The Animals Of Mars

reply to post by Billy t Hill
Here is a valid point,that if the images are doctored then they are suspect.John Lear claims almost all the moon pics were doctored,and gave reasonable proof that dovetails with others who claim they were instructed to take out the UFO's and such. The problem arises when you consider that the Mars pics .....this is critical to understanding the process of manipulating them....are easily doctored BECAUSE they are MULTI-LAYERED,like when you overlay plates of glass,or microscope slides or movie film on top of each other. Like old time long exposure photography,say the lens opens 6 times,so everything that is still like a large rock is recorded 6 times as stationay and crispy clear,while a snake slithers by and becomes a blur and is easily washed out even without the aid of an overseer,so it can more easily done to filter out anything moving or alive. Sure Nasa will show dust devils...oooh aaaaahh. I go around to the back door....negative images because they don't bother masking negative images...who would GO there? Or better yet,who would KNOW to go there? And,How in the hell would I know how this system works? Imagine if these smooth things are animal droppings fossilized like Dinosaur copralites. Anything that moves in the pics gets FUZZED out or removed entirely...sanitized,until you get to the negative image. That's how you get farther/faster with Mars pics.

Compare how that little blurred out face bottom left (circled) looks because it's alive and staring at the rover.The 2 other dead faces circled...dead.They are clearer because like a rock they get strengthened in that multiple layer process,while the lil live guy,though stunned and relatively still,moved and got blurred.Then the neg image shows a bigger face up closer to the cam that the pos image misses. It's ok to be wrong sometimes,as long as you can be self-correcting when you realize it.

In response to the photos right above me...
SOrry to say this, for I am a very convinced believer that there once was life on mars. I have seen too much inconclusive evidence to think otherwise, but...

those look like nothing but rocks...IMHO

remember, your mind sees what it wants to see...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by jkrog08


A little late on my promise, but here you go...

Thomas C Van Flandern (June 26 1940[1] – January 9, 2009) was an American astronomer, specializing in celestial mechanics, who was known as an outspoken proponent of unorthodox views on various topics. He graduated from Xavier University in 1962 and then attended Yale University on a scholarship sponsored by the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO). In 1969 he received a PhD in Astronomy from Yale. Van Flandern worked at the USNO until 1982, when he left the civil service and thereafter organized eclipse viewing tours and promoted his unorthodox views. He died on January 9, 2009 after a brief battle with cancer.

That is a brief snapshot from his wiki page.

You can find his resume here.

I'm actually quite surprised, you being you, that you are very familiar with Dr. Van Flandern. (Unless you are pulling my leg...)

reply to post by vze2xjjk


I really have to say I do find it hard to see what you are.

Can you give a reason why you believe these to be what they are without simply saying "i see it you don't"?

I understand you put in a lot of work - but sometimes the bridge to cross is extremely hard if not impossible ... to the majority on this thread at least..

wZn

reply to post by vze2xjjk


While you are helping us understand the validity of said dragons and (if I read correctly alien "scat") could you also tell us a little more about working for NASA, inventing the Ferengi, Designing various probes and "ghost writing" Star Trek?

Animals on Mars?



Well if you insists

Pathfinder mission

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c56de9f66744.jpg[/atsimg]

See the Rat?

Originally posted by whiskeypoet
reply to post by vze2xjjk

 

While you are helping us understand the validity of said dragons and (if I read correctly alien "scat") could you also tell us a little more about working for NASA, inventing the Ferengi, Designing various probes and "ghost writing" Star Trek?

I really appreciate and love this post. Way to be on him about his ridiculous claims.

"I invented the ferengi" is quite possibly the funniest lie I have ever heard. It's so small and insignificant I can't even fathom what he was thinking about when he came up with the idea to lie about that. LOL so funny.



Hey vze2xjjk, please do answer his questions. Please.

reply to post by skeetontheconspiracy


Isn't that the point, you see what you want to see. You may see, as a poster above does, a Chinese dragon fossil on Mars. I have to ask what Chinese dragons, mythical as far as I know but let's assume they are real, doing on Mars? Did they fly there from Bejing for a quick break or are people doing as you say and seeing what they want to see?

reply to post by zorgon


Woah, the only sandbox here is somewhere near your oversensitivity. There certainly are real structures/shapes/formations, whatever you choose to call them, on Mars that we don't have a good/any explanation for. The Rotelli fossil though is not one of them. I noticed you seem a bit sensitive about the name so maybe that's why you launched, either way you are entitled to your defensiveness if you wish.

It's a spiral formation in wind blown volcanic rock (fossils are rocks, even if it is a fossil it would still be a rock), that is not actually anything unusual in wind eroded rocks. Does that make it nothing special? Impossible to say without having it physically present. Does it make it worth leaping all over when there are several more mundane explanations? No, not at all. It's no better than UFO pics that are just pin pricks of lights in the sky. It fires peoples imaginations (which is good) but it tells us nothing of the truth.

Apart from anything else everyone seems very keen to see entirely terrestrial objects on Mars. Ok, I know there is the ancient civilisation arguement and that would cover that but what we do know of Mars so far is that it is not terrestrial. A spiral is an interesting shape but without more than a grainy low res pic it's nothing to get excited about, there are many other images that are worth looking at before the rotteli fossil. I'm afraid, much though I would like to, I can't see you rat either. Perhaps highlight the general area? Meantime, I'll be in my sandbox.

reply to post by whiskeypoet

I'm actually quite surprised, you being you, that you are very familiar with Dr. Van Flandern.

No, I have never heard of him before. He certainly is not in any textbooks on astronomy I have had so far, plus I am pretty weak in the history of astronomy (ie;historic figures and such) as I really do not care as much about that as I do the actual mechanics and observation.


He sounds like he had a good head on his shoulders though, another example of a highly reputable person claiming 'fringe' beliefs. So obviously this whole UFO phenomina is not only confined to a bunch of uneducated whack jobs!lol

reply to post by jkrog08



I can totally understand. I've been a "fringe" amateur academic since the early eighties when the librarian at school told me I wasn’t allowed to check out the Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster book from the school library anymore

I found reference to Van Flandern via Hoagland's first book in the late eighties and always saw him as a nice book end to those who would not even consider the "extraordinary" like Sagan.

I started college with the intention of becoming an astronomer (having grown up very near Lick observatory) but it didn’t work out that way.

I've been following Michio Kaku since the late eighties as well when a discussion on the Tao of Physics on an old astrophysics bbs caught his attention. I guess I'm a science groupie...

I just don’t think there are enough "main stream" Academics who are willing to think outside the box.

Granted I'm not a big fan of Newtonian Physics, but imagine if the old boy had cursed the apple tree for bruising his head and cut it down... hmmmm… actually, we might already have anti-gravity skate-boards if it weren’t for that guy....

Originally posted by Billy t Hill
I noticed you seem a bit sensitive about the name so maybe that's why you launched, either way you are entitled to your defensiveness if you wish.

You missed the point... I will not press it

Does it make it worth leaping all over when there are several more mundane explanations? No, not at all. It's no better than UFO pics that are just pin pricks of lights in the sky. It fires peoples imaginations (which is good) but it tells us nothing of the truth.

Puppy Poop. The thread on the fossils began because many 'skeptics' and 'debunkers' complained that to many people, myself and Mike Singh included used 'sensationalism' to present our material. So the challenge was "Why don't you ever create a serious thread. Well I did the fossil thread, and two others at the same time with sensational titles

The two sensational threads took off like wildfire, and all those skeptics and debunkers arrived with their usual comments... yet not one of them popped into the serious thread.

The Rotini 'fossil' was highlighted and presented by NASA itself as a possible fossil. That makes it very worth looking at and studying. Despite your beliefs there are many here who actually enjoy the hunt.

Sensitive? Perhaps after several years of guffawing people who add nothing but wise cracks to the discussion... I might slip once in a while and tell them to go back to the sand box. But then I get reminded that school is out for the summer and I have to be nice to the children

I'm afraid, much though I would like to, I can't see you rat either. Perhaps highlight the general area? Meantime, I'll be in my sandbox.

Well it's not my rat, its Keith Laney's rat but I would be happy to highlight it for you.

Who is Keith Laney? The 'grandfather of anomaly researchers, but he has an advantage over the rest of us..

Keith Laney is a digital imaging and software applications specialist and MOC image processor for the NASA-Ames' MOC MER2003 Landing Sites Project
marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov...

www.keithlaney.net...

Now then the 'rat'...


Look in the bottom left corner of the Viking images



Here it is in sepia tone (rat color )



Here is just the rat highlighted



And here is Keith's analysis

www.keithlaney.net...

May be a rock, but looks like a rat to me... and its gone in the other angle shot

[edit on 18-6-2009 by zorgon]

Check out this find by greeneyedleo. It looks like a frogish creature has situated itself under the sand.

It has a strange hind leg. It looks like it could be its own creature.

Perhaps this critter holds its leg in a weird position as a hunting technique - Like a coiled spring, ready to strike at any passing martian rats or snails.

Maybe it uses the stored energy to break open the crinoid shells, crustaceans and blueberries that it gathers during the spring thaws - like nuts to a hammer.

...okay, I'm reaching a little bit - but still; here it is:


Originally posted by greeneyedleo


[edit on 18-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by jkrog08
No, I have never heard of him before.

2009/01/13 Press release Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern succumbs to cancer, founder of Meta Research died January 9, 2009.

www.metaresearch.org...

reply to post by whiskeypoet


That's cool, although I am obviously into fringe science I am actually in college to become a cosmologst. Astronomy 101 is the only class that covers history of astronomy, unless you take a specific course, which they are available, but like I said I am not interested in the history of astronomy. IMO Dr. Kaku is one of the greatest minds ever known, I look up to him actually.

reply to post by zorgon


I wouldn't worry about what people say about your fossil thread zorgon, it is GREAT and scientifically presented. One of the best Mars/Moon threads ever on ATS. Yes, I know what you mean about sensationalized threads taking off while the more legitimate ones get buried under bs. That is how it is though, sometimes you must do what you can to get your information out,lol even if that means sensationalizing your title a bit, just to keep up with all the bs threads that float around.

Not that Zorgon needs my humble kudos, but here they are...

Guys like Zorgon and Mike et all do valuable research that the rest of us depend on, ne thrive on for content here.

They provide sound methodology to what amounts to and can only be speculation.

Do I always see what is in their pics and or agree with their analysis? Nope.

But I cant recall a time where either of them or their cohort ever told me that something was, they have told me what they see and what they theorize it might be.

I applaud Zorgon and those who follow in his vein for asking questions and providing possible answers without shoving "This is 100% undeniable proof and if you don’t believe me shut up!" down my throat.

People who respond “it’s just a rock” are missing the point.

I'm slowly learning when to click the back button instead of the reply button, but Zorgon will always get my full read because he provides a quality objective product.

It’s a shame that well written, well thought out speculations based on scientific method and analysis are overlooked in favor of threads more fantastic and fictional.

Thanks Zorgon. You're time, effort and work are appreciated.

Originally posted by whiskeypoet
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I'm gonna give you a rare public apology. I was clued in by another member via u2u the history and claims of the guy you flamed and I now understand your venom.

Mea Culpa.

Thanks very much apology not needed I know my style is a bit to direct at times for some but like i said I call BS when I see it, I know some on here will say something polite when people post cr@p like vze2xjjk but that just encourages more CR@P from him.
As for his posts of negative images etc well let him have a look at this picture



I wonder what he will make of that when seen as a negative

[edit on 18-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by zorgon


Hi zorgon

My take on the rat picture he is still there!

First pic left show the so called rat on the rock the right picture almost the total opposite side of the rock formatiom we dont know what the back of the rat looks like!. The picture on the right is also
from an elevated position looking down towards raty!



On this image I have highlighted with the red line the bottom of raty and blue line the edge of the rock since raty IS most likely part of the rock when the pic on the right was taken from almost the total opposite side we have know idea what it will look like !




Below is the no rat jpg I have put an arrow where you can see the difference in the two parts of the rock which you see on the first rat picture



First rat pic arrow pointing to join!



Maybe Keith should have another look at his assumption!

ps were keith laney and john lear twins seperated at birth they seem to have the same sight problem after having a quick look at keithlaney.net

[edit on 18-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by wmd_2008]