Looking at the head/crater ratio, I couldn't help but remember that one worm-type creature from Star Wars... the one that lived inside the
asteroid.
I am curious as to wondering, though... what kind of photograph do people need in order to except the fact that there was once life on Mars? Do
people need to see a McDonald's or a multi-acre parking lot? Why? WHAT DO THEY NEED? I am not defending this, or any other, photograph, but please
keep this in mind:
We have the odd structures like the Face (Cydonia), those tube-like formations, pyramid structures all over the place, unusual rock
formations/layouts, track/road marks across the martian moons, unexplained occurances with probes, *let us not forget the radio signal recieved in the
early part of the 1900's, which when it was transcribed to paper, also showed the Cydonian Face*, my personal favorite "The Fort" (also in
Cydonia)... and on and on...
Alot of things can be written off as coincidence, or people wishing to see things; but with Cydonia being one of the major "hot spots", why was
there no probe or rover sent there? Why did we send two rovers into dried-up "oceans" or craters, instead of being closer to something that might
show life?
Are scientists and religious heads that afraid, that they will not even acknowledge the possibility of structures? Are they that stubborn in their
literal trains of thought to assume only micro-algeas have existed on Mars?
Mars' "warm periods" are indeed short, too short to have developed advanced life, so the reasoning goes. So why not have Mars as an outpost, or
colony?
Granted, the probes and rovers being sent recently are geological surveyors, so signs of life (other than simple one cells) is not a priority... but
come on already.
The reason I like the Cydonia region is because it is a large, multi-layered "coincidence"... each structure points, or plays some part, to another
structure. Even if the Face was a wind eroded mesa, or the City is nothing more than oddly shaped and arranged mountians, or the D&M Pyramid and the
Eye are nothing more than wishful thinking, than what about the Fort? *for those not familiar with the Fort, it is a WALLED triangle... there is
clearly a triangular wall, not a mountian or a rock, but a wall incasing a dark triangular area inside of it*
We could look at numerous photographs from around the Earth, and say the same things... from orbit, the Great Wall could be a fissue, the Great
Pyramids could be volcanic remains...
I've said it before, and it warrents being said again: if we can have satilites orbiting us that can see the bubble gum wrapper rolling on a
sidewalk, why can't we have those same types orbiting Mars?
During the 1980's, with the drive of the space shuttle, Ronald Reagan was quoted as saying that the Soviets and American nations must put aside their
differences to meet and over-come the challanges that space is going to send our way. Some took this as space being the next frontier, others saw it
as a... discreet message about aliens. Ironically, this was the decade of the Star Wars programs.
Now, we have "W" pushing for lunar and Martian colonies. America can't even take care of the 12 million people currently unemplyed! Yet, with the
findings of these two rovers (and other probes), we need to establish bases in space. Great, I am all for that... but is there a hidden motive, or
are we to still blindly follow what Bush is feeding us?
A picture is a picture is a picture, a rose by any other name, picture worth a thousand words... people will see (or disbelieve) what they want to;
you cannot make people do otherwise, or bend them to except ideas they don't want. But what do people want when it comes to Mars?
www.enterprisemission.com...
www.metaresearch.org...