My pareidolia knows no bounds.

I found a pair of 3D glasses a year or so ago at a comic store in the same town I live in now, so I may get lucky. If not I'll get the clipons from Amazon.

I just downloaded HiView. I think they no longer support the online version, but you can still download the program. What I like about it is it has a neat little feature that allows you to crop wiht a setting of 1:1, and get small pieces of the big file while still retaining original resolution without ever having to open the whole image to 100% which as I'm sure you realize is totally unmanageable.

Rich,

My point in asking both Zip Monster and you the question I asked was - what do you/others know about the image in question that prompts you to <u>claim</u> the photo in question suggests artificiality rather than (some sort of) natural origin.

Since both photos are know to be of objects on Earth, one obvious answer is 'They are photos of objects known to be on Earth'.

We all know that there are beings on Earth capable of producing such sculptures.

For photos from somewhere other than Earth, what else about the image would lead you make the claim of artificiality?

***

Rich's inquiries about resolution, if answered, would be useful in this regard. IMO.

Such knowledge of photos of known non-terrestrial scenes seems to me to be pertinent to this investigation. Especially if/when compared to photos of terrestrial scenes.



LB

<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 />Rich,

My point in asking both Zip Monster and you the question I asked was - what do you/others know about the image in question that prompts you to <u>claim</u> the photo in question suggests artificiality rather than (some sort of) natural origin.

...
For photos from somewhere other than Earth, what else about the image would lead you make the claim of artificiality?

***

Rich's inquiries about resolution, if answered, would be useful in this regard. IMO.

Such knowledge of photos of known non-terrestrial scenes seems to me to be pertinent to this investigation. Especially if/when compared to photos of terrestrial scenes.
LB<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Larry, yes this is the fundamental question, and the one Tom tried to steer us into. As it turns out, it's easier said than done.

I approached it from a totally different direction than answering this question directly in this Topic, because I already knew Neil and I were arguing over this very thing as it pertained to Mars (non-terrestrial) images, and it didn't appear to have a ready answer.

I did find though, that understanding (exactly) what sizes and resolutions we were dealing with put some perspective on it, and gave us ways to make logical comparisons. I'm basically saying that as we only see a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, perhaps there's a size and resolution range that most makes sense to us visually. Or something along those lines.


rd

I just downloaded HiView. I think they no longer support the online version, but you can still download the program. What I like about it is it has a neat little feature that allows you to crop wiht a setting of 1:1, and get small pieces of the big file while still retaining original resolution without ever having to open the whole image to 100% which as I'm sure you realize is totally unmanageable.
[/quote]

Rich, here is the link so you can download the image file from my Drive folder. The image is 816mb:

drive.google.com/file/d/0B--tam0uh-oidkp...LVk/edit?usp=sharing

Btw. I recomennd you install Irfanview as you can also save cropped sections with ease in 1:1

www.irfanview.com/

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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />

For photos from somewhere other than Earth, what else about the image would lead you make the claim of artificiality? LB

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

Larry, there is a very interesting discussion of this subject on this page of Neil's "Faces" Topic, between Marsrocks, Myself, Greg Orme, Jrich and Neil.

metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=872&whichpage=19

Towards the middle of the page starting under the image of the Oldowan artifacts that Neil posted.

It pretty much covers the subject, and Orme's take on it is that the only real mathematical/scientific way to do it is by <b>disproving natural origins.</b>

I think the five or so messages under the Oldowan artifacts image pretty much covers what we came up with. I was going to copy it here, but it started to get too long.

rd

Here is a message copied from "Faces"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</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 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 marsrocks</i>
<br />The problem with trying to negate nature to prove artificiality is twofold:

First, I have come to believe that almost any form can be created by nature. ...............

Second, there are differences in Mars geology, so everything else goes into the category of unknown or not yet to be explained by Mars' unique geological history.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">marsrocks, notwithstanding your objections (they are good ones), the more I think about it, the more I can see what gorme is getting at. By attempting to negate the natural origins explanations in the geological papers he mentions (assuming one could find one on the subject of their own personal interest - or possible artifact), one would be taking on the mainstream on their "own turf" so to speak.

They wouldn't be able to dismiss it out of hand with a "there's no artifacts on Mars" argument. It would be more palatable to them. Plus, it would be more straightforward than a strictly statistical approach.

That's an interesting idea. I didn't get it at first.

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

Yes, if there is no natural explanation you are most of the way to proposing artificiality. When you get something like a face or building like structure and it contains elements not explainable naturally it is a stronger case.

Quite often researchers look at thousands of images and find unusual formations they call anomalies, and often they are unusual geological processes. For example I found a series of unusually shaped volcanoes and geologists say they must have been formed underwater, which fits with Amazonis being a former ocean.

Falsifying geology also helps you to understand what chance you have to prove artificiality. To me many formations on Mars have lots of evidence for artificiality in the sense that natural processes cannot form them. The craterface for example:

[url] www.ultor.org/M0401833.htm [/url]



This is not so impressive if you argue how artificial it looks. When you falsify natural processes it is a much different story. For this to form naturally the crater would have to form so as to join onto the hill nearly perfectly with rounded edges. If you imagine this occuring from a meteor impact and an eroded hill from a volcano it is probably impossible for them to join this way from coincidence. It somewhat looks like a face and torso, so it may have been built like this.

Another area near what I call the angel:

[url] www.ultor.org/circlec.htm [/url]



This is near some artificial looking objects. It may be a dam created from a crater. I think Tom van Flandern agrees with me on this, but this probably cannot occur naturally. The crater is not circular or elliptical so a shock wave cannot form it. Also one side is well formed and the other is much thicker and rougher in shape but a shock wave cannot form one side of a crater differently, especially rougher and larger. Other craters in the area are not larger on one side. Also on the smoother half the walls of the crater are well rounded not like a standard crater. Further down the page there is a second crater also artificial looking.

The second crater has flat topped walls which cannot occur naturally, at least I haven't seen one anywhere else on Mars. It is also an irregular shape and inside seems to be the same elevation as outside rather than like a normal crater.

Nearby there are various marks which look like someone surveyed to build a third dam like this:

[url] www.ultor.org/two/circle.htm [/url]

It is unusual some many point to a tangent of a perfect circle and divide the circle up like this. So the area has two craters arguably impossible form naturally, marks pointing to making a third dam, as well as artificial looking wall like structures and a face like image on a hill. The face itself is weaker evidence because it cannot be falsified, but the geology of the craters is next to impossible. The statistical argument of forming the third dam is weaker because it relies on something being unusual rather than falsified however it is very unusual and points to an unusual shape of a perfect circle, which should not occur except with a crater here.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Greg Orme is making the case that if you can demonstrate using peer reviewed studies that a certain formation <b>could not form naturally, </b> you are most of the way there towards proving artificiality. And he's also in agreement with me on the fact that <b>no amount of elaborateness in and of itself proves artificiality. </b>

rd