The Why Files and THE Alien Artifacts on Mars: What NASA doesn't want you to know

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: 727Sky
Much is a rehash of what some of the subjects and discussion we have seen here on ATS.

Yes, face on mars in early photo, and later higher resolution images show the source of the shadows which caused the illusion of a face. You can still see the ravine that formed the "lips" and the depression that formed the "eye socket" in the higher resolution photos, but the shadows aren't as distinct and you can see it doesn't look much like a face in those.

So, an interesting initial illusion but remember we are programmed to see faces everywhere, it's part of normal pareidolia. I see a face in this box, even though it's not really a face, that's just the way our minds work:

I can almost see a similar face in the random formation on the left, but neither of them are really faces, that's just how our brains work, we try to see faces and recognize patterns, it's what we do.

originally posted by: GoShredAK
This video contains some of what I'm talking about....

I challenge you to refute any of what's being presented here.

Eta: this one is very worth watching! It's short and entertaining, yet mindblowing and hard to dismiss.

I don't know what you could possibly expect in a refutation of that video that's not already in there.

Thanks for the redundant explanation of pareidolia,

And for sharing your redundant mainstream views.

Very enlightening.

a reply to: GoShredAK
So do you acknowledge mainstream academia refutes basically everything in your video, as even your video admits in the case of Graham Hancock?

If not, how did you expect anybody to refute it in your challenge to refute it? Why did you even pose that challenge? Do we have to say nothing mainstream academia says can be trusted, so to refute it we have to find a different crackpot than Graham Hancock with a different crackpot theory who will say not only is all of mainstream academia wrong, but Graham Hancock is also wrong? But then why should we prefer non mainstream crackpot B instead of non-mainstream crackpot A? Well if crackpot B at least acknowledged the inscriptions on the temples and didn't ignore them like Graham Hancock, I would consider that a point in favor of crackpot B, or maybe he's not a crackpot, and can turn mainstream academia upside down with some revelation, but I don't know what that revelation would be, since the mainstream also doesn't ignore the inscriptions on the temples saying when they were built, like Graham Hancock does.