NEW Discovery near Spirit Rover... MUST SEE !

(M.A.Perafonte') wrote in
om:

*** I cannot lose with my presentation... if not the fact it
*** seems, I have at least discovered the famous "floating
*** man" illusion on Mars... thats worth something isnt it ? ;-)

Hopefully your disgust is not sufficient to prevent you from accepting a
little more wisdom:

Yes it probably is worth something to the Star or National Enquirer. You
might see it on the cover some day! They'll owe you some credit then.

The trouble with your theory (forming personal interpretations based on
objective evidence is a theoretical pursuit) is the objects demonstrate
no animate characteristics. Your theory should easily be proven if the
"researcher" you see has moved, or was in the process of moving. See if
there is more than one photo of the same area and observe if anything
changes between the two. The photos used to make up a single colour
image are taken over several minutes (each uses a different filter), not
instantaneously, so between the first and last filter you should expect
to see some evidence of motion.

You haven't computed his height or weight or sex based on the evidence
(facts) available.

As a researcher you might expect him to carry some tools but none are
visible. He might require some assistance breathing on Mars in 0.01 ATM
carbon dioxide. He might need some insulation against the elements. You
have not demonstrated where these supports can be found in the image, or
your theory as to why he wouldn't need them.

Keep on working on this. I am sure something good will come of it.

Mark

mlm wrote

The trouble with your theory snip is the objects demonstrate
no animate characteristics.
*** lets put this correctly... according to your interpretation
*** which is inconsistent with my own, something. I have no
*** trouble with my observations... there is no theory.
***
*** Your point is, however, incorrect... in fact, I DID
*** show that this figure was ANIMATE... I stated that we
*** could discern, even in the reduced resolution of this
*** photo, that the figure had a head and all the facial
*** features... a neck, a trunk, arms, legs, and that his
*** clothing and shoes were visible. We may conclude from
*** these features that the figure we were seeing is either
*** an animate being, from a developed society, or, that we
*** are viewing a very realistic mannequin, only made to
*** appear animate. In either case, I have indeed shown
*** this animate factor to be present.

Your theory should easily be proven if the "researcher"
you see has moved, or was in the process of moving.
*** I agree with you on something, finally... if we could
*** show that one area in the photos had changed substantially
*** between two different exposures, this would show that
*** the figure was moving... but I was working from the only
*** photo of this scene I have found.

See if there is more than one photo of the same area and observe
if anything changes between the two. The photos used to make up
a single colour image are taken over several minutes (each uses
a different filter), not instantaneously, so between the first
and last filter you should expect to see some evidence of motion.
*** I cant verify your approximated [several minutes] total
*** time for an exposure in anything Ive seen... only that many
*** different filters are used.

You haven't computed his height or weight or sex based on the evidence
(facts) available.
*** I dont know his name, address, or credit card number either :-)
*** I do state my opinion that he is perhaps only several inches tall.

As a researcher you might expect him to carry some tools but none are
visible.
*** Its apparent that you are not commenting on my article, but
*** spinning your own ! I used the term "researcher" because
*** of this figure's general appearance... but I also stated that
*** he appeared to be flying on a platform of some kind, some
*** distance off the planet surface... that he appears to be
*** looking directly into the camera; and is was operating this
*** flying platform. Safety would predicate his not using
*** any "tools" while engaged in flying this device.
*** My observation remains theoretically sound !

He might require some assistance breathing on Mars in 0.01 ATM
carbon dioxide. He might need some insulation against the elements.
You have not demonstrated where these supports can be found in
the image, or your theory as to why he wouldn't need them.
*** again, you are distorting what I said... or, perhaps I was
*** slightly unclear in my presentation... I stated that this
*** person is very small... a resident of Mars... why would he
*** require breathing apparatus on his own planet ?? Insulation
*** from his native environs ? Same issue... he is, however,
*** wearing a fashionable jacket, so... I covered all this.

Keep on working on this.
*** I should, however, rather devote myself to the project than to
*** answering frivolous replies.

I am sure something good will come of it.
*** I hope something better does... I am still awaiting any
*** formidable proof against my discovery, or any vast
*** cash rewards from it :-) Either would satisfy me completely.

Mark

mlm wrote
***... in fact, I DID
*** show that this figure was ANIMATE... I stated that we
*** could discern, even in the reduced resolution of this
*** photo, that the figure had a head and all the facial
*** features... a neck, a trunk, arms, legs, and that his
*** clothing and shoes were visible.


Umm, have you checked the scale of the image in question?
Your figure is some 1/4 inch tall!

Marvin wrote

... in fact, I DID show that this figure was ANIMATE...
I stated that we could discern, even in the reduced
resolution of this photo, that the figure had a head and
all the facial features... a neck, a trunk, arms, legs,
and that his clothing and shoes were visible

Umm, have you checked the scale of the image in question?
Your figure is some 1/4 inch tall!

*** no... only in the thumbnail, viewed on a laptop :-)