It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
While the "exactly 800ft" apart argument my opponent made is pretty fantastic, I've yet to see any scientific analysis to back that up. So far, it looks like a geological anomaly.
1. The objects in picture 1 are not equally spaced.
2. Picture 2 and 3 dont have anything to do with the two images of equally spaced objects I showed. They are irrelevant to what was shown. It seems like my opponent had the ready-made "Face on Earth" because he was expecting me to post the usual "Face on Mars".
Originally posted by timoothy
The question is why is mike posting known doctored images of mars . This is the second in a week --the first being the symbols he pasted in the cydonia region and this the second
Originally posted by ArMaP
This is not a photo, its a computer generated image using the images taken from overhead.
Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I'm not an expert on photography but that's probably what you get for using CGI with the photos so you can accurately tell what the landscape is like. I say that the photos aren't more then a mere odd formation in land.
Reports of Pyramids in Tibet Untrue
A Russian monthly published five articles by Russian scientists claiming to have found more than 100 pyramids in Tibet this May-June. Chinese scientists investigated the evidence provided by the Russian team as well as the five articles and determined that the story of Tibetan pyramids is fabricated.
Zhang Qingsong, a geographer at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and He Xiwu, a researcher at the State Key Laboratory of Resources, who have been to Kangrinboge mountain several times say that they completely disagree with the Russians. They say that the mountains in the area were formed 4,000 years ago from layers upon layers of rough conglomerate and fine sandstone, forming the appearance of a staircase-shaped pyramid.
Originally posted by Sublime620
but I see nothing there. Perhaps I'm just looking at it all wrong. It looks like... nothing
However, after reviewing the thread, what we are looking at is "farmland".
Socratic Question 1: Do you believe the moon has these structures also? The same technique of zooming in and finding things that resemble structures was done by John Lear on the moon. Do you find his work to be as reputable?
The judges must ask themselves this question:
Is there reason to believe or reason to investigate? I say investigate before believing.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
With some people, denial kicks in at the prospects of the unbelievable. The debate judges will notice that its easy to see stairs.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Did I call this farmland? Did I make any such claim? No. I called it what it IS: Straight Lined Terraces.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
No, I do not believe the moon has these structures also. I cannot make a judgement on Lears work because Im not familiar with it.
But I do notice that you have been trying to divert attention to things I did not claim and things I did not say.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Well, if theres no reason to believe, then there is no reason to investigate.
So with my opponent admitting there are enough reasons to investigate he is also admitting there is reason to believe...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the debate topic shifted in my favor.
Congratulations on a job well done to both Sublime and Skyfloating! This was a very fun and educational debate to witness.
1). Equally Spaced Objects. Skyfloating presented some rather interesting images in the debate. Although Sublime then presented some images of his own, and as interesting as they were, they really had nothing to do with Skyfloating's presentation and point of equally distanced objects. Skyfloating's point was equidistant objects but Sublime's rebuttals were simply geographic anomalies that did not have much to do with what Skyfloating presented. Even with Sublimes text rebuttal of there being no evidence to show these are equidistant, going with my first visual impression and then using a ruler, it looked like they were equidistant. Although he attempted to dispute the point using various objections (example: 'I see land masses that seem similar in spacing but not appearance' when Skyfloating's focus was the distance of the objects and not on the structures of the objects), they appeared to me to be 'what if' assertions and not much else. Not only that, but my saying such a thing that they seem to be equally spaced, that appeared to me that even he agreed with Skyfloating's point but tried to throw a cog into the works by claiming the objects were not similar structurally- a point Skyfloating never made an issue and could be due to erosion or the fact if the objects were indeed artificial, they were never supposed to be uniform in the first place.
2). More artificial structures. Skyfloating presented some interesting images appearing to be artificial structures on Mars. Although I can understand Sublime's objections, they again seemed to be generic and expected skepticism. Skyfloating made a good point about focusing on our original take on the images before bias crept in. I must say, upon doing so, the images were impressive. Sublime made a good point about such things being similar to ink blot tests but Skyfloating also did a good job by countering the objection by pointing out the uniform geometry of the 'terrace.' A face and a heart would be similar to 'cloud watching' but geometrical structures as is the case with the 'rectangular steps' of the terrace were convincing. However, Sublime countered this with the example of the naturally devolved steps of the 'Chinese pyramids' which was a good point that I never saw Skyfloating address.
3). Skyfloating made a good point about the circular reasoning and original bias of the issue clouding our thought when he said 'since there can be no intelligent life on Mars, these objects cannot be artificial.' In this debate, I tried looking at 'evidence' and 'possibility' opposed to the absolutes of 'proof' and 'fact.' Using this view, Skyfloating certainly appeared to have done a good job of presenting a solid case of that possibility and evidence. I took issues with Skyfloating being accused of providing 'no evidence' in the debate when it is obvious he did provide evidence to support his view. Although it may be perceptual or interpretive evidence, it was still evidence that built an interesting case for his position.
4). Comparing Mars evidence to John Lear's moon evidence. Although I can certainly understand where Sublime was trying to go with this argument by making a comparison between possible artificial Mars structures and moon structures, this appeared to be somewhat of an off topic strawman argument and diversion tactic, especially with the sample selection of very poor moon images which I felt were not anywhere near the level of Mars images presented by Skyfloating.
I have to go with Skyfloating as the winner.
A close debate. I thought there were several avenues on both sides that could have been explored but weren't. The picture of the steps is what did it for me. Sublime could have countered with an image that Mother Earth created but he didn't. I found one on the first page I Googled. The winner is skyfloating.
To start, the argument from either side wasn't very detailed. Skyfloating was put in a hard position but I thought he made a good move by using mike and internos as sources. I expected more though. He didn't really provide a whole lot of his own insight into the evidence. Sublime used what was posted by Skyfloating and his own evidence well enough to refute Sky's claims. I thought the time spent by both arguing about circular logic would have been better spent providing more data to the debate.
My judgment would have to go to Sublime. Both had some points but neither really offered a lot to judge. I'm guessing they both were busy this week. Solid debate but I was expecting a little more.