Another Face On Mars!! What’s Going On??, page 4

Originally posted by mikesingh

Here on mother Earth with all the resources and data available, we still haven't even begun to understand who built the pyramids and how they were built. Conjectures and theories. The lines of Nazca? Again conjectures and theories. Stonehenge? Ditto! Chizenitza? Easter Island? Well, I can go on and on.

Hell, we haven't even begun to understand the puzzles here on Earth under our very noses! Then how on Earth do you expect scientific evidence from Mars?

Actually Mike, you are incorrect. We have a great deal of evidence and understanding about the structures you mentioned, how they were built and what their function was. Although I have not yet been to Stonehenge nor Easter Island, I am particularly fond of the Nazca lines and their useful star calendar function. There is significant data available that supports our understanding of them and the other sites you mentioned. No one will ever have ALL of the information simply because we were not there at the time of their construction. That does not mean that we don't understand their nature. Theories based on science and supporting data are valid. Theories based on imagination are not.

All of the information I have seen posted in this, and similar threads, rely entirely on the "It looks like," formula. Nothing more. The "Spanner" is a perfect example. There are many reasons to consider natural geological formation, yet in this thread it MUST be an alien artifact simply because someone imagines it to be. A general study of Earth based geological formations would indicate that it is not an extremely unusual bit of rock on another planets surface.

I, and many others, who understand geology, and have traveled enough to see different natural mineralogical and geological formations, understand this. Again I ask, why is it in these types of threads, simple conjecture without any supporting data, is taken as significant? The face in the clouds analogy holds true. Given the nature of the images and the ease in which the human brain attempts to create a matching neural image, it is simple to conclude that many will find images that "look like" something they are familiar with. If more people became familiar with geology and related earth sciences, more people would understand that the rocks you see, look like ... well...rocks.

If someone wishes to claim that they are alien artifacts, they must cite reasons and offer supporting data to give credence to their claim. Why does everyone fail to follow basic scientific principles when making extraordinary claims? Where is the supporting data? If someone would offer a logically presented theory, with supporting data, I would give them more credit, but when people say, "gee, those square rocks look like an anomaly to me," or, "that formation looks like a face," I can only conclude that they have no interest in getting to the truth. They simply wish to promote their belief without any care for reality. They also demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of the subject matter.