#1 Mars

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Solo954

 

Yes the photo i linked you to, a high res photo taken by the same space craft (but "conveniently" left out of your link..a proponent web site)

clearly shows that the formation is not artificial and not a face.

Those look fake to me. Dis information I'll post for everyone to see.




Is there any experts in photography in the house to confirm?

reply to post by Solo954



Hhahhaaha are you serious? Those are official NASA photos, so are you trying to argue now that NASA has a team dedicated to maing fake photos?

You know, In the UFO field every time I ever hear about fake photos, its a photo put forth by a proponent tryig to fake a UFO/Alien claim.

Whens the last time you heard of a skeptic making a fake photo to try and disprove something a proponent said?

reply to post by NavalFC

well you and him need to actually do some research, as their is plenty of evidence as I just cited in my response to bfft Just because the evidence points to a conclusion that YOU dont like doesnt mean its just conjecture. That is a logical fallacy and oneoften used b creationits in the ID debate "the evidence doesnt agree with me so Ill just dismiss it!"

That was.... A very interesting reply.
There is no EVIDENCE one way or the other.
They are pictures, with SOMETHING on them, but no one can, say what it is.
There is no evidence to agree with, only conjecture.

It's like this, let's say someone has snapped some pictures of something that looks like ruins of an ancient city or something similar (here on earth ofcourse).
But is it a fact that what is on those pictures are anything at all?
Some will say they are ruins others will say they are just stones.

So, to collect the evidence needed on that picture to prove it is, either ruins or just stones looking like it, what is done?

Let's ponder that one, untill you claim something has been "debunked".

Have a nice day.

reply to post by NavalFC

reply to post by NavalFC

reply to post by Balez


Balez Balez balez..tsk tsk..

your trying to say that "no one knows" which is just BS, because the data obtained by photos is testable, as is the areas they came from. You see in the world of modern science we have more then just the photos, unmanned space craft have actually been to these places and so forth.


not to mention the art of spectro analyis you should learn something of it.


The premise of this thread- that NASA is covering up evidence of an alien civilization currently or previously rsiding on Mars is utter poppy cock.

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Balez

 

Balez Balez balez..tsk tsk..

your trying to say that "no one knows" which is just BS, because the data obtained by photos is testable, as is the areas they came from. You see in the world of modern science we have more then just the photos, unmanned space craft have actually been to these places and so forth.


not to mention the art of spectro analyis

you should learn something of it.


The premise of this thread- that NASA is covering up evidence of an alien civilization currently or previously rsiding on Mars is utter poppy cock.

so, we have sent unmanned probes to the Cydonia region? That is something that I (and the rest of the world) didn't know. Could you point me towards the data and photo's?

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Solo954

 

Hhahhaaha are you serious? Those are official NASA photos, so are you trying to argue now that NASA has a team dedicated to maing fake photos?

Not sure if anyone else is saying it, but I will.

Have a job interview to run to, but when i return i will post some stuff for your perusal.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


land there? No. to take high res pictures of? Yes. I linked them in this thread they clearly dont show a face.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


and your proof?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


and your proof?

reply to post by Fastwalker81


bull, there is no "fitting my view" fastwalker, the problem is that so called evidence given by UFO proponents isntreally evience at all. Like in these mars photos. Nothing in these photos shows anything that points to anything they say or In the starchild thread where I just issued the coup de grace do that sad argument.

Just because you say "its evidence" doesnt qualify it as such.

I could ivent a hypothesis now, that gravity is fake and the real reason we are pulled to the ground is because invisible pink bunnies jump on us constantly pushing us down, but we cant feel the push because its some sort of extra dimensinal being, then show you a carrot and call it evidence. doesnt work that way.

in the particular photos often cited by the mars cover up proponents are not conclusive. You could not hand them to a person, without telling them what they are supposed to see and have them go Aha!
and then aded to the fact that alot of the photos have been artificially enhanced and zoomed in at several spots, and the details a person is supposed to see annotated.

All components of pareidollia, the seeing the familiar in the unfamiliar. And I will not tone it down. I am no holds bar, balls to the wall in the crushiing of ignorance. Dont like it? tough.

reply to post by Fastwalker81


bull, there is no "fitting my view" fastwalker, the problem is that so called evidence given by UFO proponents isntreally evience at all. Like in these mars photos. Nothing in these photos shows anything that points to anything they say or In the starchild thread where I just issued the coup de grace do that sad argument.

Just because you say "its evidence" doesnt qualify it as such.

I could ivent a hypothesis now, that gravity is fake and the real reason we are pulled to the ground is because invisible pink bunnies jump on us constantly pushing us down, but we cant feel the push because its some sort of extra dimensinal being, then show you a carrot and call it evidence. doesnt work that way.

in the particular photos often cited by the mars cover up proponents are not conclusive. You could not hand them to a person, without telling them what they are supposed to see and have them go Aha!
and then aded to the fact that alot of the photos have been artificially enhanced and zoomed in at several spots, and the details a person is supposed to see annotated.

All components of pareidollia, the seeing the familiar in the unfamiliar. And I will not tone it down. I am no holds bar, balls to the wall in the crushiing of ignorance. Dont like it? tough.

nice video, i hope their will be an ending to all of this some day, but maybe not in your life time!

reply to post by NavalFC

Balez Balez balez..tsk tsk..

your trying to say that "no one knows" which is just BS, because the data obtained by photos is testable, as is the areas they came from. You see in the world of modern science we have more then just the photos, unmanned space craft have actually been to these places and so forth.

So, these unmanned space probes, have the ability to interpret the data, and say, 'that is not a rock carving' or 'that is a rock carving' ?
Ah, now i understand how you mean, you mean that the people that is reading this data from the space probe(s) knows how to interpret the data that way!
So, you are telling me that these people by looking at the data sent from the space probes can tell what "something" is?
Well finally we can get rid of the real archeaologists!

not to mention the art of spectro analyis you should learn something of it.

You mean Mass Spectrum Analysis... Right?
Or Spectroscopy....? (Yes yes i am including Mass Spectroscopy in that, and that is everything that has anything to do with spectroscopy)
What does the measurement of ions and isotope, fragmentation and metastable peaks got to do with anything we are talking about?
Nor do i see the relevance of the frequency of radiation has anything to do with it...

Hmm...
I'm still not changing my earlier opinion, No one Knows.
There is no evidence what so ever.
It's conjecture, it's guessing, nothing more.
But however.... If you do know someone who has the evidence (ofcourse it should be verifiable) s/he is welcome to come forward with it.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by Balez


the spce probes on their own? no. the photos and data the collect are interpeted by people trained to do so.

which is where these mars photos come in. The preimise of this thread regarding mars photos, people try to make things out in them to be things they are not.
Like the face for instance
even though higher resolution pictures show it is infact not a face


this "well nobody really knows" crap that your playing is scientififcally dishonest because yes,science does know and has proven this.

your attempting to take everything we have learned over the years and marginalize it in support of this wild argument, and its nonsense.

reply to post by NavalFC


Since no coordinates for the precise location of this "anomalous feature" have been released publicly, it is impossible to judge its relationship to another puzzling feature on the surface of Mars that can be seen in Mariner 9 frame 4209-75

According to Boris Bolitsky, science correspondent for Radio Moscow, just before radio contact was lost with Phobos 2, several unusual images were radioed back to Earth, described by the Russian as "Quite remarkable features". A report taken from New Scientist of 8 April 1989, described the following: "The features are either on the Martian surface or in the lower atmosphere. The features are between 20 and 25 kilometers wide and do not resemble any known geological formation. They are spindle - shaped and proving to be intriguing and puzzling."

Source



[edit on 9-12-2008 by Solo954]

Originally posted by Solo954

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Solo954

 

Yes the photo i linked you to, a high res photo taken by the same space craft (but "conveniently" left out of your link..a proponent web site)

clearly shows that the formation is not artificial and not a face.

Those look fake to me. Dis information I'll post for everyone to see.

Is there any experts in photography in the house to confirm?

That photo is filtered by NASA itself, they filtered that photo so they would have an excuse for the official realise Mars photos, (Sedonia face structure) to the public. The same thing with the brushing out the Moon structures.

reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX


alex, are you trying to say the photo is part of a cover up? get real. They release a hi res version of the face clearly disproving the face = artificial

proponents and now its just "a cover up"

Originally posted by Solo954
reply to post by NavalFC

 

Since no coordinates for the precise location of this "" have been released publicly, it is impossible to judge its relationship to another puzzling feature on the surface of Mars that can be seen in Mariner 9 frame 4209-75

According to Boris Bolitsky, science correspondent for Radio Moscow, just before radio contact was lost with Phobos 2, several unusual images were radioed back to Earth, described by the Russian as "Quite remarkable features". A report taken from New Scientist of 8 April 1989, described the following: "The features are either on the Martian surface or in the lower atmosphere. The features are between 20 and 25 kilometers wide and do not resemble any known geological formation. They are spindle - shaped and proving to be intriguing and puzzling."

Source



[edit on 9-12-2008 by Solo954]

I hate that word (anomalous feature) there is nothing anomalous about this picture "nothing" what you see is what you get, the only thing that you need is an opened mined about this stuff. forget those rockies trying to be a hot shot scientist they just go by there skepticism. How in the world my eyes are seeing something that is not truth cause some jerk says so? those are legit photos about intelligent life form structures on Mars and the Moon. is impossible for nature to make such a prfect geometry on both world Earth and Mars. Yes what I mean is all the Pyramids from earth are built by ET probably from Mars.