It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Druscilla
Here you go www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Arken
Why can't I see all the neat stuff other people see....waaaaaaaaaaaa......
Des
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Arken
Why can't I see all the neat stuff other people see....waaaaaaaaaaaa......
Des
Because you're not delusional and making fantasies out of nothing?
Just a guess.
I know that might seem a little harsh, but sometimes you just have to call it what it is, and this is simply stupid. The only reason I click on any of these "rover" threads is to have a good laugh at what some rubbish someone is claiming now.
Originally posted by JustMike
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
reply to post by Arken
Thank you for the thread and your interesting analysis.
As you're posting in "Highly Speculative Conspiracy Topics", I don't see any problem with your speculation as that's what this particular forum is for, after all. In fact I find it a little bothersome that a couple of members have criticized you for speculating -- and have gone somewhat off-topic in doing so. I'd rather they criticized, queried or disagreed with your process of reaching you conclusions as most others have done.
That being said, I'd be interested in what your take is on the conspiracy angle here. Again, because that's the basis of this forum. Do you suggest some kind of cover up? Or something more complex?
Meanwhile, I'd also like to know if you have some firm data that indicates the scale of the images, so that the size of these objects you suggest might be skulls or bones could be determined. I know that in the past we have run into problems on similar speculations when the scale was finally known.
Further, what is the basis for your assumption that Martians would need to be humanoid in any way? Do you have any studies that support this notion, or is it simply further speculation that they ought to look something like us? Or perhaps, that we should look something like them? (I'm serious, by the way. I'd really like to know.)
Thanks and best regards,
MikeAs an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.edit on 11/9/12 by JustMike because: (no reason given)
Q: Do you suggest some kind of cover up?
Q: Or something more complex?
Q: Meanwhile, I'd also like to know if you have some firm data that indicates the scale of the images
You appear to be about to judge the validity of the 'find' by the scale of it. However, before you do that, quite a few people would say that there are both small and large inhabitants of Mars from the photos we have been shows by NASA. If this is correct, this means that there is no basis to judge based on their size. (I dont mean you are "judging" , but just that it seems that one hypothesis is more likely than another based on size, and that may not be true.)
Meanwhile, I'd also like to know if you have some firm data that indicates the scale of the images, so that the size of these objects you suggest might be skulls or bones could be determined. I know that in the past we have run into problems on similar speculations when the scale was finally known.