**AMAZING** Artifact On Mars!! Original JPL Picture source included!!

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?

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?

ArMap, they are all over the MER raw dataset sites. 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.

That answers the question. I am also not the only one who has noticed that too. I am not the only person who questions NASA btw. As I stated, there are millions of others who do as well. I just so happen to be on that side of the fence who do not take NASA at their word.

Michael Malin, of Malin Space Science Systems, has also been proven to hold back data from the MGS orbiter. Huge email and letter campaigns were done to shake loose those MOC images that sat in a drawer for months, and all of those that were held back showed very interesting things...like the "bushes", the "worms" and the "trees" MOC strips.

Now if you want me to go do leg work for you or anyone else..sorry that isnt going to happen. If you and others have been following NASA's projects and probes for any length of time, then you already know the scoup. I dont need to be, nor will I be, the one that 'must' provide that evidence. Its everywhere, plastered on thousands of independant research sites, testimony from former NASA/JPL/MSSS employees, and even testimony from current employees.

It should not bother anyone for people to believe in what they believe to be true, and it should not bother anyone that there are folks who do not just take NASA at their word given 30+ years of hiding stuff, telling contradicting stories, and all the evidence and testimony to prove the obvious.

But funny how the derail effort continues. You fellas seem to forget I used to do exactly what your attempting here...which is why it wont work on me. 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 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.

Sorry, but thats the way it is. That is why this site exsists. That is why people come here to question, to inquire, to discover, and to have the freedom to explore alternatives besides the same old lame explanations.

There are sites for those who remain in the box fellas. They cater to only those who follow the lead duck in that straight and narrow line. They do not allow for outside the box thinking or alternatives. They follow NASA verbatim and never deviate. I suggest that if those of us who participate in alternative discussion just bothers the straight and narrow that much, to try those other sites that do not allow for such alternative discussion.

Might save you all some time and wasted effort trying to convince us to let go of our freedom of thought and freedom to explore the alternative.

The more we are resisted, the more we become presistant.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 22-2-2009 by RFBurns]

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.

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.

That answers the question.

Only partially, I was expecting some evidence that something was being withheld, not just a suspicion based on the types of photo available.

I just so happen to be on that side of the fence who do not take NASA at their word.

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.

Now if you want me to go do leg work for you or anyone else..sorry that isnt going to happen.

No, I was just asking a question.

I dont need to be, nor will I be, the one that 'must' provide that evidence.

I was only asking for a clarification of what you had said, and as you were the one that said it, I asked you.

But funny how the derail effort continues.

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.

You fellas seem to forget I used to do exactly what your attempting here...which is why it wont work on me.

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.

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.

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?

Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere, sometimes a question is just a question.

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.

I think you should calm down a little and think about what I asked and the answer you gave.

I just asked a question...

RFB argues that they are not arguing. =oD =oD =oD

I think you are an arguer in denial and the proof is in your insistence that there is a 50% possibility that the object is not a rock. I wouldn't waste my time trying to debate that the object in this photo is a rock from any other position than what everyone here has concluded that there are rocks in this photo (including yourself) and the likelihood that it is not a rock is being given a 50% chance of being likely by your supposedly educated guesstimate.

RFB, you are totally illogical. You argue against my contesting your 50% possibility by countering that no one can be 100% sure that the object is a rock? Thank you for making my point. I can easily rest my case on this admission of yours. Your 50% allowance is slightly more than the .01% that I was begrudgingly giving you. No one here is arguing for 100%, but that is the only possibility you can deny; so you jump on that ban wagon. As threshee would say...yuk yuk.

I could give a hoot that you will continue to be frustrated over this issue until the day you croak. Be my guest! Do you really think that I thought I was convincing you? Your narcissism is getting the best of you. I argue for the record and let others consider both sides of the debate. People like you are a dime a dozen. I don’t see anything of value in this post of yours here other than you have proven my point, that you cannot even be .000000000001% sure that this image is anything other than another rock.

Wah, wah boo-hoo! The missing data sets from NASA!!! You are making it so simple that a pre-schooler could understand it? What a crock! You are appealing to pre-schooler mentality so that you can try and pass off your conjecture as proof. Clearly a 50/50 possibility is a dishonest guess and only those who are subjective in their guessing would be interested in your type of logic.

reply to post by mi2sense


Err.. 50%??? I'm not sure why you argue it is 50/50 like this. It would seem more like 90% that this is a rock IMO... For a long list of reasons. But mostly just because everything else in the photo is also a rock.. And that we haven't yet found any irrefutable evidence of current life on mars (or ever for that matter). No.. Rocks shaped like worms and faces are not evidence of life on mars. They are evidence of someone with way too much time and alot of imagination.

-ChriS

[edit on 23-2-2009 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


Thank you BlasteR, this has been my point all along. I don't even give it a .0000000000000000000000000001% chance it is anything other than rocks in that image.

i don't understand some of you people.

there are alot of rocks in the picture so everything must be a rock by default?
with no more info than grey scale visual, everything can be suspect.

take a left at the rock that looks like a bear, then take a right at the bear that looks like a rock.

if 1 object is not a rock, then what is it?

it's not a rock! so how is that .0000000001% chance?

rock/not rock
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%

So is it a rock or not thats what I wanna know, I dont buy the theory its some kinda lava when there is NO other lava anywhere near it!

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?

rock/not rock
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%

The 50/50 chance is the argument that it can only be one of two things. This is easily proven as more wishful thinking than any true mathematical calculation offered regarding the law of averages, because one person saying it is a rock and another saying it isn’t; has nothing to do with what percentage of likelihood should be assigned to the possibilities regarding the image as a whole. This is no spin of a roulette wheel where you choose either red or black. That would be a true 50/50 possibility scenario, where the possibilities are equally available; but this image doesn’t even come close to demonstrating 50% of the image is considered to be rocks and the other 50% is visually questionable as to the objects being anything other than rocks.

The 50/50 opinion is based on a 1-on-1 conjecture, not even taking the law of averages into consideration. If this object is in fact just a rock, the truth of the matter is that there is a zero possibility that it is anything else. The only thing that opens this possibility up for discussion is pure wishful thinking, mere speculation.

Even if 50% of the objects in this image were questionably not rocks, the law of averages places the likelihood more at about 10% and this would be if half of the objects had just as questionable appearances as the wrench/eel looking one. You don’t believe me? Take a quarter and flip it 100 times. The chance is only about 10% that you will get 50 heads and 50 tails. To prove this scenario out, you would have to flip the coin 1,000 times and out of those 10 flips of 100 each, you should get 1 time that you flip 50 heads and 50 tails.

And that is only the law of probability, based on the possibility that there could even be such an object on Mars. The likelihood that even such an item could be found on Mars places the law of averages more around .000000000000000000000000000000001% and that; only by human interference. In other words, with no known knowledge that such an occurrence has ever occurred, then the likelihood is zero. If it hasn’t rained for 3 months, there is still a likelihood that it will rain again; because both rain and shine have previously been part of the equation. No one has proven life on Mars yet, so at this point; life on Mars is not even part of the equation.

reply to post by atsbeliever


We can never really know.

I think it's a rock because it does not look like an impossible rock formation, it's surrounded by other objects that look more like rocks and it does not look to be made of a different material than the surrounding objects.

And no, I don't think it's lava, it does not look like lava or any volcanic rock, it looks more like a sedimentary rock.

The wrench end, the black area, looks more like a shadow of the part with the black dot on it, as if whatever it is, is bent back onto itself and such.

And the top portion of that end looks as if it's bent on a corner, much like the other inside corner, and the lower portion is rounded just like the other side, perhaps whatever it is is broken and bent, and once looked like a "U"


[edit on 23-2-2009 by C0le]

reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism

I have seen so many live faces among dead ones on Mars for 5 years.I thought I'd share them with you.Rather than waste words,see how many you can see so fuzzed out from Nasa masking.

Here is an example of selective emphasis on different parts of an image to bring out details.There is OVERLAP to combat,so it's a touchy business,and an imprecise process. Most people are NOT comfortable dealing with IMPERFECT images,or tweaked and distorted pics where some areas are fuzzy.The photoshopping is automatically suspect in most people's minds because implication with photo manipulation is "cheating". These pics will make no sense to you if you don't have good pattern recognition,to get beyond the background"static noise" and irregularities. These faces are huge,some of them,and up close to the rovers,so they SHOULD be in perfect clarity. But they are fuzzed out without some restoration and photoshopping and they are selectively deleted for mass audience if I can find them.If someone else can find exactly what I have found "hiding" under the masking then I'll be justified in finding them for the mass audience,and shown repeatedly to be correct in finding them over the years.I point out what seemingly "isn't there" and have to be scorned for the ignorance of others as my reward.That will last until more open their eyes and photo programs to find the real and ever-present Life on Mars.

I don't know if this has been mentioned but if that really is a wrench by it's design of it's angled handle it should be able to apply more torque than a normal straight wrench.Just a thought that you might have found interesting.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by -alie-N-]

I have a very open mind on this and lets say I can see many objects that are to obvious to be debunked as natural rock break down/formations/weathering, also many that are just rocks with natural shadowing which can play tricks on the mind.

If we take a trip into a rocky domain on this planet and take photos of the landscape, how many anomolies can we pick out that look like a pertified eel or some shaped metalic object etc.? beer cans excluded lol.

Mars appears to be like some ancient junk /scrap yard after one muther of a Holocaust natural or other?

It could be likened to say 200yrs post global nuke war on this Earth, with plant life just kicking off again.

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.

reply to post by Bob Down Under



it does look like a junk yard! lol

i think there are too many things in some pics that look like stuff we recognize to say it's wishful or light tricks.

after all, it's only a few million miles away.

My conclusion is?

We will be left in the dark until the Fat Lady Sings! (NASA)

So I see my prediction has more than come true, and we're left with yet another vapid thread of "what could be".

Stunning. Absolutely stunning.

No, really.