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.
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
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.
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
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!