Mars Alien And Government Bases PICS!!!!

Originally posted by masqua
Ack...my brain hurts trying to fathom all those nested quotes. I count a triple.

Please be kind to the readers who must disect such madness.

As you can see my responses to the quotes are 'nested' and i just forgot to review the page after posting. All you could have done ( you have done it before ) is correct my bad quoting saving yourself all this typing trouble. I would have spotted it eventually and fixed it but with this short editing time things sometimes slip past me sensors.

Stellar

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The first thing to catch my attention is when I clicked on the link $34.95 stood out very clearly. The second was the type of filtering he was using on the images and that statement about flipping photo's made no sense. You can flip a photo a thousand times without altering it. You are just reversing the pixel order either vertically or horizontally.

Never noticed the money thing ( i guess we all focus on different things) but what would happen in NASA took the images they received and then indulged in stretching/flipping and then tampering with it before returning it to it's original scale? Would changing perspective or stretching it to discover tampering not lead to loss of quality if you are not use of what they did?

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Really proves in my ( not at all experienced opinion) that that is not just regularly clarity loss considering just how little distance there was for it to go missing in.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

The tree like objects are from extreme misuse of sharpening and unsharp masks. The pixel radius was set to ridiculous and you end up with patterns. They show that he either does not know what he is doing or he is perpetrating a hoax to get $34.95.

Not everyone cheats others for money you know. Do you know that the images he uses comes directly from official science data strips and that the shapes of trees and the like are visible in the original resolution itself? This is not a question of 'sharpening' or some such as those who have actually looked at the NASA science strips would have quickly realised.

I do not know which. In reading what he says he may think he's developed a way to pull out the detail and does not truly realize he's trying to accomplish the impossible. Whatever data is in the file is all their is and no amount of manipulation will bring out data that is not in the file.

Since i am a complete amateur at this and i am aware of that i would be very surprised if he is not so i do believe your getting the wrong impression. Clarity can be had in many ways without assuming the artificial creation of it by manipulating limited data and that is what i see in his pictures. Colouration for contrast and flipping the picture for orientation seems to be the staple of what he does and he always seems to go to great lenghts to tell us what he did to get the picture they way he is displaying. I have not noticed him altering images in ways he does not note in his explanations at the bottem.

He is working from images downloaded from the net I'd guess which means they were compressed. This also means lots of artifacts from the compression. If you then take these dirty images through a un-sharp mask or other sharpening algorithms and set the pixel radius too high you end up with little shapes (his tree's).

I understand what your saying but where do you see him doing that in his images? As far as i know he has managed to lay hands on the original images as received from NASA after they did whatever they do. If there are artifacts why are they not randomly spread as compression would do? Can this really be explained as a 'compression' artifact?

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

He may not even realize what he is doing. Then again he may know exactly what he is doing. I have the best forensics software on the market and I can not add a single pixel of data to an image. I can only use filters to interpolate information into the photo that gives the impression of more detail by producing sharper more distinct edges. The algorithm makes a best guess as to what lies between the pixels and creates additional pixel to fill in the edge or detail.

Have you seen him suggest anywhere that he is fact using such software or for that matter actually using it in instances where he does not tell you? Why assume criminal intent without evidence?

I've shied away from getting into what is wrong with photo's I've viewed on UFO sites because it angers people so much. It is like no one wants the truth about them, they just want people to agree with them. Clay Pigeons are not UFO's. Lamppost fixtures are not UFO's.

I can stand the truth as i have no vested interest in believing in moon/mars anomalies ( beside the blow my ego is quite able of coping with that is) so if you can make a case that convinces me then so be it. As always i am just generally suspicious of those who claim such vast knowledge and experience who so regularly fail to contribute anything to my understanding by just insisting that 'it can't be' and thus 'must have some other explanation'. I am not interested in discovering the limits of what you will consider but that is all i mostly discover when i question people.

Blurred birds in the distance are not UFO's. Objects attached to the sides of tree's are not UFO's. Small aircraft flying away from the viewer are not UFO's. Lens anomalies caused by a bright light source hitting the edge of the one of 5 to 20 optics in a modern lenses and bouncing around inside the camera are not UFO's. Orb's caused by a droplet or dust speck on the surface of the outermost optic are not UFO's. Well, you get my point.

The only reason to suspect Ufo's is when there is a series of anomalous events. If you can reliably predict when and where UFO's should appear ( Many observers takes pictures of chem trails and then afterwards discover the very same anomaly nearby after development) i think your on the something but if it's just a random unrepeated observations it's really hard to take it very seriously.

Now to the weird part. I have seen two objects I believe to be genuine UFO's and would like nothing more than to find legitimate photo's to back me up. There are photo's that may be real but since there is no way to get a copy of the original negative or digital file I can't confirm any. There always seems to be some reason that no one can come up with the original other than a few of the blurry bird and small aircraft flying directly away from the viewer photo's. I can't tell you how many of those I've seen.

You can tell me and i will listen. I have very specific ideas as to where to find ufo's and for that matter who ( no aliens involved) are operating them.

Stellar

Anomalous structures that look unnatural are on both mars and the moon, I'm not necessarily sure the ones in the beginning of the post are though, here are some more compelling links that look much more unnatural.

This one is a long link but it's the real deal!!


images.google.com...://www.anomalous-images.com/19438s-2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.anomalous-images.com/moon.html&h=1045&w=1188& sz=582&tbnid=fas4TWBBGZEJ:&tbnh=131&tbnw=149&hl=en&start=12&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2527moon%2Banomalies%2527%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff

paranormal.about.com...://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed/tower/tower.html

paranormal.about.com.../XJ&sdn=paranormal&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lunaranomalies.com%2Fnew_3d_rendering_of_the.htm

Ok, for the last time, please read my posts about MarsAnomalyResearch and other sites like that (this includes paranormal.about...)
Now, to debunk one of that pictures:
Take this picture of the "tower":



and take a look at the context picture




So..is there a tower? No, he only misintrepreted the original picture.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Apass
By coming to the wrong conclusions!

When somebody claims the wrong things again and again, the scientific comunity does ignore him. Not only the scientific comunity, but also the rest of the people. That's how things work. Have you ever thought why Aesop created that fable about the boy who cried the wolf?

Don't take anyone's word for anything just because others do.

I'm not. That's why I choose to ignore MarsAnomalyResearch.

Einstein contributed fairly little as even the basis of his main 'discovery' had already been in evidence for a very very long time indeed.

Not quite that long, but the point was to take a person who dared to think different that the current dogma. And Einstein is a good example for that. The current dogma was that the light speed is not the same in every reference frame. And also Bohr is a good a example. He postulated that indeed, the electron behaves also as a wave around the nucleus. The current model was of an planet like electron!
And both Einstein and Bohr got credited for their work. But they could explain a lot of things about the world around us. Not exactly the same thing with MarsAnomalyResearch.

I have provided plenty of links which you then set about superficially attacking by proposing that there are alternative 'possibilities'

What alternative possibility is for the 21%oxygen in earth's atmosphere?
That was not superficially attacking. That was a thorough analysis of current evidence. You are now attaking me for that analysis. And you still refuse to show us your research on how those alternative explanations contradict other known facts! (mars being geologicaly dead is not a known fact, is a supposition)

( it could after all be giant well hidden fans causing global weather phenomenon)

Yep...and our meteo models take that into account....

All you did was play devil's advocate which would have been fine if you stated from the get go that life MUST be impossible on Mars. The moment you realistically approach the evidence not only the odds but the PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence proves without a doubt that there is running water on Mars.

What you are suggesting is a biased approach to do science. A true scientiest will never say The world is flat and then try to find evidence for that, a true scientist would analyse facts first and then would give some hypotheses that can or cannot be verified. So the proper aproach for life on Mars would be: These are the facts, can there be life on Mars? Are there other possible sources/explanations for the observed phenomena? If neither hypotesis can be proved 100% (or if you want, 99.999999....%) one can not say that sure, there is life on Mars. That's science! If you start from : there is life on Mars, you will then chose only the supporting evidence and ignore the other explanations.

NASA OPENLY ADMITS THIS.

Where? When?

I have given more than enough evidence to convince those who are interested in reality and discovering the truth and if you are not convinced the problem lies in your own mind and you should stop project your own bias on others. We are not all close minded and set in our ways like you quite clearly is.

Once again, you are attaking me...
But sorry, almost all the links you provided offerd an alternative explanation for the observed phenomena...I have run down these alternatives...and didn't find that they contradict other known facts.

If there were ever -intelligent- (in this case civilized & technological) life in our solar system, it would've been on planet Earth before the previous ice age.

The second spot it would've been would be Mars in the distant past. Clearly this planet, Mars, is no longer suitable for the 'ripe' conditions of life, the ones needed in my opinion to form intelligent life. Yet we see things, traces, as if Mars used to be different. Well, I don't have a definate stance on the matter but I find it completely plausible that there could have been lifeforms similar to us humans on Mars quite a long time ago, when we were at our most uncivilized, or prior to our existance as Homo sapiens.

At the fear of causing offence, I appreciate this is some peoples passion and many hours have been spent examining it all. Seriously though, is anyone really suggesting, based on the quality of the images that any of these theories are even remotely accurate.

If the missions to Mars were to discover rocks, then yes, these images are awesome.

Proof of life, Cities, Towers, Forests, Government Bases?? Come on - sniff a pot of reality.

Originally posted by Apass
When somebody claims the wrong things again and again, the scientific comunity does ignore him.

Well there are few scientist in any field that have not supported bad science or bad conclusions by other scientist so should we fire the lot of them? Of course not but it's obviously easy to attack isolated voices based on the principle that they are not allowed to have a bad track record.

Not only the scientific comunity, but also the rest of the people. That's how things work.

People in the end believe what propaganda sources propagandize them best or in the absence of such sources what suits them best; that's how things work.

Have you ever thought why Aesop created that fable about the boy who cried the wolf?

He created it to warn people that objective reality can not be altered by perception; just because you do not believe that there is a wolf that specific time has very little bearing on the reality of the wolfs presence or existence.

I'm not. That's why I choose to ignore MarsAnomalyResearch.

You have not shown me anything to suggest that he engages in deliberate fraud or that is in fact wrong at all. I remember that you set out some pages for me to check out in that other, rather long and interesting, post related to this and that it did not change my mind; will try get to that post eventually and address the claims specifically.

Not quite that long, but the point was to take a person who dared to think different that the current dogma.

And that is the thing; he really was not thinking all that differently from the main stream at the time otherwise they would not have accepted it so quickly. Other notable scientist were engaged in the same area and there is good evidence to suggest that Einstein added very little original if anything at all; that's if his wife is not the one that put the entire argument together in the first place!

And Einstein is a good example for that. The current dogma was that the light speed is not the same in every reference frame.

Well is it? My personal opinion ( based on more than just this link) is that GR is just too restrictive and that , strangely, tends to be the aim of the sciences in general.

metaresearch.org...

And also Bohr is a good a example. He postulated that indeed, the electron behaves also as a wave around the nucleus. The current model was of an planet like electron!

Well as far as i know the wave is just the method of propagation trough spacetime; when you want a 'specific' ( i know) location your going to end up with a 'particle' like quanta. Just a dabbler in physics so feel free to correct me.

And both Einstein and Bohr got credited for their work. But they could explain a lot of things about the world around us.

They got credited sure but that does not mean what they said are in fact still very useful or even considered true... Explaining the thing itself by means of physics and maths is pretty damn hard and few manage such; most of what we come up with are useful in the sense that it gives us predictive powers very much independent of the reality or truth of the approximations and 'facts' employ.

We still have no idea what energy 'is' ( or for that matter does classical EM sciences understand where it comes from; hence the source charge problem ) but that most certainly did not prevent us from beinb able to predict a whole host of phenomenon with relatively useful accuracy.

Not exactly the same thing with
MarsAnomalyResearch.

Well that depends entirely on how much reading you actually did! Marsanomaly research shows us pictures of tree like growths which suggest that we should look for standing water or the gases ( in the Martian atmosphere) that we relate to life on Earth. If one considers the site in such light it becomes readily 'useful', while maybe not in the most scientific sense, as it's pictures leads us to be able to make some predictions for future investigation. We can almost always interpret data in very many different ways but on MAR the data the interpretation is based on is always firmly in evidence; what more can or should be expected from someone who investigates reality?

It is impossible to eliminate personal bias ( just ask professional scientist) and that's why scientist must interact to test their conclusions against those of others.

What alternative possibility is for the 21%oxygen in earth's atmosphere?

Not sure how it's related so feel free to elaborate..

That was not superficially attacking. That was a thorough analysis of current evidence. You are now attaking me for that analysis.

Well imo it was it it's based on the premise that because there could be alternative explanations they are logical and or likely; possible at all. It is easy enough to introduce factors we have no inkling of but what is the motivation for introducing them without reason?

And you still refuse to show us your research on how those alternative explanations contradict other known facts! (mars being geologicaly dead is not a known fact, is a supposition)

I was referring to the positive results of the LR experiment on the original Viking missions; many scientist have suggested other ways how the finding could be achieved but it's never been shown under laboratory conditions that those possible explanations are in fact possible or that they can better or at all explain the findings.

Yep...and our meteo models take that into account....

No they do not as it's assumed that current weather phenomenon are driven by natural forces without active human intervention to create specific alterations.

What you are suggesting is a biased approach to do science. A true scientiest will never say The world is flat and then try to find evidence for that, a true scientist would analyse facts first and then would give some hypotheses that can or cannot be verified.

Then we have very few 'true' scientist on planet Earth and i am certainly not one of them. What we currently observe to be true gives us predictive powers so we are in fact always assuming a certain possibility more likely than another when busy with our investigation; it's almost impossible not to have a prior conception of the likely result based on one's prior experience in the field and the problem lies not in that but in disregarding whatever contradicts prevailing consensus ( in your minds or those of others).

So the proper aproach for life on Mars would be: These are the facts, can there be life on Mars?

Facts rarely are and they are as much the product of prior perception,convention and or consensus as are the likely means we will use to investigate new phenomenon. Assuming that our current understanding and 'facts' are based on impartial and generally objective views is a big mistake and will only lead to the investigation of what our current ideas suggest. It's in the end no different than what you suggested i did on this occasion.

Are there other possible sources/explanations for the observed phenomena? If neither hypotesis can be proved 100% (or if you want, 99.999999....%) one can not say that sure, there is life on Mars. That's science!

In as much as science can predict anything i will say that i am certain of life on Mars today.

If you start from : there is life on Mars, you will then chose only the supporting evidence and ignore the other explanations.

Some might do that but it's not the way i like doing things as that leads to other people showing up your ignorance and bias very regularly. Feel free to check my record on this forum if you think such is the case with my 'method'.



[edit on 19-11-2006 by StellarX]

Where? When?

New images of Mars reveal that flowing water, large glaciers and active volcanoes have scoured the planet in recent geologic times.

Scientists say Mars has been geologically active in the past few million years -- an eyeblink in the planet's 4.5-billion-year history.

Three studies appearing in the March 17 issue of the journal Nature add to a growing body of evidence that points to recent liquid water and present vast stores of underground ice near the planet’s equator.

Combined, the research provides further impetus to search Mars for signs of life, scientists said.

"The three papers provide an overwhelming case for new thinking about recent geological activity on Mars," writes Baker in an analysis of the work.

Baker said the findings support a 1991 hypothesis, then considered outrageous, that Mars has experienced episodes of cataclysmic flooding in modern times. Water is thought to have formed temporary seas, but researchers had long assumed it all evaporated into the thin Martian air.

Many scientists now agree that much of the water remained.

www.space.com...

When you look at the watershed upstream today, you see lots of gullies there, lots of things that look glacial. And if they are there now, and they are part of the most recent climate change, it means that when the obliquity was right (thousands of years ago, when Mars was more sharply tilted on its axis, which would have warmed some regions of the planet), something was happening in that region. And obliquity changes cyclically on Mars, which supports the hypothesis that there was some kind of repetitive action here.

So we're looking at the morphological evidence. Many people agree that it's probably one of the best examples of a hydrographic (water-carved) system on Mars. But you also have many people that think that's not the case. Or even if it is the case, that we have Appolinaris Patera (a nearby volcano) that came afterwards and covered up all the evidence, so that what we're seeing today isn't a lakebed but something else.

In our hypothesis, the lakes in Gusev were at the beginning of the history of Gusev, when Ma'adim was very active. Even in that scenario, though, the most recent release of water from Ma'adim wouldn't have been enough to form lakes. All you would see are some very small channels incising what we have called a delta, where Ma'adim flows into Gusev. This would deposit some cobbles and blocks from Ma'adim but it wouldn't form lacustrine features. And, interestingly enough, the landing site is sitting on material from this most recent activity.

www.astrobio.net...

On Mars the globally-averaged surface pressure of the planet's atmosphere is only slightly less than 6.1 millibars.

"That's the average," says Haberle, "so some places will have pressures that are higher than 6.1 millibars and others will be lower. If we look at sites on Mars where the pressure is a bit higher, that's where water can theoretically exist as a liquid."

science.msfc.nasa.gov...

The feature suggests that "vast flooding events, which are known to have occurred from beneath Mars’ surface throughout its geological history, still happen," the Muller, Murray and their colleagues write. "The presence of liquid water for thousands of millions of years, even beneath the surface, is a possible habitat in which primitive life may have developed, and might still be surviving now. Clearly this must now be considered as a prime site for future missions looking for life."

The researchers propose that the ice has been protected from sublimation by an overlying layer of volcanic ash.

"I think it's fairly plausible," Michael Carr, an expert on Martian water at the U.S. Geological Survey, told New Scientist. "We know where the water came from," said Carr, who was not involved in the work. "You can trace the valleys carved by water down to this area."

www.space.com...

Rumors about what has been actually identified are about as fluid as liquid itself, from water-ice deposits, concentrations of iron, to Martian springs, and even Old Faithful-like geysers.

www.space.com...

The findings announced Thursday -- evidence of water seeping to Mars' surface in recently cut gullies -- bridge a gap in the beliefs of astrobiologists, taking them from strong suspicion to near certainty about the existence of liquid water on Mars.

"There's a subtlety between having every reason to believe [water] is there and having this higher level of certainty," said Bruce Jakosky, a professor of geological science at the University of Colorado, and the director of the university's center for astrobiology.

"We now know pretty convincingly that there is liquid water on Mars, and that it's relatively accessible near the surface," he said.

The field of space studies is known to throw curveballs. For instance, scientists last week said the latest evidence of water was found in cooler and darker areas facing away from the equator, while many had previously assumed that liquid water near the surface could only exist in hotter, sun-facing areas.

The discovery of evidence of liquid water on Mars boosts astrobiology.

WASHINGTON -- Researchers using NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft announced Thursday that they found puzzling signs of water seeping into what appear to be young, freshly-cut gullies and gaps in the Martian surface.
The startling discovery of recently-formed, weeping layers of rock and sediment has planetary experts scratching their heads.

The wet spots show up in more than 120 locations on Mars and in the coldest places on the planet, said Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego, California, which built the spacecraft's camera.

And that presents a "perplexing problem," he said, because logic says that Mars sub-zero temperatures and thin atmosphere should have kept those wet spots from ever forming.

The wet spots, which turn up in 200 to 250 different images from the Global Surveyor spacecraft, "could be a few million years old but we cannot rule out that some of them are so recent as to have formed yesterday," Malin said.

www.space.com...

SPACE.com has learned that NASA hasdiscovered evidence of water on the Red Planets surface. The finding, made bythe Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, fuels hopes that there may be life onMars.

Sources close to theagencys Mars program said the discovery involves evidence of seasonal deposits that could be associated with springs on the planets surface

NASA announces discovery of evidence of water on Mars

You have seen this before yet you kept denying it's reality EVEN AFTER i provided a dozen pictures showing what really looks like liquid water. All this and you still will simply ignore it? Do not lecture me about bias then!

Once again, you are attaking me...

And i am becoming ever more convinced that it's not all that unjustified considering how you accuse me of bias while avoiding so much material yourself.

But sorry, almost all the links you provided offerd an alternative explanation for the observed phenomena...I have run down these alternatives...and didn't find that they contradict other known facts.

Well i have also checked out the counter claims and that was what i found in relation to the LR experiment; they have simply not been able to come up with alternative demonstrable conditions ( other than biological ) that gave the result observed. There have been a few attempts but over the years it's been shown( like the oxides which there still is no evidence for) that there is no evidence for them. I have not addressed each and every claim in your very well laid out earlier post but i will eventually try condense all my response in various thread in response to it. I think the points i have addressed so far are sufficient but i hate not responding to such hard ( if imo leading to the wrong conclusions) work in kind.

It's a rare thing to meet someone online that can or will defend their ideas in such detailed fashion; i should compliment you on it more often however much we disagree on these issues.

Thanks

Stellar

The pyramids on mars do not prove there is alien life or secret government base on mars. It is more likely to believe that at one point Mars and earth were at one point one planet. That there was a civilization on this planet and something happened such as a meteor collision that split the planets into what they are now. Although mars doesn't have life on it now look at how similar it looks when compared to earth. It has a north pole, canyons with dried out rivers and the pyramids where compared to the ones on earth and they are very similar in size and layout of the “city”. So it is possible that that species survived on the part of that planet which is now earth and continued evolving on earth.

www.mars-earth.com...

Is there a working link??

Originally posted by Nerve
The pyramids on mars do not prove there is alien life or secret government base on mars.

Maybe not but pictures and scientific instruments did and still do.

It is more likely to believe that at one point Mars and earth were at one point one planet. That there was a civilization on this planet and something happened such as a meteor collision that split the planets into what they are now.

The odds of the two new planets maintaining a solid surface ( and thus any evidence of civilization) after the split is as far as my knowledge on this topic goes quite 'unlikely' ( read 'impossible' according to the 'experts').

Although mars doesn't have life on it now look at how similar it looks when compared to earth.

It does have life now and it was then and is now still very similar to Earth considering the standing water, blue skies, rain clouds and apparent abundant 'plant' life.

It has a north pole, canyons with dried out rivers and the pyramids where compared to the ones on earth and they are very similar in size and layout of the “city”.

Which in my opinion shows that it was or still is inhabited by the same people who inspired 'civilization' as we know it on Earth. Go study the start of human civilization and notice the general lack of information as to the how and they why ready made civilizations appeared into the world in mere centuries if not decades.

So it is possible that that species survived on the part of that planet which is now earth and continued evolving on earth.
www.mars-earth.com...

It makes in my opinion rather more sense to assume that the catastrophe that happened on Mars resulted in the inhabitants fleeing to other planets probably including Earth...

Stellar