The Unexpected Is On Mars

reply to post by CIAGypsy


" undeniable proof (photos, videos, etc that can be proven they are not

tampered)."

I did not know this was possible. You'll have to explain that one to me one day...

The general process I've witnessed many times is as follows:

I saw something.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Ok. Hold on. Pics/video.

Nope. Fake. Manipulated. Blurry. Rock. Weather balloon. Digital artifact. CGI.

Me: no picture or video will ever be good enough to convince somebody who has alreadyade up their mind.

I also found this to be rather odd... " Be sure your sources are not from some extreme, wacked-out opinion (regardless of which side of the argument you are on) and you should do fine.

If the above advice fails, just walk away and chill out your anger."

Why does anger have to be a part of the equation? And what is a "whacked out opinion"? You mean people who believe complex life has existed on Mars? People who believe in aliens? Not sure what you mean by that... If I say that
t is my opinion that dragons and unicorns once walked the Earth, is that a "whacked out" opinion? If so, why?

Do you just mean people who do not agree with you, specifically? I am very confused here...



To the.op: welcome and I agree with your method of not asserting anything. My thoughts are that there is a lot we do not know,but it is still fun to investigate and discuss!

3n19m470
reply to post by CIAGypsy

 

Me: no picture or video will ever be good enough to convince somebody who has alreadyade up their mind.

Well, this would be the definition of a conspiracy theorist - someone who has no point of falsification.... As you already mentioned, they refuse anything that is contrary to their belief system. All "evidence" that doesn't fit their preconceived opinion is considered planted, irrelevant, or otherwise tainted.

But for the rest of us rational, critical thinking adults....there's evidence that can be looked at scientifically from other angles which may press an individual's opinion toward a positive or negative consensus. For example - bigfoot. Now, personally...I do not believe in Bigfoot. But it is possible to debate Bigfoot evidence, scientifically, from other angles. We can look at plaster casts for dermal ridges. We can analyze hair samples for DNA. We can review photo and video footage for proportionality, gait, muscle tone, and other features which might indicate a person in a suit versus a real animal. We can also review metadata (or the lack thereof) to determine if something has been photoshopped or edited.

However, the only way to have true "undeniable" proof of Bigfoot is....well....to have a full live or dead animal.

My point to the OP is that you can utilize photos or videos to help support some underlying scientific argument, but be prepared to also share the originals to show they have not been edited or faked.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


"My point to the OP is that you can utilize photos or videos to help support some underlying scientific argument, but be prepared to also share the originals to show they have not been edited or faked."

No video's for my part.

Welcome to the mars attacks forum

reply to post by SeanThomaspoon


Hello,

In consequence to my thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

(It was about some pièces of rock on Mars might be from a statue)

, I am coming back this morning with the right (and long) NASA link wrote on a piece of paper to reply a member and I've lost it in "myATS" and the link doesn't work for me. I hope it has not been censored (but it could be).

Regards.

reply to post by florentb


The response was about this link I posted in the thread without...permission. Each forum is own rules. In a sense, it could be better because these threads discuss about the form and not about the content. One can say "Internet is full of links, backlinks, blogrolls and it's the Internet rule itself" or "You can learn with this link and put a topic on ATS because the OP can not reply ITSELF ALL its subjects (and images) on ATS.

Sorry for the member who ask me for the NASA link.


Please, read quickly this message, it will be removed as an "off topic" !

Best regards to members.

"At the Sol 437, Curiosity might have taken photos of pieces belonging to a statue on Mars. Strange rocks looks like unknown broken parts."

florentb
reply to post by SeanThomaspoon

 

Hello,

In consequence to my thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

(It was about some pièces of rock on Mars might be from a statue)

...

edit on 15 11 2013 by florentb because: (no reason given)

The intro was : "At the Sol 437, Curiosity might have taken photos of pieces belonging to a statue on Mars. Strange rocks looks like unknown broken parts."

Introduction threads for for introduction type material.....not about Mars or other threads.

**Thread Closed**