Pete said:
Of course you don't necessarily trust Van Flandern... you independently came up with exactly the same arguments as he has on his site, and presented them here as unquestionable fact. Hmmm...
If you are going to ask me a question. You let me answer it, rather than jump to your own conclusions. This is just common sense.
Now that we have that clear. I did not independently come to the realization of the structural anamolies on Mars.
1: I needed the original images
2: I needed to anaylse the work of researchers and their theories
3: I needed to come to my own judgement based on an objective analysis of the points FOR and AGAINST
This is how I make my judgement FYI.
FOR: ETI exists, and if he they can visit Earth; they can visit Mars
FOR: Viking takes a image of a face on Mars
FOR: There are structural anamolies on Mars
FOR: JPL applies image-degrading filters to 98 face image
FOR: Mars may have had suitable atmosphere and even water, and still could
FOR: It makes political sense that the government would cover-up tell-tale signs of ET life on Mars.
AGAINST: ETI doesn't exist
AGAINST: Face on Mars is a Mesa
AGAINST: "Glass tubes" are sand dunes
ANALYSIS:
ETI does exist, and they have been visiting us for a long time. Hence, I don't see how it is far-fetched, they would be on Mars. I also entertain the possibility that Mars may have had, or still has, it's own indigenous life.
The original images of the face were very provoking indeed, and made a large impact. Hence, it makes political sense, that a government that is going to every length to cover-up their existence, would also do something to cover this up. The fact that JPL have applied so many filters, that only degrade image quality, only supports that.
In addition to this, there are many other face structures found on Mars and other structural anamolies, that are equally as bizarre. Hence, it not the case for the face alone anyone. This only means, the face is one of many stuctural anamolies on Mars.
In addition to this: Latest scientific data suggests that Mars has a suitable atmosphere, and possibly water, and perhaps at some stage, it was suitable to support life.
Finally, the fact that these structures do not form naturally, and this is admitted by a NASA scientist themselves in reference to the "glass tube" structure, only supports the case for extraterrestrial intelligence.
Hence, given all the points in favour, it becomes far more likely, there is some ET intelligence on Mars. This is why I come to this conclusion. It is not about trusting anyone, it is objectively analyzing the data, something that you should be doing too
I don't think you realize, sir, but you are fighting on one leg. Now that I explained my position, and I certainly am open to the possibility that I am wrong about the structures, however given, that no one has been able to support their arguments for natural formation, it only leads me to further adhere to my position on intelligence on Mars.
Do you realize that the original face on Mars image was publicized by NASA precisely because it looked like a face? As in they felt it would be good PR to show people something interesting? I wonder why they did that?
I think it's very funny that you don't appear to realize just how tenuous your evidence is! Have you ever thought you saw something, then on a closer look found that what you thought you saw wasn't there at all? The problem that we have with these "anomalies" is that there is no opportunity for a second look... or else the second look that shows it was something else is called a cover-up. Perhaps you should accept that sometimes, first impressions are false.
The bottom line is that there is no way of telling for certain from a single low resolution image just what an artefact's 3D configuration is, and just how much of the 2D image is a product of circumstantial lighting conditions or other factors.
If an image looks a lot like an artificial structure or sculpture, then certainly a possible explanation is that it is in fact artificial. However, a one-off low res image is not enough to be considered conclusive evidence. If follow-up images do not appear to be artificial structures, then it seems reasonable to me to conclude that they are not artificial.
You are welcome to suggest that there is some sort of cover-up, but without evidence such suggestions seem pretty weak to me.
I suggest you look into the background of Tom Van Flandern, Richard Hoagland, and Michael Malin. Which of these men would you choose to trust, and why?
I shall research their backgrounds. Some points:
I certainly do not believe the entire staff at NASA and MSSS is working for a shadow government. I also do not believe the original image taken by Viking had an ulterior motive or that any foul play was invlved. You cannot control every bit of information; you can only take precautions, and once the information is out, an initative to cover any information that poses a threat.
This is why these images can surface. Yet be assured, if they photographed an entire metropolis on Mars, do not expect it be revealed. Unless, you really think the government would openly come out with the existence of an alien civilization as soon as it is discovered. Think, politics my friend.
