NASA releases new close up of Mars Face

Wow man you didn't have to go though all that trouble, i already know what you are saying.

If only you didn't assume that I want mars to have an artificial structure on it then you would have saved your self some time :0

Because as it turns out, i don't care if there is or not, i am simply open to all possibilities until it's confirmed and as far as confirmation goes, it has not been confirmed yet.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
But you refer to aliens visiting here as fact. That right there discredits any claims you make about being neutral or open minded.

Nope, my personal experiences and consciousness does not dictate that i want it to have a artificial structure on mars...

sorry if that miss leaded you

Originally posted by selfless
Because as it turns out, i don't care if there is or not, i am simply open to all possibilities until it's confirmed and as far as confirmation goes, it has not been confirmed yet.

Originally posted by IIB
It's confirmed that when you remove the shadow angle that just so happens to show up in the old low quality image the face disappears.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by selfless
Therefor, still open to infinite possibilities towards the face on mars, not NASA. There, i hope that is clear and understood.

Not at all clear. You're saying that you only entertain "infinite possibilities" so long as there is no proof to back up any given possibility? What sort of outlook is that? Using such anti-logic, you could say that McDonald's is running a topless fast food franchise on Mars because it's one of an infinitie number of possibilities; but if anyone provides evidence that your contention is absurd, you simply dismiss the evidence out-of-hand.

Originally posted by selfless
If you want to discuss the validity of NASA I suggest you start your own thread or go to one that is already open. I have stated my judgment towards NASA and i have my reasons that are with out a doubt valid to me but this thread is not about the validity of NASA it's about the face on mars.

Thanks for your suggestion, but this thread was doing just fine until you started ranting about "infinite possibilities" and NASA being "unreliable"... The "validity of NASA" wasn't even part of the discussion until you interjected your foolish comments.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 4/16/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by selfless
Therefor, still open to infinite possibilities towards the face on mars, not NASA. There, i hope that is clear and understood.

Not at all clear. You're saying that you only entertain "infinite possibilities" so long as there is no proof to back up any given possibility? What sort of outlook is that? With such fuzzy logic, you could say that McDonald's is running a topless fast food franchise on Mars because it's one of an infinitie number of possibilities; but if anyone provides evidence that your contention is absurd, you simply dismiss the evidence out-of-hand.

Again, you got it wrong....

I am saying that i am open to all possibilities toward the face on mars... stop twisting things around.... you are doing it over and over again.

This means that from my perception, the face on mars could be just land or it could as well be an artificial structure or anything that it possibly can be.

If you think that is fuzzy logic, perhaps it's your biased dis info logic that is fuzzy

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by IIB
It's confirmed that when you remove the shadow angle that just so happens to show up in the old low quality image the face disappears.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Where is this image that has no shadows you speak of?

Please, don't bother if it's computer generated...

I already showed you, and detailed the technology behind it on top of it not even being a NASA specific project.

You said it "looked" generated, so therefore it surely must be. Millions of dollars are being wasted and countless people involved in thsi top-level conspiracy even tho if it looked liek a face it wouldn't even actually prove that aliens built it.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I already showed you, and detailed the technology behind it on top of it not even being a NASA specific project.

You said it "looked" generated, so therefore it surely must be. Millions of dollars are being wasted and countless people involved in thsi top-level conspiracy even tho if it looked liek a face it wouldn't even actually prove that aliens built it.

Oh, that one.

Well yeah i think it looks computer generated but i can't say for sure so i will remain open.

so how many of u guys are on NASA payroll?

Dude, watch my 2 short videos (right there in my sig) and you'll see what I think about NASA.

I'm on a pioneering level of anti-NASA'ism. NASA is part of the biggest threat that faces mankind, but it has nothing to do with space aliens.

But since you asked, where am I wrong? Does that make me a conspirator, just because I counter argue, which in this case would be "in their favor", from your view?

[edit on 17-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by selfless
Well yeah i think it looks computer generated but i can't say for sure so i will remain open.

Why don't you make a tiny effort to determine for yourself whether or not it's "computer generated," rather than simply dismissing the evidence because you (in your questionable experience) "think it looks computer generated"?

I suppose it's fine and dandy for you to "remain open" — whatever the hell that means — but I can't help but notice your hypocrisy, given your stated openness to possibilities juxtaposed with your peculiar bigotry against modern imaging technology.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by TheInformer
so how many of u guys are on NASA payroll?

Are you kidding? I've got a monthly mortgage and a car payment that total more than the salaries of most NASA employees. I wouldn't go on a government payroll for the obvious reason: There's no money in it.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by selfless
Well yeah i think it looks computer generated but i can't say for sure so i will remain open.

Why don't you make a tiny effort to determine for yourself whether or not it's "computer generated," rather than simply dismissing the evidence because you (in your questionable experience) "think it looks computer generated"?

Common now, re read what you just said and try to realize what is wrong with it.

I said that it looks computer generated due to having seen what computer generated images looks like, i think it looks computer generated but i remain OPEN that it could very well be a real photograph.

This means that i am 50/50 on this and that i am still where i began, open to all the possibilities regarding the face on mars.

And also, the reason why i don't trust a computer generated image is because it's not the actual photograph of the place it's portraying which means the purpose of the image could be to not show what is really there.

Stop assuming, please.



[edit on 17-4-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

I suppose it's fine and dandy for you to "remain open" — whatever the hell that means

This means that you saying that i should not dismiss the evidence for the possibility that it's computer generated is a false statement.

Because i never said that i dismissed the evidence of the picture, i said i will remain open.

That means, the evidence is not dismissed.

Now please, enough with your assumptions towards me.

Well, I can see that you don't even recognize the incongruities and contradictions of your own statements, and I sense that you're on the verge of making an official complaint against me — oh, he's badgering me, mommy, make him stop — that's how you guys (trolls) typically respond when your illogical, circular arguments fall apart around you.

So, even though I was participating in this thread before you ever arrived, and even though I was discussing nothing but the NASA image until you came in with your sputtering anti-NASA comments, I'll be glad to leave the thread at this time, because it'll make you happy.

Adios

— Doc Velocity

Haha right......

Resulting to insults when you know you got nothing else to fabricate...

You're something else doc...

You made my day, you should be a comedian.

Take care.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Well, I can see that you don't even recognize the incongruities and contradictions of your own statements,

Hmm... contradictions eh? speaking of which, how about when someone says something like ''You dismiss evidence'' when in fact, the person you say this to did no such thing and clearly stated that he remained open meaning open to the evidence of course....

Now that's what i call contradicting...

Perhaps you should reconsider the meaning of contradiction when you falsely stamp in on someone who did no such thing and make your self look like a hypocrite in the process.... quite comical indeed...


And about me reporting you? why would i do such a thing? you're so fun to have around :0

Now, back to the topic.

No more derailing from me and doc, I hope hehe.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Why is it collapsed on one side? What was underneath it that gave way?

I was wondering the same thing.

just a quick note regarding the flaming, then onto the proper response to this thread:

it doesn't surprise me how these arguments arise. given the amount of people who used clear, analytical and logical thinking to disarm him, selfless manages to 'protect' his ego via sarcasm, snide remarks and offhand comments. this is, as i believe doc vel. already said, typical troll behavior and as a nerdy forum-dweller i'm used to this.
coming to a topic, making what could be construed as a factual remark about aliens truly existing, then topping that off with a further post implying rather strongly that NASA is lying to us to cover up alien evidence, doesn't make me think mr selfless has got his thinking cap plugged in all the way at the moment.
i'd like to think that i'm a fair individual, and that i'm not being too harsh on the poor guy! but once again, any retaliation against his beliefs is going to wind him up and make him bite.
that isn't to say he's the only guilty party here - it takes two sides to argue.

/RANT
-------------------------------------------

personally i'm of the same opinion as most of you - the face just does *not* seem to be there in these new pictures. it's certainly not a symmetrical structure, as alot of websites, books and researchers have tried to imply.
upside-down it does look like an embossed 'grey', but once again i agree with the majority that this is just an entertaining anomaly.
i also firmly agree that even if this *did* look the same as the original photograph it would still not conclusively prove that aliens made it. there are plenty of instances of people seeing shapes, faces etc in objects that although are there, aren't purposefully there.
it is absolutely fine to believe in aliens.
it is equally acceptable to believe this was made by an alien race.
it's just as fine and acceptable to believe the contrary.
so long as whatever camp you're in you do not accuse others of being 'wrong'.
forgive the inappropriate (for ATS!) analogy, but can anyone remember what jesus's answer was when pilate asked him 'what is truth?' ?

(and no, i don't believe the bible is the word of god. nor do i believe he exists. no flaming on that front, please!! lol)