My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Update on the Mystery rock - so now Oportunity is moving onwards

www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2...ent=releases20140214

[/URL]


A most recent image shows the so called "Pinnacle Island" rock from a diffeerent angle however, from my perspective, I see little resemblence to both the rock and its immediate surrounding area and once again, all we seem to get are these out of focus images even though the rock is under two meters away from the most sophisticated cameras ever produced - really?

Here is the early image:

[/URL]





Malcolm Scott

The magnified picture (above) is obviously not from (IOW not an enlargement of some part of) the smaller picture (below).

Why do you juxtapose them?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />The magnified picture (above) is obviously not from (IOW not an enlargement of some part of) the smaller picture (below).

Why do you juxtapose them?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the area around this "rock" does not seem to have the same rubble field as the previous image even though it was supposedly taken from a different view point. Really, more concerned that we did not get an image in Hi Def considering the controversy?

Malcolm Scott

The 'central object' is not the same. Does not look the same.

I can not "get my bearings" from one picture to the next. This is why I asked "why did you juxtapose these particular images"?

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

Petitioner's Writ of Mandamus R. Joseph, Ph.D.

www.scribd.com/doc/203107954/NASA-Lawsuit-Filing

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<b>HOLY COW!!</b>

It just occurred to me who this is! I read at least 3 of his books, and Neil probably read all of them. This is Rhawn Joseph, of "Astrobiology" fame!

Check out all the books he wrote.

www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-author=Rh...55,p_27:Rhawn+Joseph

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rhawn_Joseph

Malcolm, I don't know if you realized who this was, but you just got one hell of a heavy weight on your side. Woo Hoo!

rd

Rich - are you sure you want to characterize R Joseph as a "good guy'?

I'm still trying to come up to speed on him (so I am not ready to characterize him as a "bad guy") but I'm finding some stuff he has said that bothers me.

Help me find the context for the following ...

***

From [Astrobiology: The Origins of Life and the Death of Darwinism] 2001. "Contrary to Darwinism ... the evidence now clearly indicates, that the evolution of life had been genetically predetermined and precoded..."

<ul>Intelligent Design?

OK, I'm skeptical, but open to the concept. My first comment is that ANY competent third year undergraduate engineer could run circles around whoever is responsible for the design of the human body.

I'm not a huge fan of Darwin or his original theories, but the base line concept of BLIND evolution looks to me to be the way things are.</ul>***

From [citation not yet available] "Biologically, females serve one purpose: to get pregnant".

<ul>LMFAO. It took me five minutes to get up off the floor after reading this. At least he did not say 'to be made pregnant'.

Of course if he was interested in being right instead of being provocative, he would have said 'Biologically, females serve one purpose <u>that males can NEVER serve</u>: to get pregnant.' Other than that, and the size/strength variations in both sexes, we are all pretty much the same.</ul>

I do realize that I may not have the full context of these statements. But as of now, they bother me. And that will color the way I interpret anything else he has to say.