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 />Malcolm, I'd like to try the same thing with the alpha character scene. Can you steer me to that one, too?

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

The HiRISE catalog page is:http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_025310_1690

Do keep in mind here that the squence of Alpha'a are only one area in a vast landscape, there are many many more of these glyphs but the scale seems to be pretty consistent.

Now this is interesting. These glyphs appear to be entrenched into very perculiar canopy-like formations. In order to visulaize the image of the "interior" of these canopies, I have inverted the image into the negative and "pop" there they be.

The escarpment also needs to be rotated which can sometimes interfer with the resolution quality.

Here is the link to the video I produced zooming in to the location.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B--tam0uh-oiQ0h...WE0/edit?usp=sharing

Image below is inverted. SEE PURPLE SQUARE -
[/URL]

Image below is same but positive - SEE GREEN SQUARE -

[/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 rderosa</i>
<br />Malcolm, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

We are seeing, whatever it is, clearly. The fact that there are questions still, implies it's most likely nothing.

It is what it is.
rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You have me at a distinct disadvantage. How can it be nothing when it IS clearly something?

No, I do not get what you are saying.

Rich, I'm sorry, but to me and everyone that has reviewed this image see's a tall thing humanlike alien. The only difference now, is that the Alien is some 41ft tall- so what, does that make it GONE!

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 />Rich, I'm sorry, but to me and everyone that has reviewed this image see's a tall thing humanlike alien. The only difference now, is that the Alien is some 41ft tall- so what, does that make it GONE!

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Malcolm, if there is one truism in this debate it's the fact that if someone really believes they are seeing something, and they've decided what they're seeing, nobody is going to come along and dissuade them, at least not without higher resolution.

Well the good news is there is still room for higher resolution. At 25cm/p a new spaceship/camera with 1.25cm/p would be the same type of improvement we got from the MOC to the HiRise. The high resolution MOC images were 500cm/p, and the HiRise brought it down to 25cm/p.

If you haven't already read this, I strongly suggest you do, paying particular attention to the Appendix where two objective Optometrists analyze the evidence and describe what they see. This analysis was based on MOC images of Skullface. They are describing a phantom of course, as the HiRise later proved, but the detail of what they thought they saw is mind-boggingly detailed.

spsr.utsi.edu/articles/jsesft7a.html

I don't think you're fully grasping the significance of the demo I did. What you're saying is if you could get a little better look at it, we would all be convinced that it's really an alien (or statue of one). What <b>I'm </b>saying is we are getting a pretty damn good look at it already and it's what? Zoom in to 200% and the head appears to be made of the same stuff as the surface. That's no small matter.



No it's not GONE, but if I had to bet...

rd

Malcolm,

Worst case (from your perspective) is Rich is right and you are not.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, this turns out to be the real situation. One of these days (ten years or so if I can stay close to on-schedule) we will actually have tires on the ground (my fleet of rent-a-rovers). And some time after that we will have boots on the ground (real people, in person).

And they are going to want to go to places like this to see for themselves.

And this one will be known as "Malcolm Scott's Cave". Or whatever else you might prefer.

Bottom line - document the hell out of this, all of it. And make notes about your emotions as well. The times when you are so high, because you are sure it is real, and the times when you are so low because you feel a little foolish.

You can write books and articles, and people will buy them partly because you made a splash back-when. Your video is probably going to be in demand too. Maybe you should make more? Practice makes perfect. And customers can be kind of finicky. Some will like one, some the other.

***

Life (and literature) are as much, maybe more, about the journey than the destination.

Here's another way of looking at it. HiRise image strip ESP_011359_1695_RED.J2 is made up of 1,163,704,200 pixels. The alien is made up of roughly 250 pixels (5x50). That means the alien occupies 2/10,000,000nths of the strip. Or to put in in odds, the odds of finding that particular guy would be approx 99.99998% chance against. Those are lottery odds.

So the odds against finding that by chance are next to zero...<b>unless </b> either (a) there are millions of them in this strip (even if there were a million of them in this strip, the odds of finding one by chance would still be only about 1 in 5), or (b) unless countless hours were spent scanning every square pixel at full resolution, a daunting task to say the least.

So, if it's a real artifact or an actual alien, there ought to be thousands more for the finding.

On the other hand, anywhere we zoom in we're liable to find some kind of pareidolic (modern) images, like the elephant above the alien. In this case the odds are practically 100% for.

Also, one of the things that always bugged me, and the Mr Rushmore simulation showed, is: Where is all the obvious evidence? Why aren't we finding ruins equally clear as the Mr Rushmore simulation. Maybe they'd be etched, blasted by meteors and erosion, but where are they? Why isn't there any large scale obvious evidence?

rd

Could this be a form of HiTech pareidolia (modern or new)?

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-gam...-hallucinations.html

rd