The only one I could venture a guess on is the Superman picture. It looks like a gorilla (sp?) sitting in a cage, but that's about it.
Posts by ianao
-
137Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
Natural or artificial? Here is a link to the newly acquired "face"...
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/index.html
If it's a hill, it's an excellent illusion.
If it's a sculpture, it's incredibly eroded.(picture link removed as MSSS' site is PACKED!!!)
Time to whip out photoshop and look at the raw images. Would be interesting to postulate on the erosion processes that cause one side to be so dry and cracked looking while the other so sandy/smudgy.
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
Something for you cloud folks to chomp on...
http://www.infosourceresearch.com/current/tortilla-skeptics.html
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
To AlanF
Calm down Alan.
I could argue symetry(sp!) with you until the sun goes down. Your arguments for lack of symetry are used in favor of those who condone the possibility of an artificial origin. It's trinity vs. arianism all over again.
Now, as I do not consider condoning the possibility of artificial structures on mars as a religion, I will refrain from further discussion of my personal point of view, as this obviously upsets you.
[no sarcasm intended]As for my using a convenient but striking image rather than doing an extensive search for purely natural landforms, I recently installed Adobe Photoshop and used this exercise to learn something about the program. Better to learn this tool than waste time looking for photos you'd poo-poo anyway.
Not true! I respect your educated opinion AlanF. Anything you had to provide would truly be an excellent example of your point, I am sure.
Just remember that for every person that you think is crazy for "believing", there are others who think you are crazy for not "opening your eyes".
With that in mind, I will say:
"Good luck with photoshop!"
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
AlanF:
One aspect of the artificiality hypothesis of the "face"'s design is that it was constructed to deliberately fool the eye of the viewer into seeing a humanoid head on the surface of the planet from above. This perceived viewer being a martian diety. (A tribute to "the gods"). And just like your rather impressive picture, the theory is that it was designed by an intelligent being such as yourself (only on a larger scale, of course, to appease the perceived gods).
In all honesty, you really should have chosen a landform that fools the mind's eye WITHOUT requiring an intelligent hand to make the deception, IMO.
(ASSuming your motivation for posting on this thread.)
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
terraly:
Indeed, as you say, we will have to wait and see.
Personally, I don't see anything regarding these matters coming to light any time soon. It may be a long time before we ever really find out anything at all.
Perhaps millions now living will see proof that NASA has been covering up evidence for intelligent life on Mars.
Perhaps not Millions, but maybe hundreds of thousands have already seen "proof".
Sadly, of course, my side can never be vindicated. Your side has an easy time, all you have to do is provide substantial evidence that intelligent life did exist- my side has to [i]prove beyond the tiniest possibility[\i] that it didn't, when all the evidence we bring to support our assumptions will be treated with suspicion.
With all due respect, I almost pitty you, yet I understand. I can't blame anyone for not wanting their world view shattered. This applies to both of us, as I am aware of the large number of *IF*s on "my side" of this coin. Besides, you can always just make fun of "us" (whoever that may be). Ridicule works well, as I usually use it myself.
If we go to Mars and walk on the "face", certain people will doubt the accuracy of the reports NASA sent back.
These "certain people" will have a damn good reason to do so also.
Even if the face proves to be very normal looking up close, perhaps the aliens modified it in the intervening time so that humans wouldn't become aware of them too soon.
Well, detecting the sarcasm, I will only say that people in favor of the face's artificial origin are (for the most part) in agreement that it would be an OLD structure, constructed LONG AGO. You are melding two separate "theories" and lumping them together as a true pseudo-skeptic should.
Is there anything that could prove to you that the claims of intelligent life and conspiracy are wrong?
LOL. Interesting question. As far as the "face" is concerned, I would probably have to go up and see it for myself. Then again, a high-res color up-close scan of the entire mesa, and detailed close-up videos of the feature would rest my case one way or the other. Sound impossible? Remember what I said at the beginning of this post? *wink*. (BTW, Mars Oddessey (sp?) has a GOOD chance of rectifying this situation.)
As far as conspiracy is concerned, only disclosure would due, as denial doesn't work anymore for many people. There are "Top Secret" classifications on a "need-to-know basis" for a reason.
"Where secrecy is known to exist, one can never be absolutely sure that he knows the complete truth" (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 522).
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
terraly:
Indeed, they do appear to be the same image.
Check the ancillary (SP!) data, they ARE the same image as acquired by the MOC, just in a different format for display.
One logical explanation would be that they made public the entire data set on April 4, but due to the extreme interest in the area surrounding the "face" they made sure to put those pictures up first.
Sounds great to me, but *if* this is the imaging they were referring to in the response to FACETS, it's very dishonest to imply that they've recently acquired these images, as they are derived from data acquired and released earlier.
I still think that these are the pictures NASA is referring to in the letter-
I would agree, but somebody has to clarify when an image is. Images are obtained by the MOC, and relayed here. Display images are derived from the scanned image acquired from the MOC. To say that an image is newly acquired in a context such as the letter from NASA is only accurate if you are referring to the display image, not the original dataset. The context however implies NEW information. It's misleading, to say the least, especially with the mention of a "complex set of MGS spacecraft operations" performed in response to the initial request from FACETS. (*IF* NASA is referring to the image you pointed out earlier.)
although the letter writer was obviously not also the web master and his explanation of the situation is rather confused.
Ah! We agree.
Are we to believe there are more images of the area unreleased?
Believe what you wish. That is not for me to decide (of course).
On what do you base this belief?
If your revise "belief" to be "suspicion", then I would say human intuition based on what I've read/heard. I will also say that NASA's response could be a hoax, but I think FACETS would be in some deep legal troubles to "forge" such things. Another idea is that the writer(s) of the letter to FACETS' lawyer was/were lead to believe something which is visibly not true, leading to the doublespeak in the response from NASA regarding images. They could have also simply made a mistake (being humans, after all).
*Only time will tell*.
--I hate grammar and speyulling--
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
terraly:
Nonetheless, you have not taken Clarke's point. True, the world is not watching every latest picture come across, but many scientists are. You're still faced with a huge number of people who are in on the conspiracy...
Nope. Just a small number of people calling the shots, and a bunch of other people following orders who don't even know what's going on. Happens all the time in companies every day.
(Kinda' reminds you of the "body" which governs the witnesses eh?)
Also, I did not miss Clark's point. His point was referring to a highly publicised program by the media, not one racked with people seeing data ONLY when they are released on the internet or to individual scientists.
BTW: I know we went to the moon. We wouldn't have many of the newer technologies that we depend upon today if we hadn't.
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
terraly:
Thank you! What an interesting find!
The image here:
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m13_m18/images/M16/M1600184.htmlIs the same one as released earlier here:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/
(referring to the M16-00184 image.)This is the same image received by the MOC on 3/6/2000, being released once in 01/31/2001 as "MGS MOC Release No. MOC2-275, 31 January 2001" and then again (as you've shown me) on 4/4/2001 in the narrow angle gallery.
So Terraly, when was this image released? 1/31/2001 or 4/4/2001?
-
137
Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?
by qwerty inthe things you look into without the wt cynical mind behind every thought.. [ http://www.geocities.com/area51/6683/cydonia-face.html].
qwerty .
justa surfin!
-
-
ianao
terally:
I had a long drawn-out response to your post re: clark, but by some stupid blundering with the back button on my part, I've lost it.
I will only say to you that comparing the Appollo missions to orbiter missions is kind of silly, especially with nobody on the news harping about how "MSSS is downloading the latest mars data" today the way they were keeping track of the moon missions back then.