Intelligence on Mars

Knowing that there is ETI, even if it's on Mars, would prove ETI exists(duh)
Click to expand...
--
and what's so bad about that? crearly nasa would only benefit from that
 
Filters is one thing, INVERTING the image before 3d mapping it for adjustment of light and angle is something else.

Backtracing the filtering doesnt involve inverting the image at any step does it?

edit: forgot... we can discuss the glass worms after you explain the face ( or back off the statement its a face)
 
Last edited:
I was reading about the X Conference thing, and Mr Hoagland claims that very soon, the US will announce that the face on mars (or some other artifical objects) is artifical, they will then announce that eti does exist....and that they have been covering it up since the 40's....

A full blown disclosure.

I also read the same kind of thing written by Stephen Bassett....

I think the "tubes" are some kind of illusion, however, regarding that famous "tubes" photo, there appears to be very bright or highly reflectibe surface casuing the illusion of glass.

what the hell is it????
 
Star_One said:
I was reading about the X Conference thing, and Mr Hoagland claims that very soon, the US will announce that the face on mars (or some other artifical objects) is artifical, they will then announce that eti does exist....and that they have been covering it up since the 40's.... A full blown disclosure. I also read the same kind of thing written by Stephen Bassett....
Click to expand...
I read the same thing written 20 years ago. It's a repeating myth.
Star_One said:
I think the "tubes" are some kind of illusion, however, regarding that famous "tubes" photo, there appears to be very bright or highly reflectibe surface casuing the illusion of glass.
Click to expand...
It'sthe result of contrast. They aren't neccessairly bright compared to flat land, but they are compared to the black side of the hill which is in shadow.
 
crazymike:
Now that i have read the site more carefully (the one where you ripped the faces pic and quotes to go with it)...
Looks like your argument regarding "the backtracing the filtering by nasa" is absolutely wrong.
They do mention the filtering done to flatten any detail, but the image enhancement of the image is based on THE ORIGINAL or rather the negative of original. Meaning such backtracing of filtering was never even used.

Did you ever even read what it was all about? You not mentioning that the image was edited out of negative (inverted) image, and you claiming nasa image processing was inversed in the process is complitely false.

Considering your dishonesty (like the out of context quotes about filters) so far, i suggest you post links of references you plan to use from now on, and give the authors the credit they deserve.

For me this whole business of analyzing old data about the face is like "flogging a dead horse", it has been shown false before, this issue was interesting few years ago, but with newer and newer data its continuously showing more and more clearly what this mountain really looks like, and that isnt anything amazingly symmetrical, and not looking like a face at all.

Instead of copying (incorrectly) other peoples work, do some research yourself.

If you choose to believe 6 year old computer generated images are more accurate than latest photos, feel free to do so, but also be prepared to show some proof to go with it if you expect anyone to believe you.
 
Last edited:
They do mention the filtering done to flatten any detail, but the image enhancement of the image is based on THE ORIGINAL or rather the negative of original. Meaning such backtracing of filtering was never even used.
Click to expand...

And you call me scientifically dishonest? You just admitted they did apply filters to flatten the image, yet call it "image enhancement"?

I have shown you proof. You have yet to show me, however, such phenomena happening in areas of geology on Earth. Hence if you are going to claim they are "natural" or "fakes" you have a burden of proof to show me that is the case.
 
What proof?!?! this just keeps going around in a circle! at best your try to end it by saying nasa is covering it up, why, why in hell would they??? usually you just pick and choose wht you want to reply to then just bitch about the minor part of other arguements.
 
at best your try to end it by saying nasa is covering it up, why, why in hell would they???
Click to expand...

I have already offered a possible reason as to why they would(it supports the case for ETI) However, could you tell me, why wouldn't they?
 
why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...
I'd go with defence of the planet, if they knew aliens existed they'd be the most powerful people on the planet, they'd have a reason to get all the money they want, best scientists and minds for technology advancement so we can defend ourselves, theres quite a lot to gain.
 
crazymikey said:
I have already offered a possible reason as to why they would(it supports the case for ETI) However, could you tell me, why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

Really? tell me again then.

NASA get about $15 billion a year, about 1/3 what they got in adjusted dollars from a year in the Apollo in the era. If NASA found evidence of alien intelligence on Mars they could demand what ever funding amount they want and the government and people would likely deliver. So NASA would want to tell of any evidence that diffiniative right away! NASA would not want to cover it up unless they like being broke. This point been explained repeatedly by many of us, yet it seems to go through one ear and out the other with you.
 
mikey,

You have been proven to incorrectly quote the site you considered as proof, that site itself contradics your claims of image manipulation like you claimed it to be.
You have been shown far more accurate faces on earth forming naturally.
What case can you possibly have left now?
 
Lemming3k said:
I'd go with defence of the planet, if they knew aliens existed they'd be the most powerful people on the planet, they'd have a reason to get all the money they want, best scientists and minds for technology advancement so we can defend ourselves, theres quite a lot to gain.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why they would. Human's strive for power, and if something comes in the way of that, they would do what it takes, to neutralize that threat. The existence of ETI, advanced technology, with the ability to completely transform the planet - is a powerful force multiplier, and they who have it; have all power. This is exactly why they would cover it up.

Much like why they gaurd the secrets of stelath technology. If others had it, it would diminish the gap. Revealing intelligent Martian life will only confirm the case for ETI and UFO's. It will lead the global scientific community and the general populace to re-examine it's place in the universe, and confirm the last claim of the ETI camp, of which 86% of the claims have been confirmed already.

Those in power, do not want this to happen, at least not yet. I don't think you realize the the ramafications of free energy, anti-gravity and ETI contact. It would lead to the total disintergration of the economical, religious and power structure, and shatter the unipolar world paradigm.

Those few countries that control the worlds resources today, and much of the global affairs, would lose all influence. We all know how dirty politics is, so expect that they would do everything within their power, to keep power.
 
Lek: We are going around in circles now. We know for a fact, that NASA applied filters to the 98 image, that are known to flatten details. On that basis, we cannot trust NASA on the Mars faces. Therefore, there is a face on Mars, much like many other "intelligent" seeming structures.

Now you claim they are natural: craters, rock formation, natural erosion and what not. Now prove it for me, because I don't think such stuctures can form naturally. And as you know, I am not alone on this position.
 
crazymikey,
Here is the raw 1998 MOC image (thumbnail linked to full size).

From Malin Space Science Systems

Knock yourself out.

Note that Malin Space Science Systems are not NASA. They are an independent company who operate the cameras and process the images.

Edit - Clarification:
See this page for details of who applied filters to the 1998 media release image: JPL
 
Last edited:
Please move this thread from "Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology" to Pseudoscience forum. because it's clearly not what was said in the begining of this thread by crazymikey
Note: I initially posted this in "pseudoscience". As such matters are usually not openly discussed in mainstream science forums. Although, I feel, this is very suitable for mainstream astronomy discussion. Please do not mistake this for another thread, that has you gorging at rocks, to see anamolies. In fact, here, you will not have to gorge for hours on end, you will merely have to glance once.
Click to expand...
thank you

edit:
In other words, the probability of all 3 faces on Mars, forming completely by blind chance; is mathmatically impossible.
Click to expand...
I wonder what is his background in maths to say that something is mathematically impossible. I don't see it as such , because we have human like geological structures all over the earth and in isn't a complete chaos of particles, there is a more likely chance that a rock would look simmilar to a face than a branch of tree. Besides one has to accout that the rocks etc are not frozn in time, but erozion shapes them. They are changing as we speak. Ond one rock there can be a face and after 100 000y not be a face or vice versa
 
Last edited:
Pete: I am not sure what I am suppose to be seeing? I don't see much at all. If they say this is the "raw" image, I won't take their word for it either :)

MSSS or NASA, it does not matter. The fact of the matter is, if there are intelligent structures on Mars, they would not be revealed. Much like some astronauts who are sworn to secrecy on "what's out there"

Those that been revealed, clearly shows structures and what seem to be faces. I am not sure if this is the 5th, 6th, or 7th time, I've said this, but show me, that such structures can form naturally in areas of geology on Earth.

Avatar: It's about Astronomy, and Exobiology, and Cosmology. So i'm not sure what your problem is.
 
my problem is, that "Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology" is science.
and the intepretation of the "evidence" posted here by certain individuals is all but scientifical.

just look at this:
I am not sure what I am suppose to be seeing? I don't see much at all. If they say this is the "raw" image, I won't take their word for it either
Click to expand...
all the data that is against him - he doesn't even take it into account.
pointless and not scientifical
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top