Eddie ... babe..
Very amusing post, yours. It has all the relevance of a quadrapalegic petitioning to participate in the running of the bulls in Pamplona.
Where i have I heard your sort of writing style before? Ahhhh the notably absent "Jimbo" who could only delve in character assasination and attempt to elevate his watching NASA "home movies" over his lunch break to an "investigation." Let's see.. implying I'm in a sanitarium under nursing care, government conspiracies, aliens, dimestore novel, nurse working for the government. Glory, GLORY, Jimbo is reincarnate!
Yet in all your flippant words there is an overwhelming inability to deal with the FACTS I present in the NASA Imagery. I submit that your failure to do so comes from an emotional inability to *DEAL* with the implications of what these images show. Care to explain a 1.6 kilometer needle straight monolith giving off smoke in natural terms? Want to attempt to characterize a 3,000 foot long complex curved structure balanced on the edge of a severe cliff as some sort of volcanic doming?
You want to know my qualifications?
At the age of 13 my fascination of the oceans and marine biosphere led me to be certified in scuba diving by U.S. Naval standards, the youngest one is able to be certified. I went on that year to work with the Florida Institute of Technology and a well known Oceanographer, Pierre Chaleron, on the study of beach erosion and reef decline pertaining to the ill-conceived use of groin fields by the Army Core of Engineers as a means to prevent beach erosion. This study involved my analyzying and measuring salient featurs of subsurface marine environments from -- aerial imagery.
I worked with Jacques Yves Cousteau in his study and documentation of Manatee in the brackish Florida inland waterways and did appear in the television docuumentary.
I applied my love of the oceans and Marine biology to the study of Oceanography in my undegraduate education. I attended an Ivy League school and graduated with honors and double concentrations in Geology and English, with a minor in Geophysics, all within a 4 year period. When I graduated I was rated the best Petroleum Geologist in the graduating class by the specialization's professors as a result of my adept ability to accurately interpret geophysical data and borehole litholigies and extrapolate paleo depositional environments in the search for petroleum deposits... again.. image analysis.
I have since consulted the U.S Military and Corporate clients on an equal basis. I have received security clearances from all branches of the U.S. military and have served as a contracted representative to the Federal E.P.A. and state agencies. I have been responsible for the explosives and tactical nuclear weapons areas of the first U.S. Military base closure. In order to assure the safety of those persons working with me, I was trained by the U.S. Navy in explosives. I am also the soul civilian consultant to the U.S. Navy during the War in the Gulf regarding --- satellite imagery.
The analysis of Geomorphologic structure in aerial imagery requires an awereness of geophysical processes and recognition of their forms. Only in knowing what is typical in surficial structure can one begin recognize what is atypical.
A simple example of image analysis is the comparison of Aeolian (wind driven forms) forms, such as dunes.. with other more fluid forms in still imagery such as would be seen in water. The seemingly eacy differentiation between soil and water can be extremely difficult in still imagery.
Indeed, one certainly could take an aerial image of any arid place on this planet and remove all traces of color and there would be some who might want to indicate that these wave forms were water. In making such a statement, I hope you might also consider the converse perspective that there are many unqualified persons who would rather judge something as Aeolian land forms that is actually water, failing to actually learn what the image presents by referencing the detail.
The Devil is in the detail and this takes work and foreknowledge and no small degree of innate ability. Some disregard all these with great aplomb.. Some of us do know the difference and know it from both professional experience and lifetime affiliation with geologic and oceanographic studies. I can tell you flat out that not a missile that was targeted in the War in the Gulf ever made a splash nor were regions indicated as "cleared" that left our troops standing up to their gills in water. If you want to know some of the indicators between fluid liquid and non fluid soil wave forms, I suggest you read my site presentation thoroughly.
You may be surprised to know that black and white original imagery provides far more detail and concrete indicators than colorized imagery ever could. With adequate image coverage and detail, I can "hit" the difference between soil and water and identify other structure within the turmoil virtually 100% of the time, but then that is what I have been paid to do. While water imagery can indeed be adjusted, removing detail, to resemble soil structure, fluid water bodies show detail unique to them alone which cannot be "induced" from images of Aeolian land forms.
This recognition of detail in imagery is what constitutes "image analysis' and is the difference between being a scientist and one seeing only unrecognizable detail in a image that might as well be a sonogram of the pizza and beer in your gullet.
Eddie, it is evident from your current stance that you have left the bounds of objective discussion of the very real material and can only only make ad-hoc judgments, diminishing statements and character assasinations, evidencing no expertise yourself. Why dont you do us all a favor and go nurture your threatend paradigms in some dark quiet corner...and take a tranquilizer.
NONE of what i present on my site shows any "randomness" at all. What I present in the imagery shows the linear structure and supporting details of undeniably artificial constructs. That which defines these details as "non-natural" in there strong deviation from topography is their often defined geometric shape and clearly "NON-RANDOM" layout. The features I present as artificial constructs show complex compound curves with a plane of symmetry, numerous parallel arcs and curves, line and form that deviate abruptly from the topography and rise high above the topographic surface often with rectilinear angles or abrupt, precipitous cylindrical risings from the topography and many, many other features you do not find ANYWHERE in NATURAL topography here .... or on Mars.
I make no mention of Aliens, nor conspiracies, nor air brushed imagery to hide detail on my site. I simply state what *IS* there, beyond any doubt. I leave it to you to judge what is the most reasonable means to explain these artificial features and repeated evidences of current activity. It is unreasonable to simply pretend they are not there.
Eddie.. insult your intelligence? I would have to see some modest demonstration of intelligence first to have anything to deal with. Right now I'd imagine you're relieved to have your fly up and shirt not tucked in your underpants in family photographs..and THIS you would deem suitable performance to make you an... "image expert."
Take a LONG HARD look at these thumbnails and try to tell me the detail they show are in any way natural: