My pareidolia knows no bounds.

I'll tell you this much, Malcolm. That's one wild and crazy landscape.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Unless it is a picture of a shovel. LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think that's where you and I are in total agreement. I think no matter how we came into this subject, that seems to be where we ended up.

rd

<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 />Malcolm,

I hope I have convinced you that I have an open mind.

But you need to know that I really will not be convinced by a pretty picture. Unless it is a picture of a shovel.

***

This is similar to my expectation that God will have to come out of His closet. If She expects me to 'believe'.

BTW, you never did answer me when I asked if you know the difference between belief and faith.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Larry, I understand and we share a similar skeptical approach. Nowadays though, I am quite comfortable with the reality of the existence of life on Mars, so now I look for indications as to their "nature". In this arena things get really strange. A friend of mine recently asked how easy is it for others to see what I have found. I replied, "well the Scientist will not see too much as they need to measure everything, the architect will see more in terms of geometric s, the theologian will immediately quote scripture, and the musician will see considerably more for he has the benefit of both audio and visual vibrations, and the imbecile will see everything and then promptly regain his sanity"!

Sorry about not getting back on those two questions. In my opinion, to <i>believe</i> is to search for a faith and <i>faith</i> is when you have found what it is you are searching for. Both powerful subjective realities.

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 rderosa</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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />If you haven't done so, you might want to download this file yourself as well as the anaglyph on the same page.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Malcolm, yes I am more than willing to download and look at any image you want, but I have to ask you to tell me what I'm looking for.

Look at it this way. We've essentially been looking at this stuff for 10 years or so (with breaks) and have debated it over and over in fifteen different ways. If I just look at something without knowing what and why I'm looking at, it quickly devolves into pareidolia-soup (modern) for me. I see faces the exact same way I see faces in the trees and shadows. So, if I see a face, my first inclination is always going to be: pareidolia.

Don't fall into the trap of speaking in riddles. Trinket used to post a lot of interesting stuff, but you could never get a straight answer from him. Everything he wrote was couched in mystery as if there was some great truth, but when we asked him what that great truth was, he either replied with another riddle or another mystery or a phrase that (I suspect) he thought made something obvious but never did.

If you have evidence of something by all means we want to see it. I know I certainly do. But you have to tell me, in very exact terms, what I'm looking at, and what you think the implications are. Just lay it on the line. Even if I don't agree with your interpretation you have every right to say: <b>This is what I think it is. This is what I think it means. </b> Otherwise, for me it's going to turn into:

Been there done that...rapidly.

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

Rich, I get your point here and do agree that in order to evaluate evidence, there needs to be a defined analysis between all parties so that we can address the findings with as much professional handling as conceivably possible.

Now here comes the difficulty.

Like I have said previously, my whole formulation in evaluating the question of life on Mars was decidedly different than what I was seeing elsewhere. What I did was place the cart in front of the horse so to speak, in the sense that I made a decision that life must be present on the planet, now what I needed to do was to find the evidence. This allowed me to approach the images WITHOUT preconceived notions that life does NOT exist and I was to be then proven wrong. This mindset reworked my human chauvinism which allowed me to step outside the limitations one places of;
it must be something I can recognize to, it will be something I will probably NOT recognize. To a degree, this is somewhat along the lines of Bayesian conceptual thinking.

Rich, there is much so see here and it will take a lot of will power to present the findings. To begin with, the alien life both present and past (so it appears) see things very differently from humans. This to me has become very evident in their renditions (artwork for want of a better word). So, in order to evaluate their reality, we must try to deal with this matter first.

I will try to explain.

There is overwhelming evidence that the alien on Mars uses or operates in an additional dimension(s). We experience things (on a typical daily existence) in height, width and depth and we interact within the process of time. Anything outside these three(4) dimensions, we would probably not even notice. This in essence, is what I term human chauvinism - quite naturally so.

So, in order to experience their handy work, one must try to overcome the limitation of these three dimensions. As I introduce new evidence, this paradox with become more evident so please be patient.

In some ways, I have retrained my geometric mind sight and can describe this in an example. Imagine standing directly in front of your living room couch. Of course you will see the couch in three dimensions in front of you. Now close one eye and the sense of depth disappears and becomes only two dimensional. That being so however, in your mind you can still see the couch in 3D but this is only in your mind. In reality, your vision is only seeing 2 dimensions. Now, take four steps to one side where the end of the couch becomes visible. Now you can see the couch in far greater 3D because now you see it with a perspective view.

Now the evidence which I observe on Mars seems to suggest that the alien must have the capability to see both the couch from standing directly in front as well as the perspective view and can do so WITHOUT taking for steps to one side.

Once we understand this additional dimension, AND one accepts that life is present, things really start to take on a new and exciting phase.

I will try to keep things as simple as possible and use image clippings, but there may be quite a few so I hope there are no quantity limitations. BTW, 3D glasses are mandatory!

Malcolm Scott

Malcolm, I'm a little confused about something. I went back and read all your posts in the Topics you started in the Artificial Structures on Mars Forum.

In your very first Topic, "Ancient Mural Complex on Mars", where you introduced yourself, you talk about an epiphany you had while viewing some of these image strips. As I read, I was anxious to see what led to that epiphany, specifically. I have to tell you, I was somewhat dumbfounded when the topic just stopped on Page 2.

As I saw no signs of ridicule or any significant roadblocks put in front of you, I don't understand why you never said: "Look at this. [image posted] This is what caused the epiphany. This is what I think it is."

I continued to read the rest of the topics you started, and in "The Alien mind and the power of ridicule" you started off with an in depth discussion of "ridicule." While I'm very familiar with the use of ridicule in the political sphere, I saw no sign of it in any of the Topics you had started up to that point. So, that too was somewhat confusing to me.

I would like to repost something I posted after watching your 17 minute 3D video here:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Malcolm, I watched the video in 1080p HD. I was definitely locked in to 3D, and it's really amazing landscape, rich in contrast and topography changes. <b>I have no real sense of what it is particularly that you are trying to show, though. rd</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have to ask you again, what in particular are you trying to show in that 17 minute video? It's important that I know that before I can go on to the next thing. Is it just because it's such an interesting landscape/topography? Or is there something in it that you can point to that supports your case for artificial origins? I downloaded both JP2 files you suggested, but I'm not inclined to do anything with them until you tell me what you think they show.

On a different point, one of the things I could never convince Neil to do was to consider the evidence of elaborate pareidolia, as demonstrated by Fred's artwork (photographs) of faces in the shadows. Neil at one point actually insinuated that they might be forgeries or fakes. In other words, he refused to consider them. Fred and I were somewhat baffled by that. Why would anyone refuse to see them and factor them into what you're seeing on the Martian landscape? Isn't that the exact same thing (in reverse) the AOH Advocates are saying about the Pareidolia camp?

On numerous occasions, I've used the term (that I coined) "pareidolia soup." I believe Tom gave some technical substance to it along the way. It has to do with scenes that are rich in contrast and loaded with features with varying reflectivity, brightness, contrast, content, etc. At one point, I worked on trying to find a mathematical explanation that defines pareidolia soup, and started to make some headway, but moved away from it without a real conclusion. I'm thinking of seeing if I can find that again, and try to update it. It's an important aspect of this whole debate. If a scene is flat and plain, like a sandy beach with no contrast changes and in the middle of it there's an elaborate image of a man's head and face, that is way more powerful than anything you might pull out of a scene of pareidolia soup where faces are a dime a dozen.

You said you read this whole topic at one point. Did you? Do you remember all the discussion on this subject? I'm just wondering, I know there was a lot to absorb here, but I'm trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel.

I would also like to re-iterate my suggestion that you do something along the lines that Neil did with the "Faces in the Chasma" Topic, where, without consideration of what any of us thought about it, he methodically presented everything he thought was evidence, made "Keys" so that there was no doubt what he was showing and like it or not, he moved on until he posted everything he wanted to post. If we had something to say along the way, we said it, but nothing deterred him from continuing to make his case.

I strongly recommend you do one more Topic, and make it your Magnum Opus, if you will. Go easy on the long videos though. That's asking a lot of us. Even a 17 minute video is a lot of time to spend if we don't know what we're looking for. A 40+ minute video is an eternity, something I rarely ever do. [Although I did recently watch a 55 minute video on "The Led Zeppelin Story" which was fascinating.] To me it makes much more sense if you really zero in on the particular features that you think most likely shows "intelligent design" as it pertains to Mars. If there's any doubt what the scene shows, maybe add a "key" here or there. Then move on to the next one. Telling us in narrative what you believe, or what you've experienced doesn't quite get there, unless you can say, "look at this, it's a [fill the blanks], here is the image and here is the key."

I can practically guarantee you that there will be no ridicule, but there is liable to be a lot of "I don't think so." That's somethng you have to expect, especially if the pareidolia camp is correct, because as I've said on numerous occasions, paridolia (all) is a personal experience. You see what you know.
rd

Malcolm, our last two messages crossed. So it will take a little time for each of us to absorb the latest message and respond to them since they are not linear (my latest isn't a response to your latest and vice versa).

rd