- Thank you received: 0
My pareidolia knows no bounds.
- pareidoliac
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
18 years 2 months ago #16072
by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
This shouldn't become a "pising contest." The point of words isn't who has the more powerful intellect, it is to communicate (move forward in the mutually desired direction.)
Since nothing is the same as anything else, not only in physical placement, but also in internal quantum structure; there are no two of anything. Therefore it is as equally absurd to accept that 2+2=4, as it is to accept that 2+2=5. Being equal in absurdity, they must be equal in validity, since absurd-valid is a continuum. Therefore 2+2=5 is as valid a statement as any other statement. Proving also, that once again “The way is not the worded (or mathematical) way”.
Since nothing is the same as anything else, not only in physical placement, but also in internal quantum structure; there are no two of anything. Therefore it is as equally absurd to accept that 2+2=4, as it is to accept that 2+2=5. Being equal in absurdity, they must be equal in validity, since absurd-valid is a continuum. Therefore 2+2=5 is as valid a statement as any other statement. Proving also, that once again “The way is not the worded (or mathematical) way”.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 2 months ago #16116
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<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 />If both hands must be tied behind my back, while Richie has free reign; perhaps this message board is not big enough for both of us.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Rd took some time off and came back re-energized. My travels often have the same effect for me. I recommend occasional breaks for the same purpose.
You may be too close to this to see the obvious -- We need strong advocates of opposing viewpoints to hone our own arguments, to spot flaws in them if any exist, and to learn how to communicate better to a world filled with skeptics who are not nearly as reasonable as rd. Rd asked me for permission to start this topic before he did it, and I personally approved it. I wish you could see how beneficial this is for us and for everyone reading this. Everyone has doubts when it comes to something as startling as artificiality on Mars. And even those who are convinced that artificiality exists, or who want to be convinced, all have friends and family who are skeptical to varying degrees. Those readers eagerly look for nuggets from us with persuasive arguments that can be used to overcome all kinds of skepticism.
Bottom line: We must never become so attached to our own ideas as to allow them to become beliefs, or to inhibit backing away from them if a good reason to do so comes along. That means we should always be looking for and encouraging arguments against our positions. Rd and pareidoliac have raised many original arguments, not just rehashed old ones. That is incredibly valuable to us and to everyone reading this.
Try to get past taking this personally. If your arguments are better, you will persuade many. If the counterarguments are better, recognizing that will save us time, energy, and embarrassment, and we will be that much smarter for the next big idea that comes along. -|Tom|-
<br />If both hands must be tied behind my back, while Richie has free reign; perhaps this message board is not big enough for both of us.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Rd took some time off and came back re-energized. My travels often have the same effect for me. I recommend occasional breaks for the same purpose.
You may be too close to this to see the obvious -- We need strong advocates of opposing viewpoints to hone our own arguments, to spot flaws in them if any exist, and to learn how to communicate better to a world filled with skeptics who are not nearly as reasonable as rd. Rd asked me for permission to start this topic before he did it, and I personally approved it. I wish you could see how beneficial this is for us and for everyone reading this. Everyone has doubts when it comes to something as startling as artificiality on Mars. And even those who are convinced that artificiality exists, or who want to be convinced, all have friends and family who are skeptical to varying degrees. Those readers eagerly look for nuggets from us with persuasive arguments that can be used to overcome all kinds of skepticism.
Bottom line: We must never become so attached to our own ideas as to allow them to become beliefs, or to inhibit backing away from them if a good reason to do so comes along. That means we should always be looking for and encouraging arguments against our positions. Rd and pareidoliac have raised many original arguments, not just rehashed old ones. That is incredibly valuable to us and to everyone reading this.
Try to get past taking this personally. If your arguments are better, you will persuade many. If the counterarguments are better, recognizing that will save us time, energy, and embarrassment, and we will be that much smarter for the next big idea that comes along. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 2 months ago #16120
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Neil,
Are you saying that there was something other than politics in the portion of Fred's post that I deleted? If so I apologize. I (thought I) looked it over pretty well, but I suppose I could have missed something.
(Normally I make a copy of things I delete, but I seem to have skipped that step in this case.)
LB
Are you saying that there was something other than politics in the portion of Fred's post that I deleted? If so I apologize. I (thought I) looked it over pretty well, but I suppose I could have missed something.
(Normally I make a copy of things I delete, but I seem to have skipped that step in this case.)
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 2 months ago #17367
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 tvanflandern</i>
<br />It's funny how not-so-drastically different such a line would be on the 2001 image shown here, without your line to bias the eye.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I suppose the following arrangement <b>is</b> possible, now that I understand what you think is going on with the mouth. The edge of the mouth is in line with the middle of the eye:
But, this is what I think it would take for it to make sense:
<ul><li>The face would have to be hollow and made out of metal </li><li>The damage from the crater would have had to smash the body of the face in such a way that it pushed the west side somewhat farther west than it originally was, so that the middle of the mouth moved west </li><li>The impact would also have had to cave in the forehead, so that it pushed the east eye down from the parallel line with the west eye. Since there's no apparent damage to the forehead area, that would mean that the whole thing caved in and moved down </li><li>The impact would have had to smash in the east side in such a way as to cause the nose to bend east, which does seem possible if it's hollow and metal</li></ul>rd
<br />It's funny how not-so-drastically different such a line would be on the 2001 image shown here, without your line to bias the eye.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I suppose the following arrangement <b>is</b> possible, now that I understand what you think is going on with the mouth. The edge of the mouth is in line with the middle of the eye:
But, this is what I think it would take for it to make sense:
<ul><li>The face would have to be hollow and made out of metal </li><li>The damage from the crater would have had to smash the body of the face in such a way that it pushed the west side somewhat farther west than it originally was, so that the middle of the mouth moved west </li><li>The impact would also have had to cave in the forehead, so that it pushed the east eye down from the parallel line with the west eye. Since there's no apparent damage to the forehead area, that would mean that the whole thing caved in and moved down </li><li>The impact would have had to smash in the east side in such a way as to cause the nose to bend east, which does seem possible if it's hollow and metal</li></ul>rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 2 months ago #17675
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
I call this one Winter Soldier:
And Key:
Features:
1. White non-denominational Soldier's cap. 2. Emblem on cap. 3. Right eye. 4. Nose. 5. Area under nose, above lip. 6. Open mouth. 7. Chin. 8. Hair (or cap covering ears and hair. or ears and hair). 9. Neck. 10. Left shoulder. 11. Right shoulder. 12. Military jacket (non-denom). 13. Four buttons. 14. Medals and bars. 15 Possible nametag. 16. Hanging left arm. 17. Hanging right arm. 18. Upper torso.
rd
And Key:
Features:
1. White non-denominational Soldier's cap. 2. Emblem on cap. 3. Right eye. 4. Nose. 5. Area under nose, above lip. 6. Open mouth. 7. Chin. 8. Hair (or cap covering ears and hair. or ears and hair). 9. Neck. 10. Left shoulder. 11. Right shoulder. 12. Military jacket (non-denom). 13. Four buttons. 14. Medals and bars. 15 Possible nametag. 16. Hanging left arm. 17. Hanging right arm. 18. Upper torso.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 2 months ago #17492
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<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 />The face would have to be hollow and made out of metal<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Agreed. The anomalously high infrared albedo does suggest some kind of metal. The reflectivity of a nearby pyramidal formation also suggests metal or glass, as does the possible specular reflection from some of the "glassy tubes". We'll eventually have spectral information that should resolve this.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The damage from the crater would have had to smash the body of the face in such a way that it pushed the west side somewhat farther west than it originally was, so that the middle of the mouth moved west<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Agreed. The "damage" done is radially outward from the crater on all sides, including the west.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The impact would also have had to cave in the forehead, so that it pushed the east eye down from the parallel line with the west eye.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't agree. The collapse south of the east eye socket seems sufficient to displace the east eye slightly southward.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The impact would have had to smash in the east side in such a way as to cause the nose to bend east, which does seem possible if it's hollow and metal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not sure that's the right scenario, but it will do until we learn more. -|Tom|-
<br />The face would have to be hollow and made out of metal<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Agreed. The anomalously high infrared albedo does suggest some kind of metal. The reflectivity of a nearby pyramidal formation also suggests metal or glass, as does the possible specular reflection from some of the "glassy tubes". We'll eventually have spectral information that should resolve this.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The damage from the crater would have had to smash the body of the face in such a way that it pushed the west side somewhat farther west than it originally was, so that the middle of the mouth moved west<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Agreed. The "damage" done is radially outward from the crater on all sides, including the west.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The impact would also have had to cave in the forehead, so that it pushed the east eye down from the parallel line with the west eye.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't agree. The collapse south of the east eye socket seems sufficient to displace the east eye slightly southward.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The impact would have had to smash in the east side in such a way as to cause the nose to bend east, which does seem possible if it's hollow and metal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not sure that's the right scenario, but it will do until we learn more. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.399 seconds