Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure.

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



I do not rely on imagination when examining images but rely on years of previous visual knowledge and experience.


Doesn’t anyone with a pair of eyes acquire “years of visual knowledge and experience? What kind of credentials are those that qualify you to interpret these rocks as artificially constructed structures by tiny beings? Oh – and I, personally, think that yes indeed – you are relying on your imagination –and not much else.


You still haven't explained what proof you would like me to provide…


ANY proof would be good. ANY photogrammetric analysis. ANY corroborative comparison by ANY planetary geologists.


…as the air pressure and oxygen level decreases any living inteligent species would tend to get smaller and smaller over time


Got any documentation or links or ANYTHING to back this claim up?


As far as proof goes, are you expecting me to provide visual evidence of tiny beings that are less than 2mm in height?


Yes. Because that is what you are claiming is the case here.


Please give me a little time and I will accomodate your request. […sharing with us how these are not just rocks, and instead are unnatural?]


No you won’t. You can’t. Take all the time you need. We’ll never see it. You can’t produce it. Unless of course, we are to “imagine” such things along with you. But that is not even slightly resembling evidence. The only thing that proves is that you possess “an imagination”. As in figments of your imagination. No towers, no little structures. No little tiny people. Except those in your imagination.


…there are rocks on the terrain and many other interesting objects that cannot be explained away as being natural.


Sure they can. Everything in the image can easily, most logically, and quite convincingly be explained as entirely natural.


Maybe after viewing the image below some members may be of a different opinion about what's really on the surface of Mars.


Nope. Nearly everyone here has the exact same opinion we’ve had from the outset: Rocks. No tiny artificial structures, no tiny people.


[Why are you always so sure about what you say?] In short ArMaP, academic qualifications and experience.


Would you mind sharing your “academic qualifications” with us? What University? What terminal degree? Dissertation? Year of completion? Post-graduate area of specialization? No need to expound about your “years of visual knowledge and experience” – we already concede those.



I will post an image with explanation later when I have more time.


Again with the stalling. Why not now? And please not just another grainy picture of some rocks – some actual irrefutable artificial construct would go a long way. Thanks.



That's it?! Oh. Ok. Thanks. Just what was expected… *sigh*


Of course, I could be completely incorrect but from viewing and researching the images from Curiosity I do not think that is a possibility.


What kind of “academically qualified” observer with “years of visual experience” can claim that it is not possible that any explanation but their own is possible?


…to me many of these shapes appear as being very tiny structures with some of them displaying definite geometrical form.


And to you alone. Nope, sorry. You’ve just tossed up a bunch of red dots splattered across an image of a normal, geologic (not geometrical) landscape.


I may possibly be completely incorrect about the tiny-sized beings and the very tiny structures on Mars but my research of the available visual evidence outweighs the negative aspect.


You were right the first time: you are completely and utterly incorrect. And so far NONE of your “research” has put even the slightest dent in the negative (null) aspect. You’ve presented NO compelling visual evidence.


I will you to judge whether or not these unusual shapes and features are a figment of my imagination.


You Will!?!? Finally! Ok, consider it done. They are, and continue to be, a figment of your childish imagination and nothing more. Thanks for giving us the opportunity and privilege to judge this to be so. That was quite honorable of you. I didn’t think you could do it. Good job.

Wow.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Outrageo
 




Doesn’t anyone with a pair of eyes acquire “years of visual knowledge and experience? What kind of credentials are those that qualify you to interpret these rocks as artificially constructed structures by tiny beings? Oh – and I, personally, think that yes indeed – you are relying on your imagination –and not much else.


obviously processing of visual information takes place in the brain. Brains are funny things. Much of the information we "see" is not actually there as in the case of pareidolia like effects. We "see" when we dream. athlete's are taught to "see" themselves performing well. Neurochemistry has an effect on how visual info is processed. If you "adjust" the neurochemistry, all kinds of brain visuals are possible that have nothing to do with external reality. I imagine that some people are endowed with an adjusted neurochemistry.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Ok, great, thanks.
How illuminating. Appreciate it...

Later folks... Time to move on to more serious discussions.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I have to agree with the other comments, they all do look like just rocks. I've seen other shapes on Mars in the past that look like structures, for instance the statue of the woman on Mars. But, these pictures just show rocks.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Outrageo
 


Well Outrageo, I really enjoyed reading your double critical rant.

There is only a few comments I should like to make. I stand by everything I have written in relation to tiny-sized civilizations living on Mars. If you can prove this to be incorrect I would welcome your response. The majority of members posting on the thread are of the opinion that I am incorrect but that does not mean I have to agree with the collective concensus. Many quite famous people in the past have proposed theories on particular subjects and have had to accept harsh criticism and ridicule from their peers when later on their theories have proved to be correct and all the naysayers have had to walk away with egg on their faces. So, in this respect, I am not alone.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
If you can prove this to be incorrect I would welcome your response.

You are the one that should provide information showing that your point of view is correct. If other members don't see the same things that you apparently see, how can they prove that they are not there? To them (us), that's already proved, in the same way that, to you, it's already proved that those things are there.

What we need is for you to show us what makes you think that those are artificial, what attributes/characteristics those things show that make you think of artificiality.


The majority of members posting on the thread are of the opinion that I am incorrect but that does not mean I have to agree with the collective concensus.

That's true, nobody has to agree with anybody else.


Many quite famous people in the past have proposed theories on particular subjects and have had to accept harsh criticism and ridicule from their peers when later on their theories have proved to be correct and all the naysayers have had to walk away with egg on their faces.

You are, because those famous people presented more than an "I see this and that, so it exists" theory, and that's what you have posted until now.



top topics
 
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join