Moon photo anomalys' gaining momentum in Russia.

Originally posted by porschedrifter
Probably was just a square meteor...

They aren't all round you know.

Please confirm that you were being sarcastic...I cannot imagine anyone really thinking that a perfectly square meteor could exist in nature or that it could impact a planet and leave a wall behind...surely you know that is not possible. Just wondering...

Well that may be all well and good, but the first post in the thread, which was the one I was responding to, only mentions Richard Hoagland. So therefore I gave a valid response on it.

TO CREEWOLF: I would not believe anything this man says. Please. Do yourself a favor and read Phil Plaits website.

If you want an INTELLIGENT book to read with REAL VERIFIABLE sources, I suggest "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock. I have it in Ebook format if you'd like a copy.

Now, with that said, internos, if you are talking about a different picture, then my bad. However, I disagree that there is anything special about this outcrop. I DO believe that there may have been life on mars at one point, or that mars may be able to sustain life, but so far, the fact is that there is no solid evidence supporting this. Sure, there is speculation on formations and faces on mars and yadayada but its all SPECULATION. Until the rover sends back a picture of a fossil that was once a living creature, I'm not gonna believe it. I do appreciate you respecting my opinion though and I respect yours.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by mike_b]

[edit on 29-11-2007 by mike_b]

Nice find Internos! I wouldnt be surprised if theres is more geometery to this making it more of a complex. We need a really big wind storm to just blow as much dirt sand away to reveal some more. good job! and a star a flag to Cree for the thread

[edit on 29-11-2007 by spikedmilk]

Originally posted by mike_b
Now, with that said, internos, if you are talking about a different picture, then my bad. However, I disagree that there is anything special about this outcrop. I DO believe that there may have been life on mars at one point, or that mars may be able to sustain life, but so far, the fact is that there is no solid evidence supporting this. Sure, there is speculation on formations and faces on mars and yadayada but its all SPECULATION. Until the rover sends back a picture of a fossil that was once a living creature, I'm not gonna believe it. I do appreciate you respecting my opinion though and I respect yours.

Absolutely, there is not evidence which corroborates the theory of life on Mars, i agree, an who claims otherwise is lying or is misunformed.
About the rectangle, i've never stated that we can call it evidence, but please, let me say that it has NOTHING ordinary by the geological point of view. I guess that if i'd ask you to show me other formations like that one on Mars you could have hard time looking for them
I'd say that it's a geological anomaly, most likely a natural formation, but odd, unusual and out of the ordinary, basing my constructions on what is known so far about Mars, IMHO, of course.

P.S.:
Last time i've seen something alike, it has been here:
www.msss.com...
but the one the OP posted is far more interesting IMHO...



[edit on 29/11/2007 by internos]

There we go. Now I agree with you on that standpoint. That, from a geological view, it is an anomaly. I think I misunderstood you and thought you were trying to say that this formation must have been created by something other than nature. And who knows, it could very well have been created by another life form. I can't prove that otherwise. I just can't believe it myself.

But my main thing is to just warn people to be careful of what people can convince them. To question things for yourself and do some research. I was just a bit taken back that he was believing everything Richard Hoagland said without any research to the contrary. Because there's alot of scientific evidence stacked against Hoagland. Some people are dangerous because they purposly spread disinformation, knowing that they have a large audience listening to them. And THAT is what I'm against.

And have you ever read the book I suggested? Fingerprints of the Gods? Its an amazingly good read. I suggest it to all that are interested in where mankind really could have come from.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by mike_b]

reply to post by mike_b


I find your input very interesting. I also agree that this is not proof. It may be highly suggestive, but until we have proof, it remains an anomaly.

Your disagreement with Creewolf is amusing as some people feel the same way about your man. It kind of reminds me of a Priest and a Rabbi arguing about the attributes of God.

And no, I'm not taking sides on this one.

Originally posted by mike_b
And have you ever read the book I suggested? Fingerprints of the Gods? Its an amazingly good read. I suggest it to all that are interested in where mankind really could have come from.
[edit on 29-11-2007 by mike_b]

Ah, thank you for your input:
i'm reading just now some reviews and articles about it, and it sounds INTERESTING to say the least
Worthy to be read, and i'll do it asap

Originally posted by mike_b

But my main thing is to just warn people to be careful of what people can convince them. To question things for yourself and do some research. I was just a bit taken back that he was believing everything Richard Hoagland said without any research to the contrary. Because there's alot of scientific evidence stacked against Hoagland. Some people are dangerous because they purposly spread disinformation, knowing that they have a large audience listening to them. And THAT is what I'm against.

I couldn't agree more: i don't know Hoagland very well, but in general, i can state that there are websites which primary purpose is to deliberately deceive the people: some websites uses the jpeg artifacting in order to show structures or other artifacts on Mars and/or on the Moon, the same thing which is being made by the reptilian-shapeshifter fans with the lossy compression, and so on.
Recently i've suggested to another member who opened a thread based on the "discoveries" of a website of that type, to do the searches by himself ( Link ): is always the better thing to do IMHO, and if you'd discover something, the satisfaction will be all for you


[edit on 29/11/2007 by internos]

At what point do all you Hoagland haters have to get to, before you grasp the point that everything he has said about Mars from the fossil destroyed by one of the rovers to the fact that there is liquid water on Mars has come to fruition? Practically everything he has presented evidence for has recently been confirmed by NASA. From liquid water to the presence of methane! (and these are only the small things that he's presented evidence of) Most of these things he presented evidence for AT LEAST 10 YEARS in advance of NASA's confirmation.
Don't know about you, but anyone with a track record that is as close to 100% as his has been I wouldn't be so quick to ridicule.
Unless, of course, I were an agent of the dark side and my only purpose was to cast doubt on someone that has had more hits than the Billboard Top 40.

Originally posted by RedDragon69
At what point do all you Hoagland haters have to get to, before you grasp the point that everything he has said about Mars from the fossil destroyed by one of the rovers to the fact that there is liquid water on Mars has come to fruition? Practically everything he has presented evidence for has recently been confirmed by NASA. From liquid water to the presence of methane! (and these are only the small things that he's presented evidence of) Most of these things he presented evidence for AT LEAST 10 YEARS in advance of NASA's confirmation.
Don't know about you, but anyone with a track record that is as close to 100% as his has been I wouldn't be so quick to ridicule.
Unless, of course, I were an agent of the dark side and my only purpose was to cast doubt on someone that has had more hits than the Billboard Top 40.

As i've already said, i don't know Hoagland and i'm not interested at all to what he states: when i want to read or to know more about something i prefer to choose/look for it by myself. Anyway, the title of this thread is:
"Moon photo anomalys' gaining momentum in Russia".
You are free to open a thread about him and to provide there all the evidences that you want.

[edit on 29/11/2007 by internos]

Originally posted by RedDragon69
At what point do all you Hoagland haters have to get to, before you grasp the point that everything he has said about Mars from the fossil destroyed by one of the rovers to the fact that there is liquid water on Mars has come to fruition? Practically everything he has presented evidence for has recently been confirmed by NASA. From liquid water to the presence of methane! (and these are only the small things that he's presented evidence of) Most of these things he presented evidence for AT LEAST 10 YEARS in advance of NASA's confirmation.
Don't know about you, but anyone with a track record that is as close to 100% as his has been I wouldn't be so quick to ridicule.
Unless, of course, I were an agent of the dark side and my only purpose was to cast doubt on someone that has had more hits than the Billboard Top 40.

Or maybe the problem is not people "detracting" from Hoagland. Maybe the problem is that alot of UFO enthusiasts and hoax followers only believe what they want to hear and not what is necessarily true. I can CREATE a picture that is uncanny proof of structures on the moon using Photoshop just as Hoagland has done. And honestly, I can probably do a better job seeing as how I have professionaly used Photoshop and Illustrator for the past 6 years. Believe what you want to believe. I myself even believed Hoagland at one time, but then I learned better. You will arrive at that conclusion as well eventually once you have researched enough.

AND FYI, the "fossil" that Hoagland claims was destroyed by the Rover was nothing more than a piece of debris from the Rovers parachute.
Red Dragon, I'm not saying that there is not a possiblity that life once existed on Mars or that Mars may be able to sustain life, I'm merely saying that Richard Hoaglands specific claims are false and that if you are really interested in learning the truth about Mars, Hoagland isn't the best source. He has a history of lies and disinformation long before his book. Did you NOT read the link I posted? If you didn't, then you have proved my point that Hoagland followers only believe what they want to believe, not the truth.

BUT, as internos said, this is NOT a thread for Richard Hoagland (even though the thread WAS started using nothing but Hoagland references) and thus, I am done discussing him here.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by mike_b]

I've found both the following images by myself and so far they've been posted only here on ATS (i've googled them but no results except msss/nasa websites): they are original/unedited images from MSSS:

www.msss.com...
www.msss.com...



What about that triangle?


This is another thing i've found by myself in south pole region of Mars:
it has not yet been noticed by someone else, but i find it puzzling, especially if we look at

it in its own contest:


www.msss.com...
www.msss.com...

hard to see, but it looks to be a square, that one.
What i mean, is that there's no need to manipulate images if there's actually something odd in it. Some days ago, over 29 images taken from a website and posted here on ATS by another member, at least 25 "anomalies" were visible only in the "enhanced" versions, and invisible in the original one


[edit on 30/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by internos

Great find! It's always great to see a new Mars anomaly, especially when it is quite visible in the non-enhanced versions like you say. Mars is an odd bird for sure - so many irrefutable geometric patterns all over the surface, and no apparent explanation or admission is readily available from NASA. Don't you wish we knew what they know?

[edit on 11/30/2007 by damajikninja]

whoa thats a big ol thumb. And yes internos. I applaud your efforts and thank you for not enhancing the picture first, then finding an anomaly. I got another great read for you on Mars. Its called "The Mars Records" and is available for free as an ebook download from themarsrecords.com Internos, I figure you might enjoy this given your interest on the subject of Mars.

Its about clearing sessions with a biofeedback meter where a man regained hidden memories of military service on Mars, Time travel, Killing with Remote Viewing, Mind control, and Military and Alien Abductions.

I don't know if any of it is really true or not, that's for each to decide, but its interesting none the less. Let me know what you thought about it.

I really hope the Russian and chinese investigate all the space anomalies and bring the truth to all of mankind

reply to post by mike_b


Mike_b, thank you for bringing to my attention that documentation: i've downloaded all the donwloadable from that website and i took a look at the papers (for this reason i'm answering now): of course it requires more time, and of course is worthy to be read, in every part IMHO.
I also have to say that many clues suggested me that there's an actual knowledge of at least some of the techniques mentioned (i say "some" only because "some" are the ones that i actually know): this does not mean that what is described in the book is true in every part (who can tell), but in my opinion who wrote the books knows the basics (and many details) of many different techniques which most likely could be known only after a direct involvement in "particular" projects (but this is a long and complicated story), or after knowing someone who is/has been involved in one.
I've worked in a project with some similarities, and i've been surprised many times by their results: at least the techniques and the procedures i already knew, have been proved to actually work, every time
What i mean, is that that's not science-fiction.
This week end i'll read more in deep, even because i would like to compare some details i've found in one of the books that i've downloaded from there with a "manual of procedures" that i have somewhere (i still haven't found it).
I'll send you a more detailed response in case my guesses are true.
Thank you for that link, once again: i've really appreciated it, mike_b


[edit on 30/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by mike_b


Thanks greatly for reminding me that i have this book "Fingerprints of the Gods".
I have started to read it again. So many well argued and referenced points that i find it hard to believe this is not compulsory reading in history classes.

The square formation on Mars is remarkable if naturally formed,but as i have heard,there are no naturally occurring straight lines in nature (not sure where i read that), let alone a 2km square

thanks for the post Cree

Internos and No_Worries,

You are both welcome. I try to bring the truth to the top when I can. And as for the Mars Records book, I can't say I believe every aspect of the book because I would be lying, however, you are right that the information could only be ascertained from someone that has been involved in some sore of project. I do find it very interesting, but take it with a grain of salt. I am in the process of researching this some more and will let you know what I find.

And yeah, Fingerprints of the Gods was an amazing read to me. I agree that I can't believe its not standard in history class. In fact, I remember covering these aspects of history in high school where the answer was given that we simply "do not know" and the information was merely skipped over. Talk about a blatant gap in history. I have learned that alot of stuff you learn in school is either misinformed or wrong when it comes to ancient world history. Thank God for math. The only thing that remains constant.

"2+2=4....damn sure does. Every time. Look at that." --Kat Williams.

Originally posted by mike_b
Until the rover sends back a picture of a fossil that was once a living creature, I'm not gonna believe it.

So, you trust that NASA will honestly send back images of fossil life, or any kind of life, for that matter?

mike_b
But my main thing is to just warn people to be careful of what people can convince them. To question things for yourself and do some research.... Some people are dangerous because they purposly spread disinformation, knowing that they have a large audience listening to them. And THAT is what I'm against.

So, you trust that NASA will only ever tell you the truth? According to this quote, you should want to see independent verification of anything sent back by NASA, in case they are lying too, right?

You seem to rely on NASA to send you back images of life, yet, you caution others to be careful about what they are told? It's interesting, how your two quotes probably contradict each other. The esteem with which you hold NASA to tell the truth, is far too trusting, in my opinion.

I never said I trusted NASA completely because I do believe they are hiding evidence about Kecksburg. So no, I don't for the record. And if I do recall, I DID say I like to research both sides of a situation before making a decision. I have made my decision on this particular matter. Get up out my potato salad [snip]

[edit on 12/1/2007 by mike_b]
-----------------------------------------
deleted racial slur

please read from the Terms and Conditions;

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.




[edit on 1/12/07 by masqua]