Another Face On Mars!! What’s Going On??

Originally posted by Byrd
Signs of photoshop hoaxing.

In this case I would have to agree.... One must always eliminate obvious fraud

But in this case the skepics would say the domes are fraud, that they were photoshoped in..

While the seekers would say NASA photoshoped them out

So which one is right? Lets see if there are any qualified image experts out there who can tell me beyond any doubt which one is airbrushed

Undo and ArMaP sit this one out I know you two can do it...

:ccol:

Originally posted by Terapin
Yes, a face on Mars indeed. Much like the images one can imagine in clouds, the human brain is prewired to recognize faces with ease.

The human mind does not attempt to recognise faces in the clouds. There is no science that seriously suggests that to be the case even if there are scientist who speculate as they well should.

What people fail to consider, is the geological sciences behind what they imagine. If one wishes to make the claim that the face is of alien origin, then one must provide supporting data.

And you have done so little research that you still maintain that there is no scientific evidence involved in these claims? What do you in fact know about the 'geological sciences'?

Simply claiming that aliens built it is not enough. Finding a face on Mars or any other planet is not at all extraordinary. Here are two more faces:

Here's looking at you
Howdy chief

Please provide us with different perspectives of those same features so that we may compare our findings to the differing perspectives we have of the Cydonia region. If you can not provide those we can just as well presume that those 'faces' are also artificial.

Both of these easy to see faces are here on Earth. Based on your logic, I guess aliens must have made them as well.

Or humans i suppose? Why assume their 'natural'?

They are cool to look at, but are no more than natural formations caused by weathering erosion and well described geological processes.

Which well described geological processes created them in your knowledge and what so strongly suggest to you that they are in fact natural?

Imagination is fine, but making wild claims without scientific analyses and supporting data, is a child's game not fit for serious discussion.

What is even more childish is interrupting adult discussions with nothing but derision and general scorn aimed at those who disagree with something you have no way of proving FOR CERTAIN one way or the other. There is most certainly no way that you can prove they are of natural origin so why bother us with your opinions?

Talking about 'science' ( i have found that those who most frequently brings it up knows very little about the actual methods) what happens when a man with the following credentials says the face is in fact artificial and rather obviously so?

metaresearch.org...

Feb. 1963 - Dec. 1983: Research Astronomer, Nautical Almanac Office, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC. Title: Chief, Celestial Mechanics Branch.

metaresearch.org...

So does that mean he only turned crazy in the early 80's?

There is a great deal of data available, yet no one seems to include any when making claims of alien structures on Mars.

Why lie so blatantly in your attempt to dismiss anything that goes against your beliefs on this issue?

Simply pointing to an image, or multiple images, that "look like" something proves nothing.

That's why i hate the posting style of the thread starter. For some reason i once ( i have created only three threads on this forum) succumbed to the same type of delusion but at least i got over it.

Failing to even attempt to provide supporting data shows lack of sincerity.

Which is not the case for all the threads on these general issues and most certainly not the case once i start taking part.

Lets see mineralogical data,

Force NASA to start gathering such data and actually share the results without distortion.

ground penetrating radar scans,

So why don't they send such equipment? Are you suggesting we should stop thinking until consensus based minds such as your own have largely decided that a thing must be true due to the overwhelming nature of the evidence? Frankly i don't want to wait another two decades because people like you refuse to change your minds until almost everyone else already have.

evidence of soil disturbance typical of large scale projects,

Now you are just speculating as we simply do not know how these would have been constructed or how much of the evidence were removed after construction or by natural processes.

local support systems such as roads and machinery, etc. Of the thousands of images available I have yet to see anyone come up with anything extraordinary that demonstrates alien presence on Mars.

That mostly shows that you are not interested in reality when it goes against what you have been told to believe. To still be able to make such a statement after a extended stay on this server is quite ludicrous. It just shows you that evidence counts for nothing if the observer wont consider it.

There are some amazing images to be sure, but proof of ET, not yet.

And as i have said before you are clearly the type that wont believe in aliens until they kick down your front door and vaporizes your pet cat.

Having worked on projects related to the rover missions and the Chandra x-ray telescope satellite,

Not a unexpected statement i suppose ....

I have a solid understanding of image data.

So you are deliberately spreading misinformation. I don't think that's allowed on ATS but we bend the rules all the time.

On ATS we are supposed to Deny Ignorance. There is a higher standard of evidence other than guessing games and imagination.

What happens on ATS, like everywhere else, is mostly a denial of observed reality and i have never bought into the logo or the grand claims of objective and informed moderators and management. They are clearly just people and not on the whole selected because they actually have differing opinions.

Doesn't anyone study Geology anymore? Seeing a cube formed rock and calling it an anomaly???

Geologist are some of the dumbest and most gullible 'scientist' around and frankly i will stone them if i discover them on ATS.

What happened to science education?

As if what we learn at school and in university has all that much to do with the true aims of objective observation and theorizing. The more people questions what the science community tells us the more it shows that people are waking up and refuses to believe nonsense because those who tell it are well dressed and generally behave in authoritative ways.

Sure, these are all cool images, but just because they may look like something, doesn't mean a thing.

It means, as your rightly say, as much as your opinion on this issue means to me.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Which is not the case for all the threads on these general issues and most certainly not the case once i start taking part.

Ah so I take it then you are about to reveal much? I am betting your collection is bigger than my collection.... I have a lot of room on my server...

Originally posted by TerapinSimply pointing to an image, or multiple images, that "look like" something proves nothing. Failing to even attempt to provide supporting data shows lack of sincerity.

Right back at you... you posted two pictures of "looks like" faces on Earth, yet no source data to accompany them.. I tried back tracing the big one and cannot find any location data to verify it exists...

On ATS we are supposed to Deny Ignorance.

That works both ways... I find that generally those who keep pointing out that the mission of ATS is to Deny Ignorance forget that you can be ignorant on both sides of the fence... To keep harping on how those that see are wrong, simply because they cannot see or accept the possibility even in the face of evidence that would convince many are in fact promoting ignorance...

and I was saying that I didnt understand why it would face upwards,

Well here is a good reason it would face upwards...

The Face... on Earth

Long before anyone saw a face on Mars looking towards us, there was a plan to build a face on Earth.

After the Second World War an American artist called Isamu Noguchi worked on several huge schemes, including the gardens for the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. He was haunted by the idea that nuclear war would destroy humanity, and planned a vast sculpture that would inform extraterrestrials that a civilised life form had once existed on Earth.

The vast set of earthworks – sadly never realised – would have depicted a giant human face centred on a nose that was a pyramid a mile long. Noguchi called it Sculpture To Be Seen From Mars....

The planned Face on Earth, envisaged in 1947

SOURCE

Interesting date...

That's interesting info above.

Anyway, human brain identifies human faces everywhere. If you want to see faces, turn out the light at night and look at your sheets when you are in bed...

There's nothing on that pic. Nor in all the rest of pics so far.

In the day that you find something close with the pic above, where you can easily identify symmetry, then you might have something.

Originally posted by StellarX
The human mind does not attempt to recognise faces in the clouds. There is no science that seriously suggests that to be the case even if there are scientist who speculate as they well should.

Actually, there is a great deal of research on how the brain recognizes patterns and in particular on facial recognition. The well established propensity of humans to see faces in mundane objects, such as the Virgin Mary in a toasted cheese sandwich, has led to specific research in how the brain uses neural pathways to find familiar patterns. Scientists working in labs around the globe have mapped specific areas of the brain that are responsible for facial recognition. Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, they have observed brain function in individuals who saw faces in ink blots, and other similar objects. There is a great deal of information available if you care to look further. I will simply point you to this article on the subject as a starting point. Science unravels why we see faces everywhere.

With very little effort, one can easily find a great deal more information on the subject. The human mind is great for pattern recognition and when we see a new object, our minds attempt to fit it in with known patterns.

Originally posted by zorgon
you posted two pictures of "looks like" faces on Earth, yet no source data to accompany them.. I tried back tracing the big one and cannot find any location data to verify it exists...

They were simply two examples that I found on the web. I believe one is in Canada and the other is in Peru. I was not attempting to claim anything other than the facility of finding recognizable patterns in satellite photos. Given the wide variety of shapes and patterns one can see from space, it is understandable that some of them may take a shape that we can recognize as appearing similar to a face. If you wish I can Google them again and U2U the source information to you, but as I was only using them as an example and not making any extraordinary claims, I didn't think it necessary.

When someone chooses to claim that said face, is of artificial construct, I would like to see supporting data. That is all. For me, someone saying that "it looks like" something is simply not enough. It is far too easy to make such statements. If I showed you a picture of a Kangaroo, a few feet off the ground, head leaning forward, and tail stretched out behind, I could claim that it was proof that Kangaroos can levitate and fly. As an intelligent person you would probably assume that I had taken the picture while the kangaroo was in mid hop, and would request further evidence that supported my claim of flying kangaroos. You would deny ignorance by seeking further knowledge.

I do not preclude the possibility of other civilizations than ours. In fact, I believe it highly probable. Before I am willing to accept someone's claim that a landform or rock shape, is something other than a natural occurrence, it would be prudent of me to seek further information.

Originally posted by Terapin

Before I am willing to accept someone's claim that a landform or rock shape, is something other than a natural occurrence, it would be prudent of me to seek further information.

What is this 'further information' that you seek? Is it.....

1. Photographs of aliens chipping away at hillsides etc?
2. Signed originals by the 'Martians' stating that these 'faces' etc have been made by them?
3. Both the above.



Darn!! Gimme a break! What is the kind of 'proof' that you need? Please elucidate.

Cheers!!

P.S. Check out my opening post. Did I say anywhere that THIS IS A FACE SCULPTED BY ALIENS??

Originally posted by Terapin
When someone chooses to claim that said face, is of artificial construct, I would like to see supporting data. That is all. For me, someone saying that "it looks like" something is simply not enough.

We, i will presume for Zorgon and a few others, don't really care about your denial and are only responding because that's what is expected on these forums. What i would like to know is why you spend time denying a given thing on a conspiracy forum when you could be elsewhere proving something? Please check my record and you will quickly notice that when i am disagreeing with someone it is on the whole to introduce MORE information and not to just defend convention as you are apparently here to do.

It is far too easy to make such statements. If I showed you a picture of a Kangaroo, a few feet off the ground, head leaning forward, and tail stretched out behind, I could claim that it was proof that Kangaroos can levitate and fly.

And if it was a martian Kangaroo i would give you a great deal of rope to play around with but on Earth that is not what we expect of Kangaroos so i will need to see more.... The problem with the face on Mars is that you are considering the implications when you should not; the issues have nothing to do with each other and even attempting to consider them as evidence against is nothing but a sub/unconscious way to undermine your own observation.

As an intelligent person you would probably assume that I had taken the picture while the kangaroo was in mid hop, and would request further evidence that supported my claim of flying kangaroos. You would deny ignorance by seeking further knowledge.

The problem is that you are assuming that no one here actually did more than stare at pictures and that no one does actual research. While i can see how and why you think mike has not done all that much research, finding pictures alone is not enough in my opinion as they could have been manipulated to show evidence where there is non, that is not the case for everyone here ( i can speak for Zorgon as well) and we can and will present the whys and the how's if you think that makes the face any more or less real.

I do not preclude the possibility of other civilizations than ours. In fact, I believe it highly probable.

Ten years ago i also believed it was 'highly probably' but ten years ago i happened to be 17( and i had been reading non fiction only for a year; fiction gets boring after a decade or so) and did not know anywhere near what i do today. Frankly your in the wrong company if you have any doubts about intelligent life elsewhere in this universe or even in this solar system.

Before I am willing to accept someone's claim that a landform or rock shape, is something other than a natural occurrence, it would be prudent of me to seek further informatin.

Then go educate yourself.

I don't mind anyone attempting to be a 'voice of sanity' but i insist that they first discover what the sane point of view happens to be. Anyone who on average defends convention ( if the person spends half his time telling you the consensus view is correct) on this forum should be asked to leave as they are clearly so arrogant that they believe only they have managed to 'expose' a certain conspiracy while everyone else are idiots for questioning norms or conventions.

Should i go look at your posting record or will i find what i already know i will?

Second post

Originally posted by Terapin
Actually, there is a great deal of research on how the brain recognizes patterns and in particular on facial recognition.

Sure there is but not in clouds or in mountains and most certainly not unless your trying very hard...

The well established propensity of humans to see faces in mundane objects, such as the Virgin Mary in a toasted cheese sandwich, has led to specific research in how the brain uses neural pathways to find familiar patterns.

And what have they proved so far?

Scientists working in labs around the globe have mapped specific areas of the brain that are responsible for facial recognition.

On other human beings or in situations where it might aid survival; that rules out clouds.

Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, they have observed brain function in individuals who saw faces in ink blots, and other similar objects. There is a great deal of information available if you care to look further.

They name say ten instances and logically that rather indicates ten relatively insane people than some kind of innate predisposition towards seeing faces ' everywhere'. Frankly if someone asks you to see something in a ink scrabble they are robbing you of your money and clearly could not otherwise have figured out what you had on your mind. Anyone that are so poor a communicator, that they need Rorschach inkblots, should see someone about their problems.

[quote[I will simply point you to this article on the subject as a starting point. Science unravels why we see faces everywhere.

Once again the 'science' involved here are hardly the type of stuff that i am going to accept as blanket denial by those who are so desperately attempting to deny reality. There are more than just faces and statues on Mars and frankly i am sure you will deny it all when i start presenting . once again, the case for NASA tampering.

With very little effort, one can easily find a great deal more information on the subject.

If you want to satisfy your urge to use any and all information that would aid you in denying what you yourself have observed....

The human mind is great for pattern recognition and when we see a new object, our minds attempt to fit it in with known patterns.

Only the minds that are not interested in discovering anything new.

Stellar

Originally posted by NinterX
That's interesting info above.

Anyway, human brain identifies human faces everywhere. If you want to see faces, turn out the light at night and look at your sheets when you are in bed...

Never happened to me ( have not seen any in clouds either) so i guess i must have better things to thing about than the dull witted who attempt to spot faces in clouds and curtains.

There's nothing on that pic. Nor in all the rest of pics so far.

If you keep saying this to yourself long enough maybe you will eventually believe it.

In the day that you find something close with the pic above, where you can easily identify symmetry, then you might have something.

Denial of observed reality is a interesting pathological condition and if you stick around maybe i can do some further testing to see what other realities you have experiencing difficulties with.

Stellar

Originally posted by zorgon
Ah so I take it then you are about to reveal much? I am betting your collection is bigger than my collection.... I have a lot of room on my server...

I'm not really into posting large volumes of pictures as however much truth they might contain the people i normally i am normally stuck arguing with are pathologically disposed towards denying reality no matter how obvious it might be. If you desperately need something to be a certain way your unconscious mind will do it's best to help you out by twisting your observation/general sensory input to suit your beliefs.

I think the pictures are more than obvious enough to convince any reasonable person so what i normally attempt to do is point the logical fallacies that the deniers twisted beliefs rests on. If that does not work i just keep posting till they decide I'm too 'crazy' ( meaning i wont accept the consensus position and thus derive 'credibility' by proxy) to argue with; reality is not a game and if the best thing i can manage is getting in the last 5000 or 10 000 i still consider it a victory for sane people everywhere since entirely sane people normally have better things to do than argue with fools and other varieties of ignorants.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
They name say ten instances and logically that rather indicates ten relatively insane people than some kind of innate predisposition towards seeing faces ' everywhere'. Frankly if someone asks you to see something in a ink scrabble they are robbing you of your money and clearly could not otherwise have figured out what you had on your mind. Anyone that are so poor a communicator, that they need Rorschach inkblots, should see someone about their problems.

Terapin, its a waste of perfectly good time discussing anything with this mind set.

Me, I'm gonna do the laundry instead. Its much more stimulating and certainly more fulfilling.

Originally posted by StellarX
If that does not work i just keep posting till they decide I'm too 'crazy' ( meaning i wont accept the consensus position and thus derive 'credibility' by proxy) to argue with; reality is not a game and if the best thing i can manage is getting in the last 5000 or 10 000 i still consider it a victory for sane people everywhere since entirely sane people normally have better things to do than argue with fools and other varieties of ignorants.

Stellar

Yeah, I know. So your measurement for success is simply getting people to drop it by throwing as much crap as possible at them? Completely disregarding any supporting evidence other posters bring to the discussion, while making personal attacks on their intelligence?

I used to tell people about this site and get them involved in the community. I don't bother anymore. More likely now I just call them over and let them laugh at some of the posts......

Originally posted by StellarX
We, i will presume for Zorgon and a few others, don't really care about your denial and are only responding because that's what is expected on these forums.

LOL close but not quite... one important factor that most posters on either side of the fence tend to forget about is the silent majority who are reading these threads, but for whatever personal reason do not post. These people are extremely interested in what we are showing.. My U2U's and emails are full of positive responses and the John Lear moon thread topped 200,000 viewers just about a week ago....

In the threads there are a mere handful of those who seem to think it is their duty to keep telling us its "all in our heads", a "trick of light and shadow" or "its just a rock"

So in balance against the literally thousands of viewers who are making these image searches one of the most popular topics on ATS, I can take the time to dally with them.

I suppose that probably makes them fume...

The few skeptics that actually take the time to look things up and provide counter evidence are wonderful as they have many times pointed me to some really cool evidence, like recently a list of images of the moon... After I was told that "the skeptic" does not believe NASA made certain images in .tiff format... guess what I found in the directory that I backtracked from the image he linked to? Yep .tiff files on an ftp NASA server huge ones 50meg to 200+ megs...

Now what is important about this particular case is that we found one image that showed obvious image tamering IE a gray scale moon over a color moon, with a bright hi res color image of Earth... Papajake, a printer.. found two areas on the image that were proof of tampering... especially the thin strip along the border where the color was still there...

While ArMaP was trying to download it... it was pulled... and shortly thereafter replaced with a low res jpg now corrected image...

I know where the image was... and I had a recent email that let me know my website was being looked at from WITHIN a NASA facility... I will say no more on this, but it was an extremely interesting chain of events... and it lets me know I am on the right track... and that I am being watched...

What i would like to know is why you spend time denying a given thing on a conspiracy forum when you could be elsewhere proving something? Please check my record and you will quickly notice that when i am disagreeing with someone it is on the whole to introduce MORE information and not to just defend convention as you are apparently here to do.

I have asked that question many times, but get no response. Personally I believe that their subconscious mind is dragging them in here, but their conscious mind is to stubborn to listen IMHO of course... but since I can't get a straight answer... that opinion sticks

Originally posted by Terrapin
As an intelligent person you would probably assume that I had taken the picture while the kangaroo was in mid hop, and would request further evidence that supported my claim of flying kangaroos. You would deny ignorance by seeking further knowledge.

Now here is a good point... seeking further knowledge...

One thing I have noticed in these threads is the tendencies of most skeptics to attack only certain issues and ignore others... Everyone jumps on the face type posts and you get pages of back and forth dialog on that, yet when we show some really interesting anomalies like the "boulder" that moves uphill, there is mostly silence... In that sample I provided many different angles and other data to show ANYONE that can read a simple topography map and recognize which part of the crater is higher than another that it is indeed moving uphill

We found another one that clearly shows a rectangular "structure" in a NASA image that can be seen by anyone by merely zooming in, silence from the skeptics...

We presented a few months ago High Resolution COLOR images from the 1994 Clementine satellite... The skeptics pounced... some saying they have always been around... yet not ONE could give me a date of release, when THEY first saw them, nor point me to any of them on the intermet...They would not admit that we "scooped" them... still today they are not easy to find unless you type in the right search parameters...

Well I know when they were released, and by whom, because I have the documentation... and the USGS palnetary mapper that uses them was released for the Oct 2006 LPI space resources roundtable...

So the next attack was the issue of color... skeptics say its false color images.. Department of Defense says its true natural color...

The image below is one taken of the Earth from Lunar Orbit by the satellite for color calibration...



But still the ski[tics went on about color to the point that some of my contacts "suggested" I move on and let them be...

Originally posted by StellarX
The problem is that you are assuming that no one here actually did more than stare at pictures and that no one does actual research. While i can see how and why you think mike has not done all that much research, finding pictures alone is not enough in my opinion as they could have been manipulated to show evidence where there is non, that is not the case for everyone here ( i can speak for Zorgon as well) and we can and will present the whys and the how's if you think that makes the face any more or less real.

You can speak for me anytime As far as Mike is concerned, I do not know yet just how much further he looks into things, but myself, John Lear, Undo (Beth_ and Matyas are but a few of us that take this research very seriously...

Its not about "faces", though because as you say most people recognize those easily and can thus take part in this search, it is about the overall cover up that in our opinion is about to be blown wide open, though we are not sure in which direction yet..

It should be pointed out that I do not have to show hundreds of examples to prove my case..

I need only show ONE... ONE image of an object on the Moon that does not belong is enough...

But we have found literally DOZENS that are convincing... Why do we keep looking? Simple... because sooner or later we will find that one image that convinces YOU [generic "you"] We have already show more that a few former skeptics that one image that does it for them...

Add to that the wealth of data in pdf form and documents from LANL, MIT etc that show work on technologies that many would consider "of alien source"

And pdf documents from LPI that talk of mining equipment for extra terrestrial use that include company phone numbers [yes we did call]

The overall picture begins to emerge.

And the "silent watchers" DO take the time to read it all

Pegasus Research Consortium is not only about hunting down anomalies in photos LOL Our main site is a forum and think tank for inventors and innovators who think outside the box and explore alternate energy and theories for the betterment of mankind. Starting with Nikola Tesla and HIS flying saucer design and going to the present where we even have ATS members posting plans for Hydrogen fuel cells...

These are the reasons we keep looking

I can handle a few "we omly see rocks" in all of that


BTW Space Command and many private space companies are hiring...

Maybe its a good opportunity for thos young skeptics to prove us wrong...

Go see for yourself...

Originally posted by StellarX
I'm not really into posting large volumes of pictures as however much truth they might contain the people i normally i am normally stuck arguing with are pathologically disposed towards denying reality no matter how obvious it might be.

Pity... documents maybe?

But take heart... always keep in mind the silent watchers who are in the majority and who really care about our work here...

One last comment about "image recognition" that has gotten lost in all the "faces:

The governments around the world hire people with the skills to "see" things in images that the ordinary individual fails to notice. In the modern age of high resolution imagery, this skill is less called for but still in high demand for reconnaissance photos.

I am going to provide an example... this is a photo taken by the RAF in World War II over Peenemunde, Germany [You know... where NASA had its beginnings? )


The launch platform is obvious... but pay attention to the two objects labeled "trailer" and "rocket" within the circles... These low resolution images still gave imagery experts enough visual information to plan bombing attacks.



The anomalies we are finding are on much higher res than those of WWII.

The point is that if these older shots were good enough to plan bombing of targets, what makes you think our visual evidence is any less valid? Just because most people do not have the skills needed for this task, does not mean others don't



[edit on 28-3-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Terapin
They were simply two examples that I found on the web. I believe one is in Canada and the other is in Peru.

Thats okay I have them anyway....

The "Chief" is in Medicine Hat, Alberta... its very interesting that it happens to be located in an area that is of major spiritual significance to the Natives...

Seems there are many rock heads and faces on Earth that stand as guardians to native spiritual areas... must be a coincidence I suppose...

Collection starts here///

landoflegends.us...

zorgon its a pleasure to read your posts because you make it a point to avoid perjoratives like 'naive', 'close-minded', 'ignorant', 'fools', etc.

Your website is interesting, with a lot of informative articles and thought provoking images. But I get the feeling of an unconstructed jigsaw puzzle. Is there anywhere on the site where information is gathered and analyzed to arrive at a conclusion about anything? Am I simply not seeing the link that has the premise, followed by gathered research evidence, followed by the conclusion? Or is the reader left to jump around and arrive at their own conclusion?

I don't know if you were attempting to show evidence in this post, but this is my interpretation;

this and all other quotes originally posted by zorgon
the John Lear moon thread topped 200,000 viewers just about a week ago....

I don't think that indicates unique visitors. I think that's what you intended to imply. Maybe an admin can query the system to arrive at a 'unique-ness' of visitors.

After I was told that "the skeptic" does not believe NASA made certain images in .tiff format... guess what I found in the directory that I backtracked from the image he linked to? Yep .tiff files on an ftp NASA server huge ones 50meg to 200+ megs...

So this means what? Someone was wrong about an image format?

While ArMaP was trying to download it... it was pulled... and shortly thereafter replaced with a low res jpg now corrected image...

Nefarious? Maybe. Could just as well be an observant NASA network admin seeing large network traffic on a port and taking steps to conserve bandwidth. With not only a 'low res' jpeg, but a much smaller file also. I know....horribly mundane possibility.

and I had a recent email that let me know my website was being looked at from WITHIN a NASA facility...

Neat, they have the intarnets in NASA. Moon images, on a website suggesting lunar mining.....if somebody in NASA wasn't looking, even if just for lunchtime entertainment, I'd be suspicious.

We presented a few months ago High Resolution COLOR images from the 1994 Clementine satellite...

I won't quote the whole section....but, what does the color have to do with your claims?

Add to that the wealth of data in pdf form and documents from LANL, MIT etc that show work on technologies that many would consider "of alien source"

But, that no one can show is "of alien source"?

I need only show ONE... ONE image of an object on the Moon that does not belong is enough...

A very important plank in your own platform is that NASA has "tampered" with or otherwise altered images. Yet, you continue to present images as evidence. Regardless of your assertions...I cannot trust, and will not blindly accept as genuine, images posted in a digital format anywhere. If you yourself are convinced some of the available images are false and not what they seem to be....why should I accept yours?

the tendencies of most skeptics to attack only certain issues

And I will continue to hammer at one particular issue. Why? Because apparently it cannot be answered; despite the premise being used as a basis for evidence. The closest attempt was a cut/paste job from what appeared to be a relatively standard security policy concerning the digital and electronic transmission of data.

Again, it was claimed that NASA has maintained this humongous cover-up by compartmentalization and careful hiring practices. Hereby know as 'C and HP'.......its a drag keying the whole thing. 'C' is a standard means of protecting information. How does NASA's structure for 'C' successfully hide a huge conspiracy despite the estimated quarter million network users NASA currently manages; including university and contractor sites that have access. Secondly, how have these practices evolved in response to digital networks and the Internet? If these are points that are to be used to defend a position....I expect that some details will be known. Otherwise, someone is simply blowing smoke. This question appears to be the key to the entire subject. How has NASA managed to keep this ginormous secret this long?




[edit on 28-3-2007 by MrPenny]

Interesting... I respond to one poster who requested face images on Earth, by providing two examples for them, and I get insulted by others for it.

I mention the lack of supporting data posted by many members and I am falsely accused of spreading disinformation.

I am pointed to sources that use spurious science, much of which has been debunked, and I am also pointed to Tom Van Flandern, who not only is making money off of peoples beliefs, but also has false claims in his resume. (I can prove that for the skeptics if required) To be sure, he is an educated man, but he also has an agenda and financial gain in mind. When people make false claims in their resume, I have to wonder how accurate any of their other claims are. When people are making money off of their claims, the evidence they present deserves closer inspection for veracity.

I mention how the human mind is geared for pattern recognition and actively attempts to create matches, and it is dismissed despite a good deal of data being available. If people had a better understanding of the Earth sciences such as Geology and Mineralogy, they would recognize those patterns more readily and better understand what is seen in many of the Mars images. By expanding ones knowledge of the subject, your brain will find patterns related to the geology and not just faces.

When I mention Geology and am told that Geologists are only good for throwing rocks at, and their science is dismissed as hooey, by the very same people who wish to make claims about the geology on Mars. Iron Pyrite often forms perfect cubes that look much like gold, and in fact, many people who are unaware of it's properties have often mistaken it for gold. That is why it is known as "fools gold." The knowledgeable individual wouldn't be the fool for better understanding the subject matter.

I mention that I do not preclude the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and that I find it highly probable. I am told I am "in the wrong company if (I) have any doubts about intelligent life elsewhere in this universe or even in this solar system." At times I wonder if English is the native tongue of some posters in here and wonder if I should try using another language. Anata no ushira ni Gojira ga imasu. Eu se que meu amigo ArMap esta muito inteligente.

Why is it so unacceptable to seek a higher standard? Must I blindly accept others opinions as gospel like a sheep, or can I not question? Why is science treated like the enemy in here? It seems like anyone who does not follow the believers, without question, is asked to leave and insulted in the process.

Mike often comes up with interesting photos and with this one he both states that it looks artificial, and states since it is on Mars only aliens could have created it, while at the same time he also hedges his bets by stating that it could be naturally formed. Solid scientific reasoning and Occam's razor leads to the conclusion that it is of natural origin. If anyone would like to demonstrate otherwise, I invite them to the conversation and encourage them to present their theory. If all people wish to do is insult those who choose to discuss this logically, then what is the point?

Mike, Keep posting photos!!! Regardless of individual interpretations, ANY photo of another planet is worth looking at. You may wish to tame the sensational headlines, or perhaps keep them all together in one thread, as suggested by others earlier.

If any of you haven't done so all ready. I suggest that you take a look at the images from the Chandra X-ray satellite Chandra Some very cool images from this X-ray time machine, so to speak, and even some faces or at least a cats eye. ( Disclaimer: As I have been involved in a project related to the Chandra X-ray satellite, I admit a bit of special interest in the findings they have made. I make no special claims however.)

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Terapin]

Originally posted by Terapin
Mike, Keep posting photos!!! Regardless of individual interpretations, ANY photo of another planet is worth looking at. You may wish to tame the sensational headlines, or perhaps keep them all together in one thread, as suggested by others earlier.

(Wow! reading the last few posts was more exhilarating than a roller coaster ride! And one of the reasons for being on ATS! Just to cool things down a bit......lemme jump off the car for a bit!)

Thanks Terrapin! Pics speak louder than words. And that's why I prefer posting threads with pics!!

And yeah, OK! No more 'exclamation marks' (!) on the headlines!! But why I do that is not for attention. Just to convey, "Hey! That's a strange lookin' thing out there. A must see"!! Now, what's between these quotes = '!'(Exclamation mark).

Cheers!!