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 rderosa</i>
<br />
She is a good one, though. rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We're just one order of magnitude away, in terms of resolution, from putting this issue to rest once and for all.

With 3cm/p instead of 30cm/p, it would be like taking pictures at your company picnic. You'd see the feature clear as day. This would be an excellent candidate to end the debate (along with roadrunner and Profile Girl).

My suspicion, of course, is that it would validate the title of this topic. That it would get Skullfaced.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that Levasseur et al used the old MOC images of Skullface in their latest report without mentioning the devastatig blow HiRise dealt that anomaly.

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 />Just so you know chaps, there's much more to this than meets the eye and I have a theory...it's a pretty loaded one though. Perhaps I better wait.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You do realize this changes nothing, don't you? We're still below the threshold of irrefutable proof. So while it's an interesting find, it could end up being devastating to you.

rd

<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 />Just so you know chaps, there's much more to this than meets the eye and I have a theory...it's a pretty loaded one though. Perhaps I better wait.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You do realize this changes nothing, don't you? We're still below the threshold of irrefutable proof. So while it's an interesting find, it could end up being devastating to you.

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

As I said above, this does not, by itself constitute irrefutable proof. But you see Rich, I have the added benefit of discovering many similar signatures along these same lines and some that are even <i>not</i> along the same line. So in some ways, this is a tester for you and may be even Larry.

The penultimate question here is as simple as it is devilishly complicated; is there intelligence behind its presence?

We could address this by saying....no and then proceed to fortify this view point. Conversely, we could say...perhaps, and try to understand if this were the case, where could this lead us.

The theologian (for example) would say, no - unnecessary!

The Scientist would say, yes - as this approach would be consistent with the scientific method!

The latter would seem logical, but to do so, would mean stepping over the threshold and into the realm of the cognitive dissonance.

At this point, I sense an impasse in your comment <i>"You do realize this changes nothing, don't you?"</i> so, if we are to move forward in this inconceivable task, if I may, reword this my friend because clearly, this <i>has</i> changed something albeit inconclusive...of course.

If and when you are ready, we can take a look at more evidence and you may begin to see a signature. If and when this happens, something wonderful will happen and it is an experience, I promise you, will be like no other you have experienced in you life thus far. The choice is for you to make, no one can make that decision but you.

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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />At this point, I sense an impasse in your comment <i>"You do realize this changes nothing, don't you?"</i> so, if we are to move forward in this inconceivable task, if I may, reword this my friend because clearly, this <i>has</i> changed something albeit inconclusive...of course.Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ahhh! Finally, you have arrived at a point where I think we can make progress in understanding each other. You should have showed us this a long time ago, as it would have saved all of us a lot of confusion.

I'm going to say this slowly and deliberately (figuratively speaking, of course) and I would appreciate if you do <b>NOT</b> change the subject and you stay with this until we are sure we've finished with it. Deal?

OK, are you ready?

<b><i>THIS CHANGES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!</i></b> It does <b>NOT </b> alter my thinking one iota. This is what we've been trying to tell you for what, a year now? This is no different in quality than a 100 other so-called anomalies we've seen, from "The Roadrunner", to "Nefertiti", to "Easter Island Man", to "Parrotopia", to "The Guardian", and on and on.

And this part is absolutely crucial for you to understand. It's <b>NOT </b> because it isn't compelling. Yes, it's compelling, just like the others I mentioned. They are so compelling that, in my mind, any one of them could resolve the debate, and I've said so numerous times, if only we could see them just a little bit better. One order of magnitude on imaging, or by going there.

It's compelling in that one looks at it and is forced to ask the fundamental question I started this topic on. In fact, this find of yours is a good example of why I started this topic with the following question:

<b>Can pareidolia (modern) REALLY be that elaborate.</b>

This question has been at the heart of the debate we've been having here since 2004. It is the fundamental question at the heart of the debate of "pareidolia" vs "artificiality". Everyone whose ever posted here has weighed in on it.

I say: <b><i>Yes, it can be that elaborate.</i></b> Fred agrees. Others have agreed. Zip and Neil and others have disagreed. It is still <b><i>THE </i></b> over arching question. You obviously think: NO, it can't be.

We understand that.

More to come, but I want to leave it at that for now, until you comment on this.

One other point on this quote:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Can pareidolia (modern) REALLY be that elaborate.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not only do I say, yes it can be that elaborate, I say, given the right mix of spacial resolution, <b><i>pareidolia has no bounds.</i></b>
rd

Rich, I have mis-directed you here and I blame myself for not wording my posts more effectively.

God no...I do NOT want to change the way you think - not one bit. My thrust here...indeed my platform is and will have continued to be (moving the question of pareidolia to a temporary sideline) simply put is; "is it possible to evaluate or otherwise to explore IF there is a non-human intelligence in-bedded in these artifacts by means of the scientific method?" That's all.

In my post above, I incorrectly brought into the discussion what could happen if this threshold was stepped over, I guess due to my desire to explain my personal experience. This was inappropriate of me lacking the empathy as was needed.

As there are many discoveries I have landed upon but none, I'm afraid, will match your criteria for resolution parameters. So they say; that is that.

Perhaps at this point, it will be for others to assess but sadly the reality is, there are none who are willing to step forward, at least not in this forum.

Perhaps this subject is not so important as I would like to think it is. Yes......I think this maybe the case.

I cannot think of anything now further to say.

Malcolm Scott

<b>[Marsevidence01] "... is it possible to ... explore IF there is a non-human intelligence in-bedded [sic] in these artifacts by means of the scientific method?"</b>

Of course. Show us an alleged artifact. Then show us additional evidence about this specific 'artifact' that reveals why the adjective 'alleged' is inappropriate.

Keep in mind that opinions are like *ssh*l*s. We all have one. What we really want to see is your other evidence. And while images do count as evidence (in a technical sense), more usually equals less. Ten similar images are worth less than the first one all by itself when supported by 'other evidence'.

UNLESS there is something about one of the others that is *qualitatively* different.