My pareidolia knows no bounds.

So, to sum up what the point I was trying to make, the original find of "Skullface" represented an extraordinary number of details in the mind of the discoverers (read what the two doctors had to say). And if you've read the details and then you were open to sitting there and gazing at it, you too would see most of them. It was incredible. It was almost impossible to believe it was anything but artificial. When I first studied it, I was pretty convinced it was artificial.

Then we got a HiRise image of the same scene and the collective balloon popped and the air could be heard hissing out of the AOH. A number of people just sort of disappeared from the scene. Looking at the new HiRise images, one couldn't help but realize it was all hooey.

It stands today (using the original MOC image strips) as one of the most amazing example of a pareidolic scene ever found, on Mars or anywhere.

So when we say Boot Girl is "simple" in comparison, it shouldn't be too hard to see why we might say that, and why we might not be blown away by it.

Now, if we can get another higher resolution of The Statue with Boots , and see laces on the boots or something, and clearly see that the image is enhanced by higher resolution, that would go a long way towards being real proof of artificiality.

As it stands though, it's not really much of anything.

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 />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
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I spent a good hour on this (downloaded/mediaplayer and all). I'm pretty sure I see what you're talking about. Here's a screen shot at 9 minutes or so into the video.

Tell me if this is an example of what you're talking about. I guess you're thinking it's "ruins" or something along those lines (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I can see why you might think that, and who knows maybe it is artificial. But I'm reminded of something Lawrence Krauss Ph.D ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss )said during the times he was debating Michael Behe over the issue of intelligent design:

"Just because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean God did it."

In my opinion Malcolm is doing the same thing. Instead of leaving it at "I don't know what it is", he's merely replacing "God" with "Intelligent Life". Why not just stop at, "We don't know what those honeycombs are?" (but maybe we can find out, no?)

Video Timestamp 09:08:



rd

As it stands though, it's not really much of anything.

rd
[/quote]

Well we could debate these two image comparisons until the cow's come home and I don't think we will be any further along. From your perspective, you have decided, indeed nominated the Skull head image as your "controller" for <i>all</i> things found on Mars which appear to you now as Pareidolia in one form or another and, I would even go as far as saying this IS your conviction no matter what. Fair enough, I can accept your premise. I will add though, I believe this will only maintain a "box like" periphery which will inhibit further scientific research of Mars. I sense this here and, I also sense your need for this boundary.

The scientific method requires one to continue to test and explore, to ask, for example "if" these are ruins in the image above and how can we test and hypothesize the <i>if</i>.

It is counter intuitive to merely state well "it is what it is". We need to "test"...to "prod" and then to speculate, after all, this <i>is</i> what makes us human.

So let's take a look at these so called "ruins" and see what we can see....

Malcolm Scott

I've loaded here an additional shot of the same video but some moments earlier. This has considerably better resolution.

As it's getting late here I need to retire so when you have a moment, take a look at this image again and let's analyse it a tad more and hopefully Larry will join in, I'd like to get his opinion also if he has the time.

I'll follow up tomorrow.

[/URL]

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 />

I've loaded here an additional shot of the same video but some moments earlier. This has considerably better resolution. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, I recognize this from moments earlier, as you're first arriving at these structures. I'm not so sure you see more here though. Seems like you can see the honeycomb structure on the wall faces better in the other one. Anyway, what I said about this already still stands. I wouldn't hang all my hopes on this being artificial.

Instead of crossing the Rubicon of your "threshold", why not contact HiRise (it's pretty easy to figure out how to do that) and see if you can get some actual scientific opinion as to what these structures (2 miles down a massive gorge in Mars) actually are, instead of assuming they are something that's going to further your theory.

Then once you know what they are supposed to be, you can move forward with your argument from there (a la Greg Orme).





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 /> From your perspective, you have decided, indeed nominated the Skull head image as your "controller" for <i>all</i> things found on Mars which appear to you now as Pareidolia in one form or another and, I would even go as far as saying this IS your conviction no matter what. Fair enough, I can accept your premise. I will add though, I believe this will only maintain a "box like" periphery which will inhibit further scientific research of Mars. I sense this here and, I also sense your need for this boundary.

The scientific method requires one to continue to test and explore, to ask, for example "if" these are ruins in the image above and how can we test and hypothesize the <i>if</i>. Malcolm <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Instead of getting hung up on what you think are the relative merits of Skullface over any other image, look at it conceptually.

Wouldn't you admit that the story behind the so-called Skullface Escarpment as told by it's founders is radically more complex than anything you've showed us up to date? It's not about me, it's about the finder's view of what it is. If something this complex could be rendered meaningless with one additional image don't you think it's possible that Boot Lady could disappear in a heartbeat at higher resolution?

Additionally, you talk about "hypothesizing" and the "scientific method", but in all honesty, while I agree you are hypothesizing til the cows come home, I see no sign at all of any scientific method in your posts.

We keep trying to drag you (kicking and screaming) into approaching this in a more scientific fashion, like for instance starting from what it's <b><i>supposed to be, according to the specialists at NASA/JPL/UofA</i></b> but so far you seem to want to do anything BUT that.

[I won't be around to answer for most of the rest of today and tomorrow. Have fun.]

rd