The implications of finding absolute proof.

<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 />And I will state again. It is not unreasonable to consider if, in the event that an object or artifact which has similarities to skeletal remains and/or properties that have similarities to a religious artifact, could indeed be found on the Martian surface.

Currently, there is NO scientific, physical, atmospheric or otherwise <u>any</u> reason why this could not be the case.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maybe, but we are still waiting to hear your reasons why this <b>would be </b> the case.

rd

Here is the "cave" view where the earlier artifact was clipped from.


[/URL]

This area of Hebes Chasma has enormous caves many hundreds of meters high and this particular cave has a rich assortment of artifacts which defy an explanation. As I mentioned earlier, the Alien "resident" (for want of a better term) seems to be highly creative, one might say "artistic". Now this is how I see it, others may see something very different and as they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

In some ways here, this image has (to me) a sense of "communication" as if there is a defined image of a woman in a dress pointing to her right where the artifact is propped up. Strange indeed.

Look very carefully and one will start to see other possible life forms. Normally, when there is a "blur" encompassing an "item", this sometimes indicates movement and there are several blurs in this cave as well as several cartoonized caricatures.

Also quite evident here, is the strange energy emitting light from the right hand side of the cave. This possible power source is typical in almost all of the many caves which saturate this area of the Chasma. I am sure this "glowing cave surfaces" will be quite the discussion in the future.

Malcolm Scott

[/quote]Maybe, but we are still waiting to hear your reasons why this <b>would be </b> the case.

rd
[/quote]

We are searching the surface of our neighbor planet Mars, only one hundred million miles away, almost on top of one another cosmically speaking. Earth has abundant life, so if one of two neighboring planets has life, why not the other?

<i>"If something deserves to exist, it deserves to be known, not rejected out of hand with prejudice. The scientific method, principles of historical analysis, and an open mind ask that much".</i>

- Francis Bacon 1620


Malcolm Scott

quote: rd

Really?! Arousing passion, strong emotion, anger, belligerence?!

Look at it from this point of view. Suppose I was a student at a university, and I was studying the images from Mars, and I went into a Professor of Geology's office and showed him that thing, and said, "I think this could be the remains of a living being." and the Prof replied, "That's a pretty big leap, what do you base that on?"

Rich, yes I agree with the example above here, but if you were a student and went to the Professor and asked him the question; do you think this could be the remains of a living being then answer could very be different.

And this is the way I phrazed this question.

So the use of the word inflammatory was a poor choice, perhaps prejudicial would have been better. I stand corrected.

Malcolm Scott

[/quote]Maybe, but we are still waiting to hear your reasons why this <b>would be </b> the case.

rd
[/quote]

To which I asked you: <b>Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think "by all accounts [it] looks to be artificial." </b> But you didn't answer. Can you answer it?

rd
[/quote]

To reply to this, I think we must first accept the fact that we are dealing with "another planet" which, changes the basis of evaluation to a large degree. As we come to know more about the planet in the years to come, I feel sure we will learn about many new and as yet - undiscovered wonders.
With the available limited methods currently at hand i.e. the power of magnification of the MRO HiRISE camera at our disposal, we are limited to its finite capabilities (at this present time). That being said, we do have considerably more to work with over prior images acquired from earlier missions.

So far, we have found some amazing and somewhat controversial anomalies from all over the planet and not just from the MRO. As it becomes more evident as the images become available for analysis, we find ourselves challenged by what we are seeing for the very first time. As we cannot measure these anomalies by any other means except but "what we see", then we must try to use scientific methods limited only to this medium - visual analysis of 2D and stereo created "faux 3D" anaglyphs and that's as good as it gets - for now. (save the Lander's findings and hitherto spectral analysis)

So when an image is presented which has certain familiar qualities that can be possibly "aligned" with that of which we know of, naturally we make comparisons. This is human nature.

In the context of this most recent unusual artifact, several aspects of its structure conveyed certain familiarities. The question is; are those familiarities natural or perhaps created by an intelligent mind? The answer is - we currently have no way to tell for sure but, however, we can speculate without the need for conclusion based upon one's personal observation.

What makes this process more interesting, is if we find a consistent "theme" in discovered artifacts or anomalies which seem to share a common denominator thus giving rise to the possibility of being related to one another. And, if those anomalies are found in different locations throughout the surface and have a set of properties that suggest a similar artificial design as recognizable or contrived, then in this case, the prospect of intelligence becomes greater, however still not conclusive.

So what could be defined as a recognizable image that is repeated?

Well for the sake of augment just for the moment, let's put the cart before the horse and say; we have an intelligent mind on Mars that has a desire or a need to communicate to another intelligence either on the surface or is recognizable from up above. So, the intelligence declares, I need to be seen down here!

What would be the means to achieve this result?

1. The signal must have qualities that alert attention.
2. The signal must have qualities that keep attention once it is captured.

If there is one characteristic which is consistent in all complex life, is the brains ability to recognize another eye. Our eyes are trained from birth to react and respond to another eye.

In the eye, we see much intent of the owner. We see affection, fear and even truthfulness. The eye immediately captures our attention, its power of communication is highly effective. As we move throughout our waking moments with others, we look to the eye to communicate above all other means.

And, in most all life forms on Earth, the eye is located in the face located at the closest proximity to the central processing unit the brain. So when we see a face, we immediately look for the accompanying eye(s).

So, what would be the most effective method of communication from the surface to up above from one intelligent brain to another is the recognition of a face and the positioning of the eye.

Is this method being employed on the surface of Mars? Well the evidence seems to suggest this to be the case. Upon very close observation, we see faces and eyes in those faces and they capture our attention and they keep our attention for in the face and in the eye in the face we recognize LIFE!

In the artifact found in question here, there are perceptible images of the face in faux 3D at both ends (turned up side down) and it is undeniable.

In confirmation of this observation, I propose that the artifact is in fact, of intelligent design.

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 /> it deserves to be known, not rejected out of hand with prejudice.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Malcolm, you are still confusing us with mainstream science. If we were "rejecting out of hand with prejudice" there would likely be nowhere for you to post.

We all understand that in the mainstream there are people who say, "there's no life on Mars, therefore there are no artworks." We all understand that issue very well, as it's been bantered around here for years, but your refusal to accept the fact that that's not was we are doing is somewhat distressing.

It makes me think you're really not listening and/or you have an agenda that (for now) hasn't been totally revealed.

It's very difficult to make progress when one side sticks to some kind of talking point instead of responding to what it is we are actually saying.

rd