The implications of finding absolute proof.

<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 />
1. What is this terrain? (Along the cliffside in Hebes Chasma - MARS)
2. How do the JPL people describe it? (They arn't and are probably unaware of it)
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Let me try just one question.

What is the description that goes with the image strip where you found this? Can you post the image number and link? Usually there is a scientific reason for each image acquisition.

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 />I'm not saying you are wrong.

I am saying you have shown us no convincing evidence.

***

As far as proof is concerned ...

<b>[Malcolm]"I have never said that I have absolute proof."</b>

... we should talk about evidence first.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Larry, I am not trying to <i>convince</i> you or any other member here. The evidence is what it is. All I am asking is that this strange artifact be evaluated in the context of <u>my</u> questions, they are reasonable questions I think.

And so you replied No. Nothing of significance. That being the case, my questions I guess, are null and void.

I am starting to get the idea that everything and anything that I post will be met with the same "insignificance" response.

Now what should that tell me?


1. Here we have an image of a strange looking artifact I discovered on Mars which, by all accounts looks to be artificial and in my reckoning, has tremendous significance, anything less, would be unscientific and irresponsible not to acknowledge it as such.

2. If the response is NO nothing significant - then.

3. Either this site has been advised to debunk any and all findings presented or,

4. We are all in denial.

True, at this point, you only have my word that this thing was found on Mars I grant you that this needs to be rectified.

The artifact can be found in Catalog ESP_013772_1795_ESP_022910_1795_RED JP2

Available:

http://hirise pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/ANAGLYPH/ESP/ORB_013700_013799/ESP_013772_1795_ESP_022910_1795/

Malcolm Scott

What is the description that goes with the image strip where you found this? Can you post the image number and link?

rd
[/quote]

Please see reply to Larry

Malcolm Scott

<b>[Malcolm] "... at this point, you only have my word that this thing was found on Mars ..."</b>

If I had been walking down the street and saw a hard copy of this picture on the ground, my first thought would have been "someone dropped a Mars photo".

<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 />Please see reply to Larry

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Malcolm, this is what I was talking about. Take a look at this. It's the suggestion site for that image strip ESP_013772_1795.

www.uahirise.org/hiwish/view/35006

Anyone who makes a suggestion at HiRise, has to give a scientific justification for the image. I had to make one up for mine since "Profile Girl" wasn't really going to cut it with the people at JPL. Note at the bottom it says:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Primary Theme: Geologic Contacts/Stratigraphy</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Now here is the <b>Main Theme Page for Geologic Contacts and Stratigraphy </b>. There are 111 pages! (2,203 images)

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/science_themes/geologic_contacts_1.php

What I was driving at with my six questions was simply an attempt to explore the actual reason for the image and what the scientists think this stuff is. Since it's a main theme that has 111 pages of image captures, it's obviously something that some scientists know a hell of a lot about.

Greg Orme used to recommend that those who make claims of Artificiality, should try a different approach: Show that it's inconsistent with what it's supposed to be. In other words, prove that it couldn't be natural.

That's no easy task, and I'm not saying it would be easy, but in this case there appears to be a lot to work with using normal channels.

You have to remember that there have been numerous posters over the years on this board, who were basically saying, "Hey, look at this, I think it looks artificial." Which is meaningless for a number of reason, the least of which is that it never looks artificial to anyone else.

Also, if you Google it you find a lot about "Stratigraphy". Here's two such examples:

www.geologyclass.org/evolution_concepts2.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(stratigraphy)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy

rd

<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 />
3. Either this site has been advised to debunk any and all findings presented or,

4. We are all in denial.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I for one don't do "debunking" for the Government. And I always thought De Nile was a river in Egypt.

rd