Is the Face on Mars artificial? Odds are Billions to 1 YES

Originally posted by melatonin
Must be intelligently designed, it was a 1000 billion billion to one chance.

IT's not exactly the same size so maybe if you find something of a similar scale it might prove something....

Originally posted by melatonin
I did read the article, and I think it's not very convincing.

1. Other images show that this is nothing like a face.

The images uses hi and low pass filters on destroying depth and detail?

2. Even if it was it doesn't support his hypothesis that this is artificial.

Many other things do!

Natural processes can readily account for it, no matter what stats he places on it.

How can it and where is the evidence for 'knowing' that? Why did NASA hide the second image of the face they originally took in 1976? Why do NASA kep obscuring the detail when there is nothing to see?

Also, the status of the research on this stuff is not very robust, they appear to be meeting abstracts of the AAS, which are far from true peer-reviewed articles.

And we all know peer review determines truth! Lol....

According to WoK, Van Flanders has 5 published articles in good journals, last one in 2003. None were on artificial structures on mars.

And why should he get published for it to be true? Does something only become objectively true once we believe it? Were the Earth flat when we used to believe it so? The mind of the establishment scientist truly is a truly fascinating place...

Stellar

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I looked at it. It being on Metaresearch didn't help any.

What's wrong with metaresearch?

Van Flandern has gotten other stuff wrong in the past, but he's at least engaging.

And getting 'stuff wrong' disqualified 100% of the other scientist on this planet that has made mistakes in the past?

Still, anytime you show me the dramatic discovery of a "face" in image data, I'm going to say "ho hum". There's just too much wiring in your head to spot very convincing faces when there's not one there.

Which is interesting given the fact that we have algorithms that determines the odds of something being artificial and employ such to spot bunkers and 'enemy' emplacements and movements . This is very much a science but i suppose we should not use 'science' to consider what just must not be science?

Didn't you ever wonder why people see Mary's face or Jesus' face (or whomever) and not, for example, a nice page of legible text or Jesus' donkey's face?

Because they are doing their best and you can endless throw buckets full of water at curtains to achieve some kind of desired result. It's clearly harder to wait for tectonic forces to bring about the same effects if at all. What about the following features that are not at all face like?

www.msss.com...

I think there is about 8 + pictures that has that massive skull monument while other pictures of the same region just has it entirely edited out and replaced with a standard grey shade....

esamultimedia.esa.int...

Speaks for itself unless one will simply presume pixelation in some places and not in others...

www.msss.com...

Between the bright areas two thirds down. You might have to zoom to see just how interesting it gets.

Wonder how the fractal algorithms would interpret that!

It's because you're not wired up to see those things in images. There's a nice website with a lot of examples. You have to have Java installed or you won't see it.

We are wired to spot familiar shapes in familiar surroundings and i am not sure how this can so easily serve as proof that we must spot faces in clouds or on other planets. Sure it gives us reason to be suspicious of what we might not be seeing but since when is a camera not objective? Did the camera fabricate the data because it has a need to spot predators in dense undergrowth? Right....

edit: try applying Flandern's criteria to some of the images - I liked the rock face someone posted.

Feel free but i am not sure what your going to prove by doing so! Why not read more topical information?

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

metaresearch.org...

www.metaresearch.org...

www.enterprisemission.com...

www.star.le.ac.uk...

www.enterprisemission.com...

Why don't you want to admit that the face is real? What stake do you have in denying the fact when it's so clear?

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Always funny to hear from someone who doesn't work in the field.

Sure is but at least they have excuses for arriving at the wrong conclusions? What's your excuse for not managing to arrive at the truth and why do people who do work in the field publish in 'respected' journals?

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

ao.osa.org...

spsr.utsi.edu...

spsr.utsi.edu...

spsr.utsi.edu...

I suppose if you don't know a lot about science any "sciency sounding" paper is really convincing, especially if it's been talked about on Oprah.

I'm just a regular everyday fool who fall for every sham no matter how nonsensical and or whimsical, right? Why do you have to presume stupidity when i presume you to be intelligent and just very well indoctrinated? I could just call you stupid and ignorant but i suppose the same courtesy wont be extended to me.

Ok - why do you think that a "martian" would have a face like a human? Do you see any examples of this on Earth, other than primates?

Because Humans originally came from Mars or from other parts of the universe? How should i know? Should i discount what i see so as to make things 'simpler' to understand?

What's your reason to believe that a separately evolved species would look like a human at all, instead of an echinoderm or something?

Because i suppose there is a very real connection between life there and here? Why does Mars carry the evidence of a relatively recent catastrophe and where do you think whoever used to live there would have fled to?

edit: and I'm quite serious - try reading the paper but apply the points to that rock face, the similarities are pretty striking. But do you think the rock face is a "face" left by someone, or a random set of features that happens to look similar enough to a human face to trigger your face recognizer?

It was in my opinion made by someone or something at sometime in our relative distant past...

Some more reading material!

www.amazon.com...

www.amazon.com...

Stellar

[edit on 7-10-2007 by StellarX]

[edit on 7-10-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
What's wrong with metaresearch?

Well, it's sort of like finding it on "educate-yourself".

And getting 'stuff wrong' disqualified 100% of the other scientist on this planet that has made mistakes in the past?

He sounds good and it's at least convincing on the surface. Yet, if you apply his arguments to other images, the shower curtain or the rock face, or most any other good pareidolic image, you'll get the same arguments. "Why, look, a brow here - and another there! That's 1000:1 odds!"

Which is interesting given the fact that we have algorithms that determines the odds of something being artificial and employ such to spot bunkers and 'enemy' emplacements and movements . This is very much a science but i suppose we should not use 'science' to consider what just must not be science?

He didn't appear to be using any here, other than the ones he made up which apply to any other face-like random data. So I'd say that was a strawman.

Because they are doing their best ...

To do what? Find evidence? That's the entire issue. When you're a "true believer" you find all sorts of evidence that's not there. That's why you generally don't trust the Tobacco Institute's cancer research.

I think there is about 8 + pictures that has that massive skull monument while other pictures of the same region just has it entirely edited out and replaced with a standard grey shade....

You're helping me here - thanks! What was it that you saw? A face. A human face at that. Did you see the Fountain of Shub-niggurath, or the Portrait of Yog-Sothoth? No, because you're not wired for Old One face shape recognition in random data. But a Martian is less likely to look human than a cucumber.

We are wired to spot familiar shapes in familiar surroundings and i am not sure how this can so easily serve as proof that we must spot faces in clouds or on other planets. Sure it gives us reason to be suspicious of what we might not be seeing but since when is a camera not objective? Did the camera fabricate the data because it has a need to spot predators in dense undergrowth? Right....

No, you have specific brain centers to pick faces out of clutter; it goes beyond seeing familiar shapes.

The camera's got jack to do with it. Who's looking at the image and deciding it's a "huge skull monument"? Is that the camera? Or you? I think it's Pst-thug the first's left butt cheek.

Feel free but i am not sure what your going to prove by doing so! Why not read more topical information?

HAHAHA Metaresearch, Greer? Are you kidding? Hey, why not read the Time Cube guy? He is the smartest guy on Earth, right? I'm sure he'd have an opinion.

Why don't you want to admit that the face is real? What stake do you have in denying the fact when it's so clear?

What's really clear is pareidolia is a universal optical illusion. Well, that is, unless you're missing the brain area for face recognition. Then you have a real mess, called prosopagnosia.

Sure is but at least they have excuses for arriving at the wrong conclusions? What's your excuse for not managing to arrive at the truth and why do people who do work in the field publish in 'respected' journals?

Notice how that's all Carlotto, and all around 1988-1990? Then you can't find any more? That's because the data were examined, more shots looked at, it was bogus, the end.

I'm just a regular everyday fool who fall for every sham no matter how nonsensical and or whimsical, right?

Given your selection of causes to espouse, and all of them pseudo-science, I'd say you were intelligent but not very discriminating due to lacking in a good foundation in the sciences.

Because Humans originally came from Mars or from other parts of the universe? How should i know? Should i discount what i see so as to make things 'simpler' to understand?

When what you're seeing is faces in fairly "noisy" data that's devoid of any real structure, then, yes, I'd say you should discount it, because it's a well known phenomenon. Along the same lines, I would also discount it if a small dim point source of light that I was seeing in the dark suddenly seemed to start moving erratically. Because that's another well known misperception.

Look around you - most life on Earth doesn't look like you. The human design is nothing special. Why would life elsewhere evolve to look like humans? All the sci-fi shows you see look human (and speak English) because that's cheap to do. It's why you see "humanoids" on Star Trek always have larger features than a human - it's easier to graft on a latex appliance than to, say, make them have an eyeball on a stalk. So people grow up seeing sci-fi/horror in which the characters look human. Thus you get grays, Nordics and human faces on Mars.

Because i suppose there is a very real connection between life there and here? Why does Mars carry the evidence of a relatively recent catastrophe and where do you think whoever used to live there would have fled to?

What catastrophe? Tharsis? Mars may never have been capable of sustaining life as we know it. It certainly doesn't have a proper atmosphere, either in density or composition. Why would life that evolved on Mars be optimized for Earth? And there's lots of biological data that shows evolution occurred here, certainly none for sudden appearance of space capable humans.

Hmm, it doesn't even look much like a face if you ask me.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Well, it's sort of like finding it on "educate-yourself".

Good to know that you are trying Tom but i do find it hard to believe that you know about that site and will compare it to Metaresearch! Guilt and usefulness by association?

He sounds good and it's at least convincing on the surface. Yet, if you apply his arguments to other images, the shower curtain or the rock face, or most any other good pareidolic image, you'll get the same arguments. "Why, look, a brow here - and another there! That's 1000:1 odds!"

I does not behave in anything comparable to your crass fashion and i do not understand why we can compare three dimensional structures on other planets with shower curtains! I suppose i would have to be a establishment type debunker to 'understand' the 'relationship' right?

He didn't appear to be using any here, other than the ones he made up which apply to any other face-like random data. So I'd say that was a strawman.

"He didn't appear must be good enough because you just dismissed with or without the addition of odds or how they were achieved. Nice going mister debunker... Any chance you will mention one of the articles i supplied?

To do what? Find evidence? That's the entire issue. When you're a "true believer" you find all sorts of evidence that's not there.

That's a valid criticism and one i frequently voice when i find that yet another establishment scientific agency have decided to 'back' a given political view with 'evidence'. The 'true believers' are not normally the so called pseudo scientist but those who stage circular arguments along the reasoning that if A must be true ( because it's fact you see) then B must be true also! Just a great way to do science and to never ever be 'wrong'.

That's why you generally don't trust the Tobacco Institute's cancer research.

Or international organizations who have much to gain by AGW scenarios to tell me which 'facts' to employ towards a understanding of our climate...

You're helping me here - thanks! What was it that you saw? A face. A human face at that. Did you see the Fountain of Shub-niggurath, or the Portrait of Yog-Sothoth?

I pretty much saw a whitewashed skull looking object that would be approximately 16 km along the front edge.

No, because you're not wired for Old One face shape recognition in random data. But a Martian is less likely to look human than a cucumber.

How the hell do you know what a Martian will look like and why presume we aren't the original martians?

No, you have specific brain centers to pick faces out of clutter; it goes beyond seeing familiar shapes.

I still want you to present me with some specific evidence that we have such a brain center but i know that we at least have that capability by proxy...

The camera's got jack to do with it. Who's looking at the image and deciding it's a "huge skull monument"? Is that the camera? Or you? I think it's Pst-thug the first's left butt cheek.

The fact is the camera were quite objective and that skull shape is as much there for me to see as it will be there for a computer to analise the same way we can employ fractals to show that the face at Cydonia is highly unlikely to be natural.

HAHAHA Metaresearch, Greer? Are you kidding? Hey, why not read the Time Cube guy? He is the smartest guy on Earth, right? I'm sure he'd have an opinion.

I suppose i should have expected that you would not read anything and just try to fake a hearty laugh for the audience. So risky a issue that you can't even afford to feign interest and must keep heaping on the scorn as defense.

What's really clear is pareidolia is a universal optical illusion.

Which can not so easily be applied to the face when programs that can spot artificiality and the traces of intelligent design.

Well, that is, unless you're missing the brain area for face recognition. Then you have a real mess, called prosopagnosia.

You could just address the question?

Notice how that's all Carlotto, and all around 1988-1990? Then you can't find any more? That's because the data were examined, more shots looked at, it was bogus, the end.

Oh so because Newton is no longer publishing non of it was true? Don't you see how ludicrous a argument that is? Who examined that data and where is the results of the investigation published in 'peer reviewed' journals? Where do they conclude that it was 'bogus in the end'?

Given your selection of causes to espouse, and all of them pseudo-science, I'd say you were intelligent but not very discriminating due to lacking in a good foundation in the sciences.

Thanks i suppose but i am willing to be that i have a better lay overview of the sciences than you do. Is the source charge problem still a pseudo-science problem?

When what you're seeing is faces in fairly "noisy" data that's devoid of any real structure, then, yes, I'd say you should discount it, because it's a well known phenomenon

The face data is NO noisy and in fact quite easy to spot against the completely noiseless background. Pareidolia is mostly a one dimensional phenomenon and it certainly can not so easily be applied to three dimensional objects such as the face.

Along the same lines, I would also discount it if a small dim point source of light that I was seeing in the dark suddenly seemed to start moving erratically. Because that's another well known misperception.

Rigth and since establishment science is all about denying certain perceptions and observations, to say nothing of massive internal contradictions, you must fit right in...

Look around you - most life on Earth doesn't look like you. The human design is nothing special. Why would life elsewhere evolve to look like humans?

Because it evolved in one place and spread by itself or with help from something or someone?

All the sci-fi shows you see look human (and speak English) because that's cheap to do. It's why you see "humanoids" on Star Trek always have larger features than a human - it's easier to graft on a latex appliance than to, say, make them have an eyeball on a stalk. So people grow up seeing sci-fi/horror in which the characters look human. Thus you get grays, Nordics and human faces on Mars.

You clearly got it all 'solved' and that must explain why you are disregarding everything that contradicts your very simplistic view. Why shouldn't all life in the universe not come from the same stock? Have you ever considered a designer(s) ( and i am not talking about a god of any description) that likes certain forms over others?

What catastrophe? Tharsis? Mars may never have been capable of sustaining life as we know it.

Mars May Be a Former Moon of a Now-Exploded Planet

Evidence that Mars is a former moon

* Mars is much less massive than any planet not itself suspected of being a former moon
* Orbit of Mars is more elliptical than for any larger-mass planet
* Spin is slower than larger planets, except where a massive moon has intervened
* Large offset of center of figure from center of mass
* Shape not in equilibrium with spin
* Southern hemisphere is saturated with craters, the northern has sparse cratering
* The “crustal dichotomy” boundary is nearly a great circle
* North hemisphere has a smooth, 1-km-thick crust; south crust is over 20-km thick
* Crustal thickness in south decreases gradually toward hemisphere edges
* Lobate scarps occur near hemisphere divide, compressed perpendicular to boundary
* Huge volcanoes arose where uplift pressure from mass redistribution is maximal
* A sudden geographic pole shift of order 90° occurred
* Much of the original atmosphere has been lost
* A sudden, massive flood with no obvious source occurred
* Xe129, a fission product of massive explosions, has an excess abundance on Mars

metaresearch.org...

I think those facts are relatively easy to verify and we may move on to consider a cause for where that added matter came from.

PARIS — Three-quarters of the 250 Mars science experts meeting to analyze the results from U.S. and European Mars probes believe life could have existed on Mars in the past, and 25 percent think life could be there even now, according to a poll released Feb. 25.

The poll was announced during a press briefing following the First Mars Express Conference, held Feb. 21-25 at the European Space Agency’s Estec technology center in Noordwijk, Netherlands.

The results perhaps reflect the sober caution of scientists who refuse to jump to conclusions before conclusive evidence is in about the No. 1 issue on the minds of everyone attending the conference, held to review a year’s operations of Europe’s Mars Express orbiter.

www.space.com...

So you certainly hold a minority view when it comes to past life on Mars and here is some of evidenced i believe that 75% and 25% respectively may be aware of:

A new test for the presence of vegetation on Mars depends on the fact that all organic molecules have absorption bands in the vicinity of 3.4 . These bands have been studied in the reflection spectrum of terrestrial plants, and it is found that for most plants a doublet band appears which has a separation of about 0.1 and is centered about 3.46 M Spectra of Mars taken during the 1956 opposition indicate the probable presence of this band.TLis evidence and the well-known seasonal changes of the dark areas make it extremely probable that vegetation in some form is present.

www.journals.uchicago.edu...

Continued

"If there is vegetation on Mars, it should be concentrated in the darkarea elements, measuring 10 to 100 kilometers. Vegetation is the best hypothesis to account for seasonal changes in the maria and for the persistence of these formations despite dust storms of global extent. Survival of vegetation in the extreme dryness of the Martian climate could depend on the low night-time temperature and deposition of hoarfrost, which could melt into droplets after sunrise, before evaporating. If not vegetation, it must be something thing specifically Martian; no other hypothesis hitherto proposed is able to account for the facts."

www.sciencemag.org...

The spots they found were 20 percent brighter in the infrared. Smith had told ABC News in an interview that he was not fully aware how to interpret it.

The fact is, Drs. Smith and Maki were not qualified to make the judgment regarding a biological interpretation of the IMP data and Smith's comments to ABC News demonstrate this. The point is both Dr. Peter Smith, and Dr. Justin Maki are excellent scientists in their fields, but why leave something as an important as the search for life on Mars to scientists who are not qualified to make a biological assessment?

Perhaps because of the limited spectral rage of the IR filters employed in their search, the rational was that the Mars Pathfinder IMP camera would only be able to register the most blatant signs of chlorophyll if it were indeed on Mars. No one on the Mars Pathfinder team realistically expected them to find chlorophyll, but yet, something was detected. In 1999, I had an opportunity to conduct an experiment of my own regarding how geologists interpret their findings. Last June, the University of Buffalo, was host to the Second Mars Surveyor Landing Site Workshop.

www.spacedaily.com...

Dr. Serguei M. Pershin PhD, a Principal Investigator for the NASA Mars Polar Lander LIDAR experiment, Russia's first experiment on a US spacecraft claims he has discovered organic pigments on Mars relating to ancient photosynthetic organisms.

ICAMSR Executive Director, Barry E. DiGregorio has written an exclusive article about his discovery in the September issue of Spectroscopy magazine. Why is the discovery of organic pigments on Mars so important for the science of exobiology?

Because it might still be there today and perhaps that is what Dr. Gilbert V.Levin and Dr. Patricia Ann Straat found in their experiment 24 years ago with NASA's Viking Mars spacecraft. On Mars, during the Hesperian period of postulated oceans, lakes and rivers, there would have been sufficient energy input from solar radiation to support life with the characteristics of the cyanobacteria that dominate many terrestrial and aquatic habitats on Earth, e.g. the cold deserts in Antarctica. The key to the survival of cyanobacteria are in part due to the pigments they have such as:

www.spacedaily.com...

Now two separate studies, published in yesterday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, make a strong case for the fossilized life theory and may just put the controversy to rest.

Imre Friedmann and his team of researchers from the NASA Ames Research Center point out that the magnetite crystals inside ALH84001 form chains with gaps between t hem, resembling a string of pearls. These crystal chains are difficult to explain without the presence of life: "Such a chain of magnets outside an organism would immediately collapse into a clump due to magnetic forces," Friedmann explains. The other researchers, led by Kathie Thomas-Keprta of the NASA Johnson Space Center, offer supporting evidence: they note that the magnetite crystals inside the meteorite are both physically and chemically identical to those found in terrestrial magnetotactic bacteria—organisms that use a string of magnetic crystals inside their bodies to navigate, much like an internal compass. If these crystals are in fact remains of magnetotactic bacteria, they are not only definite proof of past life on Mars but evidence of the oldest life ever found. --Harald Franzen

www.sciam.com...

Conclusion and biological interpretation of DDSs: We
found that the circular shape of DDSs is independent from
local small-scale topographic variation. Fig. 4 shows surface
pattern of grooves on the top of the ice coverage, which remained
untouched while gray and dark spotting had been
advancing beneath them. This observation and existence of
DDS-holes may be interpreted so that the development of the
DDSs begins from the bottom of the frosted ice-snow layer.
This may imply that the melting/evaporation process “eats
up” the frosted layer from the bottom where the DDS centers
develop, which become the dark holes of the DDSs.

The bulk radial symmetry, the flowing (seepage) patterns
and the defrosting beginning from bottom of DDSs suggested
us a biological interpretation of the all DDS phenomena.
Therefore we proposed that for interpreting these complex
seasonal phenomena the sublimation processes should
be combined with some kind of biological activity [1, 2].
Under Martian circumstances the only possible solvent is
liquid water with some salt component.

We interpreted the sequence of DDS formation and
changes as a biomarker [8]. If Martian Surface Organisms
(MSOs) exist, they could dwell below the surface ice, which
is heated up by their absorption of sunlight. Later they grow
and reproduce through photosynthesis and they can generate
their own living conditions. Not only liquid water, but even
water vapor can sustain this form of life. Water vapor can
migrate in the soil below the CO2 frost cover supporting the
life conditions for endolithic type communities and this activity
enhances the defrosting/melting process on the top of
the dark dune surface

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Maybe Mars even has life today. The evidence sent back from Mars by two Viking Landers in 1976 and 1977 was not clearcut (6). In fact, NASA's first press release about the Viking tests announced that the results were positive. The "Labelled Release" (LR) experiments had given positive results. But after lengthy discussions in which Carl Sagan participated, NASA reversed its position, mainly because another experiment detected no organics in the soil. Yet Gilbert V. Levin, the principal designer of the LR experiment, still believes the tests pointed to life on Mars (7). When the same two experiments were run on soil from Antarctica, the same conflicting results were obtained (LR - positive; organics - negative.) Soil from Antarctica definitely contains life. The test for organics was negative because it is far less sensitive than the LR experiment. The same problem could have caused the organics test on Mars to give a false negative.

www.panspermia.org...

It certainly doesn't have a proper atmosphere, either in density or composition.

Dense enough to probably sustain certain life forms and we are observing traces of such life and certainly dense enough for parachutes to work and for relatively dense looking white clouds to form.

What is clear is that clouds hover over the caps as the weather starts to warm in the martian spring in the northern and southern hemisphere.
Orbiter data shows that those thin clouds vanish as the sun rises, and that the material falls back to Mars as frost or snow.

"This is clearly evidence that it snows on Mars," Smith said.
It's a far cry from the dry and dead world imagined by previous generations.

"The Mars we thought we knew was not the real Mars," says Ken Edgett, a geologist with Malin Space Science Systems of San Diego, California, which built the orbiter's cameras. "I'm personally surprised."

www.space.com...

The new high-altitude cloud layer has implications for landing on Mars as it suggests the upper layers of Mars' atmosphere can be denser than previously thought. This will be an important piece of information for future missions, when using friction in the outer atmosphere to slow down spacecraft (in a technique called 'aerobraking'), either for landing or going into orbit around the planet.

These results are published online in the Icarus scientific magazine (vol. 183, issue 2, August 2006), in the article titled: "Subvisible CO2 ice clouds detected in the mesosphere of Mars", by F.Montmessin, J.L.Bertaux (Service d'Aeronomie du CNRS, Verrières-le-Buisson, France ), et al.

Source: ESA

www.physorg.com...

Although not as pronounced as on Earth, clouds are common features on Mars. The Martian atmosphere has only a trace of water vapor; however, the temperature and pressure is such that the atmosphere is usually close to saturation and produces clouds. Even from Earth based telescopes, clouds have been observed by transient brightening on the surface of Mars. Numerous cloud patterns have been seen from the Marineer and Viking spacecraft and have been classified into various categories (Carr, 1981; French et al. 1981):

www.solarviews.com...

We find that at LS = 54\arcdeg\ the northern pole is still covered by a polar hood cloud with some significant amount of CO2 ices still present in the polar cap. By LS = 106\arcdeg\ there is only a small H2O ice signature with no evidence of polar clouds. The thick tropical clouds of the Martian spring have also greatly diminished in the summer, although there is still a strong cloud signature at the limbs indicating that there is significant overnight cloud formation.

www.aas.org...

So there is plenty of clouds to be seen and we KNOW that it snows...

Opportunity, back on the Meridiani Planum, took pictures of wispy clouds that look strikingly like cirrus clouds on Earth.

"This is just a totally spectacular image," said NASA rover scientist Michael Wolff as he presented the first image. And upon unveiling the second: "I can't get enough of these."

Wolff said the clouds are almost surely made of water ice. They've been spotted by orbiting spacecraft before and are known to occur near the equator -- where the rovers are -- only when Mars is at aphelion, or at its farthest point from the Sun on its elliptical orbit. During aphelion, about 40 percent less sunlight warms the planet, changing the climate,

www.space.com...

On Earth, the condensing substance is water vapor, which forms small droplets of water (typically 0.01 mm of ice crystals) that, when surrounded with billions of other droplets or crystals, are visible as clouds. Dense deep clouds exhibit a high reflectance (70 to 95%) throughout the visible range of wavelengths: they thus appear white, at least from the top. Cloud droplets tend to scatter light very efficiently, so that the intensity of the solar radiation decreases with depth into the cloud, hence the grey or even sometimes dark appearance of the clouds at their base.

en.wikipedia.org...

Unlike the Earth, where clouds are found around the entire globe, on Mars, clouds seem only to be found near the equator, as shown in this Hubble telescope image. This may be because water of Mars may only exist at equatorial regions.

As early as 1796 scientists were reporting "yellow", and "white" or "bluish" clouds in the Martian atmosphere. With data from the Mariner 9 mission, scientists could finally prove that the clouds were made of water. Mars Global Surveyor is providing more proof of the existence of water clouds.

More study is needed to understand just how the clouds come and go in the Martian atmosphere. For example, even though clouds have been found, there is no proof it actually rains on Mars! Precipitation of water depends upon how cold it is. The temperatures in the atmosphere may be too cold for water to fall to the ground as droplets.

www.windows.ucar.edu...=/mars/atmosphere/martian_clouds.html&edu=elem

I believe that if you look at some Martian cloud formations, from earth or Mars based on cameras, you will see that they look at least as white ( and thus dense) as they do on Earth suggesting in my mind at least that it does still rain on mars. The surface pressures over one third of the planet is at least suggestive of such:

"First of all, you have to remember that the average atmospheric pressure on Mars is very close to the triple point of water," explains Richard Hoover, an astrobiologist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "You only have to increase the pressure a little bit to make liquid water possible."

"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."

"There are 5 five distinct regions where we might sometimes find surface water: in the Amazonis, Chryse and Elysium Planitia, in the Hellas Basin and the Argyre Basin. Together they comprise about 30% of the planet's surface. That's not to say that liquid water really does exist in those places, just that it could."

science.nasa.gov...

If you wonder if surface water exists i will give a few dozen more sources showing that it does so don't presume a 'escape route' is in evidence.

Why would life that evolved on Mars be optimized for Earth?

I have no idea but i presume things on either planets ( or rather mars as moon) might have been very similar?

And there's lots of biological data that shows evolution occurred here, certainly none for sudden appearance of space capable humans.

There is in fact plenty of evidence for a sudden arrival of intelligence in the agricultural revolution with it's domesticated animals and wild grains which have never again been duplicated since. We have not ever managed to change a wild growing grain type into something humans can consume and it's surprising that the original species so suddenly arose all over the world.

Thanks for debunking yourself Tom.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Good to know that you are trying Tom but i do find it hard to believe that you know about that site and will compare it to Metaresearch! Guilt and usefulness by association?

How can you miss Adachi's site? It's a wealth of pseudo science, I'm surprised you haven't quoted from it.

I does not behave in anything comparable to your crass fashion and i do not understand why we can compare three dimensional structures on other planets with shower curtains! I suppose i would have to be a establishment type debunker to 'understand' the 'relationship' right?

It's easy - we just compare one illusory face to another. Using his methods, any really good face-like image you see should qualify.

"He didn't appear must be good enough because you just dismissed with or without the addition of odds or how they were achieved.

Nice going mister debunker... Any chance you will mention one of the articles i supplied?

Hey, I'm not the one invoking tools that weren't used by the man. His method for determining his "billions to one" odds is fairly questionable at best. And as I say, if it's down to picking out what you are interpreting as facial features and saying "oo, what's the odds of finding a brow RIGHT THERE!" then it's going to be a massive number for Jesus in the peanut butter as well.

How the hell do you know what a Martian will look like and why presume we aren't the original martians?

One, you're directly related to life on Earth. And not much of it looks like you. Certainly not enough to say "wow, any species could have a recognizably humanoid face!"

Two, there's a lot of fossil records that show we came from here.

Three, we use all the same amino acids, proteins, sugars, DNA coding methods, RNA codon mappings, similar cellular organelles and a lot of the same genetic structures as any other eukaryote found on Earth. That pretty much says we come from here. There's lots more, but you might get the point.

I still want you to present me with some specific evidence that we have such a brain center but i know that we at least have that capability by proxy...

No problems. Go Google prosopagnosia and fusiform gyrus. This is old stuff.

The fact is the camera were quite objective and that skull shape is as much there for me to see as it will be there for a computer to analise the same way we can employ fractals to show that the face at Cydonia is highly unlikely to be natural.

The camera doesn't matter. You're interpreting the image as...drumroll...face like. What a surprise, considering people find faces in images like this.

I suppose i should have expected that you would not read anything and just try to fake a hearty laugh for the audience.

So risky a issue that you can't even afford to feign interest and must keep heaping on the scorn as defense.

Geez, are you KIDDING? I read Greer's drivel for amusement. Sort of like reading Alex Chiu. So, have you bought in to any of the "exposés" yet? Paid up some money to find out the "real truth"?

You know, I hear he's going to tell all at his next conference. (snort)

Which can not so easily be applied to the face when programs that can spot artificiality and the traces of intelligent design.

and if they're looking for right angles, they're not going to be real dependable in rock that fractures that way. How do they do on random Earth terrain that's similar?

You could just address the question?

I did.

Oh so because Newton is no longer publishing non of it was true? Don't you see how ludicrous a argument that is?

Yet Blondlot didn't publish a lot after his N-rays debacle either. Carlotto has been discredited. But not among the metaresearch crowd, I'd guess.

Thanks i suppose but i am willing to be that i have a better lay overview of the sciences than you do.

Is the source charge problem still a pseudo-science problem?

I'd bet not. Do you have an understanding of it that you didn't get from Tom Bearden?

The face data is NO noisy and in fact quite easy to spot against the completely noiseless background. Pareidolia is mostly a one dimensional phenomenon and it certainly can not so easily be applied to three dimensional objects such as the face.

Are you KIDDING? There's one in the thread. Two if you cound the snapdragon seed pods.

Rigth and since establishment science is all about denying certain perceptions and observations, to say nothing of massive internal contradictions, you must fit right in...

Ah, yes, establishment science. That's the sort that uses that scientific method thing. Can't have that, must keep an open mind. Excuse me, I have to go make an offering to Thor.

Because it evolved in one place and spread by itself or with help from something or someone?

Sort of ignores how you share so many other attributes with all other life on Earth. Let me guess, some alien in a UFO seeded both planets, but they'd have to do the complete set, right up to pithecanthropus or something. I think you don't understand panspermia.

You clearly got it all 'solved' and that must explain why you are disregarding everything that contradicts your very simplistic view. Why shouldn't all life in the universe not come from the same stock? Have you ever considered a designer(s) ( and i am not talking about a god of any description) that likes certain forms over others?

Simplistic? You're trying to claim some sort of massive parallel evolution? Great Roddenberry's Ghost, no one believes that that has half a brain.

Mars May Be a Former Moon of a Now-Exploded Planet....


metaresearch.org...

Ah, I see. Metaresearch. Hey, did you know that it's sinful to add -1 and -1? Ask Time Cube man.

PARIS — Three-quarters of the 250 Mars science experts meeting to analyze the results from U.S. and European Mars probes believe life could have existed on Mars in the past, and 25 percent think life could be there even now, according to a poll released Feb. 25.

So you certainly hold a minority view when it comes to past life on Mars and here is some of evidenced i believe that 75% and 25% respectively may be aware of:

Dude, they're talking about microbacteria and archaea. Not Homer Simpson the Great.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

The thing that piques my newbie interest about this isn't so much the detail on the 'face', but the actual shape of the thing.

If I may clumsily try and explain: if you look at it as a face whilst ignoring the facial features, the outline of it basically, the top of the head and the chin areas are both nicely rounded whilst the sides are nicely straight. It just looks 'thoughtfully' made as opposed to natural phenonema to.

Just my two pen'orth.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by Dough Boy]

Originally posted by StellarX

Dense enough to probably sustain certain life forms and we are observing traces of such life and certainly dense enough for parachutes to work and for relatively dense looking white clouds to form.

Yet your argument is that people live there, and are in fact indistinguishable from us, and that they migrated here and we are their descendants. I don't think you can breathe a couple of millibars of CO2, even if it IS sufficient for a very sparse biosphere of algae-like bacteria.

So there is plenty of clouds to be seen and we KNOW that it snows...

Yes, do you think you could live there? Exposed? Do you think it supported human life? Because that's your argument. And we must have a very different definition of "plenty".

If you wonder if surface water exists i will give a few dozen more sources showing that it does so don't presume a 'escape route' is in evidence.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at there being some water, at least under the surface.

I have no idea but i presume things on either planets ( or rather mars as moon) might have been very similar?

Yet, you don't bear much resemblance to archaea, and they evolved here. On another planet, there is no reason to believe that the same sorts of life would evolve at all, much less would you share very highly specific proteins, DNA sequences and the like.

There is in fact plenty of evidence for a sudden arrival of intelligence in the agricultural revolution with it's domesticated animals and wild grains which have never again been duplicated since. We have not ever managed to change a wild growing grain type into something humans can consume and it's surprising that the original species so suddenly arose all over the world.

Thanks for debunking yourself Tom.

That's the most illogical non-sequitur I think I've ever seen on ATS. I don't even know how to address that. Are you claiming that the martians - who also happened to be us - somehow arrived 5600 years ago when corn was being bred from wild maize? The illogic is so bad I can't grasp that you made that statement. You seemed so lucid up to that point.

Here is some additional, very compelling SCIENTIFIC analysis of the distortion, filters, stretching,exaggeration etc. by ESA and nasa which agencies are in close contact and share data, especially with regard to the "Face" on Mars.
This paper deals with the obvious distortion of the images of the "Face", in a very clear scientific way.

Excellent paper may be downloaded here:

spsr.utsi.edu...

This quick reference deals with the actual ground Elevations in stereo, taken by the Mars Global Surveyor ( MOC ) images and used to compute actual elevations at different points on the "face".
Very enlightening.
There is more actual science in the evaluation of the photgraphic data in this one paper, than in all the soundbytes released by esa and nasa combined:

www.vgl.org...

And last, here is additional Scientific photographic analysis, giving the actual a priori predictions (odds) in a more detailed paper:

metaresearch.org...

When actually read, and assimilated, without all the emotion I see attached to this subject in this "science" forum, it becomes almost overwhelming.
Read it.
Let's deal with science, and not 'faith' and emotion in this forum.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
How can you miss Adachi's site? It's a wealth of pseudo science, I'm surprised you haven't quoted from it.

You would be surprised as you are doing your best to find ways to dismiss whatever it might be saying no matter the source.

It's easy - we just compare one illusory face to another. Using his methods, any really good face-like image you see should qualify.

Comparing one dimensional faces in curtains with three KM long three dimensional faces is disingenuous at best but that's all you seem able to resort to when your vaunted 'knowledge' stores can't come up with something concrete.

Hey, I'm not the one invoking tools that weren't used by the man. His method for determining his "billions to one" odds is fairly questionable at best.

FOR YOU! Since your bias is so obvious who cares what you find questionable when you present no evidence that the odds really are questionable?

And as I say, if it's down to picking out what you are interpreting as facial features and saying "oo, what's the odds of finding a brow RIGHT THERE!" then it's going to be a massive number for Jesus in the peanut butter as well.

Actually some people suggest that the right hand side of the face would have feline features and since that have been born out in observation one could in fact estimate odds against such to say nothing of the odds for all those strait lines and reflective surfaces...

One, you're directly related to life on Earth.

Everything in the universe might work on the same DNA basis and while i have seen some evidence against that reasoning i would like to see if you know why. Stun me with your knowledge of anthropology/biology mister Bedlam.

And not much of it looks like you. Certainly not enough to say "wow, any species could have a recognizably humanoid face!"

Unless we all come from a same mold and or stock!

Two, there's a lot of fossil records that show we came from here.

It does a good job of showing where primates came from but nearly such a good job of showing where WE came from.

Three, we use all the same amino acids, proteins, sugars, DNA coding methods, RNA codon mappings, similar cellular organelles and a lot of the same genetic structures as any other eukaryote found on Earth.

And that proves what in your mind? Can that serve as evidence against a commonality for all life?

That pretty much says we come from here. There's lots more, but you might get the point.

That does not say we come from here but does say that we are biochemically the same. Still not sure why you think i didn't know this but it does seem that all your accusations and denials seems to rest on the notion that i 'just don't know'. Fascinating that you must presume me ignorant when i can so easily presume that you are just doing your best to avoid employing your knowledge to arrive at other than consensus conclusions. It's not that hard but i suppose a establishment fundamentalist type must attack anyone who wishes to upset their particular 'science' based dogmatic religion.

No problems. Go Google prosopagnosia and fusiform gyrus. This is old stuff.

I go to great trouble to source my claims and i suggest you start doing the same at some stage. Until they i self interestedly presume that it's a speculative area with no definite findings.

My specific question was where in the brain we can find the specific module that tries to see human or predator forms in bushes and clouds to say nothing of mountains. As far as i am concerned Pareidolia is psychological phenomenon and that there is no part or subset of the brain that is dedicated to findings faces that do not exist on other planets. I know that view suits your denial but i don't really have to buy into your fantasies.

The camera doesn't matter. You're interpreting the image as...drumroll...face like. What a surprise, considering people find faces in images like this.

But there was simply nothing left for my mind to do but observe a static photograph! It could not 'interpret' the lighting or mess with the shadows or change the depth. It's simply there to observe? How can this be compared to faces in clouds and shower curtains that goes away when you change your perspective? Why do the face remain in all the other photographs taken of Cydonia?

Geez, are you KIDDING? I read Greer's drivel for amusement. Sort of like reading Alex Chiu. So, have you bought in to any of the "exposés" yet? Paid up some money to find out the "real truth"?

I don't believe one has to pay anyone for the truth and don't believe you will get it for free either. You really have to discern for yourself and make judgements based on all prior knowledge. I did not know i cited a paper by greer so maybe you can remind me which one it was?

You know, I hear he's going to tell all at his next conference. (snort)

Your derision may be admired by your fellow consensus fanatics but i don't really care for it.

and if they're looking for right angles, they're not going to be real dependable in rock that fractures that way. How do they do on random Earth terrain that's similar?

Why don't you read the PEER REVIEWED published material i supplied and find out how it compares? Why do you refuse to look at the evidence?

I did.

Your not even pretending well.

Yet Blondlot didn't publish a lot after his N-rays debacle either. Carlotto has been discredited.But not among the metaresearch crowd, I'd guess.

Where has he been discredited but your own biased mind? Please stop sharing your opinions when i am asking for proof!

'd bet not. Do you have an understanding of it that you didn't get from Tom Bearden?

You have not responded to my last post o that issue and maybe you should before i refer people here to the cite of your ignorance-and-run. Tom in part served as 'inspiration' for some of the questions i checked out but as you well know from my sources i rarely if ever cite him when it comes to the science knowing that you will simply start frothing at the mouth and shouting denials in every direction. It's not that i think Tom is not worthy of being cited but i know his worse for your reasoning processes than Kryptonite is for superman.

Are you KIDDING? There's one in the thread. Two if you cound the snapdragon seed pods.

Find me something of the same size of the face on Earth ( so we can know if it's artificial or not) and you can start flinging the word 'Pareidolia' around as much as you like. It's not like i will believe you but at least you will have established the fact that the phenomenon exists on that scale.

Ah, yes, establishment science. That's the sort that uses that scientific method thing.

That's the people who come to conclusions independent of the scientific method thing which in part explains why they at first mostly arrive at the wrong conclusions. Maybe you have at some time in the past wondered by the scientific method can so frequently have led the science establishment astray? Who am i kidding, a fanatic does not consider evidence to the contrary.

Can't have that, must keep an open mind. Excuse me, I have to go make an offering to Thor.

Heresy! There is only one god in establishment science and that's "Consensus", the great. If god Consensus says it's so then there is just no denying it!

Sort of ignores how you share so many other attributes with all other life on Earth.

How does it ignore our biochemical roots? Why presume it's not the same everywhere and do you have any evidence for such thus entirely alien life? Even the the bible says the gods interbred and consumed? Not that i am a great exponent but what evidence do we have for evolution elsewhere based on different biochemistry?

Let me guess, some alien in a UFO seeded both planets, but they'd have to do the complete set, right up to pithecanthropus or something.

Something like that with interventions where required or built into the system that we have no so far observed. I don't pretend to know but my credibility is no more at stake than usually so i really don't have to deny possibilities that can not logically be excluded.

I think you don't understand panspermia.

And i don't think you understand evolution or the gaping holes in even the contemporary theories.

Simplistic? You're trying to claim some sort of massive parallel evolution?

I am refusing to exclude such considerations on the basis that those who worship consensus might dislike me for it?

Great Roddenberry's Ghost, no one believes that that has half a brain.

I may not need a brain at all but i suppose you didn't know this either?

The man was 44-years-old at the time, married with two children, and worked as a civil servant. He went to hospital after suffering mild left leg weakness. He was treated by Dr Lionel Feuillet and colleagues, Hôpital de la Timone and Faculté de Médecine, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France, who authored the clinical update.

Analysis of the man’s medical history revealed at the age of six months, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus (water on the brain), of unknown cause. At the age of 14, he had complained of unsteadiness and left leg weakness, which cleared up after the shunt was revised. His neurological development and medical history were otherwise normal.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Continued

French doctors are amazed that a 44-year-old civil servant with an abnormally small brain has led a normal life with a slightly lower than normal IQ, according to a report on Physorg.com.

Doctors said the father of two went to the Hopital de la Timone in Marseille with mild weakness in his left leg. He was given a CT scan and an MRI, which showed that his cerebral cavities or ventricles had massively expanded, according a case history to be published in Saturday's Lancet.

"The brain itself, meaning the grey matter and white matter, was completely crushed against the sides of the skull," Dr. Lionel Feuillet told AFP. "The images were most unusual... the brain was virtually absent."

www.foxnews.com...

Please keep you horrendously ignorant accusations to yourself.

Ah, I see. Metaresearch. Hey, did you know that it's sinful to add -1 and -1? Ask Time Cube man.

Thanks for the delightfully insightful response Tom. What did lord Consensus have to say about exploding planets?

Dude, they're talking about microbacteria and archaea. Not Homer Simpson the Great.

Where did they talk about micro bacteria and archaea? Why did you not address all the other given sources?

At the same meeting, NASA's Planetary Protection Officer, John Rummel, described the alternative explanations: "methane in the atmosphere...is a detection from the planetary Fourier spectrometer. ESA, the European Space Agency, has put out an announcement that it's been detected at 10 to 20 parts per billion. Well, methane in the atmosphere on Mars can mean one of three things: either vulcanism, possibly microbial life, or maybe cows. We haven't seen the cows yet. I doubt that we'll find them. But one of the other two would be a very interesting thing to find out."

www.astrobio.net...

Understatement of the century, possibly? Just interesting that you can ignore all the other sources and instead make a claim you provide no proof for.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Yet your argument is that people live there, and are in fact indistinguishable from us, and that they migrated here and we are their descendants.

I am not sure if they original inhabitants are still there but i am quite convinced that someone had been there in our distant past. I suggested that they might have intervened in the evolution of primates to result in us. There is still a great debate about how modern intellectual prowess came about as quickly as it did...

I don't think you can breathe a couple of millibars of CO2, even if it IS sufficient for a very sparse biosphere of algae-like bacteria.

Well i am not suggesting that they move about freely on the planet as we all know that humans need high octane fuel ( oxygen) and then without too many contaminants such as CO2. I am saying that in a distant past a outdoors human life might have been possible but with the planet exploding and all the atmosphere kinda went with it resulting in underground or at least well ventilated living areas. I know speculating like this does my credibility absolutely no favours but i am sure there at least a few readers that might be benefit by my approach. Since your foaming at the mouth any ways it hardly matters if i talk about about Martian life or small unresolved electromagnetically 'problems'.

Yes, do you think you could live there? Exposed? Do you think it supported human life?

I think you could survive on the surface of mars with a oxygen supply and suitable warm clothing without the need for a pressure suit or anything like.

Because that's your argument. And we must have a very different definition of "plenty".

We have very different definitions of most things and especially when it comes to what can be considered 'proof'. You don't seem to need any when god Consensus says it is and don't look at any volume when it goes against that lords wishes.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at there being some water, at least under the surface.

On the surface and lake lake sized?

Yet, you don't bear much resemblance to archaea, and they evolved here. On another planet, there is no reason to believe that the same sorts of life would evolve at all,

That's true and i do not wish to pretend or state that i know the direct sequence of events, or if they transpired at all, that led to humans on Earth and a intelligently designed statues, buildings and faces on Mars. I offered what i believed to be possibilities and that's all they should be seen as.

much less would you share very highly specific proteins, DNA sequences and the like.

Not unless there is a common ancestor or at least some very serious DNA manipulation. Again i am considering options and not stating something as fact or opinion unless stated.

That's the most illogical non-sequitur I think I've ever seen on ATS.

Another lie and so soon after the last one?

I don't even know how to address that.

Where would you start giving so much consensus science you must fanatically uphold for fear of any holes appearing?

Are you claiming that the martians - who also happened to be us - somehow arrived 5600 years ago when corn was being bred from wild maize?

I am saying that we have no way of explaining how that suddenly happened all over the world in such a very short period of time.

The illogic is so bad I can't grasp that you made that statement.

Fundamentalist does have a hard time considering anything other than what they already happen to believe.

You seemed so lucid up to that point.

So that's how you treat 'lucid' people? Thanks for the warning!

Stellar

I find it funny how in a lot of these type of theories almost always rely on old pixelated bad quality low resolution photos.

Regardless of the fact that that area of Mars has been updated numerous times with much higher detailed images people who try to prove the face as being artificial always use the first released image and not the newer more detailed ones.

I don't see a face, and if it is meant to be one then they didn't do a good job of it.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Edn]

Originally posted by StellarX
You would be surprised as you are doing your best to find ways to dismiss whatever it might be saying no matter the source.

Because it's all pretty dismissable. I especially like the "holy hand grenade" section.

Comparing one dimensional faces in curtains with three KM long three dimensional faces is disingenuous at best but that's all you seem able to resort to when your vaunted 'knowledge' stores can't come up with something concrete.

I note that you keep dodging the rock face in the thread. But..15 seconds later... here's a Native American with an iPod.



..and NH's Old Man of the Mountains, pre collapse:

FOR YOU! Since your bias is so obvious who cares what you find questionable when you present no evidence that the odds really are questionable?

Apply the approach in his paper to the Indian head. It works for any face-like image.

Everything in the universe might work on the same DNA basis and while i have seen some evidence against that reasoning i would like to see if you know why. Stun me with your knowledge of anthropology/biology mister Bedlam.

Prokaryotes don't use helical DNA. And they're right here on Earth, presumably an ancestor of yours. Archaea, also presumably an ancestor, don't have many of the same organelles you share with eukaryotes. Nor do prokaryotes have, say, the same sorts of ribosomes, nor do they have mitochondria. Yet all eukaryotic life, including eventually YOU, does. There really is no chance of you having evolved elsewhere.

Unless we all come from a same mold and or stock!

Like an elephant? Or a buffalo? You're pretty closely related to them, compared to a lizard, but they don't have "faces".

It does a good job of showing where primates came from but nearly such a good job of showing where WE came from.

Oh, sure it does.

And that proves what in your mind? Can that serve as evidence against a commonality for all life?

Sure. Meet Mr Prokaryote and Mr Archaea.

That does not say we come from here but does say that we are biochemically the same. Still not sure why you think i didn't know this but it does seem that all your accusations and denials seems to rest on the notion that i 'just don't know'.

You make it plain that you don't. We're not just biochemically the same, we use a lot of the same structures, structures that are done differently on other Earth life that is not eukaryotic. There is no special wonderfulness to the structures, it's just what evolved. They have evolved differently right here, where you might expect otherwise. Yet, it didn't happen that way. So if such vast differences arise HERE, there is no chance of some off-Earth evolutionary process to produce a drop-in-replica human.

I go to great trouble to source my claims and i suggest you start doing the same at some stage. Until they i self interestedly presume that it's a speculative area with no definite findings.

Translation: (fingers in ears) lalalalala

actually, that fits most of your posts

But there was simply nothing left for my mind to do but observe a static photograph! It could not 'interpret' the lighting or mess with the shadows or change the depth. It's simply there to observe? How can this be compared to faces in clouds and shower curtains that goes away when you change your perspective?

A photograph is a photograph! I showed you one above, all that was left was for your mind to observe a static photograph!.

Or the rock face someone posted. Or the iPod indian. Or the snapdragon pods. Or. or..or... there are a lot of them that could be posted.

Why do the face remain in all the other photographs taken of Cydonia?

I did not know i cited a paper by greer so maybe you can remind me which one it was?

You didn't post one by Adachi or Chiu either, yet here they are in the conversation.

Greer, Hoagland, Carlotti, Adachi, Chiu, Time Cube man - they all share something in common. And it would be called "pseudo science".

Why don't you read the PEER REVIEWED published material i supplied and find out how it compares? Why do you refuse to look at the evidence?

You provided a lot of it, and a lot of it isn't germane to your point, particularly. For example, if you're trying to convince everyone that 15 huge cut-and-pastes speaking of water which may exist on Mars means that people live there, it's a fast glance to see that's not what they're saying. I don't need to do an in-depth analysis of it. Ten seconds will tell you what the pressure is. People did not evolve there. Why are you dodging that?

You have not responded to my last post o that issue and maybe you should before i refer people here to the cite of your ignorance-and-run.

No, it was more like "my post a huge explanation and the thread ate it", as you know. Nothing more discouraging than it saying "now taking you back to the thread" and it's not there. And you didn't copy it to notepad.

But please, cite away. Or, just respond to the question.

Can...you...explain...it...in...your..own...words...and...not..Tom's.

Find me something of the same size of the face on Earth ( so we can know if it's artificial or not) and you can start flinging the word 'Pareidolia' around as much as you like. It's not like i will believe you but at least you will have established the fact that the phenomenon exists on that scale.

That's why I don't bother posting large replies to you twice, if one of them is eaten. See Indian head.

Maybe you have at some time in the past wondered by the scientific method can so frequently have led the science establishment astray? Who am i kidding, a fanatic does not consider evidence to the contrary.

Yes, that damned replicability thing, we should get rid of that.

How does it ignore our biochemical roots? Why presume it's not the same everywhere and do you have any evidence for such thus entirely alien life?

Yep, look at a clostridium bacillus under a microscope. Next argument.

Something like that ...

Well, there you go. I knew aliens and UFOs would enter into it somewhere.

And i don't think you understand evolution or the gaping holes in even the contemporary theories.

And I don't think you have a clue about microbiology. Or most science, for that matter.

I may not need a brain at all but i suppose you didn't know this either?

insert smarmy joke here about you not obviously not needing one due to lack of use

Thread starter. I suppose you also believe that the face on the moon was intelligently designed so freaking large enough that we can see it from thousands of miles away.

Also, I assume you believe that the Chocolate Hills in the Phillipines are also intelligently contructed.

Odds are billion to one that the scientist proposing that information and the odds ratio is FALSE.

Originally posted by StellarX

Please keep you horrendously ignorant accusations to yourself.

Accusation? Which one?

Sorry - I'd be happy to own up to it but I'm not sure which insult you're talking about here.

Thanks for the delightfully insightful response Tom. What did lord Consensus have to say about exploding planets?

They look really cool on Star Trek movies.

edit: Except when they run out of effects budget, and then you get that ripoff matte crap of Praxis on Undiscovered Country. Wow, was that cheesy.

Where did they talk about micro bacteria and archaea? Why did you not address all the other given sources?

Most of your sources on the topic are talking about organisms that may be similar to cyanobacteria and microbacteria.

Understatement of the century, possibly? Just interesting that you can ignore all the other sources and instead make a claim you provide no proof for.

Wait...are you sincerely thinking that the guy meant there were cows on Mars, instead of making a joke?

I am not sure if they original inhabitants are still there but i am quite convinced that someone had been there in our distant past. I suggested that they might have intervened in the evolution of primates to result in us. There is still a great debate about how modern intellectual prowess came about as quickly as it did...

Oh - it had previously sounded as if you were saying, over and over, that they came here and we are them, which is why the face is humanoid. So, instead of thinking "Wow, a rock that looks like a face", you can extend that into space-traveling human life that came here to tamper with primate evolution. Ok.

Well i am not suggesting that they move about freely on the planet as we all know that humans need high octane fuel ( oxygen) and then without too many contaminants such as CO2. I am saying that in a distant past a outdoors human life might have been possible but with the planet exploding and all the atmosphere kinda went with it resulting in underground or at least well ventilated living areas.

Right.

I think you could survive on the surface of mars with a oxygen supply and suitable warm clothing without the need for a pressure suit or anything like.

It's 6 millibars. That would kill you, I'm pretty sure. Sealevel is about 1013 millibars.

We have very different definitions of most things and especially when it comes to what can be considered 'proof'. You don't seem to need any when god Consensus says it is and don't look at any volume when it goes against that lords wishes.

What can I say? I'm not as fantasy prone as you.

On the surface and lake lake sized?

Exposed in low pressure, it would boil, freeze, then slowly sublimate away. You'd need sufficient pressure to keep it on the surface. One of your articles mentioned in a few places at times that might happen, but not all the time and not everywhere. I think you'd have problems with "lake sized" but I don't doubt there's liquid water here and there, especially under the surface.

Actually, I don't doubt there's life. I just don't think it's complex, based on the fact there doesn't appear to be much of a biosphere. I would love for us to go there, even if it's a joint effort or the Chinese or Soviets do it. Someone ought to. I just don't want you coming back carrying any of it.

Of course, we're bound to contaminate it going the other way, too.

That's the most illogical non-sequitur I think I've ever seen on ATS.

Another lie and so soon after the last one?

No, it's true that you post plenty of non-sequiturs, but there's a couple of other posters on ATS that have you beaten in terms of coming out of left field with them at the same time. You generally make sense. A sense I don't agree with, but you're usually at least consistent and somewhat logical.

Where would you start giving so much consensus science you must fanatically uphold for fear of any holes appearing?

I guess at the time I wasn't expecting you to embrace the plot line of "Mission to Mars" quite so literally. I liked it too, but dude, it's a movie. And it has a lot of science errors.

I am saying that we have no way of explaining how that suddenly happened all over the world in such a very short period of time.

Are you nuts? EVERYONE knows the aliens from Zeta Reticuli did that. Not Martians! And the Nordics are the ones that gave us sailing. The blue doctors gave us medicine. It's a big interstellar lovefest, man.


[edit on 8-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Edn
I find it funny how in a lot of these type of theories almost always rely on old pixelated bad quality low resolution photos.

I find it even funnier that some people are relying on images that NASA and their agencies deliberately distorted with filters and data processing!

Regardless of the fact that that area of Mars has been updated numerous times with much higher detailed images people who try to prove the face as being artificial always use the first released image and not the newer more detailed ones.

No we don't use the oldest image but how can we use newer images that are deliberately distorted

These links were posted before and it shows how NASA tampered with the data when they failed to hide the second image that invalidated the light&shadow 'explanation' for the first?

www.enterprisemission.com...

spsr.utsi.edu...

www.vgl.org...

I don't see a face, and if it is meant to be one then they didn't do a good job of it.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Just look at how shallow the craters are to get some idea of what they have done to height resolution! Why did they forget to mention the fact that the MOLA were employed to determine height instead of just giving us the raw MOC data? Why do they feel compelled to process our data for us and then call us 'conspiratorial'?

Stellar

I hope that I can ask some questions, that if answered satisfactorly, may help to shed light on this subject.
I don't pretend to be an expert related to the "face on mars", but I think I do have some adequit powers of observation. I first heard about the face on mars listening to Coast to Coast AM years ago. I was facinated so I went on line to check it out. At this time none of the high resolution photos were available. My first impression upon looking at the "face", was that Hoagland might have something. I have no problem with the idea of extra terrestrial life or their past presence on mars. Though the "face on Mars" did capture my imagination, I was far from 100% conviced. There would have to be quite a bit more evidence than just a striking resemblance to a face. Maby someone could answer these questions for me:

QUESTIONS:
1) Since the face is a very large object, Where did it come from? In other words; was it formed out of an existing geologic object (e.g., hill, volcano), or was the material for the face transported from another location to it's present location?

2) If anyone can answer one of the two above questions it would seem to me that the evidence for either would have to exist somewhere near the "face on Mars". So this begs the question; where is the evidence of it's construction?

3) When I first heard that NASA had high resolution photos of the face, I was excited. I thought that we might see structural girders, defined sections of rock (cut rock or walls), uneven and sudden varriations in the color and texture of the rock (including sudden breaks in the strata of the rock). These would all be things I would accept as clear evidence of a massive constuction project (antcient or not). Well, maby my observational skills are not as good as I'd like to believe, but I didn't see any of these tell tail signs. If anyone has evidence to show otherwise, would they please set me straight?

Some, more qualified than I, could probably come up with better lines of questioning to further shed light on this mysery, and it is my hope that someone will continue to look into these and other questions. I would love nothing more than to see strong evidence that the face was constructed. Thank you.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Those are good questions, but I think that it's possible (and even likely) that things related to a large, ancient construction can be more easily destroyed because there is not any real will to keep them for the future generations while a temple, palace, etc. is made to last.

If I remember it well, the large village where the workers that built the pyramids in Giza was discovered much later than the pyramids themselves.

Also, I don't know if the high resolution images we have today (25 centimetres per pixel) have enough detail to show what you thought would be visible on an artificial "face".

But having said that, I am one of those that think that the "face" is just a curious rock formation.