It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by RFBurns
You haven't answered my question, do you know of any case of not publishing the complete datasets from the rovers?
I know that most of the Sols do not have photos from the other filters, but the lack of photos does not mean that they are being withheld from the public, if they were never taken they can not publish them.
Originally posted by RFBurns
In some datasets, particularly those that look at the ground nearby the rovers, are datasets with far more than just 1 filter. And in others, just the datasets with the blue UV filter...ie L7 and R1. And usually, those datasets are looking at something interesting, you know...not just rocks next to the wheels of the rovers.
Only partially, I was expecting some evidence that something was being withheld, not just a suspicion based on the types of photo available.
That answers the question.
I do not believe NASA's word just because they say it (I have seen altered photos and photos being replaced by low resolution versions while I was looking at the FTP site), but as I do with everyone, including other ATS members, I start by thinking that they are speaking the truth, then I see if I can find any fault in what is said, and only then, if I find any fault, do I start considering that they may be lying, but I always start by considering people innocent until proved guilty.
I just so happen to be on that side of the fence who do not take NASA at their word.
No, I was just asking a question.
Now if you want me to go do leg work for you or anyone else..sorry that isnt going to happen.
I was only asking for a clarification of what you had said, and as you were the one that said it, I asked you.
I dont need to be, nor will I be, the one that 'must' provide that evidence.
Derail? Because I ask for a clarification of what you have said? If it's a derail then you were the one who started, I just wanted more information about your statements.
But funny how the derail effort continues.
I am not attempting anything and I cannot forget what I do not know, if you were a specialist in derailing threads or whatever, I never noticed it.
You fellas seem to forget I used to do exactly what your attempting here...which is why it wont work on me.
You may be right, but I don't understand a word of what you are saying. I am not "patting anyone on the back" or being "patted on back by anyone", I am just asking a question, or just because I do not accept what you say without questioning I become part of some group?
It might to others, and you can pat yourselves on the back for succeeding to run them off..but guess what...your mucking with the G right here...and wont succeed.
I think you should calm down a little and think about what I asked and the answer you gave.
I know every little trick, every little diversion tactic, every little sneaky game. Might as well give it up because none of you will be able to even come close to making me or others who are on to the derail effort believe otherwise. It should not ruin your worlds whatsoever about us. If it does..well that suggests only one thing....were more right than you want to prove us wrong and that just erks the chains.
Originally posted by fooks
i don't understand some of you people.
there are alot of rocks in the picture so everything must be a rock by default?
it's not a rock! so how is that .0000000001% chance?
50% chance it is a rock
50% chance it's not a rock
?% chance biological
?% chance manufactured
.000000000001% chance it's not on mars
just my 2%
Originally posted by mi2sense
ok, i'm not that savy to quote you then reply, so i'll just take your last post a paragraph at a time.
roulette, the 50-50 is about 1 particular rock/not rock. not the whole image. now if we expand that image to the whole galaxy, what are the chances now? in fact, with the whole galaxy in the pic, it still is 50-50, even if the pic was taken on earth.
so the size of the image doesn't matter coz we aren't talking about it. at least i'm not.
paragraph 2, besides it still 50-50 if it is or is it ain't.
para 3, where's waldo?
para 4, i think we can up thoes odds of it being biological since it is accepted that mars was earthlike at sometime in the past. how dead it is today is under fire by mainstream scientists. we have been ON that planet since 76'? in a very tiny area, even adding all separate sojourns together.
we've assumed there isn't life there and pretty much have avoided all attempts to prove it or admit it is very possible.
what would coal look like in that grey scale?
would a big exposed coal bed be proof of at least life was there at one time? then the % increases on the whole but not on the disputed object.
i guess i cannot accept your %ages. what we believe it is, does nothing to affect what it is.
you did nail it in the roulette red/black tho.