Mars Alien And Government Bases PICS!!!!

Next
4c)The green from ESA's pictures
Well, lets see what ESA has to say about this:

What are the green/blue patches we see in some of the images?

Unfortunately, an early version of Gusev image was released before the colour had been adjusted finally to be closer to true colour as the human eye would see it in a non-dusty atmosphere of Mars.

This is close to what a human eye would see under normal atmospheric conditions.Currently it is not easy to get true colours of the Martian landscape because Mars is very dusty and the scenes were taken with high sun angles. The scattering of light caused in these atmospheric and lighting conditions, by the dust in the atmosphere acting as tiny red filters, means that you see the surface with a diffuse reddish glow with somewhat fuzzy appearance.

Are the colour photographs processed?
The colour channels are absolutely real, but they do not reflect the true colour as we would see it with our eyes.

The main limitation, of course, is that from orbit we do not have any colour adjustment possibilities as for example, the NASA rovers. They have colour references mounted on their rovers and even they have problems matching their colours.
www.esa.int...

But I guess you won't buy it. Oh well, that's it. But do you have any ideea about the way these images are produced? Have you read the thread about the colors of Mars to understand why is so difficult to reconstruct a true color picture, as if it was taken with a standard digital camera? If not, let me tell you in a few simple words. All the missions are scientific ones. Nobody is going to pay for a mission with the only purpose of aquiring true color pictures. All those filters used by landers or spacecrafts derive from scientific need. Period.

Next
4d)Clorophyl

Russia's first experiment on a US spacecraft claims he has discovered organic pigments on Mars relating to ancient photosynthetic organisms.

The pigments Dr. Pershin may have found are porphyrins derived from chlorophyll and hopanoids from carotenoids. These are found in cyanobacterial sedimentary deposits 3.5 Gy old.

The question is: Are these pigments ancient or recent?
From one of your links

So after all it's not clorophyl, there are some derived products. Again, this is not a proof of present martian life. Yes, we can speculate about it, but as I've said before, still is not an evidence!
Another source for cloropyll

From infrared measurements made using a photoconductive cell, cooled by liquid nitrogen to make it more sensitive, he reported strong absorption bands in the spectrum of the dark areas of Mars which he interpreted as being due to organic compounds, and in particular the presence of plants.

Although his results led to much excitement, they were also controversial and open to interpretation. In 1963 an alternative explanation was put forward in terms of compounds in the Earth's atmosphere,
www.daviddarling.info...

Once again, it turned out there was no cloropyll on Mars (to be more precise, organic compounds)

Next
5)Direct evidence of living organisms on Mars
5a)This article
First, I will requote what I quoted the first time I read this article.

...The most important new observation is that the DDSs are crater-like holes in the frosted layer...The existence of the DDS-holes in the frosted layer is important evidence that the process of DDS formation begins from the bottom...

...Later they grow and reproduce through photosynthesis and they can generate their own living conditions....

And you answered:

If you read the entire article you would notice that the heating from below would make sense in that we can clearly see that the dark spots underneath is larger than the holes in the ice above.

and

Photosynthesis (photo=light, synthesis=putting together), generally, is the synthesis of sugar from light, carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen as a by-product. It is arguably the most important biochemical pathway known; nearly all life depends on it. It is an extremely complex process, comprised of many coordinated biochemical reactions. It occurs in higher plants, algae, some bacteria, and some protists, organisms collectively referred to as photoautotrophs. This article summarizes some of the major aspects of the process and provides links to more detailed articles explaining the numerous technical details, and implications, involved.

To the first one: Quote the exact line where we can read that because I have read the whole article and didn't find anything like that. Nor any of those pictures show something like that. Even their images show a crater like spot (ie wider at top, smaller at the bottom).
To the second one: Your link doesn't say anything about reproduction. Where on earth did you hear that an organism reproduces trhough photosynthesis as thay state in that article? That's pure speculation!!
Reproduction

Mitosis and Meiosis
Mitosis and meiosis are an integral part of cell division. Mitosis occurs in somatic cells, while meiosis occurs in gametes.

Mitosis The resultant number of cells in mitosis is twice the number of original cells. The number of chromosomes in the daughter cells is the same as that of the parent cell.
Meiosis The resultant number of cells is four times the number of original cells. This results in cells with half the number of chromosomes present in the parent cell. A diploid cell forms two haploid cells. This process occurs in two phases, meiosis I and meiosis II.

Where is that photosynthesis?

These two passages are pure speculation. For a crater-like hole to be formed begining form the bottom you will need to have a wider diameter at the bottom (as you correctly have said). But that's not the case here.

(next post)

But lets analyse further this article

On slopes of the dark dunes the spots are elongated or fan shaped downwards, depending on the steepness of the slope, indicating gravitational effects in spot morphogenesis. From some spots extensions emanate, indicating some downward seepage or flow, i.e. transport of a fluid phase, probably brine, which occurs below frost cover (Fig. 5).

The bulk radial symmetry, the flowing (seepage) patterns and the defrosting beginning from bottom of DDSs suggested us a biological interpretation of the all DDS phenomena.

How can a seepage pattern be a sign of life? Is there a gully a sign of life?
Those elongated patterns on slopes are very well explained by the CO2/sand geysers hypothesis. Sorry, but for this one I don't have images (I got bored making them and also they take up space on my website) so I'll try to put it in words.
If you have a geyser that spits out sand, then on a flat surface, the expected pattern would be circular since there is no privileged direction. But on a slope, assuming all the sand particles have the same horizontal speed, the particles hitting the highest part of the slope would travel less in a horizontal direction than those hitting the lowest part. This is because, vertically, the first ones also travel less so they stay less in the air. (More about parabolic trajectory here). Thus, the distribution pattern will resemble an ellipse. If you consider now that sand particles bounce on the ground, this elongates even further the pattern since those downslope will bounce also downslope, but those upslope will bounce downslope. (More on [semi]elastic collisons here). Now if you consider also land slides, this also elongates the pattern downslope.
After all that being said, we have an elongated patch of dark sand on a slope. Dark sand means low albedo, low albedo means a higher sublimation ratio, thus the ice cap will "melt" in the same elongated pattern.
Again, if there is somebody here on ATS with knowledge about mechanics, please feel free to tell me if I'm wrong pointing where and why.

Also, in their analysis, they missed this image:

(and others alike) which shows that something is rising above those dark patches and also casts shadow. Their analysis is not compatible with that. On the other hand, the CO2/sand geysers hypothesis is 100% compatible.
So again, no proof of life here.

And finaly, we arrive at the so musch discussed LR experiment.
5b)The LR experiment and circadian rhythm
Lets start with a short description of what experiments the viking lander carried.

The Gas Exchange Experiment (GEX) was looking for changes in the makeup of gases in a test chamber, changes that would indicate biological activity.

The Labeled Release Experiment (LR) was set up to detect the uptake of a radioactively-tagged liquid nutrient by microbes. The idea was that gases emitted by these microbes would show the tagging.

The Pyrolytic Release Experiment (PR) involved "cooking" soil samples that had been exposed to radioactively-tagged carbon dioxide to see if the chemical had been used by organisms to make organic compounds.

The Gas Chromatograph -- Mass Spectrometer Experiment (GCMS) also heated a soil sample and revealed an unexpected amount of water but failed to detect organic compounds. This absence was so absolute that it seemed there must be some mechanism actually destroying carbon compounds on the surface.
www.resa.net...

Back here on Earth, the results should have looked like:

_________________________________________________________________________________
Experiments____|___Response for sample___|___Response for heat-sterilized control
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEX____________|___oxygen or CO2 emitted_|________________none
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LR_____________|__labeled gas emitted____|________________none
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR_____________|__carbon detected________|________________none
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there wad no life on Mars, the results should have been:

_________________________________________________________________________________
Experiments____|___Response for sample___|___Response for heat-sterilized control
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEX____________|_________none____________|________________none
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LR_____________|_________none____________|________________none
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR_____________|_________none____________|________________none
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actual resuts were:

_________________________________________________________________________________
Experiments____|___Response for sample___|___Response for heat-sterilized control
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEX____________|_____oxygen emitted______|____________oxygen emitted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LR_____________|____labeled gas emitted__|________________none
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR_____________|____carbon detected______|___________carbon detected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(next post)

What does this tell us? That a nonbiological process was involved in GEX and PR since those produced the same results for the analysed sample and the heat-sterilized control sample. For the LR experiments it was suspected that there must be an oxidizer in the martian soil. Later it was discovered that there realy is:

The toxic chemicals cited in the new study, including hydrogen peroxide, are created by the action of static electricity generated by dust devils
found here

This peroxide was a chemical noone back then in the 70s expected to be found on the martian soil and the life detection experiments were tailord according to this. In fact, they were designed to detect life similar with that on Earth. Should they have known this would the experiments be different? Yes. The fact that these experiments were designed not knowing about the peroxide makes them inappropiate for life detection on Mars. It's just like when you try to measure distances using only a stopwatch. You just can do such a thing.
And the LR results weren't refuted only bet the GCMS results, they were refuted based on the whole experimental package results.

I already said this, but I'll repet it. If you say that life on Mars may be very different than that back here on Earth I'll ask you how can you then be sure that the nutrients used in the experimets are realy nutrients?

Reanalysis of the LR data uncovered a circadian rhythm, but, as Miller himself says:

More specifically, says Miller, the fluctuations in gas emissions seem to be entrained to a 2 degrees C fluctuation inside the lander, which in turn reflected not-quite-total shielding from the 50 degrees C fluctuation in temperature that occurs daily on the surface of Mars. Temperature-entrained circadian rhythms, even to a mere 2-degree C fluctuation, have been observed repeatedly on earth.
www.eurekalert.org...

Jumping now into conclusion and saying this is a sign of life would be incorrect.

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors

A recent scientific example:

Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later life.
a later study at Ohio State University did not find any link between infants sleeping with the light on and developing myopia but did find a strong link between parental myopia and the development of child myopia and also noted that myopic parents were more likely to leave a light on in their children's bedroom
en.wikipedia.org...(logical_ fallacy)

I posted 2 experiments that don't envolve life and still present a strong circadian rhythm (measuring the time that takes a sugar cube to disolve in water at diffrent times of the day and measuring the temperature) so saying a circadian rhythm is a sign of life is hazardous.

You insist (and also Gilbert Levin does) that life exists on Mars because the LR experiment detected it. And you also insist that we should consider all the evidence that support life as a whole, not piece by piece. But then you also have to consider the whole experimental package sent on Mars with the Viking lander. And from that package only one experiment produced positive results that can be explained also by a nonbiological process.
So if you ask me is there any life on Mars today I would say we don't know. The experminets sent there to detect it were inappropriate. Period.

Now lets have a little chat about those 25% of scientist that believe that there is life on Mars today.
If you ask me, I would say that I believe that Romania will join the EU in 2007. Do I know this? No! I just believe it. To be sure of that I have to prove it!

This question "Do you belive that life exists today on Mars" is a biasing one. It's just like you are being asked:
What food is your favorite?
and then you are presented with a list something like this:
1)Hamburgers
2)Cheesburgers
3)Read meat
At this one you can answer only, lets say, hamburgers, although your favorite food is in fact french fries with chicken!!!
Just that 25% of the scientists believe that there is life on Mars doesn't mean that they know it.

I know you are not conviced but I'm bored to explain you again and again these facts. If you are going to post some other facts, please post them only if you have strong arguments. Also, I saw in another thread that you said:

Originally posted by StellarX
That is what they claim but when one tracks down these alternatives it turns out that they contradict other known facts.

and you were asked:

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
you have "run down these alternatives" as you say then it should be YOU who posts the sources which disprove these alternatives

You still didn't provide those links.

P.S.
Come on...life on Venus? Some reliable sources for that?

Mars has current life and it's probably so for Venus and a dozen or so moons as well.

And you will find out that what you see is not necessarly what is in reality. If your brain looks at an unfamiliar scene it looks for familiar objects. To recognize a scene your brain need prior knlowledge about that scene. That's why you won't believe me if a say an asteroid is a potato, because you already know what you're looking at. But without that prior knowledge/experience your brain can play some tricks at you. Also, when presented an ambiguous scene, your brain will also look for familiar things. If i say that this is the portrait of an old indian chief you will recognize it, but the same picture may be interpreted as the portrait of an eskimo. When I told you where looking at an old indian I was biasing you. If this J. Skipper of MarsAnomlayresearch tells you that there are tree on Mars he is biasing you.
Further more, zooming in 300+ will certainly produce artifacts that are not related to image content and any reasoning based on that is therefor flawed. I'm sure one can see this very clear in the pictures (the city from the Retezat mountains) I posted above.
That's why I chose to ignore links to MarsAnomalyResearch and other sites like that and not to jump into conclusions. Trust me, I did my homeworks.

Next
2)This so much discussed picture
As I stated before, current atmospheric condtions on Mars forbid liquid water on the surface (I will get later to this). The fact that this place is located around 80 degrees latitude (from one of your links) on Mars tells me that this was either form by sublimation/desublimation or snow falls. I'm sure you will agree with me that this scene looks pretty fractal and have many selfsimilarities, but that's because it formed through a process called Diffusion Limited Aggregation (either if you consider water vapor mollecules desublimating on condesation nuclei or sonw flakes aggregating on snow deposites). And in this type of process, similar forces act at different scales (and you can see ice flowers very similar with ice crystals (ie snow flakes)). I provided this picture because this also was formed through water desublimation. It's the same process and the result is very similar; only that at a larger scale. Again of course, if you don't know this process and the type of images it creats, your brain will be tricked because the lack of prior knowledge in judging this unfamiliar/ambiguous scene.
Go here if you want more images of Diffusion Limited Aggregation. Or here if you like to see those images growing under your eyes.

Since we are still at MarsAnomalyResearch I will talk also a bit about those lakes on mars. Even if the water is very salty (so as to remain liquid in Mars conditions) it still evaporates/boils (if the atmospheric conditions are under the triple point). And because Mars atmosphere cannot hold that much water vapor (see what Gilbert Levin has to say about that) and it's not 100% clean you would expect a [very thick] layer of haze (ice crystals formed by water desublimation around dust paricles / condesation nuclei) above those lakes if water was liquid. But since every one of those pictures shows crystal clear details of the surface it's obvious that there is no haze above the so called lakes. No haze, thus no liquid water. Also, it's interesting to note that back here on Earth, when looking at a lake from space you will see it having a dark surface, not at all white.

Next
3)Evidence of liquid water on Mars
3a)Mud at Spirit landing site
OK. I see you are not content with the explanation I offered since it was about the moon, although Mars is also littered with craters and the very same mechanisms that create dust on the moon also would produce dust on Mars. So let's push the explanation a litle bit further.

In compressible dust, a rover wheel produced ruts with steep walls, marginal slumps, and nearly perfect reflective casts of the spacing between the cleats (Fig. 1F).

Wheel tracks and the wheel abrasion experiment indicate that the deposits contain substantial amounts of dust. Most of the rover tracks have low to nonexistent rims and are reflective (Fig. 1F); such tracks are produced in loose materials with grain sizes of less than about 40 µm, but not in loose sand (1). Reflective surfaces can be seen in tracks everywhere
www.sciencemag.org...

So, the particle size was less than 40um. That's interesting since flour particle size is according to this standard less than 212um (well, more than 98% of the particles) and even more intersting is that the flour behaves as a compresible dust.
Check this image of the "mud" at spirit landing site and then take a look at these ones


that I made in my kitchen. Well, well, well...what do we see? That the flour acts like the "mud" at spirit landing site!!! It's a simple experiment anyone can do! (to produce the second picture I dragged an inflated plastic bag over the flour).

(next post)
(sorry, this is the 3rd post )

For the mods: Is there any way that the posts can be reorderd?

These are more interesting pics, one the same as the above excellent post, from Mars which may suggest life there.






looks like trees to me! For more go HERE.

All the best

McP



[edit on 4/9/06 by Mcphisto]

Originally posted by StellarX
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Anyone qualified in photography and experienced with checking photo's for manipulation should look at this site. Pure bunk. I don't know if these are purposeful lies or if this is work by someone who mistakenly thinks they know what they are doing. My alarm bells went off when I read this statement.

Warning! The 3rd listed slower loading processed but not map-projected gif image strip has been flipped both vertically and horizontally at official levels before being released to the public. That distorts images significantly except for the fish symbol and I suggest avoiding it. I have not accessed this data at PDS or USGS and can not comment on it there at those sites. Good Luck.

Flipping an image does not alter it period. It simply changes the order of pixels left to right or up to down. Why tell such a lie? To stop you from looking at the original image for some reason? Whatever this statement was a mistake if he wants credibility. If he is wrong about something this basic what else is garbage?

Originally posted by Mcphisto
These are more interesting pics, one the same as the above excellent post, from Mars which may suggest life there.

For the first picture go here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and see the point 5)Direct evidence of living organisms on Mars(actualy 5b)

for the second picture go here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
to the point 2)This so much discussed picture.
(for the mods: this post pid2464028 should have been the third one after the pid2463993 post, if there is any way to reorder them, please let me know!)

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Anyone qualified in photography and experienced with checking photo's for manipulation should look at this site. Pure bunk.

Give me one instance where he altered NASA data without mentioning it ( rotating/flipping/brightness/etc) and we will all know it to be the truth. No evidence = no interest from me.

I don't know if these are purposeful lies or if this is work by someone who mistakenly thinks they know what they are doing.

You do not seem to know anything (Edit ) realated to this topic if this is the type of objection you wish to make.

My alarm bells went off when I read this statement.

Why?

Warning! The 3rd listed slower loading processed but not map-projected gif image strip has been flipped both vertically and horizontally at official levels before being released to the public. That distorts images significantly except for the fish symbol and I suggest avoiding it. I have not accessed this data at PDS or USGS and can not comment on it there at those sites. Good Luck.

He tells you that they flipped it in many ways and then probably tampered with it AFTER that making the a complete return to the original image quite impossible.
I am no expert but this hardly seems a reason to avoid the entire site as he EXPRESSLY said what he did thus allowing you a opportunity to go back to the original image that he links you to? How many criminals tells you were to find the evidence to convict them?

Flipping an image does not alter it period. It simply changes the order of pixels left to right or up to down. Why tell such a lie?

What lie? He told you what he did to the image and then tells you what happened when he did it and i am surprised this is now considered criminal behaviour. NASA still uses the wrong filters to produce the best 'seen from human perspective' images they could had they wanted to and i would suggest that they are the criminals here.

To stop you from looking at the original image for some reason?

So he should have remained silent when he altered the picture to it's original form? How can he prevent us from looking at the original image by providing a link and a bright red 'warning' sign? Ludicrous.

Whatever this statement was a mistake if he wants credibility. If he is wrong about something this basic what else is garbage?

So basically the rest of the world's science community gets away with mistakes on a daily basis but those who disagree with them had only make one to lose all their credibility? What a pathetic argument to dismiss evidence you refuse to look at.

Stellar

[edit on 5-9-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Mcphisto
These are more interesting pics, one the same as the above excellent post, from Mars which may suggest life there.






looks like trees to me! For more go HERE.

All the best

McP



[edit on 4/9/06 by Mcphisto]

hmmm they look like crates to me

Originally posted by StellarX
So basically the rest of the world's science community gets away with mistakes on a daily basis but those who disagree with them had only make one to lose all their credibility? What a pathetic argument to dismiss evidence you refuse to look at.

Have you read my posts about why MarsAnomalyResearch has no credibility?

Originally posted by Apass
Have you read my posts about why MarsAnomalyResearch has no credibility?

Yes i have and you should put down the hatchet as you clearly have no idea how to detroy someone's credibility. I guess it might have been easier if he was not credible and a liar to start with but i think i could have done a better job had i been in the business of attacking those who will risk speaking the truth.

Stellar

Well, actualy it's not me who discredits him. It's him!

The protagonist of the fable is a bored shepherd boy who entertained himself by calling out "wolf". Nearby villagers who came to his rescue found that the alarms were false and that they'd wasted their time. When the boy was actually confronted by a wolf, the villagers did not believe his cries for help and his flock perished.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Originally posted by Apass
Well, actualy it's not me who discredits him. It's him!

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

How can a person discredit himself by using official source material but coming to the wrong conclusions? I am sorry but i would rather have him crying wolf than being silent because the sheep ( the science establishment) might bleat him into relative obscurity. All have you even attempted to do so far is show that his conclusions are wrong and that really is quite apparently a matter of opinion. If all you can manage is a assault on his credibility because you disagree with him your wasting your time on me. I will ALWAYS consider whatever claims i can no matter the track record of the person in question especially so when that person is willing to take on the overwhelming force the science establishment can apply.

When two main stream scientist said they achieved LENR they eventually had to flee to France just to escape the campaign of hatred waged against their persons in the press. I could give you any number of examples showing what happens to main stream scientist when they choose to raise objections against the prevalent dogma.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
How can a person discredit himself by using official source material but coming to the wrong conclusions?

By coming to the wrong conclusions!

I will ALWAYS consider whatever claims i can no matter the track record of the person in question especially so when that person is willing to take on the overwhelming force the science establishment can apply.

You're free to do that. But you have to understand that if you consider his claims as to be true it doesn't mean that they are indeed true. Nor that everybody here has to consider them because you say so.

I could give you any number of examples showing what happens to main stream scientist when they choose to raise objections against the prevalent dogma.

Yes, indeed. Take Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr for instance!

Now, I'm going to quote me for a bit

If you are going to post some other facts, please post them only if you have strong arguments. Also, I saw in another thread that you said:

Originally posted by StellarX
That is what they claim but when one tracks down these alternatives it turns out that they contradict other known facts.

and you were asked:

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
you have "run down these alternatives" as you say then it should be YOU who posts the sources which disprove these alternatives

You still didn't provide those links.

We're still wainting for those links...and for some other facts backed up by strong arguments!

Originally posted by Apass
By coming to the wrong conclusions!

And that is basically your defense of the scientific method then? Making mistakes after weighing evidence means you should never been taken seriously again? If that was how it worked we would have very little of the scientific understanding we have today but i guess you just do not understand the history of science or history in general. It's amazing that i am having a conversation with someone who does not allow lay people to make mistakes but allows the whole scientific community to make epic blunders for centuries without comment.

You're free to do that. But you have to understand that if you consider his claims as to be true it doesn't mean that they are indeed true. Nor that everybody here has to consider them because you say so.

Which is how we should treat every bit of evidence whether it be given to us by God, scientist or lay person. Don't take anyone's word for anything just because others do.

Yes, indeed. Take Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr for instance!

Einstein contributed fairly little as even the basis of his main 'discovery' had already been in evidence for a very very long time indeed. The best one can say about Bohr is that at least he did not steal his wife's ideas or openly plagiarise the work of others. Why bring up the fact that science does progress but forget to mention that it normally comes from the outside of the general science community and that they almost always attack and try to destroy the ideas or the person? Once you can explain why the science community is even more resistant to change than the general public you might slowly get some sort of a clue as to what is going on and why they are never to be trusted.

Now, I'm going to quote me for a bit

If you are going to post some other facts, please post them only if you have strong arguments. Also, I saw in another thread that you said:

Originally posted by StellarX
That is what they claim but when one tracks down these alternatives it turns out that they contradict other known facts.

and you were asked:

And i said that because people say " it can't be so and others disagree' without normally bothering to do anything but state superficial 'possible' explanations that are not normally considered as obvious. Why should we assumed the weirdest possible events to explain Martian phenomenon just because we suddenly decide to throw the basic tenants of relativity out the window cause it happens to disagree with our prior ideas?

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
you have "run down these alternatives" as you say then it should be YOU who posts the sources which disprove these alternatives

You still didn't provide those links.

I have provided plenty of links which you then set about superficially attacking by proposing that there are alternative 'possibilities' ( it could after all be giant well hidden fans causing global weather phenomenon) when we would not normally consider those under similar conditions on Earth. All you did was play devil's advocate which would have been fine if you stated from the get go that life MUST be impossible on Mars. The moment you realistically approach the evidence not only the odds but the PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence proves without a doubt that there is running water on Mars. NASA OPENLY ADMITS THIS. That is the final straw that makes life very much inevitable as the meteors and fossils we have found on Mars proves.

We're still wainting for those links...and for some other facts backed up by strong arguments!

I have given more than enough evidence to convince those who are interested in reality and discovering the truth and if you are not convinced the problem lies in your own mind and you should stop project your own bias on others. We are not all close minded and set in our ways like you quite clearly is.

Stellar

Ack...my brain hurts trying to fathom all those nested quotes. I count a triple.

Please be kind to the readers who must disect such madness.

(hint...there is a 20 deduction for 'big quotes')

~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought it was a 'quadruple', not a triple, so I changed the text.

*finger hesitates on the 'Big Quote" skittle*

[edit on 11-9-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by masqua
Ack...my brain hurts trying to fathom all those nested quotes. I count a triple.

High 5 to da "mummer".


Pat's or Geno's yo? AND how 'bout dem Iggles yestiday eh?

Born and raised, but in a warmer climate now.

You know what, never mind.

This is not a single sentence post.

[edit on 9/11/2006 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by StellarX

He tells you that they flipped it in many ways and then probably tampered with it AFTER that making the a complete return to the original image quite impossible.
I am no expert but this hardly seems a reason to avoid the entire site as he EXPRESSLY said what he did thus allowing you a opportunity to go back to the original image that he links you to? How many criminals tells you were to find the evidence to convict them?

[edit on 5-9-2006 by StellarX]

I had no time when I posted this as I have a 100 pages of ad copy due by next Monday. Work always comes first. Well, nearly always

The first thing to catch my attention is when I clicked on the link $34.95 stood out very clearly. The second was the type of filtering he was using on the images and that statement about flipping photo's made no sense. You can flip a photo a thousand times without altering it. You are just reversing the pixel order either vertically or horizontally.

I'm new to this UFO stuff for sure. When it comes to photo manipulation and compositing I am not. I have enough experience I can tell what filters were used and how. 20 years in photography. 7 years in Photoshop. 5 years in CGI and 3D modeling. I've picked up a thing or 2. One difference is I manipulate the photo's to improve their clarity. There are people all over the net doing the opposite. They bought a copy of PhotoShop and fancy themselves experts. In my case I either know what I'm doing or my 7 employees and I go broke. I own a Promotion and Marketing Company. I spend more than 20 hours a week learning new software and technique and another 40 or more working on actual projects. As a back up my Wife is a professional Photographer who shoot's Equestrian events for Journals and Magazines. You can believe me or not, I don't truly care, but I am qualified to spot a hoax or an amateur who thinks they have uncovered something when in fact they have just altered a photo until it fits their theory.

The tree like objects are from extreme misuse of sharpening and unsharp masks. The pixel radius was set to ridiculous and you end up with patterns. They show that he either does not know what he is doing or he is perpetrating a hoax to get $34.95. I do not know which. In reading what he says he may think he's developed a way to pull out the detail and does not truly realize he's trying to accomplish the impossible. Whatever data is in the file is all their is and no amount of manipulation will bring out data that is not in the file. He is working from images downloaded from the net I'd guess which means they were compressed. This also means lots of artifacts from the compression. If you then take these dirty images through a un-sharp mask or other sharpening algorithms and set the pixel radius too high you end up with little shapes (his tree's). He may not even realize what he is doing. Then again he may know exactly what he is doing. I have the best forensics software on the market and I can not add a single pixel of data to an image. I can only use filters to interpolate information into the photo that gives the impression of more detail by producing sharper more distinct edges. The algorithm makes a best guess as to what lies between the pixels and creates additional pixel to fill in the edge or detail.

I've shied away from getting into what is wrong with photo's I've viewed on UFO sites because it angers people so much. It is like no one wants the truth about them, they just want people to agree with them. Clay Pigeons are not UFO's. Lamppost fixtures are not UFO's. Blurred birds in the distance are not UFO's. Objects attached to the sides of tree's are not UFO's. Small aircraft flying away from the viewer are not UFO's. Lens anomalies caused by a bright light source hitting the edge of the one of 5 to 20 optics in a modern lenses and bouncing around inside the camera are not UFO's. Orb's caused by a droplet or dust speck on the surface of the outermost optic are not UFO's. Well, you get my point.

Now to the weird part. I have seen two objects I believe to be genuine UFO's and would like nothing more than to find legitimate photo's to back me up. There are photo's that may be real but since there is no way to get a copy of the original negative or digital file I can't confirm any. There always seems to be some reason that no one can come up with the original other than a few of the blurry bird and small aircraft flying directly away from the viewer photo's. I can't tell you how many of those I've seen.


[edit on 9/11/2006 by Blaine91555]