I Put the Crown Face Image on Mars Through Photo Editing And This Is What I Got

originally posted by: WarminIndy

May I say again...
Scientific method was used. ANYONE can use scientific method.

Apparently not.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2

Did you not even read my post?

I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.

I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.

I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.

Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.

This statement of yours, is honestly, in my opinion so intensely jaw dropping... for what can only be obvious reasons. I am rarely without words after reading things on here, this time though, I am still trying to come to terms with it actually existing. I keep asking myself, "Is it real? Did I really read that??".
Wow.

Hmm, so you believe in the Establishment as well?

So I supposed that if I told you the Establishment has been covering up UFO sightings, would you believe me? Again, ad nauseum linking again...

CIA from CIA.gov

Here is YOUR Establishment and government admitting it...

To meet these problems, the panel;b] recommended that the National Security Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get the message across

The same NSA has been waging a campaign to tell you that UFOs do not exist and do not pose a threat. Even asking DISNEY to get in on it.

Now, let me ask you this, do you still trust the Establishment?

This is in reference to the Robertson Panel.

Following the Robertson panel findings, the Agency abandoned efforts to draft an NSCID on UFOs. (34) The Scientific Advisory Panel on UFOs (the Robertson panel) submitted its report to the IAC, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board. CIA officials said no further consideration of the subject appeared warranted, although they continued to monitor sightings in the interest of national security.

Oh, the NSA, Robertson Panel and CIA continued to monitor UFO sightings.

CIA officials wanted knowledge of any Agency interest in the subject of flying saucers carefully restricted, noting not only that the Robertson panel report was classified but also that any mention of CIA sponsorship of the panel was forbidden. This attitude would later cause the Agency major problems relating to its credibility

Would you care to suggest to us that the Establishment is factual? No one can say that anymore, the CIA has lost its credibility on more than one front.

But YOU have heard the propaganda from the CIA, the NSA, the OSI, the OSS, the Federal Civil Defense Administration and others tell you through media, television, movies, school and even Disney that you are not to believe UFOs, and then you want me to believe anything the Establishment says?

Sorry, they admitted it, face up to it and ask yourself why you still believe them.

You know what that is called? BUSTED.

And you think there was no involvement of the CIA in the Condon Committe Report?

In addition, CIA officials agreed that the Condon Committee could release the full Durant report with only minor deletions.

It did not mention CIA participation in the Condon committee's investigation.

Their last paragraph...

The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence.

They dug themselves into that hole, and if you think the CIA has done you a favor, they told you that UFOs don't exist because they want you to trust them, not that there are no UFOs.

Keep on trusting the Establishment if you wish but there were a whole lot of scientists who were shut up. And that's not cool.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: WarminIndy

May I say again...
Scientific method was used. ANYONE can use scientific method.

Apparently not.

Then falsify my claim that a face is seen on Mars. I didn't say it was aliens or Martians, I merely said that I am inclined to believe now it is not natural.

So go ahead, give the counter evidence if you have it.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: WarminIndy

May I say again...
Scientific method was used. ANYONE can use scientific method.

Apparently not.

Then falsify my claim that a face is seen on Mars. I didn't say it was aliens or Martians, I merely said that I am inclined to believe now it is not natural.

So go ahead, give the counter evidence if you have it.

You just illustrated my point.

a reply to: WarminIndy

So if you entertain the possibility that this face on Mars is not made by Man, aliens or Martians it begs the question, who do you think was involved in its alleged construction? Considering you believe it to be "not natural".

Possibly time to face(pun intended) the probable fact that this is nothing more than a geological formation?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: WarminIndy

So if you entertain the possibility that this face on Mars is not made by Man, aliens or Martians it begs the question, who do you think was involved in its alleged construction? Considering you believe it to be "not natural".

Possibly time to face(pun intended) the probable fact that this is nothing more than a geological formation?

It could very well be just a geological formation, but the theory is that millions of years ago Mars was teaming with life and that life could have evolved into intelligent beings on Mars just as us humans did here on earth. To investigate this we need an Archaeological mindset and if something looks like a face or a rock looks artificial or part of a statue, that we don't just cry "Rocks" but actually take a closer look at it, just as we would on earth if we saw something that looked like a Sphinx or such. Some theorists say that perhaps life on Mars seeded earth in a microbial sense or even in the way of an advanced civilization. I'm not so sure about that but I do think life evolved on Mars...how far along did it get? We won't know unless we keep looking at things that seem anomalous or interesting, like this.

a reply to: amazing

I would be more inclined to support the theory that Mars once sustained intelligent life should anyone actually present credible evidence to suggest such. Rock formations just don't do it im afraid however much they may resemble a face, crown or not.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: amazing

I would be more inclined to support the theory that Mars once sustained intelligent life should anyone actually present credible evidence to suggest such. Rock formations just don't do it im afraid however much they may resemble a face, crown or not.

True, but what else do we have? We have the Rovers and orbiters giving us as much data as we can and we can look at that data from afar. No one is asking you to support the theory, only that you understand that it's a valid theory and that We're doing arm chair Archaeology from millions of miles away on the internet.

This thread was ruined by pareidolia pushers.

The OP started a thread to discuss how a formation on mars looks like a face. Isn't that the definition of pareidolia? Therefore wouldn't you automatically be aware that he's aware of what pareidolia is?

You've done everything you can to insinuate the OP is stupid.. It's suspicious how hard some of the pushers push..

I'm positive the OP wanted to see what other interested people thought of his methods, to check out methods others use, and look at the formation from different angles if possible..

At the very least the pushers want an argument (aside from a possible agenda). I'm not speaking to them, I'm speaking to you, the average reader and poster...

I'm just asking... If you start a post about Mars formations or UFOs, please state specifically "I'm aware of pareidolia. This thread is not meant to discuss how this could be a rock, but rather how it could be a face." -or- "I'm already aware that not everything in the sky is a UFO." ..Try to anticipate what they will say and nullify it in your opening post.

Lastly, I'm willing to bet nearly everyone knows what pareidolia is, or are familiar with the concept. I'm nearly positive the pushers primary goal is just to get "pareidolia" on the first page, to turn away any readers they can, then they'd be done.

If you're reading a post and are annoyed by pareidolia pushers, don't respond - they go away much faster that way.

If you're starting a post, anticipate and nullify their agenda in your opening post.

If you're one of the pushers and want to discuss your logic behind "persistent debunking in a conspiracy forum" - don't bother - you can assume from this sentence I won't respond.

a reply to: Pearj

Nice conspiracy theory.

I particularly like your labeling of those who disagree with the OP's belief... er, scientific methodology as "pareidolia pushers" (extra points for the alliteration).

And thanks for the assurance of no response. One evil skeptic rant is more than sufficient.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Pearj

Nice conspiracy theory.

I particularly like your labeling of those who disagree with the OP's belief... er, scientific methodology as "pareidolia pushers" (extra points for the alliteration).

And thanks for the assurance of no response. One evil skeptic rant is more than sufficient.

And this is ad hominem.

Please, you've already insulted me by insinuating I am a hoaxer or that I am lying or some other nefarious, agenda pushing person.

I asked you for counter evidence and all you say is that I have illustrated your point. And what point would that be?

So I issue the challenge to YOU, provide us with evidence it is natural formation. Prove to us any evidence of a landslide, earthquake, volcanic activity, water erosion...something, anything.

Use the original picture and show us the geological reasons for it to be naturally formed. And then please provide us with the evidence of what types of rocks they are and the underlying structure.

Will you please kindly give us the evidence and then I will consider it.

That's your assumption and your assumption is based on what? You know nothing about Mars except for some pretty pictures. Will all of you people who believe it is pareidolia please do the one scientific thing required, and that is rule it out. Until the moment you can rule it out, my theory still stands.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you mind posting the link to the original Nasa file? Do you know what spacecraft took this photo? I'm guessing it's from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter?

Edit: Found another natural formation that forms a face: Nasa link

I find this subject interesting even though they are just rocks and mountains. Still beautiful...

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you mind posting the link to the original Nasa file? Do you know what spacecraft took this photo? I'm guessing it's from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter?

Edit: Found another natural formation that forms a face: Nasa link

I find this subject interesting even though they are just rocks and mountains. Still beautiful...

Sorry, I went to sleep early.

M0203051a.gif

a reply to: WarminIndy

Did you even read what my comment was referring to before pasting that whole bunch of junk that has nothing to do with it?

a reply to: WarminIndy

There's no link...not sure what that .gif is all about...Where did you get this photo from?

are there not paintings on the ceilings not covered with soot? not suggesting anything just pointing out some facts that might make inquisitive people wonder. explain to me how they did this in a pitch dark cave. and the soot they dated was torch marks which may have nothing to do with the paintings.
witcombe.sbc.edu...


a reply to: Monger

does the boy resemble the crop circle and the mars face or not? it's not your opinion, the ratios of the face can be matched and I would submit they would be very close

a reply to: jaffo

a reply to: amazing

I will entertain the notion that Mars may very well have sustained life in her distant past but as to whether or not said life was sentient? Someone would need to discover or provide evidence beyond a measure of doubt that supports the notion. And as of yet no such material has surfaced of sufficient veracity.

End of the day we will never know for sure until we actually go and boots on the ground so to speak trumps satellite imagery and/or robotic surface rovers any day of the week.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Pearj

Nice conspiracy theory.

I particularly like your labeling of those who disagree with the OP's belief... er, scientific methodology as "pareidolia pushers" (extra points for the alliteration).

And thanks for the assurance of no response. One evil skeptic rant is more than sufficient.

And this is ad hominem.

Please, you've already insulted me by insinuating I am a hoaxer or that I am lying or some other nefarious, agenda pushing person.

I asked you for counter evidence and all you say is that I have illustrated your point. And what point would that be?

So I issue the challenge to YOU, provide us with evidence it is natural formation. Prove to us any evidence of a landslide, earthquake, volcanic activity, water erosion...something, anything.

Use the original picture and show us the geological reasons for it to be naturally formed. And then please provide us with the evidence of what types of rocks they are and the underlying structure.

Will you please kindly give us the evidence and then I will consider it.

That's your assumption and your assumption is based on what? You know nothing about Mars except for some pretty pictures. Will all of you people who believe it is pareidolia please do the one scientific thing required, and that is rule it out. Until the moment you can rule it out, my theory still stands.

Right, place the burden on the other side. To disprove a theory with no proof of its own. Right. So now someone has to explain the entire geological history of a virtually unexplored planet in order to prove to you that what you are seeing is nothing more than a trick of light and shadow--one duplicated MANY TIMES here on Earth--as opposed to you providing ONE SHRED of evidence that this thing is artificial. Come on, man, that's extremely disingenuous. Look, it's a neat looking formation. But hi rez photos have pretty much utterly shattered the notion that it is artificial or a face. I'd love to be wrong, but it certainly seems that logic and reason say it's just rocks, my friend. . .

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
does the boy resemble the crop circle and the mars face or not? it's not your opinion, the ratios of the face can be matched and I would submit they would be very close

a reply to: jaffo

What boy? What crop circle? What does either have to do with rocks on Mars?

Also, the "ratios" of any human face (or anything that vaguely resembles one) are extremely similar. That's part of why pareidolia exists....