My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />not in the strict sense of the geological description on Earth.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I thought we were supposed to rule out comparisons to Earth. For all we know, those quasi-cliffs could be as natural as the day is long on Mars.

I'm going to give you another quasi-compliment here though:

They don't look natural. Not as far as this Earthling is concerned.

rd

Reading all this above, I can see now that you have not "got it" with respect to the multi dimensional structure of the topography that I am trying to get across...hmmm.

This phenomenon occurs in many areas throughout this image above which I circled. Let go of you mind that anchors you and try to grasp this....it's all in your vision.

I have uploaded this photo here as a bliptoid so you can get the essence (and only the essence) of the idea so don't take the photo literally.


[/URL]

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br /> Let go of you(r) mind that anchors you and try to grasp this....it's all in your vision.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have to be careful here. One of the fundamental characteristics of pareidolia (any) is that it's "personal". I spoke of this early and often in this thread.

As a matter of fact, that's how this thread got started. Neil used to email me images telling me, for instance, that there was a "pirate" in the field of view. I'd find the pirate, no problem. Then later, when he got around to posting in his Topic, he would add a key to show where the pirate was, and lo and behold, it was a different pirate.

So the personal nature of this, can not be ignored. What's obvious to you might never be obvious to anyone else. It has nothing to do with software.

Now if you were to draw a "key" of some kind, some of us might (I stress, "might") be capable of seeing it. No guarantees, though.

rd

<b>[rderosa] "They don't look natural. Not as far as this Earthling is concerned."</b>

On several occasions Malcolm has pointed out that, with our limited experience identifying alien 'stuff' we might actually not recognize it when we see it. This is of course a valid point.

We have a bit more experience identifying natural 'stuff'. But not enough more to make any difference. When it comes to definitely recognizing something that is alien versus definitely recognizing something that is natural we are in way over our heads.

We can easily make the identification error in either direction.

If a nearby explosion dumped a trillion tonnes of stuff onto one side of a small planet ... what would it look like 3.2 million years later?

***

It would be natural, but at least some parts of it would not look like anything we had ever seen in our limited experience. There would be all sorts of impossible looking things, especially considering the much lower gravity and the now missing atmosphere.

Let go of you mind that anchors you and try to grasp this....it's all in your vision.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm usually pretty careful how I phrase these comments. What I actually said was:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>One can easily imagine how these might be...rd </b>[/quote]

Subtle difference. See, in what I DID say, there's an underlying unspoken comment, as in: <b><i>I don't think they are, but one can easily imagine how these MIGHT be...</i></b>

I was giving you about 10% to 20% of a compliment.

rd
[/quote]

Actually my error here. I sometimes have a tendency to "write out loud" and my target audience in these instances...is myself.

I did catch your drift originally and do appreciate the compliment and got a little more than 20%
Cheers,

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />If a nearby explosion dumped a trillion tonnes of stuff onto one side of a small planet ... what would it look like 3.2 million years later?
***
It would be natural, but at least some parts of it would not look like anything we had ever seen in our limited experience. There would be all sorts of impossible looking things, especially considering the much lower gravity and the now missing atmosphere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Oh yeah. Absolutely. Basically, there's no telling when you look at it that way.

That's pretty much why I'm mostly dealing in the world of "could be", "might be", and "who knows."

rd