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.

 

is NASA holding back evidence of man made structures on Mars?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
To you that proclaim so adamantly that there is no life on Mars .............

Why do you confine yourselves to fit alien requirements to that of human requirements? Becasue humans need water and air, that means all possible life anywhere in the solar system / universe also must have water and air to live?

Hell the only thing that thought process does is set humans on such a pedestle that one would not know an alien even if one was sticking its anteanna up your nose.

Humans ...... about an arrogant friggen race.

Misfit


Agreed



apc

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Thing is... carbon based life does require a few key parameters and consistantly develop a few particular characteristics... these are what we look for when we search for life elsewhere. Of the three types of life here on Earth, it is safe to say these same types are what we will encounter if we look for other carbon based lifeforms.
Would we even recognize silicon based life? Would it be a few hunks of crystals or would it be the creatures from the 'Alien' movie series? Is silicon life even chemically possible? Under the conditions that we are familiar with... not really. But who knows what scenarios exist in other star systems.
However the more we look out there, the more things seem similar to what we see right here.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Yes there are man made things on Mars, The Illuminati use tech invented by Tesla to make these images in order to make people think there life on other planets. www.hourofthetime.com...


The blurb in that article about Tesla's "contributions" was rather absurd.


The threat is presented through the use of secret technology originally developed by the Germans in their secret weapons programs during WW-II, by geniuses like Nikola Tesla, and many others.


First of all, Tesla died at age 87 in 1943, and most of the advanced German technologies weren't introduced until around 1944 or right at the end of the war in 1945. Second, Tesla was EXTREMELY distrustful of governments, and his paranoia of theft of his inventions (brought on mainly by Edison) caused Tesla to more or less stop even trying to find buyers for his inventions in his later years, let alone trying to sell them. Most of Tesla's financial backing was provided through Marconi, who recieved it from private investors. The last invention that Tesla attempted to market to world governments was his Death Ray device in his later years, but only as a defensive measure, and was laughed off as a madman. It's also still unknown as to whether or not he even completed the device. Most of Tesla's rumored anti-gravity ships were more attributable to Marconi, who used Tesla's research to develop these vessels along with Tesla. Marconi died in 1937, the same year that WWII started.

Given this, it's virtually impossible that Tesla or Marconi aided the German government (the Nazi party was diametrically opposed to Tesla's own views on war - Tesla was a pacifist, and the Nazis were warmongers) to develop new technologies for any use, let alone war or massive conspiracy.

Speculation on Tesla and Marconi's lives were full of enough conspiracy theory as it is. Take a serving of the shadows of doubt surrounding Tesla and Marconi's later years, add a distrust of any authority, and put an alien/conspiracy spin on it all, and you have the website you mentioned - a story that's far fetched and absurd, even by conspiracy theory standards.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Is silicon life even chemically possible? Under the conditions that we are familiar with... not really. But who knows what scenarios exist in other star systems.


Based on my knowlage, silicon based life is in the realm of science fiction. To explain "molten rock men" or some other creature. It is not possible to my understanding because I only worked with carbon and carbon based organic compounds. It could be assumed because silicon is in the same group # on the periodic table, so it shares some simiular properties. If a creature is "silicon based" then I don't think it can be classified as organic.

The "lifeform" must have the charcteristics of a life form; reproduction, obtaining nutrients, etc. If it dosn't show any of these properties then it is not a life form. If it exibits these properties then it is a life form. If we se a rock, eating and reproducing in some manner then it is a lifeform and we can easily identify it as such, being a silicon based entity. No such creature exists.

As for Mars, there are NO STRUCTURES that are man made on Mars! Did you people see the MGS images? Higher resolution then the Viking Orbiter ones. Proves Cydonia is a bunch of rocks, lets put it to rest, we don't need to waste time or money invesigating this.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Thing is... carbon based life does require a few key parameters and consistantly develop a few particular characteristics... these are what we look for when we search for life elsewhere. Of the three types of life here on Earth, it is safe to say these same types are what we will encounter if we look for other carbon based lifeforms.


But see, to constrain the search to that of elements of carbon based life, is constraining yourself (whoever) to looking for human traits in an alien world.
This again is an assumntion that aliens are like us, that they are carbon based. If you look at that concept deeply, it is setting humans to be the dominant of any life form, as non-carbon based life is not worthy of looking for. But that only renders humans as ignorant, for looking for ourselves as an alien.

Alien life doen't have to walk up-right, have 2 arms 2 legs, etc, and breathe air. Ya just can't put ANY limit on what an alien speces is or is of.

Silly analogy: looking for new sea life. Sea life has gills, so constrain the search for gills. What do we miss then? Every beautiful mammal that breathes.

To feasably and effectively search for other life forms, there can be NO constraints of what to look for, it simply must be an open sheet or many life forms may be missed - many, possibly maintaining a level of intelligence that would make a human feel like a spec of dust. Maybe that's what humans fear - the possiblility that other speces' exist that are so far evolved beyond us. Humans, after all, are the only speces I know of that posses the trait of being arrogant.

To find life outside ourselves, the search must have no perametes of "what" life is.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Nazi Artifacts on Mars



Yes, Mr Hoagland, there are Nazi artifacts on Mars... what ever you say, do you want us to loosen your strait jacket because evidently blood isn't making it to your head.

The Howitzer on Mars is just a rock with a terrain feature behind that is comprised of, well... rocks. You can see the indiviual rocks! Yet he keeps implying that it is a Howizer! He keeps ranting on about how NASA is covering it up. He claims that NASA is part of a Nazi plot of some sort. Not too bad coming from Mr. Disinfo himself.


May I show you a few links about this guy because he tends to be quite a fixture on ATS and needs to be addressed.

ATS thread on Richard Hoagland;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This link is the tell all story about this guy, trust me he's not what he says he is;
space.com...

This one too;
www.ufowatchdog.com...

P.S. Time for a bite of reality people. Psudoscience isn't real science. I know you people like the stuff he says but do you know the damage it causes to people that are into space exploration. This is all that NASA needs after a space shuttle accident is a bunch of conspriacy people stating conspriacies, on a mission to give NASA a bad name and have them [NASA] shut down. NASA is not the bad guy! They have nothing to hide, they aren't affiliated with the millitary anymore! If they are shut down we won't be seeing space fo a long, long time. The private sector is all about doing stuff on their own little time. Let's get things strait...

NASA does NOT alter their images in any way, this takes time and there images are released as they come in.

NASA did NOT nuke Cydonia!

NASA HAS been to the moon.

Richard Hoagland don't like NASA, he never worked for them, and lied about his educational background.

Face on Mars is just a dusty Mesa.

The Pyramids are just a bunch of rocks. If they built a city, it's a pretty bad one at that.

Cydonia is a dud. We have some pretty odd features here on earth too that are 100% natrual and look out of place.

Iapetus is just a moon, nothing else. No death star, no space ark, just a moon (I think it's a captured comet, due to it's ice content).

Glass stuctures on the moon don't exist. The technology back in the sixtees wasn't avalabe to "airbrush" them out of a film in a matter of minutes. The corrosive sands of the moon and space debris would have spelled the end to them a long time ago.

That's my two cents!

GoldEagle



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   


Glass stuctures on the moon don't exist. The technology back in the sixtees wasn't avalabe to "airbrush" them out of a film in a matter of minutes. The corrosive sands of the moon and space debris would have spelled the end to them a long time ago.


You know. Your post was going along quite nicely and your points were well taken until the made the same, fatal mistake that so many others do. You went to far. I have studied the composition of the dust and rocks brought back from the moon when I was in graduate school studying chemical engineering. Of course, we never got to touch the stuff, but we studied the spectra, GC data, and whatever information we were provided with. I can state unequivocally that there's nothing corrosive about the dust and rocks on the moon's surface. All of the moon's material is quite inert, as is most space debris (assuming you are talking about naturally occuring space rocks and particles that impact the moon from time). The most exotic spaceborne material are very large, compact carbon structures that were not believed to occur naturally until we found them floating in space (well, they were in meteorites actually).

Sorry my friend, but you went a bit too far and that makes the rest of an otherwise good post quite suspect.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Glass stuctures on the moon don't exist. The technology back in the sixtees wasn't avalabe to "airbrush" them out of a film in a matter of minutes. The corrosive sands of the moon and space debris would have spelled the end to them a long time ago.


Again with my interjection of human = alien thought process., but it is obviously very pertinant.

To assume the glass structures would have dissapated for matters of abrasion, is putting it back into human concept. If other creatures were to have built them [assuming they are there], you are placing the contruction and materials of them at a human level. The term "glass" does not even apply, all that is known[?] is of a transparent structure. Aliens are not going to create/build structures on a human construction level.

To ponder on alien ways, ya can't think like a human. To do so is to gain nothing.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Nope, Hoagland says that we when to the moon and built them, not aliens. Same with the ones on Mars, all human.

I remember an article about the subject of bases on the moon a while ago. Apparently the oxides displace metals and this is what give it the corrosive property. I also was lead to belive that there is a large composition of Lime on the lunar surface, Lime is quite a corrosive substance.


[edit on 7/15/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
The thing is you people can argue about this till your blue in the face. You've got this guy arguing that since NASA said it wasnt then it cant be and this guy over here is saying that he is certain it is because it resembles ancient egyptian work. I say it could be or it could not be. The only way we will ever know 100% is to get someone up there either that or stop picking these desolate landing zones for these probes and drop one smack dab in the middle of these "ruins" Thats my by big WTF NASA?


apc

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
But see, to constrain the search to that of elements of carbon based life, is constraining yourself (whoever) to looking for human traits in an alien world.

Erm no I never said human traits... I said carbon based.
There are three classes of carbon based life, typically defined as either:

Protista (bacteria, virii, etc)
Plantae (plants)
Animalia (animals)

or

Eubacteria (bacteria)
Archaea (archaebacteria)
Eukarya (plants, animals, etc)

Humans are just a very, very, very small part in the entire picture of life.
When it comes to carbon based life, certain chemical constraints exist that are common, and generally, the rule. Because carbon seems to be the only element that is flexible enough to allow for life to take place, we can safely expect to see life elsewhere to be very fundamentally similar to what we see in our own neighborhood. That is of course, unless some forms of life have evolved to such an advanced state as they no longer exist in any corporeal form... but that's wandering.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
The only way we will ever know 100% is to get someone up there either that or stop picking these desolate landing zones for these probes and drop one smack dab in the middle of these "ruins" Thats my by big WTF NASA?


Why waste our probes on an assumption that there are ruins there. If we know that nothing is there, then there is no point investigating. The areas that the probes are sent to land are "goldmines" of rich geological features that will help us better understand the the formation of the planets and the essentials for life itself. I think those questions are far more important to us at the moment then a bunch of rock piles that are based on the assumption of a "pseudoscientist" to be artifical.

Also it would be diffucult to land a probe on Mars "smack dab" in a location. We land our probes within and estimated eliptical area that can span miles. It is also alot safer for probes to land in desolite locations, without risk of parachuting into a cliff face or terrain feature.

Anyways, the MGS proved that Cydonia is a bunch of rocks, cliffs, hills, mesas, why fight it further?

[edit on 7/16/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Maybe you've never seen either of these links here:

The "Face on Mars"

NASA Captures New Images of the Face on Mars

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: City Slicker


Come on.....are you telling me you believe everything NASA and the US government as a whole says?????

After the uproar 'The Face' caused would you be suprised if NASA doctored the new images???

Mic


[edit on 13/7/2005 by MickeyDee]


Your logic is futile. If this is truly a man made object, what makes you think that the photos were doctored? My opinion says you think they are covering something up, so why during the 1970's did NASA even show the photos. The truth is simple. Faces have the ability to grace such strange objects like smoke, wood, grilled cheese snadwiches, and even sand dunes on Mars. You have an unfounded desire to seek new life in the universe, probably out of pure spite and hate for the life you already exist with. What makes you think the photo wasn't doctored the first time?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

space.com - Phil Plait
"This kind of pseudoscience is like a virus. At low levels, it's no big deal, but when it reaches a certain threshold it becomes sickening."


Phil Plait a real astronomer, made this comment addressing Richard Hoagland.

That's all this is people, pseudoscience. The whole Cydonia, Iapetus, Glass lunar palaces, all make-believe. But even after reading (if you even bothered) space.com's article on Richard Hoagland and Phil Plait's pages that he worked really hard to unteach that Cydonia stuff. The article about Hoagland on UFOWATCHDOG.com you people still would enforce that pseudoscience stuff.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Well, mars its said to once has been like aerth nowadays. ANd earth is said to become like mars in the future. And in a desert earth..........pyramids would survive.

I must admit that its strange to see such forms on the surface of mars. One form of a pyramid, we could considere an erosion trick...........BUt a bunch of the same in that place....must considere it very strange. Rocks get various forms with erosion.........but a square based pyramids? a bunch of the, actually, in the same place?

It seems like giza.

About the face.........well, its probably just rock and shadow.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle

Why waste our probes on an assumption that there are ruins there. If we know that nothing is there, then there is no point investigating. The areas that the probes are sent to land are "goldmines" of rich geological features that will help us better understand the the formation of the planets and the essentials for life itself. I think those questions are far more important to us at the moment then a bunch of rock piles that are based on the assumption of a "pseudoscientist" to be artifical.

Also it would be diffucult to land a probe on Mars "smack dab" in a location. We land our probes within and estimated eliptical area that can span miles. It is also alot safer for probes to land in desolite locations, without risk of parachuting into a cliff face or terrain feature.

Anyways, the MGS proved that Cydonia is a bunch of rocks, cliffs, hills, mesas, why fight it further?

[edit on 7/16/2005 by GoldEagle]


Ya those rovers have done a bang up job of what again? What have they discovered in this geological "goldmine" as you put it that is gonna change are view of mars? The point is there are things here right on earth we have seen with our own eyes that we barely understand, and your going to believe a photo from an orbiting ship several million miles away?


apc

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Rocks get various forms with erosion.........but a square based pyramids? a bunch of the, actually, in the same place?

I still don't see these square based pyramids...
I see a bunch of pointy mountains with very obtuse bases... nothing anywhere near 'perfect right angles' as some have somehow described.
I can go to Colorado and see identically formed mountains..

One thing that people seem to forget is that whatever turned Mars into a vast wasteland did not happen a few million years ago... it was one or two billion years ago. At this point on Earth, aerobic bacteria were just starting to pump O2 into the atmosphere.. plants weren't even here yet. Mars' development would have most likely mirrored our own. Unless the theories of extraterrestrial intervention are correct, flippers hadn't even evolved yet and definitely not creatures capable of yielding tools and building monuments.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The bases of the pyramids are very well not square in any way. They have that appearance due to the shadows and the poor resolution of the photo. Also, if you look at the newer photos of the face, you will notice that the face's features are not defined. It is just a cliff/mesa with slightly eroded protions surrounding it which give it the look of face on an evelvated mound. In reality the mound is and optical illusion, it is actually small "ditches" surrounding a pointy rock outcropping.

If you look at stereo-images of the face with 3D glasses you will notice these features. I think I saw a stereo-image on NASA's website a few years ago. I'll see if I can find it.

For more information on this illusion check out this page.
www.badastronomy.com...



[edit on 7/17/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
with slightly eroded protions


While I am a proponent of "something freeky's on Mars", I'm not posting to rebutt it.

I am posting about the quote I have here. I see too often, debates about these themes, of how it doesn't look right to be ......... etc etc. I bring up, for sake of learning about planets, the expansion of GE's statement. Erosion of objects on Mars can be at an exponetial rate. Massive dust storms abound on the planet - harsh erosion is not escapable. I don't know if Mars has this, but there is one planet that has a storm roughly the size of Earth, and has been active for over a year [may be longer, I need a mem upgrade, heh]. Hell. with a storm like that, a before and after shot would look as two different planets.

But anyway, just wanted to bring it up, that planet erosion is far more destructive than what many compare to - that being of Earth tolerances.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
The fact is that erosion is much slower on Mars. It's atmosphere is very dry. Sand storms are harsh but would not really erode a massive structure that much even over millions of years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join