Keys

What about slate?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate#Chemical_composition

If you read about "cleavage planes", I think you'll see that "it's possible".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleavage_plane

I still think the notion that "there are no straight lines in nature" is not really true. It is true that they are not very likely, but not impossible. For instance, assume there are billions of possible line types or shapes of which "straight" is just one of them. When viewed that way the chance of a straight line repeating itself is about the same as any other shape repeating itself.

Also, there's the question of "how straight is straight?" An old oak tree, when viewed from a distance appears to have a straight line trunk, but when viewed close up, not so straight after all.
rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, there's the question of "how straight is straight?" An old oak tree, when viewed from a distance appears to have a straight line trunk, but when viewed close up, not so straight after all.
rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here's another classic example of context dropping, (and logic chopping) which again reinforces my conviction that this kind of discussion is nearly useless, and why I need an extended leave of absence from all this. Having made my case pretty well I'm almost ready to do just that.

This answer is for those readers out there who are able to make use of it.

The image in question is the highest resolution yet to be taken of Mars (25 centimeters, or 1/4 meter per pixel). So although the edge or straight line we are looking at may not be perfectly straight when viewed under a microscope. And perhaps a few feet away with the naked eye we might see some imperfections, but we can reasonably say that it is “building edge straight, or maybe “I-Beam straight,” and demands our attention for further investigation. In any event it is far better in this regard than any objects examined hitherto, and many that were exciting anomaly hunters just a few short years ago. Where are these participants now I wonder? Beat down into silence by the ridicule of collectivists no doubt. And worried about their reputations—as I have said, at the expense of truth.

I have asked an expert (whom I have no reason not to trust) to comment on this object. Perhaps we will get an answer soon. If not, we will just have to wait.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Where are these participants now I wonder? Beat down into silence by the ridicule of collectivists no doubt. And worried about their reputations—as I have said, at the expense of truth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would think that's obvious: It's the same reason as why you resisted having a serious conversation with Manny early on. Namely, they're embarrassed to be associated with this, now. That's what we tried to tell you would happen once you veered from the "good" possibilities for artificiality. That's what JP meant almost a year ago when he warned that it would do more harm than good to the AOH. And he would know. I remember how beaten up he sounded in our first communications.

rd

I’m presently working my way through several pages of URLs (most from around 2001) of possible structures or anomalies loaned to me by Meta Research, as part of a larger project I’m working on. When I’m done I’ll make a more extensive report. But right now I want to share an observation or two.

Most of the images are, though interesting, clearly objects of interest for geologists, and not artificial structures. There are also many “borderline cases” which under the model of a previously inhabited Mars “might possibly” be artificial, but based on observation right now it’s hard to see it. A good example here is the many many tube-like structures found. A few look compelling, but most don’t.

Of course, as always, I found more faces, not noticed by the original URL contributor, but none very good. Which brings me to my main point. As I mentioned awhile back after watching Superman III, sometimes it hits home how easy it can be to see vague pareidolic faces. And that can cause one, sometimes, to question the whole enterprise of finding artificial structures on Mars. I’m sure this has happened to many. It may be why we now hear nothing anymore from the many contributors to these URLs (with a few exceptions who still hang tough, some of whom have their own websites exhibiting artificial structures).

Call it a crisis of confidence if you will. But the thing that allows me to keep my balance is logic properly applied (too bad it’s not taught in school anymore). Surely there is the possibility of an over active imagination, but there are also anchors to reality. Briefly, (with some repetition here) we all know the human mind has the ability to distinguish the real from the imaginary, (otherwise, we would not be able to tell the difference between Mt Rushmore--or our own family members--from pareidolia). So it all boils down to the matter of sticking to the rules, whether the rules are logical, scientific, or intuitive, they are all necessary to keep us anchored.

<i>It’s a good life if you don’t weaken (anonymous)</i>

While I'm here I'll post an improvement to one of the anchors.



Context for M0200343



Context for E1002357



Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Briefly, (with some repetition here) we all know the human mind has the ability to distinguish the real from the imaginary, so it all boils down to the matter of sticking to the rules, whether the rules are logical, scientific, or intuitive, they are all necessary to keep us anchored.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The problem, though, is that most pareidolic images are <b>not </b>imaginary, they are as real as you or I. It's true that many are transitory in nature, like the giant bunny in the clouds I tried to photograph last week (by time I got out my camera, the bunny was a sailboat, then nothing), but very real nonetheless. Most pareidolic images are persistent, and can be pointed out from one person to another. That's what makes this such an emotional topic. When one person thinks their "realness" implies a human (or Martian) hand, while another person views them as the very essence of pareidolia, there really is very little common ground to work with. Logic notwithstanding.

rd

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

Oh, Trinket, I forgot to ask, could you please give a link (or MSSS number) for "Inca City" again. Thanks, Neil