Cat out of the bag, almost.....

GarlicBread

Very interesting show with Pat Kenny yesterday morning. He had a fella on from the european space agency, David Southwood, they talked about odds and ends of things, including Mars.

(DS: "first thing to do is send robots, then human beings....lets do it right"

Pat: "in terms of the possability of water being on mars, the possability that there might be relics of some alien life form, wheather its a microbe or otherwise...... is that somthing you even bother with?"

DS: "it would be strange if it turned out nothing happened on mars...........why earth and not mars?")

Now, hold your horses there a second while I explain why this is explosive material coming from Pats mouth.

Ever since we started sending probes to Mars there has been scandal after scandal. The early nasa probes showed a giant face on the surface. The claim was rubbished. The later nasa probes showed the face at better resolutions and proved it was really there. Of course nasa took the piss again, doctured many photos and covered it up.

At this stage of the game, in 2011, with all the images available widely on the internet, it has become common knowledge by those in the know and by enthusiests that there is alot of stuff on Mars that is being covered up.

Multiple giant faces carved into the landscape.

Pyrimids(some huge) and other structures that share the same mathamatics as those on earth.

Traces of cities, towns and agriculture.

Glass-like tubing dotted around which is assumed to be some sort of tunnel transport.

And much more,

I dont need to provide links, use google, images of this stuff are all over the place and have been for a long time. Not to mention the countless experts and researchers who have spent a long on the topic.

I would just like to thank Mr.Kenny for posing such an important question. He almost let the cat out of the bag, almost :cool:.

xoxyx

I've never believed any of this stuff. Just out of interest though, if true, why would it be covered up? Reeks of tinfoil hat mentality to me.

GarlicBread

xoxyx wrote: »

I've never believed any of this stuff. Just out of interest though, if true, why would it be covered up? Reeks of tinfoil hat mentality to me.

The photo you posted was the doctured one from the second nasa probe i think. The one below is the original un-doctured photo from the second probe. It the same photo but has been reversed via computer to look as it should.



Then theres the other face aswell -


Why would it be kept a secret? Because its scandalous material that brings into question everything we know about ourselves and our history. Its not much of a secret these days anyway.





If theres pyrimids on mars, yall know what that means, it was either us or them.

xoxyx

Even if those images are true representations of Mars's landscape, I would find it far more likely that they were created by natural causes rather than a race of industrious aliens. What are the odds that life would have existed on Mars that looks just like us? Unless they knew about our l'il civilisation and were etching them out in our honour???

wildefalcon

maybe we ARE them?

"RETURN TO MARS!!!!"

wildefalcon

OH, and shouldn't this be in conspiracy section?

GarlicBread

wildefalcon wrote: »

OH, and shouldn't this be in conspiracy section?

Whats the conspiracy? We are discussing the landscape on our neigbhoring planet. Its surely of some astrological significance?

If Pat Kenny, the countries supposed lead talk show host(or whatever he is), feels the need to drop a comment like that on primetime radio then i think its more than appropriate to come on to the relevent forum and expand upon what old Pat was really really trying to get at.

xoxyx

wildefalcon wrote: »

maybe we ARE them?

"RETURN TO MARS!!!!"

I was thinking that. That would be cool. Of course, we'd have to have done it in the future when we had the proper technology and so forth. So that means... we're living in the past right now!!! :eek:

xoxyx

GarlicBread wrote: »

Whats the conspiracy? We are discussing the landscape on our neigbhoring planet. Its surely of some astrological significance?

If Pat Kenny, the countries supposed lead talk show host(or whatever he is), feels the need to drop a comment like that on primetime radio then i think its more than appropriate to come on to the relevent forum and expand upon what old Pat was really really trying to get at.

The conspiracy is the theory that these pieces of Mars were deliberately constructed by an unknown entity.

Pat Kenny probably doesn't know what Pat Kenny was really trying to get at.

GarlicBread

xoxyx wrote: »

Even if those images are true representations of Mars's landscape, I would find it far more likely that they were created by natural causes rather than a race of industrious aliens. What are the odds that life would have existed on Mars that looks just like us? Unless they knew about our l'il civilisation and were etching them out in our honour???

Well, i really dont know, but theres a few hypothesises that have been knocking about. Some say we originally can from mars a long way back, or that somone else built em, and then came to earth and built more. Very early days yet.

Behinds the scenes there must be very high level studies going on about this for many years, i bet my life on it. Maybe some day they will spill the beans.

quad_red

How can people still believe this stuff?

3D image of the 'face' extrapolated from Mars Express data.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060925.html

xoxyx

GarlicBread wrote: »

Well, i really dont know, but theres a few hypothesises that have been knocking about. Some say we originally can from mars a long way back, or that somone else built em, and then came to earth and built more. Very early days yet.

Behinds the scenes there must be very high level studies going on about this for many years, i bet my life on it. Maybe some day they will spill the beans.

Much as I'd love for some new evidence to emerge showing that we have space buddies out there, I just don't think that this is it. There would be more to show than a few chiseled out hills on Mars if there had been travel between there and here in the past.

We need a new theory. Maybe Pat Kenny is from Mars??

GarlicBread

quad_red wrote: »

How can people still believe this stuff?

3D image of the 'face' extrapolated from Mars Express data.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060925.html

I dont mean to diss nasa, they do great work on alot of things, but any nasa link on this topic must considered highly suspect for obivous reasons.

GarlicBread

xoxyx wrote: »

Much as I'd love for some new evidence to emerge showing that we have space buddies out there, I just don't think that this is it. There would be more to show than a few chiseled out hills on Mars if there had been travel between there and here in the past.

We need a new theory. Maybe Pat Kenny is from Mars??

Im not really talking about aliens dude, im talking about seriously important archeological ruins on the planet closest to earth. I dont like using Pat as leverage, but he said somthing very revealing.

Just incase anyone missed it the first time .

Pat: "in terms of the possability of water being on mars, the possability that there might be relics of some alien life form, wheather its a microbe or otherwise...... is that somthing you even bother with?"

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

Well, i really dont know, but theres a few hypothesises that have been knocking about. Some say we originally can from mars a long way back, or that somone else built em, and then came to earth and built more. Very early days yet.

I read about that stuff in one of Hancock's books. It sounded pretty ropey at the time, but it has all been thoroughly debunked since. I would expect to find bacterial traces there though, which would be a huge discovery.

xoxyx

GarlicBread wrote: »

Im not really talking about aliens dude, im talking about seriously important archeological ruins on the planet closest to earth. I dont like using Pat as leverage, but he said somthing very revealing.

Just incase anyone missed it the first time .

Pat: "in terms of the possability of water being on mars, the possability that there might be relics of some alien life form, wheather its a microbe or otherwise...... is that somthing you even bother with?"

Dude?? Archaeological ruins don't just spring up out of their own volition. Surely the importance of such findings would be the implications relating to what created them.

Didn't miss it the first time. Pat says a lot of things. I don't see what he said as a ringing endorsement of architects on Mars and in no way is it proof that these shapes were consciously created.

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

I dont mean to diss nasa, they do great work on alot of things, but any nasa link on this topic must considered highly suspect for obivous reasons.

What reasons?? NASA have been trying to get people interested in space again for decades as their budget has been shrinking since the moon missions. Why would they sabotage themselves by hiding dynamite stuff like this? And how would they expect to keep it secret?

There is a conspiracy theory board for this type of stuff that makes no sense.

GarlicBread

Taken from http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Face-on-Mars-36231.shtml

(Review of the ESA mars probe a few years back.)

Now, the ESA's Mars Express has obtained even more detailed images of the Cydonia region. The High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) photos include some of the most spectacular views of the Red Planet ever. The craft had tried to image the region from April 2004 to July 2006 but atmospheric dust and haze screened the rocky formations. But on 22 July, the atmospheric conditions finally allowed the craft to picture the "face" in unprecedented detail. The probe surveyed a wide area in Cydonia region at the best possible resolution and in 3D.

"These images of the Cydonia region on Mars are truly spectacular," said Dr Agustin Chicarro, ESA Mars Express Project Scientist. "They not only provide a completely fresh and detailed view of an area famous to fans of space myths worldwide, but also provide an impressive close-up over an area of great interest for planetary geologists, and show once more the high capability of the Mars Express camera."

Mars Express photographed the "face" structure from different directions. The views reveal an eroded structure probably covered by sand and displaying a massive western wall. Scientists think that this wall has formed via landslides, its entire mass moving downslope. The formation also has what geologists call "debris aprons", gently sloping areas surrounding hills or reliefs.

These debris aprons are frequently found in the Cydonia region at the foot of such remnant mounds but are often missing in smaller massifs. They probably consist of a mixture of rocky debris and ice and are the result of landslides. Sometimes the debris aprons have been covered by later lava flows.

Mars Express imaged many other structures in the region, including "pyramids" and a structure that looks, at least somewhat, like a skull. This naturally skull-shaped structure was never seen before.

GarlicBread

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What reasons?? NASA have been trying to get people interested in space again for decades as their budget has been shrinking since the moon missions. Why would they sabotage themselves by hiding dynamite stuff like this? And how would they expect to keep it secret?

There is a conspiracy theory board for this type of stuff that makes no sense.

Nasa are a military wing of the US government and they are told to shut up about things that are too important.

This is a very valid and important issue, its deserves not to be thrown into the intelectual ghetto that is the conspiracy theory forums.

xoxyx

GarlicBread wrote: »

Taken from http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Face-on-Mars-36231.shtml

(Review of the ESA mars probe a few years back.)

Now, the ESA's Mars Express has obtained even more detailed images of the Cydonia region. The High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) photos include some of the most spectacular views of the Red Planet ever. The craft had tried to image the region from April 2004 to July 2006 but atmospheric dust and haze screened the rocky formations. But on 22 July, the atmospheric conditions finally allowed the craft to picture the "face" in unprecedented detail. The probe surveyed a wide area in Cydonia region at the best possible resolution and in 3D.

"These images of the Cydonia region on Mars are truly spectacular," said Dr Agustin Chicarro, ESA Mars Express Project Scientist. "They not only provide a completely fresh and detailed view of an area famous to fans of space myths worldwide, but also provide an impressive close-up over an area of great interest for planetary geologists, and show once more the high capability of the Mars Express camera."

Mars Express photographed the "face" structure from different directions. The views reveal an eroded structure probably covered by sand and displaying a massive western wall. Scientists think that this wall has formed via landslides, its entire mass moving downslope. The formation also has what geologists call "debris aprons", gently sloping areas surrounding hills or reliefs.

These debris aprons are frequently found in the Cydonia region at the foot of such remnant mounds but are often missing in smaller massifs. They probably consist of a mixture of rocky debris and ice and are the result of landslides. Sometimes the debris aprons have been covered by later lava flows.

Mars Express imaged many other structures in the region, including "pyramids" and a structure that looks, at least somewhat, like a skull. This naturally skull-shaped structure was never seen before.

Not an eroded structure? Not something that looks, at least somewhat, like a skull? Hang on, a pyramid-shaped object?? Ok - I'm sold.

Seriously. I'm not denying these structures exist, although I wouldn't believe the first photo that is shoved under my nose. The point is - so what? There is nothing at all to say that these things were created any way other than naturally and "something that looks, at least, somewhat, like a skull" just goes to show how you are just clutching at straws here (or, at least, something that looks, somewhat, like straws).

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

Mars Express photographed the "face" structure from different directions. The views reveal an eroded structure probably covered by sand and displaying a massive western wall. Scientists think that this wall has formed via landslides, its entire mass moving downslope. The formation also has what geologists call "debris aprons", gently sloping areas surrounding hills or reliefs.

An eroded structure - like Croagh Patrick?

GarlicBread wrote: »

These debris aprons are frequently found in the Cydonia region at the foot of such remnant mounds but are often missing in smaller massifs. They probably consist of a mixture of rocky debris and ice and are the result of landslides. Sometimes the debris aprons have been covered by later lava flows.

Mars Express imaged many other structures in the region, including "pyramids" and a structure that looks, at least somewhat, like a skull. This naturally skull-shaped structure was never seen before.

I think there's a reason why they put 'pyramids' in inverted commas (for example: Fianna Failure's "talented" politicians ruined the country).

You also failed to highlight the 'naturally skull shaped' part. All in all they aren't doing a great job of hiding the structures, are they, publishing all this new stuff?

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

Nasa are a military wing of the US government and they are told to shut up about things that are too important.

Some sort of conspiracy, huh?

GarlicBread wrote: »

This is a very valid and important issue, its deserves not to be thrown into the intelectual ghetto that is the conspiracy theory forums.

Um...

Mr. Presentable

The really scary part is that Pat Kenny turns out to be the whistleblower :eek:

namloc1980

The only "evidence" I have ever seen for ancient civilisation on mars has been the usual case of seeing things where none exist. Humans are pre-programmed to try and see meaningful patterns in random stimuli, for example:



3 circles and a line are recognised as a face even though it is only 4 random shapes. It's called pareidol. If 4 basic shapes can be recognised as a face then the human mind will go into overdrive with more complex geological shapes such as Cydonia.

gene_tunney

I LOL'd a few times reading this thread.

I also heard from a valid source that NASA hushed up the fact that Madeline McCann mysteriously turned up on Mars. This is a serious issue, hopefully it won't be relegatd to the intellectual ghetto of the Conspiracy Forum.








































:rolleyes:

xoxyx

namloc1980 wrote: »

Hey - I know that guy. How'd you get your hands on a pic of Brent?

GarlicBread

Took me awhile to find this one, i remember looking at it awhile back. A very informative and short lecture by a guy call Tom Flandern, he died a few years back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-20g7Bwdw

He goes over the face, the glass tubes and most of the other anomolies in forsensic detail. Very hard to brush aside such overwhelming evidence. Well worth the watch, only 13mins of your time people.

GarlicBread

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I read about that stuff in one of Hancock's books. It sounded pretty ropey at the time, but it has all been thoroughly debunked since. I would expect to find bacterial traces there though, which would be a huge discovery.

I suspect that most things Handcock has come into contact with have become ropey and discredited. A touch of the nutty professor about him .

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

I suspect that most things Handcock has come into contact with have become ropey and discredited. A touch of the nutty professor about him .

Indeed - but without the professor bit

I'm all in favour of original thinking and not taking received wisdom as absolute truth, but I think the evidence here doesn't stack up to much unfortunately. Much like Christianity, I'd love it to be true, but the logical part of me says it doesn't make sense.

slade_x

Moved to the right section

GarlicBread

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm all in favour of original thinking and not taking received wisdom as absolute truth, but I think the evidence here doesn't stack up to much unfortunately.

Ah, but it does stack up. Nasa were caught fiddling the image with the second probe. And after the face debacle all the other stuff was soon being discovered aswell.

If it was just the face on its own then it wouldnt be much of a big deal, could just say it was a rock, no problem, no scandal. Its not just a face though, its two faces, glass tubes, trees, pyrimids, different varieties of structures that cant be natural formations and the most compelling of them all.......(:eek:).........



Well, if theres pyrimids there, then its not really that much of a surprize that one of these guys turned up too ? Real photo from mars pathfinder by the way.

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

Ah, but it does stack up. Nasa were caught fiddling the image with the second probe.

I honestly don't know enough about the processing of digital photographs from space to argue whether they did or didn't 'fiddle' with the photo.

GarlicBread wrote: »

And after the face debacle all the other stuff was soon being discovered aswell.

If it was just the face on its own then it wouldnt be much of a big deal, could just say it was a rock, no problem, no scandal. Its not just a face though, its two faces, glass tubes, trees, pyrimids, different varieties of structures that cant be natural formations and the most compelling of them all......

But they don't have photos of trees, or glass tubes, or two faces. The trees could be anything where 'branching' effects (in a certain light) could occur. The glass tubes look like nothing of the sort. Even if they were tubes from some sort of transport system, why would they wander around aimlessly like that? Compare them to a road network - they look nothing alike. Possibly they could be dry riverbeds or something, I don't know - the pictures are pretty poor. We do have a decent picture of the original face now and it looks like...nothing in particular. The whole conspiracy theory was based on that mountain, and now it's gone, so what are we left with? A few blurry pictures of an unknown landscape.

In a few decades there will be decent images of all these things, and some folks will have pretty red faces

GarlicBread

I would just like to voice my concern about this being moved from astromy/space into the conspiracy forums as it is an inapropriate forum.

When RTE has a representitive of the ESA on primetime radio discussing potiential alien artifacts on Mars it is worthy of a thread in the proper place and should not be interfered with or moved just because it dosent fit peoples belief system or because they dont like me personally(:rolleyes:).

GarlicBread

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But they don't have photos of trees, or glass tubes, or two faces. The trees could be anything where 'branching' effects (in a certain light) could occur. The glass tubes look like nothing of the sort. Even if they were tubes from some sort of transport system, why would they wander around aimlessly like that? Compare them to a road network - they look nothing alike. Possibly they could be dry riverbeds or something, I don't know - the pictures are pretty poor. We do have a decent picture of the original face now and it looks like...nothing in particular. The whole conspiracy theory was based on that mountain, and now it's gone, so what are we left with? A few blurry pictures of an unknown landscape.

Trees






Glass tubes







The second face



These are just a few pics from many thousands.

So if NASA is actively alter photos, why did they release photos showing these things in the first place?

And none of those things look like what you're claiming they look like, and that's even when the photos are cropped so we can't tell how big they are.

And why is it that you guys never mention the other faces on Mars?

Monty Burnz

I'm still not seeing it. Those pictures are so vague that the mind sees what it wants to see. I'm assuming the mars rovers haven't bumped into any trees or driven along any glass tubes?

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

So if NASA is actively alter photos, why did they release photos showing these things in the first place?

And none of those things look like what you're claiming they look like, and that's even when the photos are cropped so we can't tell how big they are.

Because they are a space agency whos job it is to map the surface of mars, thats why they release it. They altered the lighting on the photos coming from the second probe because they knew a ****load of people(after seeing the pictures from the first probe) were waiting to see the face and they couldnt risk high res photos of it going out.

Mars is supposed to be rocky, mountainous desert without anything else. All these images from nasa and the esa, and all the work done by semi-mainstream / non-mainstream experts over the last 30 or so years has proven conclusively that there either was, or still is, some sort of civilization on Mars.

What do you think Pat Kenny was refering to when he said "relic's of some alien life form, wheather a microbe or otherwise"?

namloc1980

GarlicBread wrote: »

Because they are a space agency whos job it is to map the surface of mars, thats why they release it. They altered the lighting on the photos coming from the second probe because they knew a ****load of people(after seeing the pictures from the first probe) were waiting to see the face and they couldnt risk high res photos of it going out.

Mars is supposed to be rocky, mountainous desert without anything else. All these images from nasa and the esa, and all the work done by semi-mainstream / non-mainstream experts over the last 30 or so years has proven conclusively that there either was, or still is, some sort of civilization on Mars.

What do you think Pat Kenny was refering to when he said "relic's of some alien life form, wheather a microbe or otherwise"?

Because he's a journalist and journalists ask stupid questions all the time. If we're looking to pat kenny for inspiration on this subject then God help us!

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

Because they are a space agency whos job it is to map the surface of mars, thats why they release it. They altered the lighting on the photos coming from the second probe because they knew a ****load of people(after seeing the pictures from the first probe) were waiting to see the face and they couldnt risk high res photos of it going out.

So then why are they altering the images in the first place?

GarlicBread wrote: »

Mars is supposed to be rocky, mountainous desert without anything else. All these images from nasa and the esa, and all the work done by semi-mainstream / non-mainstream experts over the last 30 or so years has proven conclusively that there either was, or still is, some sort of civilization on Mars.

Is it not possible that you are just mistaking natural features for alien structures?

GarlicBread wrote: »

What do you think Pat Kenny was refering to when he said "relic's of some alien life form, wheather a microbe or otherwise"?

Bad phrasing?
He's clearly asking if there's any remains of any form of life, either just microbe or something more complex as in fossils or other signs. If he's referring to structures etc when he says "relics", then why does he ask about "relics of a microbe"?

And what are you proposing exactly? That Pat Kenny is privy to the existence of aliens?

And you seem to have ignored my other point:
What about the other faces on Mars?

GarlicBread

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm still not seeing it. Those pictures are so vague that the mind sees what it wants to see. I'm assuming the mars rovers haven't bumped into any trees or driven along any glass tubes?

They are very clear pictures which have been analyzed vicously and cross checked over a long time by many people trained in satalite imagery, geo-engineering, landscaping, photo analysis and all other relevent professionals. Even mathematicians were involved, linking the geometry with Cydonia to Giza here on earth.

I wouldnt post em here with such claims if i didnt know a large amount of man, brain and time power was allready put into the thesis and if I had not been looking into it for a few years myself. Such conclusions were not made lightly.

Mars has been entirely mapped, only thing missing is a few well positioned people within the establishment to stick their heads above the parapet and risk their careers. So few of these people tho.

Penn

GarlicBread wrote: »

I would just like to voice my concern about this being moved from astromy/space into the conspiracy forums as it is an inapropriate forum.

When RTE has a representitive of the ESA on primetime radio discussing potiential alien artifacts on Mars it is worthy of a thread in the proper place and should not be interfered with or moved just because it dosent fit peoples belief system or because they dont like me personally(:rolleyes:).

I'd say it was moved here because you believe there is a conspiracy to surpress evidence of life on Mars which Pat Kenny (God only knows how he'd have knowledge of such information) almost let slip. While there are other forums which this thread could be placed in, the discussion went down a path where it was deemed that Conspiracy Theories would be the most suitable forum. Hell, I don't even know what forum it was originally in but reading through it I think it's most suited to here

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

And what are you proposing exactly? That Pat Kenny is privy to the existence of aliens?

This is the key point, it seems.

By the way GarlicBread, there's an inaccuracy I've spotted in the post here where you state that a certain picture is the 'original' one of the face. It's not, it was created by the Mars conspiracists (I know that because the guy in the video you linked to says so).

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

He's clearly asking if there's any remains of any form of life, either just microbe or something more complex as in fossils or other signs. If he's referring to structures etc when he says "relics", then why does he ask about "relics of a microbe"?

And what are you proposing exactly? That Pat Kenny is privy to the existence of aliens?

And you seem to have ignored my other point:
What about the other faces on Mars?

He said :"relics of some alien lifeform, wheather its a microbe or otherwise".

This means, a microbe OR somthing that isnt a microbe. An alien relic on mars that is not a microbe, to anyone that follows the mars issue, is a very clear reference to the suspected archeological remains.

Im not saying pat is privy to aliens, im saying he knew what he was talking about when he asked the question and obivously had a bit of knowledge about it in order to phrase the question in such a way.

I didnt ignore any question, i posted pictures of the other face aswell at least twice. Scroll up or go back pages.

chops1990

You know, the human brain automatically picks out things that "resemble" faces. It's a function in the brain to identify people. Just happens to pick out things that look like faces too. Saw it on discovery or something.

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

He said :"relics of some alien lifeform, wheather its a microbe or otherwise".

This means, a microbe OR somthing that isnt a microbe. An alien relic on mars that is not a microbe, to anyone that follows the mars issue, is a very clear reference to the suspected archeological remains.

Or it could mean something that isn't a mircobe, like a multicellular organism.
It's absolutely not clear or a reference to any kind of archeological remains.

So can you explain what a relic of a microbe would be exactly?

GarlicBread wrote: »

Im not saying pat is privy to aliens, im saying he knew what he was talking about when he asked the question and obivously had a bit of knowledge about it in order to phrase the question in such a way.

Again, even if he was asking about these "ruins", how is this letting the cat out of the bag?
People ask these stupid questions all the time.

GarlicBread wrote: »

I didnt ignore any question, i posted pictures of the other face aswell at least twice. Scroll up or go back pages.

You did. I was referring to the smiley faces.

And you've ignored another few questions:
So then why are they altering the images in the first place?

Is it not possible that you are just mistaking natural features for alien structures?

GarlicBread

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This is the key point, it seems.

By the way GarlicBread, there's an inaccuracy I've spotted in the post here where you state that a certain picture is the 'original' one of the face. It's not, it was created by the Mars conspiracists (I know that because the guy in the video you linked to says so).

My mistake, let me rectify. The photo is not the original, it is from the second probe. It was not created, it was corrected after nasa had there way with it. It was the photo that was supposed to put the controversy to rest. Nasa changed the lighting and stretched the picture to make it look like a non-face.

Once the unofficial community got there hands on it they were able reverse the lighting and other irregularities that nasa inflicted, bringing the photo back to its original un-doctured state. As is detailed in the posted video. I edited the post.

If you go back to the post and look at the smaller picture of the face in the bottom right corner of the bigger picture, that is the original face from the first probe as far as I know. My brain hurts now.

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

My mistake, let me rectify. The photo is not the original, it is from the second probe. It was not created, it was corrected after nasa had there way with it. It was the photo that was supposed to put the controversy to rest. Nasa changed the lighting and stretched the picture to make it look like a non-face.

Once the unofficial community got there hands on it they were able reverse the lighting and other irregularities that nasa inflicted, bringing the photo back to its original un-doctured state. As is detailed in the posted video. I edited the post.

If you go back to the post and look at the smaller picture of the face in the bottom right corner of the bigger picture, that is the original face from the first probe as far as I know. My brain hurts now.

How do you know that the unofficial community "reversed the doctoring"?
How do you know they didn't just alter it into something they wanted to see?

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

Or it could mean something that isn't a mircobe, like a multicellular organism.
It's absolutely not clear or a reference to any kind of archeological remains.

So can you explain what a relic of a microbe would be exactly?


Again, even if he was asking about these "ruins", how is this letting the cat out of the bag?
People ask these stupid questions all the time.


You did. I was referring to the smiley faces.

And you've ignored another few questions:
So then why are they altering the images in the first place?

Is it not possible that you are just mistaking natural features for alien structures?

I have no idea what a multicellular oragism is, i assume its a plant or a bug or somthing, maybe he ment that sure, or maybe he ment somthing else, somthing more obivious, somthing bigger and in all our faces perhaps.

I cant explain what a relic of a microbe is, i assume its a dead cell of somthing stuck in some fossil.

Had the ESA guy not dodged the question somewhat, the cat could have jumped out of the bag a little. Theres alot of beating around the bush when it comes to mars. On the face value of the arguement its always about 'is there microbes, is there water, is there plant life', but the real burning questions that people wanna ask are 'is there ruins, was there anyone there before, is there anyone there now'.

Why does nasa fix photos? They prob wanna cover their ass from scandal thats why. Or perhaps the US gov has a specific policy regarding its space affairs.

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

I have no idea what a multicellular oragism is, i assume its a plant or a bug or somthing, maybe he ment that sure, or maybe he ment somthing else, somthing more obivious, somthing bigger and in all our faces perhaps.

A multicellular organism is an organism made up of multiple cells.

GarlicBread wrote: »

I cant explain what a relic of a microbe is, i assume its a dead cell of somthing stuck in some fossil.

So then by "relics" he could have been referring to fossils of microbes or of more complex (yet not intelligent) life?

GarlicBread wrote: »

Had the ESA guy not dodged the question somewhat, the cat could have jumped out of the bag a little.

According to your own transcript:

"it would be strange if it turned out nothing happened on mars...........why earth and not mars?"

How is this dodging the question?
Here he is explictily saying what a lot of people are theorising and spending a lot of money trying to research: the there is some form of simple life on Mars, either now or in it's wetter past.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Theres alot of beating around the bush when it comes to mars. On the face value of the arguement its always about 'is there microbes, is there water, is there plant life', but the real burning questions that people wanna ask are 'is there ruins, was there anyone there before, is there anyone there now'.

Well kinda shows how up to date you are on real Mars research.
It's fairly well established that there was huge amounts of water on Mars in the past. The other questions are still open and are actively being pursued by real scientists doing actual work.
This is opposed to the cranks who latch on to blurry pictures that confirm their delusion or help sell their books.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Why does nasa fix photos? They prob wanna cover their ass from scandal thats why. Or perhaps the US gov has a specific policy regarding its space affairs.

Well they touch up photos to make nice press releases to drum up interest in their work.
They don't however doctor photos like you are accusing them of.

And notice how you've yet again ignored questions.
So then why are they altering the images in the first place, if they are also leaving these structures in?

Is it not possible that you are just mistaking natural features for alien structures?

How do you explain the smiley faces?

How do you know that the unofficial community "reversed the doctoring"?
How do you know they didn't just alter it into something they wanted to see?

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know that the unofficial community "reversed the doctoring"?
How do you know they didn't just alter it into something they wanted to see?

Because the the photos from the second probe were completely different to the ones from the first probe, which aroused suspicions. They found out the exact way in which nasa fixed it and used technology to reverse it without editing it in anyway. I aint no techno head, go watch documentaries about it or lectures to find out in detail how it was done.

If some muppet had just made a fake photo it would not have had the backing of so many experts nor would it have carried any arguementative weight.

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

Because the the photos from the second probe were completely different to the ones from the first probe, which aroused suspicions.

Because the first probe had a lower resolution, was higher up and used older technology to transmit the images back.
It's only suspicious if you know nothing about the probes.

GarlicBread wrote: »

They found out the exact way in which nasa fixed it and used technology to reverse it without editing it in anyway. I aint no techno head, go watch documentaries about it or lectures to find out in detail how it was done.

So basically you're just taking their word for it?

GarlicBread wrote: »

If some muppet had just made a fake photo it would not have had the backing of so many experts nor would it have carried any arguementative weight.

So what stopped them from just "altering the lighting" like you think NASA did to make it look more like a face? Or any number of other methods of altering the picture?
And what experts exactly? What argumentative weight?