The implications of finding absolute proof.

Malcolm, I don't know if you were around when Trinket was posting. He took pareidolia (modern) to a whole new level. Not only was he finding nonsensical faces all over the place to support his theory (he never told us just what that theory was), but he would also <b>connect the dots </b> filling in the spaces where there was no evidence of anything. It was ludicrous on so many levels, it was hard to take him seriously or even be polite.

One time in an email conversation, Tom suggested to me that even in the case of Trinket I should treat it seriously and explain my take on what he was posting by making serious arguments, politely, and not sluff him off as some crazy guy.

At first I was a little reluctant, but Tom made one point that sunk it when he said, "You have to remember that according to mainstream scientists, <b>we're all crazy!</b>"

Oh yeah! OK, I get it.

You're no Trinket. All I've been trying to get you to understand is you're never going to get anywhere based solely on:<b> I think its artificial, therefore it must be so! </b>

Try not to make it an all or nothing thing.

rd

<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 />1. Here we have an image of a strange looking artifact I discovered on Mars which, by all accounts looks to be artificial and in my reckoning, has tremendous significance, anything less, would be unscientific and irresponsible not to acknowledge it as such.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Some of us look at these things and we just see a strange and wondrous landscape that we know nothing about. "Artificial" doesn't jump out, it's just "something." We don't know what it is, and that's all there is to it.

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think "by all accounts [it] looks to be artificial." For starters.

rd

By the way Malcolm, I already happened to have ESP_013772_1795_RED.JP2 (1.46GB) downloaded and was looking at it in HiView. Not sure why I downloaded it (maybe you posted the link already?), but now that I'm looking at it, I would like to see this last image of yours for myself on this hi res image. Can you give me a pointer to it?

rd

Malcolm,

I'm sure you are used to being personally razzed at many other sites for merely suggesting artificiality on Mars. We don't do that here. (Remember our Prime Directive - you can attack the message, but not the messenger?)

We have had to boot two or maybe three members over the years. And another few got p*ss*d for being told to cut it out and left of their own accord.

<b>Gold is where you find it</b>. If you do not look, you will not find. But remember there are other things that look like gold. We cannot rule out the possibility that there is/was life on Mars. So we allow people to come here and make their case. We also allow people with other odd ideas to post here. There is even a place for the "God did it theory". And the "gravity is expansion theory".

This policy has damaged our reputation in the Scientific Community.

But we stick to it nonetheless.

***

We are still hoping that one day you or one of the others will find "it".

If/when that happens we hope you will come here to release it to the world. But if you don't we will still cheer for you.

LB

<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 />So let's look at a thing.

Does the thing in the anaglyph image below have any of the following recognizable qualities:

1. Does it have any discernible intelligence about it?
2. Does it have any natural design to it?
3. Does it have any possible artistic translation?
4. Does it look to have been placed there or possibly fell there by natural processes?
5. Could it be the remains of a once living organism?
And finally,
6. Could this be defined as artificial and concluding as absolute proof?

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Malcolm, I was going to come back and answer your questions specifically, but I have a basic problem that needs to be resolved first:

What thing?

rd

<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 />I've enhanced the artifact here somewhat in order to emphisize detail. Now in 2D

[/URL]

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">OK, thanks. That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. Now I can answer your questions precisely:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does the thing in the anaglyph image below have any of the following recognizable qualities:

1. Does it have any discernible intelligence about it?
2. Does it have any natural design to it?
3. Does it have any possible artistic translation?
4. Does it look to have been placed there or possibly fell there by natural processes?
5. Could it be the remains of a once living organism?
And finally,
6. Could this be defined as artificial and concluding as absolute proof?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

1. I don't see any.
2. Perhaps. That was the point of my questions. This could be perfectly natural to the right person (who knows something about geology in general, and Mars Stratigraphy in particular).
3. Who knows? Maybe, but maybe not, for the same reason I gave you in (2). I don't know enough about the strata.
4. My guess would be it's part of the natural strata.
5. Maybe, but that's one huge leap.
6. In and of itself, I would say no. It doesn't prove anything. As a matter of fact, I don't think we're rising to the level of "proof" vs. "not proof". It just is. Whatever it is.

rd