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.

 

Life on mars new real evidence to prove or disprove structures on mars

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
People you ever heard about william cooper
i just saw his movie in 1989 crazy....
you should watch it www.seedler.org...




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by scatterp
yeah well the odd thing is that the fastest home internet i can get here is 10mbit yet they can set up a 6mbit connection on mars and africa has trouble with 14kbs ? i mean the money it would cost to bring free internet to africa would have delayed the arival of this thing by what 30 minites ?
lol


I wish that were true. But the amount of money required would be immense, as you would have to send troops to keep the government from stealing and embezzling all of the money you sent to provide Internet infrastructure.

Its a sad world.

But hopefully wthin the next 50 years, all african villages will be connected to the same global communications network as we are. It is chaotic and messy, but it gives us the opportunity to speak together, and I think that is a great thing for humanity. I enjoy talking with all of you, and it is always an educational experience. We should share that with Africa.

As for the new surveyor of Mars, I think it is a great program. But I think some people will see whatever they want to see in the images, like staring at clouds.

If there really are ancient cities on Mars, then hopefully archeologists will recognize the tell tale signs they see in their topographic field work. Satellite and air surveys already help people recognize everything from ancient cities to how prehistoric cilivzations altered the northern Amazon basin. I imagine they could apply their expertise to any images produced by the Surveyor.

p.s. I should add that better, clearer, more resolute evidence, such as Sveyor might provide, would always be better.

But I would have to agree with earlier posts that some individuals in government would be included to cover up any evidence. Whether or not they have sufficient power to do so is debatable.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by megamanXplosion
Most people who laugh at the artificiality claims of the Face on Mars typically have several traits in common. First and foremost, they have not read anything about the recent findings like the high reflectivity of the object and that the reflection shows rectilinear geometry (almost like shiny blocks stacked on top of one another.) The Face on Mars reflects light ~6x as much light as its surroundings! This means there is a common element composing this entire structure yet is nowhere to be found elsewhere on the terrain surface of miles and miles away from the object. I, as well as many others I’m sure, would love to hear the geological theory that explains how the forces of nature alone could group the common reflective element into a common place, how it grouped the reflective objects into the shape of a face, how it created the rectilinear geometry of the object. I would also like them to calculate the odds of their theory having any basis in reality with just those factors. Then I want to see the odds of that happening in a way that ½ the face looks like primitive man while the other ½ looks like a feline/cat face and how likely it would be for it to corroborate the story of Cherubims in the Bible. Please do share your knowledge of geology and statistics with us. Also, please share with us if you would place money on those same odds in a horse race.

Second, they formed their opinion when NASA released their highly edited version of the face called the “cat box.” The “cat box” image went through high-pass and low-pass filters to remove all 3D detail. I challenge those people to take an overhead picture of the Sphinx and run it through high-pass and low-pass filters and see how much detail is left. Even the Sphinx would look like a geological feature after being edited so much. Even thinking the cat box applies to reality shows that you are not at all concerned with the truth but, rather, what people can get the government to admit so they may agree with the government. Good luck with that plan guys.

Third, they tend to use the MOLA data to say it is nothing but a rounded hill while being completely ignorant of the fact MOLA data is unreliable. The vertical resolution of 3 ft. is good but do, please, have a look at the horizontal resolution of 1,000 ft. that makes it absolutely worthless. The first black & white images were of greater quality than the MOLA data. They only got data on ~10% of the surface if not less. The MOLA maps are created by averaging the 10% of collected data. Averaging is just another way of saying “make sloped between data points.” MOLA was intended to check the depth along crater walls so they know exactly where the water level would’ve been. MOLA was never intended to be used for measuring actual objects! Anyone who is familiar with this concept knows that using MOLA data in discussions of the face—and any other very large structure—is intellectually dishonest. Let’s face it (pun intended,) NASA used the MOLA data of the face in an intellectually dishonest way because are ascertained daily they know the strengths and weaknesses of their own equipment. Before moving on to the fourth trait these people have in common, I must ask our geology and statistics friends here to add in the odds of a natural formation—among which there are millions in the Solar System—being habitually avoided and handled in an intellectually dishonest way (MOLA, cat box, etc.) by NASA when there is supposedly “no reason” for it.

Fourth, they think that because it is not a perfect face now that it could never have been. I would also hazard a guess as to say most of these people do not realize the condition of the Sphinx when it was found—or should I say “dug out”? The Sphinx has had major work done to it since it was found. If the Face on Mars truly is artificial it has likely been there for much, much longer than the Sphinx on Earth and would likely be in a condition much worse than the Sphinx when it was first found—and that appears to be true. The people who expect to see a perfect face have no reasoning behind the argument insofar as making a slight gesture of the hand to dismiss the evidence.

Do I believe the Face on Mars is artificial? No. I do not like to “believe” anything. I want to know. Even the most die-hard of skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) must admit that if the face was artificial it would be the greatest religious and scientific discovery in the history of mankind. Not only would such a discovery prove that intelligent life was on Mars at one time but also add quite a bit of support for the idea that we may share a common ancestry with them. That would not be the first bit of evidence to support the hypothesis of common ancestry. Many of the genes that separate us from chimpanzees are completely unique to humans meaning they are found in no other vertebrate or invertebrate on Earth! This complete contradiction with evolutionary theory is the reason why materialist scientists think bacteria somehow altered our DNA and is responsible for nearly 2/3 of the difference between chimpanzees and humans yet the odds of this happening—excluding everything else—are 1 in ~28,700. Nonetheless, that is a topic for another day. My point here is that a common ancestry with the people that were on Mars should not be too surprising. And, in light of the fact that the Face on Mars could be the biggest scientific and religious discovery in the history of mankind and that this could be proved/disproved cheaply and quickly, one must ask: why is the Face on Mars habitually avoided? Indeed, it is hard to fathom an answer that explains it.

To be completely honest, I get disgusted when I hear people dismiss the possibility of it being artificial. It is one thing to have your own opinion but it is quite another thing to have formed a conclusion where no conclusion could be made. That is the fifth trait these people have in common. Not only are they ignorant of whether it is artificial or not but they are arrogant enough to scoff at others for not believing what they do. Let nothing stop you from voicing your opinion but please do stop yourself from presupposing conclusions and scoffing at others. It is truly unnecessary.


you spoke very extensively on this and provided very intresting information
i wonder if you have more for example links supporting what your saying i would also be intrested to see what the debunkers have to say about what you say there if the odds of it being a natural formation are x then im guessing the opisite could be said of the odds that we are not alone if its higher than for example the odds of a wrongfull conviction useing dna then it would be very intresting i wonder when we will be able to see mars from earth clearly maybe the day will come

scat



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
two items that i want to bring to your (originator of this post) attention.

the first, which bugged thse poop ou tof me is - be able is TWO words. i have such poor grammer and spellign that this is the ifrst tiem i've ever mentioned it to someone but pleazzze don't make the same mistake again. thank you, kindly.

the second: many months ago, i hadthe opportunity to met and broken bread (read drank beer) with the MIT engineers who build the most recent MARS rover. (it is really cool according to the blueprints they were able to share with me, btw!) and i can tell you a couple items that might clear up some misunderstandings about it.
the low-resolution transmission is used becuase of two items, battery life/ vs. transmission time. i mean, come on, they are sendign signals from MARS, not NY, so broadcast qualitity is gonna suffer. i'll leave solar flare/radition interfence affects on info quality alone for know. And it take more bat. power to send high-Q images than low-Q ones.

as for the thought that 90 degree angles are evindence of current/prior civilitation,that is pure horse-pucky, look at a high res. photo of the moon. we know it is uninhabitted, yet these same pieces of 'evidence' show up there as well.
don't make the same mistake that Lowell made about the 'martian canals', please. straight lines don't a civilization make...
The canals of Mars-historical note
"Professor Lowell's theory is supported by so much evidence of different kinds that his own exposition should be read in extenso in Mars and its canals ...

ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov... traight lines don't a civilization make. check out this link for more info.



I, based on personal knowledge, beleive that the low-res quailty of the phots are the result of NASA's effort to maximize battery life, not scam us with poor-Q pics. and, yes, i know that the rover has a solar re-charcge capability, but it isn;t foodl -proof. actually, from what i've heard, it isn't close to the recharge specs. that were mandated by NASA, budget, don't ya know...


Boot out.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by scatterp

Originally posted by megamanXplosion
Most people who laugh at the artificiality claims of the Face on Mars typically have several traits in common. First and foremost, they have not read anything about the recent findings like the high reflectivity of the object and that the reflection shows rectilinear geometry (almost like shiny blocks stacked on top of one another.) The Face on Mars reflects light ~6x as much light as its surroundings! This means there is a common element composing this entire structure yet is nowhere to be found elsewhere on the terrain surface of miles and miles away from the object. I, as well as many others I’m sure, would love to hear the geological theory that explains how the forces of nature alone could group the common reflective element into a common place, how it grouped the reflective objects into the shape of a face, how it created the rectilinear geometry of the object. I would also like them to calculate the odds of their theory having any basis in reality with just those factors. Then I want to see the odds of that happening in a way that ½ the face looks like primitive man while the other ½ looks like a feline/cat face and how likely it would be for it to corroborate the story of Cherubims in the Bible. Please do share your knowledge of geology and statistics with us. Also, please share with us if you would place money on those same odds in a horse race.

Second, they formed their opinion when NASA released their highly edited version of the face called the “cat box.” The “cat box” image went through high-pass and low-pass filters to remove all 3D detail. I challenge those people to take an overhead picture of the Sphinx and run it through high-pass and low-pass filters and see how much detail is left. Even the Sphinx would look like a geological feature after being edited so much. Even thinking the cat box applies to reality shows that you are not at all concerned with the truth but, rather, what people can get the government to admit so they may agree with the government. Good luck with that plan guys.

Third, they tend to use the MOLA data to say it is nothing but a rounded hill while being completely ignorant of the fact MOLA data is unreliable. The vertical resolution of 3 ft. is good but do, please, have a look at the horizontal resolution of 1,000 ft. that makes it absolutely worthless. The first black & white images were of greater quality than the MOLA data. They only got data on ~10% of the surface if not less. The MOLA maps are created by averaging the 10% of collected data. Averaging is just another way of saying “make sloped between data points.” MOLA was intended to check the depth along crater walls so they know exactly where the water level would’ve been. MOLA was never intended to be used for measuring actual objects! Anyone who is familiar with this concept knows that using MOLA data in discussions of the face—and any other very large structure—is intellectually dishonest. Let’s face it (pun intended,) NASA used the MOLA data of the face in an intellectually dishonest way because are ascertained daily they know the strengths and weaknesses of their own equipment. Before moving on to the fourth trait these people have in common, I must ask our geology and statistics friends here to add in the odds of a natural formation—among which there are millions in the Solar System—being habitually avoided and handled in an intellectually dishonest way (MOLA, cat box, etc.) by NASA when there is supposedly “no reason” for it.

Fourth, they think that because it is not a perfect face now that it could never have been. I would also hazard a guess as to say most of these people do not realize the condition of the Sphinx when it was found—or should I say “dug out”? The Sphinx has had major work done to it since it was found. If the Face on Mars truly is artificial it has likely been there for much, much longer than the Sphinx on Earth and would likely be in a condition much worse than the Sphinx when it was first found—and that appears to be true. The people who expect to see a perfect face have no reasoning behind the argument insofar as making a slight gesture of the hand to dismiss the evidence.

Do I believe the Face on Mars is artificial? No. I do not like to “believe” anything. I want to know. Even the most die-hard of skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) must admit that if the face was artificial it would be the greatest religious and scientific discovery in the history of mankind. Not only would such a discovery prove that intelligent life was on Mars at one time but also add quite a bit of support for the idea that we may share a common ancestry with them. That would not be the first bit of evidence to support the hypothesis of common ancestry. Many of the genes that separate us from chimpanzees are completely unique to humans meaning they are found in no other vertebrate or invertebrate on Earth! This complete contradiction with evolutionary theory is the reason why materialist scientists think bacteria somehow altered our DNA and is responsible for nearly 2/3 of the difference between chimpanzees and humans yet the odds of this happening—excluding everything else—are 1 in ~28,700. Nonetheless, that is a topic for another day. My point here is that a common ancestry with the people that were on Mars should not be too surprising. And, in light of the fact that the Face on Mars could be the biggest scientific and religious discovery in the history of mankind and that this could be proved/disproved cheaply and quickly, one must ask: why is the Face on Mars habitually avoided? Indeed, it is hard to fathom an answer that explains it.

To be completely honest, I get disgusted when I hear people dismiss the possibility of it being artificial. It is one thing to have your own opinion but it is quite another thing to have formed a conclusion where no conclusion could be made. That is the fifth trait these people have in common. Not only are they ignorant of whether it is artificial or not but they are arrogant enough to scoff at others for not believing what they do. Let nothing stop you from voicing your opinion but please do stop yourself from presupposing conclusions and scoffing at others. It is truly unnecessary.


you spoke very extensively on this and provided very intresting information
i wonder if you have more for example links supporting what your saying i would also be intrested to see what the debunkers have to say about what you say there if the odds of it being a natural formation are x then im guessing the opisite could be said of the odds that we are not alone if its higher than for example the odds of a wrongfull conviction useing dna then it would be very intresting i wonder when we will be able to see mars from earth clearly maybe the day will come

scat


My post contains a typo. The Face reflects light ~5x (99/20) as much as the surrounding terrain and not 6x. I apologize. Nonetheless, my point remains. If you are wanting good quality research on the face then Enterprise Mission should do well. I know it has discussed the MOLA issue, the catbox issue, the reflectivity issue, etc. There is a *lot* of information to read on that site so that one link alone should keep you busy for quite some time.

If you are wondering about the genetics I think Adam's Alien Genes is a good summary of the issue. To post all of the links about the possibility of visition and experimentation in ancient times would be too time consuming; however, you could probably read some books by Zecharia Sitchin, Erich Von Daniken, etc. Find these authors on Amazon and you should be able to find books that cover a similar subject. Concerning Cherubims and othe one can easily just read the Bible (preferrably the King James Version or New English Translation since they are the most accurately translated.) However, if more information is needed it can be found in a variety of places by just typing "mars cherubim" (without the quotation marks) in Google.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Megaman,

If the face is a stone outcrop, and the surrounding terrain consists of finely distributed dust, then the stone would have less scattering and be many times brighter than the surroundings. Why does this evidence that it is artificial?

Thanks for your patience with a newb!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I find it curious that we will have some nice high-definition images of Mars to look at, yet we still have trouble getting basic, relatively low-res images of the Moon, particularly the far side.

I would like to suggest that the real cover-up of ancient alien civilization is not happening on Mars, but right in our own back yard.

I'd like to suggest it, even though there's not a shred of evidence to support it.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Hey there are canals on Mars I see through my telescope. Yes. there must be an alien civilization there. Yes, those lines I see are very clearly deliberate. There is definatley a pattern there.

People need to read on just how the human eye works.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
Megaman,

If the face is a stone outcrop, and the surrounding terrain consists of finely distributed dust, then the stone would have less scattering and be many times brighter than the surroundings. Why does this evidence that it is artificial?

Thanks for your patience with a newb!


The Face on Mars is not the only large mesa in the Cydonia region. If the face is a natural formation then one would expect an albedo--percentage of incoming light that is reflected instead of being absorbed--roughly the same as the surrounding terrain and mesas +/- a few percentage points. The surrounding terrain and mesas have an average albedo of 20% while the Face has an albedo of ~99.9%. Have you ever noticed how much light is reflected by a fresh layer of snow on the ground? Fresh snow reflects light strong enough to cause colored spots in one's vision by merely glancing at it and could even cause retina damage if one were to stare. The average albedo for fresh snow is 83%. This means that under the same lighting conditions the Face on Mars would reflect ~16.9% more light than fresh snow and be more than capable of blinding someone! The only explanation that makes sense of the extremely high albedo and the rectilinear geometry is this: the Face on Mars may be covered with mirror-like paneling.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Is this an alien structure, the face on Mars or something more sinister?




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Oh lordy, I done wet my pants again!!!! That is one of the funniest posts ever!!!!!

Oh help me, I'm still laughing......

Oh no, I looked at it again......help me...........

NC

[edit on 7-4-2006 by NotClever]

[edit on 7-4-2006 by NotClever]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Here are some New pictures from the MRO. These are really good pics even though they are taken 1500 miles up. When the MRO reaches its Scientific Orbit it will be taking pictures from 190 miles.

Check these out.

hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
nice pics but theres something not right here they have a 10 mbit link and this black and white camera there useing is supposedly able to produce 3d we should be seeing some more pictures than we are at a rate of 10 mbits per second or there abouts why are the pictures so slow i dont get it



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   
For one thing the MRO just achieved Mars orbit and its is a very elliptical orbit.

They only got to test the Camera from around 1500 miles above Mars and they did it while using other instruments that tend to Vibrate. The point was to learn how to calibrate the New Camera.

I think that the New Pics are just a taste of the amazing things this Camera will do in the Future.

You just have to remember this Camera never has taken a picture before and it only had five minutes to take one to five pictures from 450 - 1500 miles up. When the MRO gets into its desired orbit it will take pictures from 190 miles 24.6 hours a Martian day.









[edit on 9-4-2006 by lost_shaman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join