Nefertiti's Family

This remembrance of mine may be of some help in this artificiality debate that has been heated and ongoing. Tom said a few years ago in Asheville that the evidence from Mars cannot be proven or disproven by us looking at the photographs. Artificiality can be proven by visitation, exploration, and experimentation. It would be nice to revisit the original slideshow, add to it and explore the notion of pressuring NASA to actually visit these places and determining once and for all the nature of these feature. If they are artificial we are talking about a change as profound as the idea of a round earth, if natural there is still a body of scientific knowledge to be gained.

Folks, this whole endeavor is a win-win scenario. Keep that in mind and don't take dissent personally. Hell sometimes I don't see the pictures either until they are clarified.


Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />why are all these images *profiles* (either humans or dogs)? To me, this subtracts from the artificiality hypothesis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If an artist does a portrait, we expect it to be face-on, not in profile. But in a mural or mosaic depicting a scene with the beings in it interacting, as seems to be the case here, then profiles ought to be more common than face-on views. [I documented the case for a full, interrelated, mural-like scene at Cydonia in Meta Research Bulletin 9#3 (2000).]

We can all very much look forward to what MRO can bring to the table if the imaging team can be persuaded to look. Imagine seeing this whole area with an order of magnitude better resolution and in color too! If the colors correlate with the scene (flesh tones, normal eye colors, rosy lips, or even just color variations that follow the shapes), are there any parties here who would try to argue that also is a trick of nature? -|Tom|-

<i>Mark Vitrone writes</i>: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would be nice to revisit the original slideshow, add to it and explore the notion of pressuring NASA to actually visit these places and determining once and for all the nature of these features.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can Mark or anyone tell us how one goes about pressuring NASA? I would be willing to participate in such an endeavor.

Neil

<i>Mark Vitrone writes</i>: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If they are artificial we are talking about a change as profound as the idea of a round earth, if natural there is still a body of scientific knowledge to be gained.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I second that sentiment wholeheartedly. If artificiality wins the day, that fact will usher in a whole new chapter in the history of science, and Tom will figure prominently in the story. If wrong, there may be a little egg to wipe off our faces, but as Mark points out, a lot will be gained anyway. I predict (obviously) we'll be proven right.

Neil

The best way to pressure NASA Neil is to join. Not us maybe, but our followers. The more kids that are exposed to Meta science, the better. I am proud when my physics students come in with an astronomy magazine and say, "Hey Mr. V, this is horsesh*t, its gotta be graviton interactions..." Infiltrate/Educate



Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>

We can all very much look forward to what MRO can bring to the table if the imaging team can be persuaded to look. Imagine seeing this whole area with an order of magnitude better resolution and in color too! If the colors correlate with the scene (flesh tones, normal eye colors, rosy lips, or even just color variations that follow the shapes), are there any parties here who would try to argue that also is a trick of nature?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would love to see higher resolution color images of this area. But I fear instead of "flesh tones, normal eye colors....etc," all we're going to see is "brush strokes" and pock-marked rocks.

I don't think it will be fatal to the artificiality hypothesis, but it will provide ammo for the detractors. Also, it will force us to become creative in proving our case. A case in point: Skullface.

rd