Wooden Plank Found On Mars -- Debunked

Originally posted by RFBurns
Ya its amazing that sending a hi-res camera that even when that rover was sent, could fit into your shirt pocket (look at the results of a 5mega pixel shot and its memory), that No Admittance Seems Alright would gladly tell anyone that its extremely difficult and expensive to get any hi-res images other than grainy black and white images from these multi million dollar rovers.

If you can get your computer through the extremes of space, land it on Mars, and get it to transmit back to you, from Mars, with the same quality it is showing you right now, then you better get to NASA and correct them. You are forgetting that there is a lot more to it than just taking a good hi res pic and uploading it to AOLpics.

You think those circuits on them rovers are any different from whats inside your pc, other than being shielded and mounted onto their circuit boards in a special way for those extremes?


Heh..ok.


A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0.


Debunk that!!!

I should also point out that No Anomaly Seen Alright has taken hundreds of thousands of hi-res images with MGS and Odyssey that are parked up in orbit around Mars and are more exposed to radiations and such than the rovers on the surface.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 2-12-2008 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
You think those circuits on them rovers are any different from whats inside your pc, other than being shielded and mounted onto their circuit boards in a special way for those extremes?


Heh..ok.


A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0.


Debunk that!!!


Cheers!!!!

you are right but the amount of 1's and 0's that can be sent to earth from mars via a device built here and sent through the radiation and temperatures of space and is not operating in an extremely foreign environment, are a little different. Don't believe me, take your computer outside. Keep it out there and keep using it for about a month. After a little winter weather, let me know if all those 1's and 0's are still getting to the monitor correctly.

If you've ruled out the possibility that what is supposed to be a board is actually a shadow (by taking photographs of it at different times and angles), and you've ruled out the possibility that it's a rock (by sending a rover or other device to drill a core sample to see what it's made of), then you might conclude that it's a mineral of some unusual kind (by examining the fractures), and only then might you conclude that it's board (by examining the sample retrieved by the rover) or something of unknown composition. And if it's a board, how did it get there?

"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore!"

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Sestias]

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Sestias

 

Your 1st mistake is believing anything NASA tells us.

Sorry to break your heart, but they are an agenda run by the illuminati.

Keep your eyes on the skies though

wZn

Because it obviously makes more sense to believe that every trace of a civilization has been wiped clean from the surface including stones, metals, crystals, glass, etc - ALL GONE but this one wooden plank attatched to and part of nothing survives. AHA! PROOF of..................................


p.s. anyone know how to get wood with no plantlife whatsoever to harvest?

[edit on 2-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

And what was left of ancient civillisations here on Earth? There's a few pyramids quite well camouflaged, Stone Henge, the Easter Island heads. A lot of this we've had to dig for.

But we now know that there were ancient people here long ago. We've found preserved bodies from thousands of years ago, wood coffins preserved (without exposure to damaging biological influences...)

I am not accepting the idea that this is a piece of wood, but what I am suggesting is that people need to open their minds just a little.

I am a firm believer in the idea that there have been hundreds of Humanoid species in our universe long before we came to be. Who is to say that Mars didn't once support life just as Earth does now?

There is no evidence to say that it didn't, and now water is believed to be present, there is more evidence to suggest that it could have.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Not one of the examples that you listed here on earth consists of the finding of one lone single plank of wood sitting all by itself amid 1000s of miles of NOTHING ELSE. You are comparing this to things like stonehenge and coffins? Ok, stonehenge is quite obviously a structure placed that way on purpose, not just ONE stone sticking up. Coffins, also contain metal hinges, fasteners, other parts of wood. This would be akin to saying that one single board from one coffin sits all by itself in the middle of Death Valley. No other part of the coffin, no body, no other coffins, no other boards just like it from another similar structure, nothing. There is a huge difference between the idea of one lonely wooden board sitting alone with NOTHING to relate it to anywhere within miles and miles and miles and miles and any of the findings here on earth that you suggested.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


They don't need it. They can just say "oh there is more evidence of previous civilisations on mars, but NASA is hiding it". They don't need a logical, rational argument - they can make it up as they go along. Evidence be damned!

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I tend to agree with you about the lone board.

But just to play devil's advocate and consider detachedindividual's point further:

There are in Ireland a number of long, flat stones, with one end buried in the ground and the other in the air. They are generally in fields, isolated from other rock formations or the remains of earlier settlements. Evidently, the possibility of glaciers leaving the stones that way has been ruled out (glaciers can leave rocks in all sorts of positions). It is generally thought the stones had some sort of religious significance to an earlier civilization, though at this time there seems to be no agreement about their purpose or how they got there.

Maybe the board could be a monument to the Great Carpenter?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I was just wondering, since it has been mentioned by more than one poster so far, do any of you "pro-wood" folks have an explanation for why everything but this board would be there? Like say, whatever it was part of or attatched to or some other remnant of who used it or what for?

well i'm not of the pro-wood campaign...
BUT i do think something is wrong. I'll offer a scenario for debate purposes. Almost the entire scene you are looking at is false. the automatic image tamper software saw a LOT of wood or stones or other civilization evidence in the scene you see, and wiped it out across the board replacing it with geological objects, and the plank DID look like a rock so much that it was allowed to stay in the picture that you see.
ok...there's a good argument for the pro wood people, now pick it apart!
it's possible.

until someone goes to mars it will no be debunked

Originally posted by Enigma Publius

well i'm not of the pro-wood campaign...

BUT i do think something is wrong. I'll offer a scenario for debate purposes. Almost the entire scene you are looking at is false. the automatic image tamper software saw a LOT of wood or stones or other civilization evidence in the scene you see, and wiped it out across the board replacing it with geological objects, and the plank DID look like a rock so much that it was allowed to stay in the picture that you see.
ok...there's a good argument for the pro wood people, now pick it apart!

it's possible.

You must not be a photographer or artist or anyone that works with images. If you had that scene and were erasing built things from it, you are telling me that you would leave that one straight piece of wood because it looks like it could be a rock? Why on earth would they leave one thing in the scene to offer any chance of debate over it or further analysis? I appreciate your attempt but when it comes to photoretouching, there is the desired result to keep in mind. If that desired result is to show an empty rocky surface, they first of all, why not just take a pic of that on earth, second why go to the trouble to erase buildings, machines, monuments, whatever, and leave that one suspicious looking thing there?

[edit on 4-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Why can you see naked co-ed boobies on the internet with a $50 webcam that is SOOOO clear, you can make out every pore in the skin

I really think you're missing the point of nekkid co-ed webcams...

I think that if the "nekkid co-ed webcams" were to look at my web cam while I was watching them, they would see more "wood" than is in that picture!

reply to post by Enigma Publius


Couldn't have said it better. Without actually being there we must go on experience. We know NASA has done every effort to mislead us. We know from other images that there are artificial structures located on the surface of Mars that closely resemble arificial structures here on Earth.

To definitively say, "It is..." or "It is not..." is not only lacking in compassion for the person you are saying that to, it also shows a lack in research.

Originally posted by dankai
reply to post by Enigma Publius

 

We know from other images that there are artificial structures located on the surface of Mars that closely resemble artificial structures here on Earth.

No, we don't know that more than we know what this is or is not.

We may know that there are things that may look like artificial structures on the surface of Mars, but we cannot know if they are artificial or not, right?

And I haven't seen anything that looks like an artificial structure on Mars.

NASA - Nothing As Shamful As

NASA - Nothing Around Space *Ahhhh*

NASA - They Lie.... yea it make sense

Originally posted by dankai
reply to post by Enigma Publius

 

Couldn't have said it better. Without actually being there we must go on experience. We know NASA has done every effort to mislead us. We know from other images that there are artificial structures located on the surface of Mars that closely resemble arificial structures here on Earth.

To definitively say, "It is..." or "It is not..." is not only lacking in compassion for the person you are saying that to, it also shows a lack in research.

What?????? Where are these other artificial structures. I have seen threads, I have seen claims, I have seen blurry shadowed rocks. I have never seen one artificial structure on Mars. Anyone care to share one here?

If we are going on experience......

1-either there is one piece of wood in the middle of a pic that NASA just forgot to 'erase' from a picture they apparently erased more than 80% of.

2-or...it is a rock shaped like that, as we have seen many times on earth, rocks make funny shapes.

your experience tells you fo go with number 1?????????????

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

i was suggesting that the software is automatic on the rover, obviously too many images come back too quickly to censor them all by hand, so large scale consideration was taken to ensure that only rocks were left in the picture by that software, but the wood plank looked like a rock to the scrutiny of that rover and it was allowed to stay. it's possible at least. and i never said that was the case, but i wanted a plausible explanation instead of one of these goofy ones other people are giving you....i hate when i get associated with the "it's definately an artificial thing" group, because how can you say you don't trust the imaging...then say you have proof of life with another picture? that just doesn't work, it makes us look stupid. Like i said, i think the truth is in the middle somewhere. I only know that image tampering is undeniable in some instances, and that LEADS me to believe they would only go through so much trouble if it was proof of life or past civilization. I can provide a couple great examples of proof that they mislead us, yet it is more convincing than the evidence against OJ...but there IS still some kind of room for doubt. so i won't even try because if someone want to believe they are not hiding anything at all, then they wouldn't believe in image tampering or misleading information no matter what. You, poster, seem intelligent enough to discuss these things with, but i'm so tired of explaining it to forums where i get either "you are ridiculous, that is "this" or "you're right on! why don't they believe theres a base on the moon?" i am in the middle ground and i get frusterated with the two extreems too easy now.

reply to post by Enigma Publius


OK, I am game then. Can you show me one example of this software that can automatically erase man made objects and replace them with a perfectly matching cover of rocks and dirt? This sounds more than amazing, more like completely impossible and I feel confident saying that we would not have that software for even another 50 years, let alone already. Aside from that, why would they bother using a picture from mars at all if 90% is made up of a landscape designed by computers? Why not just releast 100% fake pictures to begin with, that would not only be cheaper and easier, but it would make more sense and do more to guarantee that we only saw what they wanted us to see.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


As recently ( and in the past ) covered by J.P Skipper from Marsanomalyresearch tampering on planetary scale is very much a growth business these days.

I could just post the pictures but these are not my discoveries.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

There are a host of other links but i am lazy even if not nearly as lazy as you seem to be.

Get back to me if you can't make sense of how entire planetary surfaces can be in theory be substituted with artificialy rendered data.

Stellar

Someone should stop to consider a few facts about natural law before jumping to any conclusion.
The first fact, which I'd have thought to be the most obvious, is the seemingly complete lack of wood on Mars. There are no trees, nor are there suitable environments for trees as we know them to grow. Also, if there were trees capable of withstanding such an environment to begin with, we'd see more of them; trees tend to cover landscapes in a short amount of time, geologically speaking. So, logically, if there were trees on Mars, they're quite rare, which would make a plank of wood even more rare; I doubt any intelligent species would leave a rare, and presumably valuable, object just laying around in the open.
The second fact seems equally obvious. If at one point Mars were more suitable for life, and trees and such flourished on the surface (personally, I think it quite likely), by this time every trace save the most minute or frozen traces would have been turned to dust. The sheer amount of solar radiation, when paired with the destructive strength of the dust storms which plague the planet's surface, would have completely eradicated any trees, twigs, or unlikely planks.
Now there are some people who may respond with a few idiotic answers such as 'Mars has no atmosphere' or 'maybe the alien dropped it', but by simply picking up a book and putting aside conjecture these thoughts can be put to rest. Mars has an atmosphere, albeit a poor one, as well as water, dirt, and weather; hergo, erosion occurs, and natural formations change as frequently as upon earth. And I believe I already covered why the alien didn't drop the plank.
The last fact is something I find myself saying again and again, though. Why in the world does everybody assume that all life is carbon based? They may very well be a thriving society on Mars standing right next to the rover, but we wouldn't recognize it; our biological studies are entirely based upon the assumption that carbon-based life is the only means possible; hence, it is stupid to state with certainty that there is no life on Mars. Simply because we lack the means to recognize other forms of life, and by what biological rules they abide, does not mean that they do not live.

What if I were to tell you that I'd found a creature which had no head, no heart, no skeleton, no lungs, could re-grow limbs, and had the ability to reverse its own aging process and revert to childhood? Would you believe me, or would you laugh and demand proof? I doubt most scientists would even give a glance to such a claim. However, what I just described to you is real. It is a jellyfish in the Mediterranean Sea called the Teratopsis (I may have mispelled it); this tiny jelly have the ability to revert to a medusa if needed, which is a quality unique to this creature. There is no other animal of any kingdom known to science which can turn back its own biological clock. The point is that we have no idea what organisms may exist out there until we find them, and even then, we have no idea how they can do the things they do. We're perhaps millenia from conclusively stating that Mars is a dead planet.

(Edit)
Just came back to say one more thing. For some strange reason, I couldn't find a single page on the web about my forementioned jelly. However, if you want to know more about our gelatinous friend, watch the Science channel and look for a show about...well, jellyfish. Its called Super Animals.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Malfeitor]