My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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>
<br />From [Astrobiology: The Origins of Life and the Death of Darwinism] 2001. "Contrary to Darwinism ... the evidence now clearly indicates, that the evolution of life had been genetically predetermined and precoded..."

<ul>Intelligent Design?

OK, I'm skeptical, but open to the concept. My first comment is that ANY competent third year undergraduate engineer could run circles around whoever is responsible for the design of the human body.

I'm not a huge fan of Darwin or his original theories, but the base line concept of BLIND evolution looks to me to be the way things are.</ul>***


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Hmmm. It's been 10 years or so since I read "Astrobiology" but I don't remember leaving it equating him with the Intelligent Design (Creationism) people. I also read "The Transmitter to God : The Limbic System, the Soul, and Spirituality" and found it to be pretty far out there, but not in the sense that science fiction is, or religious doctrine for that matter.

My take on him was that he's coming from the idea that the universe is littered with "Life" and "DNA" and that it rained down on the Earth in the early years of the Earth's formation. If my memory serves me, the implication is that the current form of our DNA didn't evolve here on Earth but came here from outer space in its evolved form. If he's really saying "God did it, and then it rained down on Earth" well then I could be giving him more credit than he deserves, but that's not how I remember it.

I'd have to read it again to have an intelligent discussion about it, though. My main point on this issue was more that this is someone who could really be a "monkey in the wrench" (to quote Bruce Willis in Die Hard) at JPL regarding the mysterious rock.

Look at it this way. He was in a list of Neil's Apocryphal Scientists. As was TVF. Does that mean he was right? No, but in Neil's view, he was in some pretty good company.





rd

Malcolm, I don't know if you realized who this was, but you just got one hell of a heavy weight on your side. Woo Hoo!

rd
[/quote]

Yes, he's a facinating chap and has a complicated but somewhat myopic view on social life.

Here's a link to his analysis of Martian fungus etc etc....

cosmology.com/LifeOnMars.html

Malcolm Scott

How is the law suit against NASA going? Haven't heard any news for a month or so. You guys are getting a lot of mileage out the rock mystery and maybe the courts can embellish the story to movie scale. Or not-don't you permission from uncle Sam to sue the govt?

One of the most interesting possible artifacts found on Mars to date was Parrotopia, discovered by Wil Faust in 2001. Here's the report:

parrotopia.org/The-Paper.php

This is the main legend image from the paper:


You can see the three components of this location. "C" is the parrot, "B" is the network of structures (i.e., "City") and the area marked "A" is defined as "An Adjacent Landform."

One day on these message boards a poster by the name of starjim mentioned that his wife thought she saw a baby on the north bank. After studying the raw data ( www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m13_m18/images/M14/M1402185.html ), I produced three images north of the city, and posted them on both starjim's website (under the pseudonym "LofPisa") and here on this site, and named it "The Guardian". So, technically, I didn't "re-crop" anyone's image, I searched the surrounding area, as is frequently done, and used my own brand of processing to come up with the Guardian, an image that up to that point was unknown.

The Guardian:


These three elements: The Parrot, The City, and The Guardian offer up one of the best possible opportunities for confirmation or non-confirmation of a so-called artifact on Mars that I know of. Next to Nefertiti, I can't imagine another Mars Location as important in the AOH Debate.

From MOC M1402185, with minor histogram adjustment.


While studying the HiRise Suggestion Database, I noticed that Keith Laney put in an excellent suggestion location for this area of Mars. Note the white box is Keith's suggestion, and the blue box is MOC M1402185. The Suggestion ID is 59392 dated Apr 4, 2011. As you can see from this image, HiRise has still not done this suggested site, since there would be a red box. The nearest Red box is HiRISE Observation ESP_014312_1320 and it's significantly far away that it serves no purpose with respect to Parrotopia.

Keith Laney's Suggestion 59392


So, here we have another example of JPL refusing to do an image that would go a long way towards ending the debate. Like the Nefertiti location, this one would have devastating impacts one way or the other. Now, if I was conspiratorially inclined, I might start to conclude one of two things:

1. Either JPL knows what these look like and doesn't want us to know, or...
2. They would prefer to have the controversy continue.

Of course, the non-conspiratorial viewpoint might be that they just don't give a rat's pitooty about any of it.

One other note of significance on this location is that all three elements cast a shadow, so they are most certainly three dimensional, and not merely two-dimensional profiles.

rd

Thought you guys might be interested in Face/ Cloud recognition system in case you haven't seen it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330441...-passing-clouds.html

<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 />Thought you guys might be interested in Face/ Cloud recognition system in case you haven't seen it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330441...-passing-clouds.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Interesting, Fred. I find it amazing that this whole idea is still in its infancy.

rd