My pareidolia knows no bounds.

What is most important here is the interplay between the programer and the computer. You have good programers directing good computers to generate images from ink blots more or less. I wonder what shrinks would have to say about this--

<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 />The specs are most likely out there.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If I'm reading this correctly it looks like the Spysat KH-11 has better resolution than HiRise, and it was top secret for 36 years, until only recently.

www.americaspace.com/?p=20825

Excerpt:
<i>As NRO telescopes, the optics were designed for looking at objects on Earth to provide up to 3.9 inch resolution from 200 mi. altitude or higher.</i>

They're usually talking about 3 pixels, which would make the pixel resolution 1.3 inches, or 3.302cm/pixel. Wow! Turn this baby loose on Mars! That's almost an order of magnitude better. Almost exactly what I suggested in a recent post.

rd

<b>LB: But even a good model can trick us, if we are not careful.</b>

If I am understanding Fred, I would expect him to say that physical reality is a "real good model" and we (humanity in general) are not at the "careful" stage yet.

shando- Reality transcends any model. "Physical reality"(all)- "Hologramatic" and "Quantum" views are example models that may or may not coincide with aspects of reality (all). Reality (Hindu/Perelman/Bohm) can not be mapped because the mapping would change reality.

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

Larry, should have got back earlier on this, bit of an ongoing background project.

Just to get a couple of things clarified;

I freely admit, I am not a scientist nor do I have any credentials which could be perceived as such. By profession, I am an Interior Architect. In my capacity, I have spent many years in spacial planing in two fundamental (and might I add pertinent) areas of expertise with respect to the examination of Martian imagery. Firstly, I see, imagine and construct in a 3 dimensional environment. Secondly. I am in constant touch with the principle of intelligent design vis-a-vis that of natural design. In short, I have two highly focused eyes. I also have an English education to college level.

OK, that's enough on my background only to say; that I am not looking for any notoriety here nor do I wish to be hailed as the finder of Alien life. I am quite certain that this knowledge is well known in certain circles. I am confident in saying; there are NO new human discoveries here.

I am not sure what we are referring to here when you say: Suppose, for the sake of argument this turns out to be the <u>real</u> situation. Can we define real here?

Malcolm Scott

<b>[Marsevidence01] "... define real ... ?"</b>

Sure (but not a full formal def). It was a poor way to say it in this context.

We have an either/or situation. Either A is true/real, or B is true/real.

Either this image does not have something to do with an intelligent being (A), or it does (.

***

<b>[Marsevidence01] "I am confident in saying; there are NO new human discoveries here."</b>

Not true. You did discover SOMETHING on the surface of Mars. We are now trying to figure out what it is.

***

Once I get my fleet of rent-a-rovers up and running, I'll give you a special discount. I want to see what it really is, too.

And ...what if it turns out you are right?