reply to post by arianna
I do not rely on imagination when examining images but rely on years of previous visual knowledge and experience.
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)
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.