Keys

In connection with the subject of flat art vs. sculpture, here is key # 36 again, (from page 1 of this topic), an image I've posted a few times for varying reasons. It is also one that I believe holds much promise for further hi-resolution imaging, as it could in my opinion contribute good evidence to the artificiality hypothesis.



Here is a context image from E0600269 showing the same face. Note that it is at the end of a horseshoe-shaped outcropping of possibly a few km long and 400-500 meters high and wide--approximately. The fact that the face is sculpted out of the end of the outcropping proves that it is well, a sculpture. Note that the same shading of the outcropping continues into the shading of the face (with sun coming from left) indicating detail, definition, and height from ground level.



In case any of my detractors will now say, "what face?", here is the same context image reduced slightly, and with the face indicated in the circles.



Neil

Easter Island Mans cousin? Inca City

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Easter Island Man’s cousin? Inca City [Trinket}
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I see the family resemblance.

Speaking of which, I was reviewing M0802833 to get some specs for Man in Triangle, (Key #30), and looking right at him was M0802833 Cherokee Man. I don't know how I missed him last time.



And Key # 93.



And Context.

Here are some more additions to the Key topic category. Although there are many examples of the “tube” phenomenon, and good arguments have been made for both natural and artificial origin, I post this selection as examples only. More can be seen in Tom’s Slide show and other locations. These are from M150228, noted by M. Tonnes.
94

95

96


And a few others recently seen. The labels make them self explanatory.
97

98

99

100

101

102

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">“Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise derives from the community’s willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost. Normal science, for example, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. Nevertheless, as long as those commitments retain an element of the arbitrary, the very nature of normal research insures that novelty shall not be suppressed for very long. Sometimes a normal problem, one that ought to be solvable by known rules and procedures, resists the reiterated onslaught of the ablest members of the group within whose competence it falls. <b><i>On other occasions a piece of equipment designed and constructed for the purpose of normal research fails to perform in the anticipated manner, revealing an anomaly that cannot, despite repeated effort, be aligned with professional expectation. In these and other ways besides, normal research repeatedly goes astray. And when it does—when, that is, the profession can no longer evade anomalies that subvert the existing tradition of scientific practice—then begin the extraordinary investigations that lead the profession at least to a new set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science. The extraordinary episodes in which that shift in professional commitments occurs are the ones known…as scientific revolutions. They are the tradition-shattering compliments to the tradition-bound activity of normal science.”</i></b> [Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A few months ago I posted this quote from Kuhn and Tom was so kind as to reproduce the first part of it in the current issue of the MRB. As this philosopher of science always writes in an exacting, prescient manner, all of his words are valuable to us in our search for new truths on Mars. But I found the second half of this quote even more apropos to our endeavor than the first and I wanted to comment briefly on that. (That part is highlighted above.)

The ”equipment” referred to here is that which allows the ever increasing perfectibility of the imaging process of the surface of Mars. No amount of conspiracy (if it exists) can prevent the avalanche of data that is being downloaded into the public record—to be used by anyone with nerve enough and the motivation to use it. And no amount of doubletalk will prevent the inevitable; namely a smoking gun or many smoking guns establishing beyond any reasonable doubt, the artificiality of objects on Mars.

Neil

As the new and higher resolution images from HiRISE begin to show that the Tubes are obviously natural in origin, it won't be hard to predict where the doubletalk will come from next.

rd