<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 />If you've ... concluded that the extensive detail drastically put the odds in favor of artificiality, does the addition of more images in the area, of the same style and form, enhance or detract from your conclusion of artificiality?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Back when all we had was the Viking images of the Face, SPSR listed eight tests for artificiality. These tests included such thigs as scanning the area with militray software programmed to find man-made objects hidden by natural camouflage, which makes the search objective and not subject to any "brain hard-wiring". The Cydonia Face, of course, gave a reading of "probably artificial" by the software.
Another of the eight tests was other artifacts in proximity, because a single artifact seems especially pointless, whereas a complex suggests purposefulness, even if we can't guess what that purpose might have been. So additional artifacts in the vicinity has been regarded from the outset as a pro-artifact finding; whereas isolation is somewhat anti-artifact.
I notice that these latest messages have once again blurred the distinction between the two different reasons we examine these images. Some of us are still looking for that first example of conclusive artificiality. Those people need not bother looking at any of these secondary images because most of these are not persuasive to anyone not already at least partially persuaded of artificiality elsewhere. And it is both natural and obvious for anyone unconvinced that anything on Mars is artificial to conclude that all these additional, lower-quality examples merely bring into question the standards of other viewers. So defending the artificiality of lower-quality features is pointless.
OTOH, for those who are persuaded by at least one of the major anomalies on Mars that at least one anomaly is artificial, that instantly changes the picture. Where there is one artifact, there are sure to be others. With one sure artifact, the burden of proof shifts. For that first artifact, very strong evidence is required. But given one artifact, the second and later examples do not require any special level of proof. The question for all anomalies after the first definite artifact is merely "Which appears more probably, an accident of nature or another artifact?" For a secondary anomaly, even a 51% to 49% split in the probability of artificial over natural origin is enough to seriously consider the anomaly -- NOT as another example supporting artificiality, but as another example of purpose or function, helping us piece together what all this means.
Those of you who haven't yet seen your first convincing artifact will need to forgive those of us who have, while we ponder the meaning and implications of all this. And the two groups will not successfully communicate, but will only aggravate one another, if they do not recognize which of the two reasons for examining Mars images the writer is involved with -- first proof of artificiality or later evidence of functionality. Many of the examples in this thread are in the latter category, but are being mistaken as in the former. -|Tom|-
