My pareidolia knows no bounds.

What does that mean? It means if there were anything worth seeing on Mars (artificial-like) we'd be seeing it quite easily, instead of spending hours squinting at the kind of nonsense that's been posted for 8 years or so.

I rest my case. There are no artifacts on Mars, because if there were, we'd have thousands of images of them, analogous to this:


rd
[/quote]

Oh dear me Mr. Derosa, it seems to me that you have taken it upon yourself to be the authority on whether or not artificial artifacts exist on this planet...or not. And you make these assumptions based on a view point that anything that may be there, can ONLY be seen and understood through human eyes. Moreover, that any perceived artifacts can only be constructed by the same means as we construct here on Earth i.e. the "bricks and mortar" approach or in other words, a resource based composition. If an evolved life does exist on Mars, they may very well have the capability to manifest or manipulate the surface by a means we do not yet know how to do, e.g. changing the molecular composition of matter to suite their needs would be a far more effective method of production than collecting resource for production it seems to me. If this were the case, I feel quite certain that we would have great difficulty in recognizing these creations.

Your comment "squinting at the kind of nonsense that's been posted for 8 years or so" seems to be a slap in the face of the many researchers that have posted here.

What I see here is either a case of official "debunking" or a seriously bad case of cognitive dissonance.

If I may give you a little advice....OPEN your eyes!<i></i>

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 />it seems to me that you have taken it upon yourself to be the authority on whether or not artificial artifacts exist on this planet...or not. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I rely on common sense.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
And you make these assumptions based on a view point that anything that may be there, can ONLY be seen and understood through human eyes. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Seems logical since we have human eyes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Moreover, that any perceived artifacts can only be constructed by the same means as we construct here on Earth i.e. the "bricks and mortar" approach or in other words, a resource based composition. If an evolved life does exist on Mars, they may very well have the capability to manifest or manipulate the surface by a means we do not yet know how to do, e.g. changing the molecular composition of matter to suite their needs would be a far more effective method of production than collecting resource for production it seems to me. If this were the case, I feel quite certain that we would have great difficulty in recognizing these creations. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seem to be advocating for a theory that's non-falsifiable (and hence, non-scientific).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your comment "squinting at the kind of stuff that's been posted for 8 years or so" seems to be a slap in the face of the many researchers that have posted here.Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The squinting has gotten old. Produce something that doesn't require squinting, instead of all this talk.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What I see here is either a case of official "debunking" or a seriously bad case of cognitive dissonance. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The truth will set you free.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If I may give you a little advice....OPEN your eyes!<i></i> Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My eyes are open. That's the problem, because as such, all they see is "stuff" being posted on these sites. You seem to take these things personally. Maybe you shouldn't.

rd

Why limit oneself. Why can't there be both. "There are no facts, merely interpretations" (Nietzsche). There could be natural artifacts to one person and pareidolia to another. Science is faith in science. One may have it and another the belief that no 100% method can coincide with what is. The scientic method fights nature and has led to totalitarianism. (from my and many other people's points of view).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Why limit oneself. Why can't there be both. .....The scientic method fights nature and has led to totalitarianism. (from my and many other people's points of view).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sure, there could be both. Malcolm is right on one point, there <b>could be </b> life forms totally unnatural to us, like "The Horta" who ate rock and tunneled through solid rock like we walk through air (from Star Trek). But I'm not really making that argument. The argument I'm making is that people are underestimating just how clearly we are seeing whatever it is that's there.

There is no reason to squint. But we keep finding ourselves squinting because someone keeps telling us they see something we don't see.

When we look at the picture of Madrid, there's very little reason for squinting, and <b>and that image has slightly LESS resolution than the HiRise.</b>

Think about it.

rd

Facts and interpretations are not mutually exclusive. But they are mutually confusing.

We are stuck with all three.

A fact implies an objective reality exists. (Newtonian view). A tree can fall without an observer.
An interpretation implies two parts are needed- a pattern perceived by an interpreter. (Quantum view). No tree without an observer.