is NASA holding back evidence of man made structures on Mars?

The face on Mars is VERY old. So of course it's not going to look like a perfect face. But it looks enough like a face for me to say it's an artificial structure. I talked to a guy who works at NASA. He told me that the high level authorities know it's artificial, but they try to make it seem as though it isn't to the public.

Okay, the face has gone long enough. The pyramids I can understand why people would defend them, but there is a 100% guarantee that the face is NOT artificial.

Does this look like it was ever a face?

Could have been. And that's only one angle. The pyramid is close it to. It's a hard thing for us to prove or disprove, but NASA knows the truth. That's all I'm going to say.

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Does this look like it was ever a face?

That looks eerily like a face. I really don't see how one can miss it. Wish I were good at photoshop, I'de fill in the upper portion, were it seems errosion and time have had an effect. You honeslty do not see eyes, forehead, lower chin, possibly mouth? Bare in mind - don't think human - we can not say it was built by humans, outside of that is alien, so structure would be slightly different/different/very different. Sometimes I think many here are looking for a face absolute, eyebrows and all - on a planet with raging sand storms. Think heavy-grit sand paper on wood over time - not going to look the same.

Misfit

I talked to a guy who works at NASA.

Fifty bucks says you dont know anyone who works at NASA. Another fifty bucks says one of your friends told you they know a guy who works at NASA. Aaaaanooother fifty bucks says they dont know anyone who works at NASA, either. This is called 'folklore' and story transferrance... in order to make your fable seem more believable, you transfer the original observer onto yourself. How do I know this? Because what you said was 100% BS. Assuming NASA even cared, have they landed little robots on it to determine this mountains origin? No. Have they done hyperintensive radar telemetric data gathering on the mountain? No. Do they care at all about this particular geological formation? Probably not.

Why does it look like a face? For the same reason the Moon looks like it has a face. Our brains have a little center dedicated to seeking out faces in the images our optical centers process. We are actively trying to piece together faces in what we see. It's how we recognize eachothers' faces.

Is there really a giant face on the surface of the Moon? No.
Does the oilstain in my driveway really reflect the image of Ghandi? No.
Is there a alien ruin of a HUMAN (eyes, nose, mouth in the alleged proportions are human features) face on Mars? No.

Originally posted by apc
Why does it look like a face? For the same reason the Moon looks like it has a face. Our brains have a little center dedicated to seeking out faces in the images our optical centers process.

Have heard that before, documantary on human perception [or the likes of title] on a Discovery/NG channle.
But, honestly, can you say the first images of that [how ever many years ago that was] did not look like a face?

Does the oilstain in my driveway really reflect the image of Ghandi? No.

I am assuming you did not write that it was that Catholic Mary/Fatima/Mother/whatever her name is, so as not to get 50million people with cam-phones on your yard? lmao. C'mon, ya gotta laugh - I mean hell, a parking lot owner could have one airbrushed on the building by his lot, make a bloody fortune in 2 days, move to Bermuda as kiss the idiots goodbye! Hmmmm, anyone have an empty lot & airbrush kit I can borrow? [I can build the pay shack, lol]

=================

@ bellefish84

Um, what was that about?

Misfit

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Misfit]

GoldEagle
I can't see why my point is very difficult to get. What I am saying is that the photos are faked and iti s not hard to do them on the computer, I guess. There is no need for freemasons to GO UP TO MARS. They are faking them on their computers. That is at least my point.

Wind, so you are saying that these structures are not on Mars. It was created here [earth] by NASA to show masonic symbolisim. A little far fetched but far more belivable (that's saying alot) then the people that think they are physicaly on Mars.

Originally posted by Wind
What I am saying is that the photos are faked and iti s not hard to do them on the computer, I guess. There is no need for freemasons to GO UP TO MARS. They are faking them on their computers. That is at least my point.

Why is it that Freemasonry gets involved in these fictious tales. The next thing you know gas will be $2.49 a gallon... Opps spoke to soon...

Thanks for this thread.
All in all, very compelling. Honestly I have never delved into mars conspiracies, but as I watch the evidence mount, this is definately fascinating stuff.
Just wanted to say thanks for the lessons.

GoldEagle The fact is that erosion is much slower on Mars. It's atmosphere is very dry. Sand storms are harsh but would not really erode a massive structure that much even over millions of years.

That is only if one believes in evolutionary theory. I for one don't believe in that theory. There are too many holes in it. I'm a creationist. If the the universe was young, as I believe it is, it wouldn't take that long to erode a massive structure.

Now lets put in the mix this thread: Ice lake found on the Red Planet www.abovetopsecret.com...
Not only an ice lake was found but also, "the European Space Agency detected what they called a huge "frozen sea".


If the structures were artificially made who knows how long ago, then with all the frozen water it is possible, very remote I believe, that life could have existed there. Then one would have to ask what was the atmosphere like back then? Did it always exist that way? If not, how did the atmosphere get the way it is today?

NinterX Well, mars its said to once has been like aerth nowadays. ANd earth is said to become like mars in the future. And in a desert earth..........pyramids would survive.

We always wondered how the pyramids were created on Earth. Could this be a clue? Could the race of beings who lived on Mars have to move to Earth? Why did they move?

ohiostate416 from what I hear, Mars climate right now shows what would happen to earth if an a-bomb went off. They say that earth would be the same way 50 years later.

If we came from a race that once lived on Mars, did they destroy the atmosphere? Why? How? Is that techonology still available by another race that lives amoung the stars about ready to visit us? Could we build the technology and actually use it to turn the Earth into Mars?

If there are no artificial structures on Mars, then no one needs to worry or consume any more time over this issue. We can all go to bed safe and sound tonight not having to worry about the face on Mars, or who could visit us.

Well, as sound as can be depending on where on lives, or what other conspiricies one believes in.

is NASA holding back evidence of man made structures on Mars?

My instincts tell me to say:

No, NASA is NOT holding back evidence of man made structures on Mars.

Because ............ (drum role please) ..........



Man didn't make those structures.

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Okay, the face has gone long enough. The pyramids I can understand why people would defend them, but there is a 100% guarantee that the face is NOT artificial.

Does this look like it was ever a face?

AHHH, only a mother could love ......

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

GoldEagle The fact is that erosion is much slower on Mars. It's atmosphere is very dry. Sand storms are harsh but would not really erode a massive structure that much even over millions of years.

That is only if one believes in evolutionary theory. I for one don't believe in that theory. There are too many holes in it. I'm a creationist. If the the universe was young, as I believe it is, it wouldn't take that long to erode a massive structure.

Depends on what was used to construct it. In other words, everyone seems to simply play it as [at least it appears] the structures were built with nothing more than the sand/dirt of Mars itself. What if they were, in fact, built sturdy? A being/beings that is able to build such massive structures, I would at least think, is not going to use .............. sand.

Take a major building material of humans - concrete. The ingredients of concrete [sand, cement, aggregate (stone/sand), water], on their own, will pour out of you hand; yet, put them together and you have buildings, bridges, and roads.

So, how can one hypothesize that the structures would not have taken long to erode, when the composition of the structures is not clearly known?

This is not an attempt to debunk nor bolster either proponent, but to bring to light the subject of composition [an earnest conspiractist attempts, at least, to see all sides. Albeit, some sides are not so easy to embrace **ahfregle911govstoryblehuhg** lol]. For all we know, the core ingredient of the structures was iron, rendering perhaps eons to erode? Then again, it may have been ........ packed wet sand.

Misfit

Originally posted by Misfit
Then again, it may have been ........ packed wet sand.
Misfit

Correction, packed frozen sand.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A study of meteorites chipped off the surface of Mars suggests the planet has been frozen for 4 billion years and probably never had the warm wet conditions that could have given rise to life, two researchers said on Thursday.

Evidence shows that there has not been a liquid freestanding pool of water on Mars for 4 Billion years.

Full article, today.reuters.co.uk... .XML

I think this was posted before but far back in the thread and should be restated. Original credit for the find of this article goes to Essan.

Originally posted by Misfit


So, how can one hypothesize that the structures would not have taken long to erode, when the composition of the structures is not clearly known?

This is not an attempt to debunk nor bolster either proponent, but to bring to light the subject of composition [an earnest conspiractist attempts, at least, to see all sides. Albeit, some sides are not so easy to embrace **ahfregle911govstoryblehuhg** lol]. For all we know, the core ingredient of the structures was iron, rendering perhaps eons to erode? Then again, it may have been ........ packed wet sand.

Misfit

It really is the difference between evolution which believes the Earth and universe is millions of years old, and the other theory which believes a realitively young Earth and universe. Say less than 10,000 years old. I know creationists believe the Universe to be around 6000 years old.

Therefore with the alternative theory, it could not take eons to erode anything. Where evolution would say eons, a creationist would say decades.

As to the type of structure these are made of, we don't know. We don't know if they were made as our pyramids were made. We do not know if they were made as the Easter Island statues were made. We do not know if they were made as Stone Henge was made. We do not know if they were made such as the faces on Mount Rushmore were made.

Where one would take a natural geological formation, and create something that resembles something else. Close up it looks like the natural formation such as mountains, but far away it actually has an image.

Neither do we know if it was made of a new type of substance or material that we never heard of before.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by Mystery_Lady]

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Originally posted by Misfit
So, how can one hypothesize that the structures would not have taken long to erode, when the composition of the structures is not clearly known?

[Snip]

It really is the difference between evolution which believes the Earth and universe is millions of years old, and the other theory which believes a realitively young Earth and universe. Say less than 10,000 years old. I know creationists believe the Universe to be around 6000 years old.

[Snip]

Good points ......... all of them

I was raised Christian, and was also taught the theroy of creation with age. Albeit, I simply can not accept it as an adult, perhaps because my raising was quite dogmatic. Donno

Both theories are quite plausible, if one takes to account that both theories are are held as belief by both parties; makes for very productive debates as well

Misfit

Originally posted by Misfit

Good points ......... all of them

I was raised Christian, and was also taught the theroy of creation with age. Albeit, I simply can not accept it as an adult, perhaps because my raising was quite dogmatic. Donno

Thanks. Creationism is alot easier for me to believe after I heard some seminars by Ken Ham. I had doubts on both sides of the spectrum, but his arguements were too strong for me to disregard.

I love the use of the term "man made" when referring to Cydonia.

Lucidia ConsoleText Navyreply to post by Whompa1

No matter how many time one person will claim that humans built things on Mars, another one will say that aliens built it the same amount as the first person. You know what I think about this topic? I think that it's a pointless waste of time. Why would anyone care about who built what on Mars? Why don't you all just try to focus on the planet we're living on right now instead of going off to your little dream worlds some ten trillion miles away? I mean, seriously, people, if you want information on a planet, try picking up info on our DYING planet??? Please, do something useful and help save a planet that actually matters to us and our future generations!!!