Mro--First Looks

<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 />I have never seen this before, and all the negatives about JPL notwithstanding, I'd have to say this sounds like a fairly honest objection<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If honest, I'd have to call it naive. See my rebuttal (from 2001) at metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/archive/...ta-in-News010313.asp

I'd love to know if Pieri has conceded, but he seems to have just kept silent for the past five years. Could these new findings have challenged his favored interpretation? <ul><li>tubes casting shadows</li><li>perpendicular intersections</li><li>translucent tubes crossing over one another with white bands forming a checkerboard pattern</li><li>partially collapsed tubes where one can see the doubling in the number of white bands per unit of tube length and the spiked nature of broken bands</li></ul>-|Tom|-

yes i can see your point.while growing up in ashland ky.one winter we had alot of snow,and alot of wind the next day.i saw something i had never witnessed before while crossing the golf course next to my house.it looked just like those tubes on mars.i remember thinking what caused all these strange shapes.then the wind blew at a steady pace and it turned into a rolling snowball which left tracks in the snow that looks exactly like what there calling tubes.

Has onyone found a way to view the full-resolution JPEG-2000 versions of MRO images yet? The latest posting labelled "dunes and polygons in Olympis Undae" in Release 17 is something I'd like to view at the highest available resolution. -|Tom|-

<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>
<br />Has onyone found a way to view the full-resolution JPEG-2000 versions of MRO images yet? The latest posting labelled "dunes and polygons in Olympis Undae" in Release 17 is something I'd like to view at the highest available resolution. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, I installed the two plug-ins I needed to view the JPEG-2000 images (*.jp2) and then started to download the "dunes and polygons..." 881MB file. Even though I have Comcast, it seemed like it was taking way too long, and I'm not sure what to make of that. It started out saying there was 1 hr 30 minutes left, and when I came back an hour later, there was 1 hr 24 minutes left, so I cancelled. Reminded me of dial up, so I figured maybe they had some problem. I'll probably send them an email to see what they think. I know it was a big file, but it still seemed like something was wrong.

rd

Trinket,
Could you please tight-crop the face or structure you intend for us to look at? I'm having trouble locating anything but geological structures in these. Thanks, Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Singularity does not exist in Martian Art. I believe there is more art here than a human can even perceive...[Trinket]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

For science to be science it must be objective. That doesn't mean that all description must be quantitative; it can sometimes also be qualitative. According to Kuhn, when there is a conflict between paradigms, as there is at present in this area, science often goes back to its roots, and there is much qualitative, philosophical description until one side or the other prevails. That is why the "thought experiment" is so common during such conflicts.

In my opinion, we must acknowledge the psychological phenomenon of pareidolia and concentrate our efforts on proving that certain well-defined artifacts are indeed artificial, through scientific/logical methods, and were made or constructed by physical beings similar to us. If we can’t ever prove that, the opposition wins. IMO mysticism and New-Age constructs have no place in objective science.

OTOH, I have found some of Mr. Trinket’s insights quite valuable, such as the recognition that this art may occur on multiple scales. I think we have demonstrated this fairly convincingly in the Barbara/Crownface mosaic.

Neil