My pareidolia knows no bounds.

More
11 years 3 days ago #21396 by Marsevidence01
<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 />As far as the notion of 'irrefutable evidence' goes, after how many years has it been, I still haven't seen any 'irrefutable evidence'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich, I have a question for you. What to you represents "irrefutable evidencer"? Once I get an idea, I may be able to help.

Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 days ago #21397 by Marsevidence01
<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>

Lets push this idea (actual irrefutable evidence of alien life) way out of shape.

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

Larry, you got me here, what do you mean "push the idea way out of shape?

Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 days ago #21496 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 Marsevidence01</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 rderosa</i>
<br />As far as the notion of 'irrefutable evidence' goes, after how many years has it been, I still haven't seen any 'irrefutable evidence'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich, I have a question for you. What to you represents "irrefutable evidencer"? Once I get an idea, I may be able to help.

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

Malcolm, go back and take a look at the very first message in this topic. When I introduced this topic, I started off with a couple of "reference images" of Yosemite.

Read that first message and see if it doesn't answer your question. If it doesn't, ask me again.

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 days ago #21940 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
Malcolm, if you haven't already done it, I strongly recommend you go back and read this whole topic from the beginning. I think you'll find we hashed out a lot of the sub-topics in the main topic of "pareidolia vs artificial".

I don't believe we ever answered Tom's most basic question, though, of how you tell one from the other. But we really did cover much of the issue.

Maybe now the question is: where do we go from here?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 days ago #21577 by Marsevidence01
<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 />Malcolm, if you haven't already done it, I strongly recommend you go back and read this whole topic from the beginning. I think you'll find we hashed out a lot of the sub-topics in the main topic of "pareidolia vs artificial".

I don't believe we ever answered Tom's most basic question, though, of how you tell one from the other. But we really did cover much of the issue.

Maybe now the question is: where do we go from here?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich, yes I did read this most enjoyable topic and gained a lot from it. It is quite difficult for me to add to this subject only (without running the risk of sounding pretentious), that my research has gone quite far ahead of this area of whether or not a particular clump of rocks seems to have a design form. My concern here is a simple one with respect to Pareidolia and Zip summed it up quite well in his last post. This so-called condition is damaging the credibility of a focused investigation into the life that resides on Mars. It limits the tone to go no further and this is what, we as investigators must avoid. As the term Pareidolia is now synonymous with ridicule. And this IS bad science.

I have been working extensively with a very well known imaging and geology specialist who at this time wishes to remain in the backdrop until further investigation proves to be flowing in the right direction. He is a member of this forum and has been quite illuminated by the close up inspection of the MRO images in particular. I have also been discussing the images with Steven Bassett who will be evaluating some of the more compelling images while in Brazil this week. All concur that there is much more to know about the artifacts on Mars and in particular, Hebes Chasma, Melas Chasma and the surrounding plains as well as the region around Meridiani Planum.

What is important I feel, is for this forum to address the matter of life on Mars in a speak easy fashion. I am starting to break through the barriers but as you can see from the lack of replies to my postings, this has not been easy.

So, my modus is to every now and then, (as Larry would put it spoon feed the forum) with some compelling image findings where hopefully, the forum will engage.

To further your comment regarding irrefutable evidence, I can assure you, if you have an open mind and are willing to evaluate imagery which will show you life as you would have never imagined and are prepared to accept this tumultuous personal paradigm shift, it will be an amazing journey but one which will leave behind whether a rock looks like a Japanese lady...or not

Regards

Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 3 days ago #21498 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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />

As the term Pareidolia is now synonymous with ridicule. And this IS bad science.

I am staring to break through the barriers but as you can see from the lack of replies to my postings, this has not been easy.

So, my modus is to every now and then, (as Larry would put it spoon feed the forum) with some compelling image findings where hopefully, the forum will engage.

To further your comment regarding irrefutable evidence, I can assure you, if you have an open mind and are willing to evaluate imagery which will show you life as you would have never imagined and are prepared to accept this tumultuous personal paradigm shift, it will be an amazing journey but one which will leave behind whether a rock looks like a Japanese lady...or not

Regards

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

Malcolm, both Fred and I have never used "Pareidolia" as "ridicule". Quite the opposite, we are enthralled by it. If I can speak for Fred for a second, we give it an equal footing with any other science.

I often said that Neil was contributing in ways he never really understood, and in some ways making a splash he didn't know he was making.

By all means present your evidence, but consider my last message about my reference images that start this thread. It has always been my contention that this whole "squinting and gazing" to figure out what's really there goes away at sufficiently high resolution.

In other words, if you have something that's incontrovertibly there to virtually <b>every</b> observer, well than, that's a whole different ballgame, is it not?

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.007 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum