The implications of finding absolute proof.

I can't remember who it was (maybe Zip Monster, but I could be wrong) who was on this "Mirroring" kick. Every couple of days he'd post some mirrored image of Cydonia, or many other so-called artifacts that were discovered on Mars. He was attempting to show how it looked like ancient Meso-American artifacts, I believe. Time after time, Tom and others including myself, Neil, Jrich, and just about anyone else who took an interest, would try to explain to him why there was no valid reason to mirror, and how it would give you the impression that reality was something that it wasn't. Our take on "Mirroring" was that it had no scientific validity, at least with respect to analyzing an unknown terrain.

Food for thought.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If we concur on the above, we should start to look at how this "multiple dimensional affect" actually works.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We don't concur on the use of negatives for image analysis. And since we still can't go to Mars to look for ourselves, image analysis is all we have.

rd

<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 />I can't remember who it was (maybe Zip Monster, but I could be wrong) who was on this "Mirroring" kick. Every couple of days he'd post some mirrored image of Cydonia, or many other so-called artifacts that were discovered on Mars. He was attempting to show how it looked like ancient Meso-American artifacts, I believe. Time after time, Tom and others including myself, Neil, Jrich, and just about anyone else who took an interest, would try to explain to him why there was no valid reason to mirror, and how it would give you the impression that reality was something that it wasn't. Our take on "Mirroring" was that it had no scientific validity, at least with respect to analyzing an unknown terrain.

Food for thought.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree re. mirroring. But I have made no mention of mirroring and do not modify images with this technique

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 />I agree re. mirroring. But I have made no mention of mirroring and do not modify images with this technique

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I was speaking in parables.

I hope this doesn't mean you're not going to answer my questions.

rd

<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">If we concur on the above, we should start to look at how this "multiple dimensional affect" actually works.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We don't concur on the use of negatives for image analysis. And since we still can't go to Mars to look for ourselves, image analysis is all we have.

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

I also agree re. using negatives for image analysis, this is precisely why I reverted the image in question BACK to the positive.

Or do you still beleive the origional image from HiRISE was "in the positive"?

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 />Or do you still beleive the origional image from HiRISE was "in the positive"?

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You don't want me to re-write my questions do you? That's how things get confused. I find on message boards that the single best way to avoid confusion is to read and respond to everything in the thread.

Sometimes it's more work than people want to engage in, but that's how I do it.

For instance, I never said anything at all about what I "believed" regarding the images in this topic. I merely asked you questions regarding "the reality of the landscape in question".

rd