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 neilderosa</i>
<br />I honestly think Dr. Fred is "doctoring" his--with all due respect. Otherwise he would have been amenable to showing some source material. He has offered none. Only "trust me," and assurances to the deity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Wow. This is quite an amazing admission on your part. A month or more ago, I posted that your only real objection to Fred's art was your cry of "Fraud". To which you replied that wasn't so, and to go back and read what you actually said (which I found no reason to, btw). Now, finally you're coming out and admitting that you're saying you think Fred is "doctoring" his images.

I'd say you're in the minority on this one. And it just goes to show how shaky your argument really is, and how increasingly ad hoc it's becoming .

rd

Classic Pareidolia:



I'd bet anything on it. This is a great example of the old saying that "the exception makes the rule".

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It really is a magnificent image and has taught me much about mars...[Trinket]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Re: "Flattop." Thanks for the image, but what I really wanted was the MSSS gallery site number. Because then we could check the parameters for image resolution, location, orientation, size of the object, direction of the sun, and so on. But upon the evidence of this cursory look, I'd say that this looks like an artificial object. It seems to be a Raised Relief rather than an etching. I say this because the shading corresponds to the actual sun rather than the artist's rendition of a light source. It seems to be in a kind of "art deco" style, rather than realistic, but that IMO doesn't detract from it's artificiality. The dearth of background noise certainly makes it easy for the novice to see it.



Tom, does that answer your question?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'd bet anything on it.[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Richie, I really can't take your opinions seriously; though I have tried. One never knows when they will be cogent or coherent.

More Keys of the new HIRISE "profile girls." I suspect there will be more as we proceed.







If you pinch them they might talk.

Neil- Thanks for you skepticism. In essence you have said i am the greatest artist in the world. Having created 500 artworks each totally different in style, with figures perfectly complementing their backgrounds, perfect un-man made looking flow lines with no "mistakes." This would really make Van Gogh, and Picasso seem like second graders. My source material is my negatives (prime ones not for sale.) If you want to buy a lesser one it's on sale today for only $50,000. LOL. i have no reason to prove anything to you as are obviously comming from an obviously untennable position by any one not trying to prove cockamaime ideas. i'm giving a talk at the U. of Florida next week. So please, for the record admit that i am either the greatest artist in the world, or preferably that my photos are what they are photographs of PAREIDOLIA.
rd- Thanks again for keeping it real.
P.S. The cave bear and the helmut dude are the best cases you have for Martian art, but are obviously also the best cases for pareidolia. Stick with the pareidolia, you don't appreciate what god has shown you. Don't we have enough tsuris on oith? (sic). LOL OOOOoooooMMMMMmmmmmmmmm...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />So please, for the record admit that i am either the greatest artist in the world, or preferably that my photos are what they are photographs of PAREIDOLIA. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> As near as I can tell, I think we're supposed to try and prove that they are not real people. Or, maybe it could be that we need to show there are no cylindrical objects, made by Martians, cluttering up your backyard, making these things easily appear. He seems to be saying that pareidolia is not pareidolia, unless we can prove that it's .....what? Not blurry?

Very difficult to tell.

BTW, I've been having alot of fun with my new Nikon digital camera. I finally broke down, and moved into the 21st Century. I almost got a picture of a big red-headed Woodpecker that visited my backyard, mesmerizing my cats, but it took off one second too soon.

rd