The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by Justoneman
Ok I will bite. What photo's are better than the ones we are looking at in this thread?
The photos taken by other missions, like Apollo, Clementine and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
I see a non natural looking spire what about you?
I see what looks like a problem in the photo, something that doesn't look part of the scene being photographed.
I also have viewed a ton of the Mars stuff over the years by pulling down the huge files that took forever with that level of technology making
it hard for most to take the time to pour over them.
That's why I always thank the people that spend their time doing it, their work is something we (the people that like to discuss these topics)
I doubt these pics are on this computer as it was around y2k and I have new hardware a couple of times since then. But tome of the things I
recall seeing included images of animals from the jungles of Earth scattered like litter all over the surface.
I have seen thousands of photos from Mars and I don't remember seeing one like you describe. Without more information I cannot know what to look
These locations are NOT being pursued currently and when one does Phage, or some other doubting Thomas will pooh pooh it I am certain. There
have been a bunch of past threads on this but yet people still feign ignorance is my take.
Could you point me to one of those threads about those locations? Thanks in advance.
Every one of the interesting things we have seen on the surface of the planets and moons of our solar system over the years can't all be bogus
and so easily explained away.
THAT has to be the truth.
Why? Many things I have seen in Moon photos (for example) are the result of bad copies (low resolution, few colours or shades of grey, too much
compression) from sites that are not from NASA or other space agency.
Many cases are just bad interpretation from the people making the claims (in my opinion, obviously).
Other cases are really interesting, but those are usually ignored because they are not worthy (for the OMG!!! ALIENS !!!! people) of being discussed
or investigated, usually because they are geological features.
Sure some are provable as artifacts of collecting the image but others like say the monolith on a moon of mars and the Cydonia location on Mars
have artificiality that tells me we are being used like the cat's litter box (pun intended).
Well, to me they do not have any signs of artificiality, they just look different.
Arthur C. Clarke made a point to say there was big life on Mars at the South Pole and there has been some discussion on this too.With Arthur, I
tend to think he was not ignorant nor stupid but somebody will say he was wrong with a straight face.
Why, couldn't he be wrong?
About the famous "trees" near the Martian south pole, I have always said that they looked flat and not tree-like, even if they were a living being,
and higher resolution photos show that they are just that.
I would love to know what he had to say about it, but I haven't seen anything about it.
I read this whole episode as a case of someone deciding for now that we "can't handle the truth".
Anyone can handle the truth, even those that create a different version based on their imagination. Sometimes it's harder, sometimes it's easier,
but we were made to handle the truth and, if necessary, adapt to it.
What some people can't handle is that other people have different opinions about the same information.
At least that's how I see it.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.