NASA's Deceptions...DARK MISSION

Now what about either of those two images looks like a face????? Please tell me.

Originally posted by mike_b
once again.....




Clearly this does not look like a face. I will see if I can find a larger version of this image. Can i please hear from someone who has an INTELLIGENT reason why I may be wrong?

Maybe it's just an object with too much regular futures to be natural ?

Originally posted by webstra

Maybe it's just an object with too much regular futures to be natural ?

Thank you. Now see, that is a smart response. To say that it may be unnatural rather than, ITS A FACE! Its clearly not a face. To say it may not have been naturally formed is a whole different story. I can't say as to whether or not it was naturally formed, but for gods sake, its not a friggin face.

First of all, a couple posts up, did you just quote yourself and respond to your own quotes? wtf.

No, sweetie, if you'd calm down and read the whole thing you'd see that those were re-quotes containing ArMaP's responses to the quotes directly beneath. That's tf.

And what you're saying makes no sense at all. That you don't care where your facts come from??????? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought in VALID RESEARCH citing sources was important. "I'm here to reasearch the facts, I don't care where they come from" is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. No offense, but hell, I can tell you anything you wanna hear but that doesn't make it true.

Yes it does, or someone besides you would be confused enuf to complain about it. And no, I don't care who says it, if it shows me plausibility and evidence is provided, I'm checking it out further if the evidence attracts my attention. Isn't that how you're drawn into a subject matter, someone presents something that you think is relevant or interesting, so you make time to look further into it?

Still don't give a dam where it came from, but if it bears out in the end, did it matter? If it proves to be hogwash, still did it matter in the end? If Hoagland was a complete fraud and this was proven beyond reasonable doubt (to me, not you . . I don't know you, so I don't know what your satisfaction level is, and if I did, that adds nothing to my own personal comprehension . . . I get it when I get it, and only then, not because someone else has heard enough), then I would be less open to his opinions. Just ain't happened, yet

You telling me anything I wanna hear is pointless to me, since you don't know me, and you don't know what I wanna hear. Assuming I wanna hear anything in particular. One morning in late August this year around one:a.m. I was watching one of my oft-mentioned silvery-bright "stars" in the western sky, wondering who's technology that must be. Suddenly, next to it appears a solid baby-blue light, about the size of a full moon. I thought "now, what?" and as I was thinking that, it went out. Approx 30 secs later it came back on, and I'm noticing it's behind the haze of Houston's night sky, and I turned to my friend who had walked up to the window next to me, who spoke before I did and said, "I saw it." Neither of us knew what to make of it, and that's part of the recent past now. No news report, nothing I've seen yet here at ATS about it.

Point is, I didn't wanna see that, but guess what . . it showed up. Had nothing to do with me wanting to see anything quite that unusual (unless Quantum Physics got involved with my secret sub-conscious and made it so, by my command). Camera was in the car 3 beers & 5 flights down, plus my Minolta digital takes crap night shots, so it would have been typical ufo blur, anyway.

Ignorant = lack of knowledge, right? So, me not caring if Hoagland or NASA brought it forth, just let me study it a little more from some other sources, means I have lack of knowledge. You see, to me, that's ignorant.

Especially since i'm not an expert on the subject.

Yet you have so much to add today . .

And FYI, NASA images are all BLACK AND WHITE. Color is added later in the labs based on multiple images taken at different spectrums of light. The telescopes and rovers have filters that filter out light based on its position in the color spectrum.

And this affects the final conclusion of a planet's sky color . . . how? When all the spectral information is processed, surely there is a final conclusion made as to what color the sky actually is, or why take the picture? Matters not how complex the imaging process is if we don't end up with an answer. So was it red or blue when you were last on Mars? I work in cmyk production environments much of my waking life, so the principle of multiple layers combining for composite imagery is not new to me at all.

Originally posted by mike_b

Originally posted by webstra

Maybe it's just an object with too much regular futures to be natural ?

Thank you. Now see, that is a smart response. To say that it may be unnatural rather than, ITS A FACE! Its clearly not a face. To say it may not have been naturally formed is a whole different story. I can't say as to whether or not it was naturally formed, but for gods sake, its not a friggin face.

Please tell mike_b, why are you getting upset by the idea that it MIGHT BE a face which was made by intelligent beeings ?

Further it's maybe more fair to show the people more anomalies near the face, don't you think ?

all of a sudden Hoagland claims its not a face and he knew it all along.

I think Mr. Lear took care of this one . . . thanks, John . . . fingers gettin' tired . .

Originally posted by OptionToChoose

all of a sudden Hoagland claims its not a face and he knew it all along.

I think Mr. Lear took care of this one . . . thanks, John . . . fingers gettin' tired . .

I started looking though my copy of Dark Missions for the alleged quote and I found this quote on "Unmasking The Face On Mars".

From "Dark Missions":

However, there was still more to NAZA's hit piece that needed to be addressed. In the article NAZA used a vertically compressed, grossly distorted and upside-down version of The Face, supposedly generated by a shape-from-shading algorithm. It was so badly disorted that parallel features clearly visible in the Viking overhead shots from 1976 ended up highly (and impossibly) divergent.

I think thats why they call it the "Cat Box".

Anyway I got laughing so hard at Hoaglands descriptions of NAZA's shennanigans I forgot to look for where he said it wasn't Face anymore.

Maybe I'll get some time this afternoon right now I have to get my oxy/ace tanks refilled.

Thanks for the post.

reply to post by ArMaP


i know this is off subject but i need 2 accumulate postings so as 2 move on to bigger/better things. maybe space exploration shouldn't be as high of a priority as it is in regards 2 the countless other more close 2 home issues right here on terrafirma. that said, isn't it possible that $ is being siphoned off from space exploration 4 any # of other purposes...private/elite ones included?

Sometimes it seems folk just wanna box, rather than add substance to the discussion

John, your wild and ridiculous claims have really expanded my mental horizons, making me think way outside my original box. I would be one of the people who doesn't think it's your job to prove anything, just to add substance to the discussion, as you -- IMO -- have so richly done. ATS -- and me -- benefit greatly from your distinguished history and next-level contributions.

Also, have you ever seen a full-moon-sized blue light in the night sky before? that one was totally new for me, I didn't know whether it was the Greys, Nordics or the Draconians about to descend upon us, but on a food-empty stomach full of beer in the middle of the night, it might not have made a heckuvalotta difference . .

oh lord... I'm obviously not gettng through here.

Anyways, the point of this thread is not to discuss the "face" on Mars which is just a friggin mountain, it is to discuss Dark Mission. And my point is, had you actually read the link I provided instead of spewing crap about it whilst skimming it, you might have attained some information to help you on your research and realized Richard Hoagland is full of garbage. And he has the character of an elementary school child. How can you believe someone that changes their standpoint once they are proven wrong? And hell, he wasn't even REALLY PROVEN wrong, he was just contested and he changed his opinion. and to me, that doesn't speak very highly of him. I wouldn't take someones word like that. You might, but I'm not. May there have been intelligent life on Mars at once? Sure. May there be intelligent life still on Mars? Maybe. Does Hoagland present this in a less than laughable manner using any proof at all? No.
Why don't you prove to me that it IS a face then?

And the last time I went to Mars, the sky was red. haha.

Anyways, I'm done discussing this. I'm tired of it.
No matter how many valid points I bring up, they are just ignored as if I didn't even say them. Just proof that Hoagland followers only hear what they want to hear whether its true or not.
Is there any intelligent life on this ATS board? I haven't found much yet. I'm off to Astral Project myself into the dreamscape. Later.
And I'm rich. I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I can buy a Mars Rover if i want and explore mars myself. Not a bad idea. Haha...that reminds me of a headline from the Onion. "NASA launches $170 Billion Dollars into Space" with a picture of a big bag of money attached to a rocket.

And hey! Maybe i'll be just like Hoagland and write book based on Nonsense to capitalize off of people just like you. It obviously works. Or maybe I'll create a religion like L Ron Hubbard and capitalize off people like that. Same thing. I suppose you are all scientologists too? haha.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by mike_b]

Originally posted by mike_b

May there have been intelligent life on Mars at once?

Thanks for the post mike_b. Theres intelligent life there right now. The population is about 600 million.

Does Hoagland present this in a less than laughable manner using any proof at all? No.

I thought the book was well written and explained things very thoroughly. I'm not hot on hyperdimensional physics but I liked all the other stuff.

Richard hasn't gotten around to finding out there is a breathable atmosphere on Mars. Heck he doesn't even think there is breathable atmosphere on the moon.

Why don't you prove to me that it IS a face then?

I'll pass on that invitation, if you don't mind, mike_b. I'll be 65 next Tuesday and I don't think I would have enough years left in my life to convince you about anything.

Heck, I'll bet you don't even think that people live on Venus. Right?

Thanks for the post and the input.

Originally posted by OptionToChoose



Thanks OTC.

Also, have you ever seen a full-moon-sized blue light in the night sky before? that one was totally new for me, I didn't know whether it was the Greys, Nordics or the Draconians about to descend upon us, but on a food-empty stomach full of beer in the middle of the night, it might not have made a heckuvalotta difference . .

I haven't heard or seen one of those yet. But what I am looking for are examples of our holographic technology to place objects in space, and that might have been an example.

The reason I am interested in your sighting is that I think the government is going to try a bogus 'Aliens from Outer Space are Attacking Us' and will use holographic technology to try and fool us.

Thanks for the input.

Here you go, mike_b:
Mars mug

Mr. Lear,
Now I do think that YOU are intelligent and would love for you to expound on what you just said above. And its not as hard to convince me as you may think. I'm just skeptical of alot of information. You have to be nowadays. I question everything and when I do research, I research both sides of the issue, not just the side that I want to hear. But, OptionToChoose didn't even look at the information I presented, but instead, just told me I'm wrong. Hell, if you can offer me proof then I'm not hard to convince at all. The only problem I have with Richard Hoagland is that he seems to have a history of stretching the truth. If it were coming from anyone else, like say yourself, it may be more believable. I'm not sayin I'm not open to suggestion or anything because I am. And also, I like how you respect my opinion and talk to me like your 65, not a 5 year old.

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
Here you go, mike_b:
Mars mug

haha. now that was funny.

and before I sign off (at least til tonite), Mr. Lear, let me be one of the first to wish you a happy early birthday! May I be half as distinguished when (if? --friendly-fire from space--) I reach that milestone

mike_b: no hard feelings, I'm told that I shoot rather harshly from the hip sometimes, so to speak, but it's because I'm trying to assimilate so much info in a day (as well as be a freelance artist and get that done) that I usually have brain-fatigue at nite and can't sleep . . didn't mean to come across as an offense, if that happened.

To close in the fashion of another great mind on ATS (imho),

Cheers!

reply to post by OptionToChoose



No prob. All good. Same here. Its all in the spirit of debate. And its good to throw humor in to lighten the mood.

What is the link that Hoagland shows in his book, I would like to study some of the images before I get the book. Also anyone know where I can buy an electronic version of the book, instead of the carbon sink version?

My bookshelf is full anyway..

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


Why do the majority think with "common sense"...? There is no such thing when it comes to trying to figure out the charade of " whatever is going on.."... The easiest solution tends to work best. why couldn't there be ruins of ancient civilizations on the moon/mars, etc?...Stop thinking like the man and have a mind of your own!

The classified information that you and I are less privy too, contains things made up of wild dreams and fairy tales. But, if the "people" knew these things the mans system would be in shambles.


EXPECT NOTHING
TAKE EVERYTHING
FEAR SOMETHING