T or E

Trinket,

As for you staying out of my posts, I don't own them, nor are there any copyrights here--this is just a message board. The rules, so far as I understand them are simple: no overt hostility (no cursing, name calling, etc., and that's about it). However when I read things that I blatantly dissagree with, I have to respond. I try not to be so blunt, but sometimes there is no other way.

You forgot the internet and beta-testing thing...I'll do it for you:

Regards,

Neil

God created the Internet in 6 days and on the seventh day he ... beta tested

<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 />...Your faces all fit the definition of pareidolia to a tee; viz, no definition, vague resemblences to "faces," distorted features, and the like. All are of the kind anyone can see in any mud puddle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Who's calling the kettle black? It seems the only criteria here that's used to differentiate pareidolia from "possible artifacts" is who is making the claims. I have yet to see anything presented that displays any evidence of artificiality any more than what Trinket is posting. How many of the seriously claimed animal and face profiles are within and clearly formed by surface material flows? Yet you and others spend countless hours trying to build a case for artificiality and interpretations to their "meaning" to a presumed alien civilization. And you wonder why NASA and JPL don't take any of this seriously? [V]

JR

"I have yet to see anything presented that displays any evidence of artificiality any more than what Trinket is posting" [jrich]

In a nutshell that's really the intrinsic logic of the program isn't it? Like I have said before, you definately seem like an educated person. I take what you say very seriously.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />And you wonder why NASA and JPL don't take any of this seriously? [V]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's a curious statement.[?] And it's the second time I heard it today. What are the odds of that?[]

Seriously though, in this particular topic we were discussing a very real set of features: The "T" and others like it in the area, like the one below. There's no question it is what it is.

{Image deleted temporarily} T or E/Fig%209.jpg

Whether or not they prove to be artificial is an open question, but I thought we were making some good points.

rd

<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 />In a nutshell that's really the intrinsic logic of the program isn't it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It would seem so. That's one of the reasons why I like this topic. It really doesn't apply here. We're not trying to defend what we think we're seeing, we're trying to interpret the terrain.

In the case of the Nefertiti Scene we're saying we think the images of three people and a dog are real. If they are, then BINGO! artificiality is proved. They might not be. Or worse yet, they might be undefendable at higher resolutions like Skully was (is). But they might be, too.

But in this case, there's no such question, and subsequently the case has to be made indirectly. There's really no way we can prove these are artificial, except circumstantially. For instance, if the area is rich in some mineral, which can be used in the production of some metal, that would be very interesting to a lot of people. Could you imagine if they did some type of spectral analysis of the Cydonia face and found that it had metallic properties, and then found that this whole area was loaded with the raw material needed to make it? That would be HUGE.[]

rd

"There's really no way we can prove these are artificial" [rd]

Using only these images you're probably right, but through better imaging, spectral analyses of the terrain and artifacts (in this case the T or E), and later through the efforts of archeologists on the ground, using their specialized knowledge, there might be ways to prove artificiality.

In the near term, if the T or E feature was photographed by the MRO using it's high resolution wide angle context imager, we might find out that the other two "arms" of the "E" branching off the curved "backbone" are similar in certain unusual respects to the "T-Upright" trench we can see in SP2. For instance, what if the unusual looking "diamind-shaped" end of the T (see first image of this post) was replicated in the other two arms? If so, that would be strong evidence of artificiality.

Our job here is to make a compelling argument why features such as this should be studied further. It seems curious to me that certain interests seem to be heck bent on keeping us or anyone else from doing that.

Neil