
rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't completely agree. The evidence, if it is more than random chance, consistently points to a certain series of events. So if artificiality is confirmed at some point it will likely validate some of those events as well.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #20026
by marsrocks
Replied by marsrocks on topic Reply from David Norton
Interesting. Gorme, have you considered starting a thread with impossible natural geological features? Maybe it would attract a few geologists, crater experts, etc., which would allow you to get even more feedback on your finds.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- neilderosa
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 5 months ago #20194
by neilderosa
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
Re: the Claritas/Syria contact, the region the Nefertiti profile is located, I thought I'd take a look to see if anything interesting has been imaged by the HiRISE camera yet. There are several new entries within a few km of the famous profile, and one thing of interest to me, though it is obviously not artificial, though it is a thing of beauty. These are the notable *bright spots* we have commented on before. Here is one in RGB color. Are there any geologists out there who can answer the following: does the RGB colorizing technique render a true color? Does anyone have an insight as to what mineral we are looking at?
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_006152_1655
And here is JP Levasseur's Profile Image strewn with bright spots.
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_006152_1655
And here is JP Levasseur's Profile Image strewn with bright spots.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- pareidoliac
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 5 months ago #20034
by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
Neil, TVF, rd. etc. If i mail you an analog photograph of a shadow ("Einstein" with 35 countable features- more elaborate than anything found on mars) are you in a position to test it for authenticity and return it to me. i will be glad to lend you the photograph in exchange for a scientific test if i can get a statement of authenticity from you. Thank you, fred ressler (pareidoliac).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.289 seconds