Intelligence on Mars

Trying to evade, I see? Well, the structures, show intelligent design. Now you, turn, can you prove it is natural

Nice try. How do they show intelligent design? Pete has already shown that the mind can play tricks with light, shadow and shapes. There's a reason why the religous nuts see the Virgin Mary in bank windows and peanuts. You ET nuts see intelligent design in the same way.
 
Blackholesun, my dear friend, the low-pass filter is an algorithm, applied in image-editing software like photoshop. It is not automatic with any imaging device. In fact, JPL admits to using the filter on the image. It was deliberate.

Do you understand now?
 
I have chosen to "side" with NASA - in other words, it's just about, picking sides. The one who tickles your fancy and sounds the best, is the one you choose. Almost, as good, as picking a religion. Not scientific in the least.

Actually scientifically they DO sound like the best choice because they can do the best analysis. I can't say the same about you. You just change contrast on photos and pass them off as horribly edited by NASA who doesn't even do the photographic work on the data. You haven't been scientific in the least. Just massives jumps in logic.
 
Blackholesun, my dear friend, the low-pass filter is an algorithm, applied in image-editing software like photoshop. It is not automatic with any imaging device. In fact, JPL admits to using the filter on the image. It was deliberate.

A low-pass filter can also be impemented in hardware using a resistor and capacitor and IS used in digital cameras. See? You don't even know what you are talking about! It can ALSO be implemented in software directly on the data through an algorithm as you say. Anyhow they had to us a filter to clean the image up as you SAW what the raw image looked like.
 
blackholesun said:
Trying to evade, I see? Well, the structures, show intelligent design. Now you, turn, can you prove it is natural

Nice try. How do they show intelligent design? Pete has already shown that the mind can play tricks with light, shadow and shapes. There's a reason why the religous nuts see the Virgin Mary in bank windows and peanuts. You ET nuts see intelligent design in the same way.
Click to expand...

That I have to ask you this, puts a question mark on your intelligence, but can you please be polite?

I already refuted the so called "tricks of light and shadow" images Pete posted. None of them have the definition, clarity and detail of those on Mars. That is why, the ones on Mars are under so much scrutiny. Even you "skeptics" yourself admit they show faces.

Now, this maybe the 10th time I've asked you to support your arguments. Should I just assume, you have no evidence or facts to support your argument? I do not deal in opinions, sorry.
 
I already refuted the so called "tricks of light and shadow" images Pete posted. None of them have the definition, clarity and detail of those on Mars.

But they DON'T have definition. There is no symmetry in those "face" photos.

Even you "skeptics" yourself admit they show faces.

So? If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it could be that its just halloween and a kid is dressed as a duck! Don't assume you're right. I think they are just rocks and dirt because your "evidence" and NASA ravings have yet to sway me. Maybe one day we'll have better evidence and they WILL turn out to be faces and you'll be right. So what? I'll be alive for one of the most important events in human history. There is always a possible chance that they CHOULD be ET faces. But what I'm saying is I don't see any evidence that shows that.
 
Blackholesun, you don't even have any evidence that shows they are natural :)

You're logic is as good as: Seeing the emperor naked, but saying, you have no proof he's naked ;)
 
And you don't have any evidence that they are not natural so we're even. Read my other post. We'll continue this some other time.
 
But that's where you're wrong, my friend. I do have evidence, and I'm innocent, till proven guilty :) Which means the burden of proof is with you.
 
Last edited:
crazymikey said:
So does Anatartica, and from where I am(UK), India :)
I am enjoying this theory of Martian Geology being different to Earth geology. Please carry on :D
Click to expand...
of course Mars has a different geology

Here's a website for yor enjoyment http://www.lukew.com/marsgeo
unfortunately for you most of the images used in that web site are provided by NASA/JPL/MSSS. that website was last updated in 2002, so you can add all the new things we now know about Mars from the two rowers. And if the geology still seems the same as that of earth (another planet) I suggest you flush yorself in toilet. there are simmilar structures, but not the same, if only for the minerals they consist of. On Mars these structures have formed maybe identically than those of Earth (a volcano) but later climate changes have altered the structures so that it's unlikely you see such places on earth.

what webster thinks of the word "the same"

for the people who trust NASA more than fantasies of crazymikey
:latest info on Mars: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/
 
Last edited:
Humm, I have an idea. crazymikey implies that he has what he calls "evidence"
I suggest we send his evidence to some university and.... you got the idea ;)
of course we'd attach a request to answer no matter how ridiculous they think the "evidence" is. Or mickey should do it himself and become a world famous alienotologist.
 
crazymikey said:
But that's where you're wrong, my friend. I do have evidence, and I'm innocent, till proven guilty :) Which means the burden of proof is with you.
Click to expand...

That may work in the wonderful world of pseudoscience, but not here. Theres a reason its called pseudoscience.

You make a claim, you prove it. One website making absurd claims without backing it up is not evidence, neither is 100 such sites.
All the "evidence" you've shown have been questioned and you havent been able to hold them together, hence you have shown no evidence.

So pics by nasa or msss cant be trusted? Or pics by them cant be trusted unless they show something weird?.
If thats the case then all you got left is either "no photo of a face at all" or the original face photo, which doesnt even come close to as accurate as those numerous faces on earth which were posted here.

Whatever evidence contradicting the artificiality of the face anyone could come up would be simply ignored by you without any rational reason.
Someone rent you a shuttle to go see the face yourself and its not there? nah, not working... that would just PROVE that there was a secret manned mission to mars simply to sabotage the face... :rolleyes:

Imagination and seeing familiar shapes everywhere even if they arent real isnt a handicap. Oh and here's definate proof aliens do exist and they arent friendly at all. :cool:
 
Lek: The proof you continue to ask for, was given at the beginning. Now you claim, they are "natural" formations, thus you bear the burden of proof to prove that. It sounds like to me, you don't have any, and are just wasting my time. Reject.

P.S I love those pictures of space. I don't see any aliens though, just a lot of weird shapes. :)
 
crazymikey said:
Lek: The proof you continue to ask for, was given at the beginning. Now you claim, they are "natural" formations, thus you bear the burden of proof to prove that. It sounds like to me, you don't have any, and are just wasting my time. Reject.

P.S I love those pictures of space. I don't see any aliens though, just a lot of weird shapes. :)
Click to expand...

You posted evidence allright, I didnt say otherwise... Problem is you havent been able defend the evidence against scrutiny. ;)

Oh you didnt notice the rude nebula giving us the finger? :cool:
 
I could make it out in the end, much like an eaten up hand, and an eaten up finger - possibly eaten up by an alien :D

As for scrutiny; you say it's "natural" but you don't show me it's "natural" therefore, it's more like you can't defend your own arguments.
 
The shape of the face isnt that complicated really, meaning there are mechanisms in nature capable of producing any of those details... All this is about is the propability of this occurring, right?

All you gave was the figures, and a very vague explanation on exactly where did the figures come from. (so its impossible to anyone to evaluate if they are worth anything).

Additionally, the calculated propablity for the face (right or not) cant be directly applied to any face like structure. (calculation has to include things like error margins in the facial detail shape and locations, which are different for different faces)

The propability calculations was one thing questioned and asked from you on page 1.

Still waiting...
 
Additionally, the calculated propablity for the face (right or not) cant be directly applied to any face like structure. (calculation has to include things like error margins in the facial detail shape and locations, which are different for different faces)
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah: Ok, if the faces I underlined on page 1 are so common, then how about showing me some on Earth? Last time I'm asking - otherwise im ignoring.
 
I don't understand why martians should do a human face, since we know that they don't look like humans but like that:
mars2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Are you worried the math which had been repeatedly requested will be shown incorrect or why changing the subject and threatening to ignore me? ( as if that would make your theory solid somehow)
Faces have been shown quite in the beginning, you seem to be the onlyone here not accepting them as faces (without having stated yet why they dont count)

Anyway, faces on earth or not, that doesnt have any impact on the propability calculations of cydonia face. So how about showing the math?
If you dont do that, your original message isnt any more than:
"Theres 3 faces on mars and the propability of it forming naturally is too low"

And im sure you can agree with me just that oneliner isnt very convincing without backing it up?

Nobody can prove 100% they are artificial, same goes for proving them natural, that doesnt prove anyone wrong either, so propability is the key.
 
I have a question:
When I look at the moon when it is full, with unnaked eye, it looks like a face.
Is the moon artificial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top