Mars Anomaly Research shut down?

Registrant:
Joseph P. Skipper

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (www.godaddy.com...)
Domain Name: MARSANOMALYRESEARCH.COM

Domain servers in listed order:
NS6.LUNARPAGES.COM
NS7.LUNARPAGES.COM


For complete domain details go to:
who.godaddy.com...

It's a temporary issu in my humble opinion.

Sorry Internos, but humble opinions do not apply in this case don't you know? Because when anything happens with a site that explores "fringe" science, take things out of context, and preaches to the quire it must be the "man" keeping them down.

It is like folks that see the virgin Mary in a tree or something. No difference here. But the Ufology "virgin Mary" more often than not the same as what others see with the "real" virgin Mary. Tree bark, burn marks in toast, the "man on the moon". But try to tell them that and you become their "devil"

There is almost no room for conservative humble opinion in matters such as this anymore.

Did anyone ever stop to think this maybe sabotage from within the website to give more credence to the observations and make us believers on sites such as this think it is evidence of higher powers stopping us seeing the truth?

This is kind of weird and I will say I did go to GoDaddy and actually sent him some info (off topic) even though his domain name is due for monies by Sept. of this year..

On Topic, go to the linik below and some picv do populate my page.. Who knows it may be a tug-pull from the hosting company - Lunarpages - than again TPTB may have gotten to this company and gave them the heavy hand,, no ones knows so all we can do is sit back...

[url=http://marsanomalyresearch.com/general-directories/planetary-truth/ptp-tamper-images.htm]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit that some people high up are trying to shut his sight down. I have been to this site many times and he has some very interesting arguments and facts. Looks like he struck a nerve with someone, which gives his stories a ring of truth.

Nonsense. What's his primary (and only FTM) argument?

"Hey, this thing in this image kind of looks like something else. So that's what it must be!" If, on a low resolution photo, a rock looks like a skull, then it's obviously not a rock, but a skull. QED.

With that kind of razor-sharp, indisputable logic, it's a wonder the evil powers that be didn't shut him down years ago.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Nohup]

I doubt this has anything to do with someone trying to shut him down.

First, his work is far from good, I don't see why TPTB would want to shut down someone spreading mostly wrong information.

Second, unless the site is configured in a way that serves all pages from one server and the pages bellow the "evidence-reports" directory from a different server, I don't see how the site can be working for all except the pages on that directory.

It looks like a permissions problem, like if someone had removed the access to that directory.

PS: if we try a random page name it shows the same error, so maybe a missing or faulty disk (possible, if they had that directory in a different disk, something I have done sometimes) can give this result, but I have no way of knowing, only the people that do the server's maintenance can know what the problem is.

Well well, we don't miss much here, do we? I tried to access the images myself and found em out of commission before I searched for a thread about it here....

...I was also unable to email him at the webmaster address AND the Jskipper address....

...I noticed on youtube that the only 2 vids I found on him were NOT by him, and I know they were there a few months ago (that's how I stumbled upon him in the first place)

It doesn't make logical sense that someone is trying to shut him down at this point (which is actually a pretty good "why would I do it" type alibi) unless something he recently published struck a nerve...

I'm also aware of the serious leaps he takes in promoting what HE sees in the images...and this "Book evidence" and continued withholding of the "Warfare Evidence" smack of greed...Wanna see some REALLY cool stuff? $19.95 plus shipping at Amazon....

Dunno...could just be web traffic...could make a strong argument for self-advertising by intentional absence (a' la New Coke in the '80s) we shall see....

PS - evidence pages still down as of 4:45 Central Time on 6/16/09. Today's date listed as most recent update on home page, too.

CDS

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
That is the point of this thread. The quotes at the top of this thread says it all. If you have never been to this site then there isn't much to wonder about, I am speaking to all who have been there and have seen what this guy has posted in the past. Something fishy is going on here

Hmm, i found another website that talks about life on Mars, it seems that he has contacted Discovery and also shipped quite a few letters to the government ... He tracks down anomalies in pictures released by NASA to the public, i looked at them and its the same photos debated here on ATS some year++ ago.

exopolitics.blogs.com...

reply to post by ArMaP


You are on target here! His declaring that is a server issue makes no sense to how only one section is not functioning! We know that he isnt using his own systems as a host

This is allegedly because the host server was experiencing excessive traffic hits via this function.

So having different data in different disk drives is not going to happen! Especially with a host like godaddy! I was going to say it could be a Database issue... but I dont believe anymore this section is in a database!

I'd say the permissions idea is the reason we cant access the section! Now the permissions on a certain folder, are set by the Site Owner, and NOT the host! Hosts absolutely DO NOT care about "sections" causing too much bandwidth (usage)! If a customer has reached their bandwidth then they will shut the entire site down!

major hosts dont have the time to care about a section of a site! So they take the whole thing out!

in conclusion... he or his developer messed up or did it on purpose! In my opinion this "error" lies squarely on the site owner.

I just want to say I think you guys are pretty good at debunking and I think now that I have heard some opinions; I am leaning on the admin error side of the fence....I am just a little mystified by the paragraph on the front page. As his content could hit a nerve with somebody important.

Just on a side note though...this guy has an extensive collection of Nasa airbrushed images (This is fact) and I think that he takes each projects objectively and does not make assumptions. I have not encountered any ".Wanna see some REALLY cool stuff? $19.95 plus shipping at Amazon...." as of yet. Yes there may be some issues at ATS and other places that he explores but I have not found one site that has such an extensive collection all in one.

At any rate, time will divulge more info. Let's see if we can get him on here and explain a few things...

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
Just on a side note though...this guy has an extensive collection of Nasa airbrushed images (This is fact) and I think that he takes each projects objectively and does not make assumptions.

The problem is that it's not a fact, many of the "airbrushed" images are just bad interpretation of bad copies of the photos.

One of the pages he had was based on high-resolution (30 cm per pixel) photos from HiRISE, and he based his "analysis" on the low resolution JPEG files because, according to him, "that is what most people will see" (or something like that).

How can someone consider it a good analysis if it was based on the images that would be the most seen instead of basing it on the best photos available?

I never liked his work (too many assumptions and too little updating of the data, sometimes ignoring new photos that show things in a different way from the older photos), but when I saw that explanation I was convinced that he only does it to gain public to his site, he is not interested in the truth, only in the "show".

Umm...sorry but it is fact that Nasa and the gov air brush, distort, and conceal the original images.**FACT**

Here is one of the images he discusses. Your gonna tell me this hasn't been tampered with???

The navy's own pictures......



Your gonna tell me this is not tampered with?

Here are a few more that are blurred out or have been tampered with that marsanomalyresearch discusses. **FACT**

These anomalies were discovered by Joseph P. Skipper on May 28th, 2004.








Now I don't want to be the devil's advocate here but this guy is professional imo. Tell me how you think these images from the navy's own site are not tampered with.?.?.?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Just tried to access this site without any luck. Could this be down to some copy right issue? Does the owner of this site have permission, if needed to display these pictures?

Since the images are all NASA or NAVY (Clementine) they are in public domain. That is the source images

Once you crop them highlight then enhance them add annotations or clip them, the end product is legally your own copyright

Originally posted by i_want_the_truthI am just a little mystified by the paragraph on the front page. As his content could hit a nerve with somebody important.

A little paranoia... comes with the territory Funny thing is the day his went into problems, my server also had a massive power failure and my site was down several hours (well actually all their accounts were effected) and at the same time youtube went into 'maintenance in the middle of the day pacific time

My server notified everyone what was up asap as they have their main site on a backup system and posted the problem on the front page. Skipper most likely automatically assumed it was an attack.

Not that its not possible, but seems useless if you have a good secure server.

Beside all the images he has are found at the original NASA, NAVY and MSSS websites as well as many other anomaly sites including my own. What would be the point in 'shutting down' his when its all over the web anyway?

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
Umm...sorry but it is fact that Nasa and the gov air brush, distort, and conceal the original images.**FACT**

Can you prove that? I would love to have that proof...

Here is one of the images he discusses. Your gonna tell me this hasn't been tampered with???

Those are from the Clementine 1994 mission and the site linked is the old NAVY version 1.5 browser. I am sure you are aware that the Clementine images were actually released in color?

Yes I do understand the source. And aren't the images proof enough. Or do you want to be able to actually point a finger at someone?
I'm just saying there is obviously some image manipulation going on here.

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
Yes I do understand the source. And aren't the images proof enough. Or do you want to be able to actually point a finger at someone?

Solid evidence to point the finger at someone.. because then I can take action

I'm just saying there is obviously some image manipulation going on here.

Yes there is VERY obvious... now then ask yourself WHY

WHY would they make editing so obvious that everyone can see something was simply blotted over? Why not just not release that section at all? Why not use the airbrush to put another crater there instead> No one would notice then

So by doing it this way it screams "something is covered up"

I am not saying nothing is covered up, just asking WHY this way so it begs attention

[edit on 16-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
Umm...sorry but it is fact that Nasa and the gov air brush, distort, and conceal the original images.**FACT**

Can you prove that? I would love to have that proof...

Here is one of the images he discusses. Your gonna tell me this hasn't been tampered with???

Those are from the Clementine 1994 mission and the site linked is the old NAVY version 1.5 browser. I am sure you are aware that the Clementine images were actually released in color?

Now, I admit freely that I have no photographic expertise at all, but the B&W images that I_want_the_truth posted definitely have areas that have smudged marks on them.

To me, that is evidence of tampering ... but not proof ...

To be sure, we have to be able to know what the objects or areas are that have a smudge over them.

I looked for the colour versions of these images but I could not find them ... as yet ... but I will keep looking ... unless someone has them up their sleeve and wants to post them??

Are you saying, Zorgon, that the colour versions of the images that I_want posted don't have these smudge marks or show the object/area that was smudged out in the B&W versions?