Forest on Mars !?!?, page 57

Sorry for my late reply but my new service provider is not really.

I am only posting this because i typed it up earlier and don't believe you have changed your mind in the course of the last ten pages i have not had time to read....

I don't think i will be doing much more posting on these topics as it looks like a quite a few members are now active and building up the type of data sets that i have.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think that I have made unreasonable assumptions or made illogical means, but I may have made them, they may have looked reasonable and logical to me at the time.

They are perfectly reasonable and 'logical' if one has already disregarded non conventional views as impossible..

I cannot find a better way to describe what I have in mind, but its not a pool or a pond, its not a deposit of liquid on the surface, what I am thinking of is just a variation of concentration of liquid on the ground in the same way that a drop of wine on a table cloth may look darker on the middle, with ramifications from its centre.

And i hope you understand that i do not understand why you wish you are spending so much energy imagining into existence better 'suiting' alternative explanations. Again i must ask why convention can be defended by generous applications of imagination but that observation itself is disregarded when it contradicts the presumptions the science institutions have settled on defending.

There's no heroism involved in posting on the Internet, only on same rare cases.

And that's a fact!

I have seen some cases where people really do not think first of the more mundane explanations, so I think it is a good idea to point them when people do not state that they have already thought of those possibilities and have discarded them.

Such a valuable public service you do, and i am only half kidding, but it's my experience that there are dozens of people on this forum who believe in , and feel compelled to defend, the most mundane and widely accepted views for every one of those who can efficiently present factual material and observations that stands in open contradiction to it. I have very little sympathy with those who pretend to be acting in the service of the community when they so slavishly defend what they themselves have decided to believe and defend.

Well, I do believe in coincidences, but I don't have any problems with people who don't.

And apparently you only believe in the coincidences that serves the interest of a general defense of the very mundane!

I don't like to see people taken in by any lie, official or unofficial.

I suppose that's a start.

Between you and me, you are the one presenting alternative views, and I never claimed to be presenting novel views, where did you get that idea?

I basically call trees, trees and water, water ( wherever it seems to grow or flow ) while you seem to be doing your best to find ways to discount what we are seeing however exceedingly unlikely, illogical or unreasonable the data you must muster. Why does Occam's razor not apply for Mars when we know up to thirty percent of the planets surface have conditions suitable for standing water?

Well, I respect you regardless of your ideas...

Thank you. I would love to say the same but that is hard when i believed i have proved that you are simply misrepresenting too much data and quite on purpose; this is long past the stage where i just consider it a idle disagreements.

The Earth trees shown on those satellite photos looked 3D.

Again your observational powers seem quite efficient when they are applied to discount data and defend established views. Why not apply these skills to a fair evaluation of ALL the data?

I didn't had in mind your ignorance or lack of it when creating my explanation, that was just a way to try to explain what I was thinking, but once more it looks like it was a failure.

The fact does seem to be that your 'explanations' always assumes that you know something , and when it makes sense it's either very unlikely or perfectly mundane, more than the readers or viewers do while i tend to focus on WHY NASA and other agencies are not telling the people the truth as they clearly know it; i assume people don't know because they are misinformed but you just assume they don't know because their ignorant.

I don't even know what NASA said about those things and I don't care what is NASA's opinion about anything when I post my opinion,

Must be one of those coincidences, that you say you do believe in, as you seem to be towing the NASA line without much difficulty.

that is why I said in a previous post that I don't think that their explanation is the most plausible for that case.

Sometimes their lies and deceptions are more obvious than other times....

OK, what other photos from that area but not from NASA can I see?

I did not make it clear enough that NASA does have perfectly good data but that what they publish or attempt to focus our attention on is at best distracting and not representative. We can now look at ESA data as well but in most instances you just need to dig into the NASA archives to find the pictures they do not want to discuss.

My opinion is mostly based on the photos, I only used NASA's information about the lights direction because of what other people see as shadows, forgetting that the validity of that information would be frowned upon.

All i said is that it was interesting that you would so easily discount your own observations when NASA asked asks you to by supplying a mixture of accurate and false science data...

You are right, there is no reason not to apply common sense, but when I see flat features on the ground with no shadows, I do not see any reason to use what I do not see as shadows as a pointer to the direction of the light.

Next time just keep in mind that NASA can and do flip, invert, obscure certain details, change the sun angle or just lie about the location. Beside for the obvious shadowing and tampering with the pictures themselves it seems they believe they might eventually be able to explain away these deliberate tampering efforts as mere 'mistakes'.

Also, I should have thought of more options and of what other people may be seeing when they look at those photos, in that way it would be easier to put myself in their position.

Never a bad idea as long as you don't believe that in science the majority has a better chance of arriving at the truth.

I have seen with my own eyes high resolution TIFF images pulled from a website and replaced with lower resolution JPEGs some time ago, so I know what they can do.

And as long as you do not believe these are 'accidental' or 'coincidental' 'mistakes' we are definitely going to arrive at a more representative truth and sooner rather than later.

Stellar