mommy,.
in another thread you stated to me,.
: my mother, when we spoke said that she beleives the org should have new information come out(new light brighter and brighter).
Farkel:
Excellent, as always.
Mommy:
Have you figured out a way to get your mother to read any material you've gathered? (I missed the earlier thread). If she is a faithful witness, you know as well as I do that she will close her mind to anything insightful you have to say.
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
What's really sad is when people "ASSume" so much when your only contention is that the US government is intentionally covering up the discovery of past and present (yet primitive) LIFE on another planet besides this one, for the sake of NOT CAUSING A PANIC.
You "debunkers" constantly lump people in a specific category and discount everything that is said. (Not unlike our favorite "spiritual israelites" who ASSume that all appostates are mean and hateful).
I Say! What a wonderful tool disinformation is. It's just a shame to see it duping SO MANY PEOPLE who are otherwise intelligent thinking people. Maybe we are NOT so ready for all of this.
Tell me something, with NASA now stating that mars "may have been warm and wet". ----> MAY. <----
IF that is discovered to be a correct conclusion...
WHAT would be so illogical about intelligent beings having lived on mars LONG AGO and having remnants of their homes/cities/dwellings discovered by US?
Quickly! Let's rationalize it away before we start thinking about it and everyone makes fun of us for being "independent thinkers"...
ROTFLMAO
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
JanH:
I can't take my medication until you give it back. Sorry.
(I knew I shouldn't let a stranger borrow anything. Mummy was right!)
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
: So what do you say to someone like me who has looked at the sites you've
: mentioned (and many others) and I STILL see a face?
"To each his own, said the old woman as she kissed the cow".
Actually I suggest that you haven't actually looked at those sites. Right
now it's evident that you couldn't possibly have done so between the time
I posted and the time you replied.
What I think you have done is exactly what dozens of JW-defenders
have claimed: you've looked only at the things that support your desired
beliefs, and the only negative criticism you've looked at is whatever
has been provided by those you want to believe. In other words, you've
only looked at "cooked" criticisms.
That's because I've seen the sites you've posted **BEFORE**, and upon looking at them I said to myself: "Been there, done that." The "cooked" criticisms as you say, BLEW AWAY any prior scepticism I previously had.
I have no doubt that Talleyman, with whom I'm having a friendly
disagreement, will spend a good deal of time looking at those sites and
will come up with some substantial comments in return. You should do
the same.
I would, but there is a problem with this. See, I've been here before, Alan. I've been in these 'debates'. There is almost always name calling (whether direct or indirect), "mud slinging", (to use a political term loosley), and after everything, it all comes out to you think I am an ass, I think you are an ass. Both sides yelling: "Don't be ridiculous" to each other, utlitmately aluding to the other's perceived dogma on either side. Quite fruitless actually.
: Should I re-adjust my thinking here?
I certainly think so.
: Do I lack intellect because I disagree?
No. I simply think you're wrong, and I've given my reasons why. If you
want to be perceived as having intellect, then you'll have to prove it
by actually dealing with specifics of the topic, not slithering down
into meaningless generalities like you're doing in this post.
LOL. Since the topic is "Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?" Generalities is all that can be brought forward at best, because ultimately, the evidence is in the hands of a NASA subcontractor.
: Now, when I see Van Flandern's "face" with a crown that was recently in
: the newspapers, and I look at it in the context image, it's clearly a
: trick of light and shadow and "convienient" cropping of images. Same
: story with Dolphins and hangers, and egyptian goddesses, etc.
I'll take your word for it, since I have no idea what you're talking about.
Thank you for admitting that. Perhaps looking MORE into a topic rather than dismiss it may "peak" your curiosity the way it did mine. Then again, I forgot, you are obviously in rationale mode.
: BUT
: I look at the cydonian "face", and lo! It be out in the open on flatland,
Nope. It be smack in da middle of a bunch of other odd landforms. When
you look carefully at the very latest (April 2000?) high resolution images,
you see very normal looking landscapes that only look strange if you look
with low resolution.
I disagree. I see a bunch of small impact craters, smooth land, small ridges, and then suddenly, large sarifs that look like pyramids, hexagons, and --->A FACE<---.
: staring me down from space!
You should take a look at the website link I provided where someone "drew"
a face on "the face" with "magic marker". I think that will help dispel
your feeling of being watched.
Interesting. Now, if you look at the January 31 image from msss at < http://barsoom.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/index.html>; and look at image M16-00184 ("face" mesa), you will see that the image from the MOC camera CONTAINS an 'anomoly' that was PREDICTED to be there before high-res pictures were taken of the mesa. (It's an eye). It's right there in the high-res GIF (no JPG anomolies possible). (BTW, after you look, please give yourself a moment to regain your composure, I would hate for you to hurt yourself should you momentary lose conciousness.)
: Even in the context of the viking images! It standeth out like a spike
: in me arse.
So what? As far as some people were concerned, the old Proctor and Gamble
logo contained images of demons.
True, and was that demonic image a NATURAL formation as well?
: Why did NASA tell us in the 70's that they shot the face later and the
: illusion went away, and lo! It be in another photo they didn't mention
: in the original press conference?
Care to provide solid references for that?
http://www.enterprisemission.com has all the references (for the most part.) BTW, before you laugh, please remember that not everyone goes to the trouble of scanning gov't documents for everyone to view on the web. (Do YOU trust the scanned items you find on this site?)
: And lo! Nasa cannot reproduce the image that shows it as a trick of
: light and shadow from the viking archives!
According to whom?
See above. NOTE: Hoagland is a commentator on the work of others, for the most part. He has plenty of articles that point to other investigations not involving his egotistical agenda against NASA.
: NASA currently advocates possible running water on the surface of the planet.
No they don't. You've misread news reports. I won't try to set you straight;
do it yourself.
Fine. You are in denial. NASA acknowledges 'seepage' onto the surface from under the soil. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast05jan_1.htm
: What is so hard to grasp about a civilization existing on the planet long
: ago?
Nothing. I just don't see any more evidence of it than I do for claims
that the JW Governing Body speaks for God.
: I don't understand the brain-lock here.
No brain-lock. It's healthy skepticism. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence for confirmation. Not fuzzy photos that upon
obtaining clear ones prove to be funny looking mountains.
: AlanF, it's really a sad lot isn't it?
Depending on which "lot" you're talking about, I might agree.
: I mean, in reality, if all of these "conspiracies" are true, then we:
: will never know will we?
Sure we will. Eventually the illuminati will come to power, or the aliens
will return, or we'll be taken away in shining spaceships, or we'll be
resurrected by superpowerful aliens, and then we'll know.
Of course, if the conspiracies are only in the imaginations of people
who need to "believe", then they're entirely irrelevant to anything.
: AlanF, just out of curiosity, do YOU believe man ever set foot on the moon?
No. It was all done in NASA-controlled Hollywood studios. Just like
WWI and WWII were staged. The reality is that the Heavens Gate people
were right, and now they're looking down from their spaceship and
laughing at all us dummies who didn't believe them.
: Although it has no baring to this thread,
I think it bares your thinking very well.
: I would like to know your personal thoughts on this, as the "moon
: debunkers" are doing about as lousy a job debunking the moon as you:
: are the "face". Just curious.
Frankly, after this comment I know you're an idiot, and I'm sorry I've
bothered to waste my time answering you.
You've shown that you can lie about what you've looked into and make
stupid comments about things you don't know anything about. What a dork.
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
AlanF:
I'm really not enough interested in the topic of "faces on Mars" to want to argue about whether these "faces" are real or not. I personally am convinced that they are nothing more than odd geological features.
So what do you say to someone like me who has looked at the sites you've mentioned (and many others) and I STILL see a face? Should I re-adjust my thinking here? Do I lack intellect because I disagree? Now, when I see Van Flandern's "face" with a crown that was recently in the newspapers, and I look at it in the context image, it's clearly a trick of light and shadow and "convienient" cropping of images. Same story with Dolphins and hangers, and egyptian goddesses, etc.
BUT
I look at the cydonian "face", and lo! It be out in the open on flatland, staring me down from space! Even in the context of the viking images! It standeth out like a spike in me arse.
Why did NASA tell us in the 70's that they shot the face later and the illusion went away, and lo! It be in another photo they didn't mention in the original press conference? And lo! Nasa cannot reproduce the image that shows it as a trick of light and shadow from the viking archives!
NASA currently advocates possible running water on the surface of the planet. What is so hard to grasp about a civilization existing on the planet long ago? I don't understand the brain-lock here.
AlanF, it's really a sad lot isn't it?
I mean, in reality, if all of these "conspiracies" are true, then we will never know will we? Just like the ignorant rank and file witnesses who continue on in the traditions of men, we will continue to argue over information we've been spoon-fed. Perhaps though, we are ALL being silly, and the WT is God-directed and we are all just silly conspiracy theorists who are doing the will of satan himself.
AlanF, just out of curiosity, do YOU believe man ever set foot on the moon? Although it has no baring to this thread, I would like to know your personal thoughts on this, as the "moon debunkers" are doing about as lousy a job debunking the moon as you are the "face". Just curious.
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
Just so I'll know, what exactly would be a credible reason to suppress any information regarding a "face" on mars?Keyword is credible.
Please, for my blood pressures sake, think before you answer.
Interesting that you say "credible" there Six. "credible" by who's standards?
Heeding the advice of the "Brookings Report" stating in an advisory to NASA/JPL that any evidence of an extraterestrial civilization/visitation/history should NOT be presented to the general public immediately as it would put civilization into chaos. (presumably). The idea as I recall, was to release the information SLOWLY to break the population into the idea gradually, to prevent sudden panic.
I see no other reason for whitholding information obtained through tax-payer's dollars until congress presses the issue. Really! JPL told congress before they would release images as they came about. They then had to be PRESSURED into releasing the images they dumped recently. (Why the need to inquire about the images?)
Even at first glance, the image ianao posted looks as if the pic on the left was not converted correctly for viewing with the square pixels of a computer screen, ie. a "raw" conversion of a frame of video.
The pic on the left is was contrast-stretched RAW data, and is actually enhanced to show MORE detail than what showed on the evening news. It looks as if the image on the left was only enhanced for immediate brightness/contrast and released before further processing and projection.
Here is another link regarding the image processing involved, and how it was mis-applied to the face, IMO.
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
Janny, Janny, Janny!
Ego! Ego! Ego!
Tallyman: Sagan's ego *was* almost as big as Hoagland's is now, IMO.
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
Tina:
Please tell me, which one of these is better at showing a hill.
JanH:
Why did the one on the left appear on the news and the one on the right REPLACE the one on the left months later (and silently)?
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
Tina:
Now, take a look at this website, and see an egotistical, yet thorough explanation of why the CSICOP is full of shit.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/skeptik.htm
-ianao
Noting that one looking at a sceptical source is going to find skepticism class.
the things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
JanH:
It is of course notable, and no coicnicence, that the less educated people here are, the less they know about real science, the more likely they are to accept these wild conspiracy fantasies.
Nice blurb there JanH. Everyone should note how folks like JanH quickly "rationalize" the unexplainable away. It's funny to see people like him look at the link I posted above, Scratch their head, break into a cold sweat, then wipe it off and tell us "It's a natural formation!" All because they can't deal with reality.
Utterly pathetic, IMO.
Please rationalize the points brought up by Tallyman Jan. Please explain the scientific principle behind altering information.
Why did we have to look at kitty-litter on the evening news?
Why was the same image later replaced by what is there now, since others found more data in the kitty-litter photo that "appeared" later on the NASA projected image.
Please explain the reasoning for witholding other photographs in the region of this "face" mesa until congress pressured them into releasing the images?
I would really like to know, oh great one. If this is all because of the brookings report, than WHAT THE HELL HAVE THEY FOUND THAT THEY DON'T WANT US TO SEE?!
