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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's not necessarily "my" criteria, but rather the criteria of the human eye. When Larry said:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another reasonable person might conclude that even though it is an interesting image it is, most likely, an illusion of one sort or another. That same reasonable person would withhold judgement until additional evidence was available. LB<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's very true. I think most "reasonable" people would conclude they can't quite be sure about that. Not quite. Regardless of what they think it is.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps this subject is not so important as I would like to think it is. Yes......I think this maybe the case.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> It might be. For instance, if that thing really is a statue, just like it looks like it might be, all hell would break loose. Just like you always thought.

But I do think you finally understand what we're saying, anyway. At least now you appear ready to conclude it "might not be" what you first thought it was, just like we've been saying all along "sure it might be" but we can't really be sure.

If I were you, I'd probably do something along the lines of what Neil did in his "Faces in the Chasma" topic, where he laid out his finds systematically, and pretty much said phooey to anyone who didn't think they were artworks. He was flat-out sure they were.

rd

Fred brought up a good point. If we use the "feature counting method" the thinker girl isn't really all that elaborate. It's compelling though because aside from her two legs, right arm, head, shoulders, hair and eye, I also seem to be seeing hiking boots on her feet!

And anyway, the feature counting method isn't really the final say about the issue, because there appears to be a fatal flaw in it. As demonstrated by Morty the Snowman:


While this only has a handful of [woefully simplistic] features, I can't imagine a scenario where even an alien mind concluded that this formed naturally.

We have yet to come to grips with the significance of this.

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 />1. Try to find a plausible explanation that could culminate in the possibility that this in NOT an alien concoction and is somehow a natural phenomenon?

2. Try to get one's head around the probable fact that we have a 30 meter high alien rendition of a half human....half "something" that seems to be perched on a rather strange backdrop.

Would there be a third alternative?

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The third alternative is the hardest one, but the one that would have the most success convincing mainstream scientists. It's Greg Orme's suggestion, which incidentally is the exact opposite of Number 1:

3. Try to find a plausible explanation that could culminate in the probability that this COULD NOT have been formed the same way as the surrounding landscape.

Using Number 3 would be the most difficult, but the mainstream scientific community would be forced to address it, so it has the greatest chance of success.

I think it would be a most difficult task, because for the most part, it looks to me, like it is very similar to the surrounding landscape, albeit shaped like a girl statue sitting on the ledge.

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 />Ten similar images are worth less than the first one all by itself when supported by 'other evidence'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think this is where Neil lost me. He started to do exactly what JP Levasseur warned against, by publishing all manner of lesser images. It started to raise a reaction in me that could best be expressed:

<i>Wait a stinkin' minute here!</i>

rd

It all points to individual interpretation. We see our prejudice. This all points to solipsism to me- but that is my prejudice. We and what we see are one.

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.

LB [/quote]

Larry, I understand your point here very well. There are difficulties to overcome however, the main one being resolution. As it has been mentioned here earlier, resolution seems to be the litmus test for many. For me though, while this is somewhat important it is not the absolute. It is important for me to try and explain this. The human eye in each of us works very different in how the the information is received and thus processed by the brain, (you touched on this expansive subject earlier on the is thread). I have found, that when working close up to high magnification, one can train one's eye to adjust for the seemingly blurriness of the pixel degradation. I have a name to this technique - "seeing through the blur" or STB. I understand a similar technique was used in assessing remote viewing capabilities some years back.

Anyway, I have employed this and by my own reckoning (awful to say so), and have found my eyes have adjusted quite well. It really is quite astounding to note what "can be seen" with the human eye once the brain is "tuned in". However, I have been told this is not for everyone, some can, some can't....it's that simple.

Anyway let's give it a try and see how many rejections I can dig up!

In the link below, I have produced a high resolution 3D video with a close proximity boundary of the red/cyan colors for close up viewing of a region which is located in Hebes Chasma. It is roughly two miles down from the rim along the south facing wall about midway along the Chasma. The first part of the video indicates the specific location.

The region shows one of the most remarkable areas (IMO) on the Martian surface and here you will see what I believe are some intriguing artificial structures. I won't go into this too much right now but let me leave you with this -

In the escapement, which covers a good 1km in width here, are some vertical buttresses which I have mentioned in earlier posts. In other words, for want of a different definition, they are quasi "cliffs".

Please take the time to adjust your eyes as best possible towards their "visual vertical construction" and then see if you can make out anything unusual here. If I am correct, we may have the evidence you are asking about.

ALSO, this is important, while you can view the video though the native Google player, (the quality is badly degraded) it is almost imperative to download it (2 Gigs) and view with the Windows Media player.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B--tam0uh-oiQWJ...bWM/view?usp=sharing

Malcolm Scott