Similarity of Three...

Actually Tom you are right. Those who wish to view or study these anomalies in the planetary images either for confirmation or refutation should by necessity get the best imaging technology to enable them to do it accurately. For instance I use a 21" monitor with a .25mm dot pitch set at 1024 res, and have many other imaging goodies which also allow adjustment. This is also useful for printing these out as full res photos.
Not to slam on you Jeremy, especially if the case is simply a lack of proper hardware, but I suggest investing in some to anyone interested in this subject.
An analogy would be comparing long range photos taken by a disposable camera with ones taken by a 35mm Canon with telephoto lens.

Tom, there are many things about the content of these images that are obviously blatant to me with little perusal, but then again, I've been studying them for quite some time now. Most people do have quality enough monitors to view the images clearly.
I have taken both my photo and my digital collections and presented them to many disaffected others, friends, associates, etc. (and you might be surprised to actually know who all this group consists of) I am pleased to know that the positive reactions and "WOW's" have so far outweighed the "I don't see it's" nearly three to one.
I admire you for bringing your particular collection before the National Press Club, and had I the contacts you do I'd do the same.

>[K]Jeremy, I see your game right off the bat. Thanks, but argue with somebody else.

Who's playing games here? I am expressing my honest opinion, if you expect your conclusions to be taken without question and aren't up to defending them then why are you on a message board? Don't confuse disagreeing with a conclusion as "baiting" someone.

>[K]You'll have to do better than that. You could in no way have gone through all the pictures on my site(s) objectively.

I don't come to your conclusions therefore I am not objective? Who is? You certainly aren't. I did in fact go back again and viewed the vast majority of your images. You make all kinds of "objective" declarations of something being an Indian head or a goat head. I made a point of viewing your images first before reading any of the text to see if anything looked particularly artificial to me. Invariably nothing really grabbed me - sorry. Several times you color sections to help the desired feature come out for the viewer, but this is stacking the deck since if you have to add extra information to shove someone into the desired perception then that strongly suggests that the feature is an artifact of imagining. To be scientific about what you are doing you should submit the same image in random orientations to a group of uncoached viewers and ask them to write down if they see anything or not. If you make the argument that random people are untrained and therefore cannot see things as well as you do then what scientific basis is there for making such a claim? I have seen no scientific evidence that nonprofessionals cannot interpret with their eyes as well as anyone else. You state that you have shown such images to people but I suspect you showed them the picture and said "Hey, look at this..". The true test is to hand over a photo, not say a word and instruct them to look at it for 15 minutes or so and write down if they see anything unusual or not and circle the region they think is unusual.

My monitor is not 21" but it does have 1024 resolution. Besides, you zoom sections up to a level that should be easily discernible on most monitors. I scored in the 98th percentile on my SAT test in space relations and work routinely in 3D AutoCAD, I think my brain is as hardwired as anyone for visually assessing information.

I would like to say something positive here so that you won't get the false impression that I think you're a kook or something of that nature. I think that many of the images that you have ARE indeed very interesting and we need many people scouring planetary images because there is so much information that we cannot expect NASA to find it all for us. I encourage you to keep doing so, I just think that the images are still at the point of insufficient to be conclusive. We'll just have to disagree on that I suppose.

If most all you can find that are subjective in the extreme are the goatshead and the indians I guess I did pretty good. There's plenty more than that.
I've tried the no explain-no arrow or detail in anyway method of showing before- both successfully and also conversely having been asked by several to define what it is that I'm pointing out. I guess it's just a matter of how somebody wants to be shown something.
I also see that sometimes "nonprofessionals" choose not to wish to do any legwork, not saying that's you, it may be that you honestly do wish for there to actually be something to this all.
For a good start at identifying possibly ruined structures in planetary images it is an asset to also study aerial views of ancient ruined structures on earth. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago has some excellent aerials to practice on, and surprisingly or not, many of the structures and so forth shown in their images bear remarkable resemblance to planetary anomalies suspected also to be of same.
A kook? No, but maybe a bit jaded from the many inordinately strange objects I've seen in the photos.
""I have seen no scientific evidence that nonprofessionals cannot interpret with their eyes as well as anyone else.""
Amen brother, that's been my point exactly.
we don't have to disgree on that at all.

Keith,

I would say I'm somewhere in the middle in terms of "belief" about structures on planets. I routinely look at sites such as yours because I do not think NASA always finds the most interesting things to look at. Unfortunately it seems that many people are strongly "believers" or "unbelievers" and often get too pigheaded to see the validity of objections from the opposing view. I have found it interesting how many space scientists and astronomers are always going on and on about how life must be common throughout the universe but immediately declare any potentially artificial image as crackpot. Something a little odd psychologically there I think. And, at the other scale we have people like Hoagland that argues with people who have actually been to the Moon that they went down through a glassy dome and just didn't know it was there! And believe it or not I occasionally go to his site to see what is there on the offchance that if he fires enough arrows he might finally strike something.

I find many Mars images extremely compelling. I think the circumstantial evidence of fluid flow and changing patterns of perhaps lichen-like life in certain areas should not be dismissed. Mars had an atmosphere and water once so I can see a rationale of beings perhaps having lived there in the past. I have hard problems with seeing a similar colonization of the Moon. Why would beings capable of space travel construct miles square cities out of blocks of stone when it would make much better sense to use existing metals like titanium? To keep atmospheric pressure requires sealed structures and that implies spherical or cylindrical shapes to relieve stresses. The remnants of such a city should show large metallic arcuate ribs of large pressure vessels of some kind, I would not expect it to look like a Mayan city at all.

My favorite for a location for alien beings right now is Titan. The atmosphere is thick enough to support life although I cannot imagine what kind of life it would be. We have a lot of exploring to do.

You said it Jeremy. It is interesting that "they" say they're looking, but then tend to shut down what may be the most obvious possibilities quickly.
Reminds me of someone troubled from having their view obscured by thick trees while searching for a forest.
You know, Titan could be a candidate. Never really looked into it that well.
I know Jupiter's Europa is a strange son of a gun though. No telling what lurks beneath (Or on)its icy shell.
Here's a link to some great images of of the Jovian Moons if you'ld like to check them out.

[url] www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/images.html [/url]

jeremy:
"if someone can show me an image to where I can see the individual lines of stone blocks..."

rhw:
How about a ring? A perfect circular ring around a 'crater hole' that has NO visible bottom?

I challenge anyone to find another crater anywhere on Mars, much less Cydonia or even the Moon that is about 100 yards across and with the sun shinning nearly directly INTO it, you STILL cannot see the bottom of.

Anomalous? Absolutely! Artificial? I think so, do you or anyone else?

The Smoking Pyramid of Cydonia:

makeashorterlink.com/?Y2CA2680
members.tripod.com/rhw007/csc_2001/smoki...ramid_of_cydonia.htm

I'm off to work for a day or so...I'll check back.

PS: Hey Bullitt ;-{)

Let's taunt a Billionaire to Mars ! ! ! Beats Begging.

Think out there act down here... NOW ! ! ! Have YOU ??

Give a High School kid a reason to care...a spacewalk.
Teach 'em a lesson in teamwork.
Teach 'em a lesson in humanity.

Bob... ;-{)

members.tripod.com/rhw007/

communities.msn.com/JPLMarsExploration

home.thirdage.com/Teaching/rhw007/index.html
<img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle>