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

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.

King Mob

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!

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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?

Jeboa Safari

GarlicBread wrote: »

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.

Why would the ESA spokesman dodge the question to protect NASA and the US government? If anything, they'd be racing to be the first space agency to produce evidence of alien life and life on mars, and get there before NASA. And not just the Europeans, theres the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Korean space agencies that would love to beat NASA to the punch. Not to mention the extra funding and publicity space research as a whole would get from finding such information

RoboClam

GarlicBread wrote: »

Trees






Glass tubes







The second face



These are just a few pics from many thousands.

Your "Trees" and "Glass tubes" appear to be the sublimation of CO2, causing the sand to retreat.

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_007962_2635


And the face? It's what namloc1980 said.

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

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


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

According to your own transcript:

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.


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.

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?

"Alien relic...microbe or otherwise". To say 'otherwise' means 'other', which means somthing else. To break it down further for you, this means somthing else other than a microbe that is an alien relic. Im sorry if you cant understand that, its a basic breakdown of words from the english langauge. But your right, he could be talking about ancient flying elephant fossils or somthing else as irrelevent. However, considering all the questions about mars that exist, to say an 'alien relic other than a microbe' is certainly a reference to some of those questions.

He didnt say microbes or microbes, he said microbes or otherwise.

Nasa dont fake photos!? LOL

You ever hear of those whistleblowers back in the 2001 disclosure project who were ex-nasa employees? The ones that broke their national security oaths and tesified to the fact nasa have entire compartments that filter all photos before the public gets a hold of them? Go learn if you havent. Thats a different topic tho.

They altered the hi rez version of the face because it would have been so painstakingly obivious it was a damn face upon the official release, when so many people were waiting to see it. They didnt need to alter anything else because focus was on the face and not on all the other anomolies. They dont have the capacity(or audacity) to fake the entire surface as they would be caught out by the other agencies that are also mapping it.

You talk about blurry pictures.....



Does this look like a blurry photo to you? Does it look like somthing that happened by accident?



Does the tube in this photo look blurry to you? Or can you even see the sun light reflecting off it?

King Mob

GarlicBread wrote: »

"Alien relic...microbe or otherwise". To say 'otherwise' means 'other', which means somthing else. To break it down further for you, this means somthing else other than a microbe that is an alien relic. Im sorry if you cant understand that, its a basic breakdown of words from the english langauge. But your right, he could be talking about ancient flying elephant fossils or somthing else as irrelevent. However, considering all the questions about mars that exist, to say an 'alien relic other than a microbe' is certainly a reference to some of those questions.

He didnt say microbes or microbes, he said microbes or otherwise.

And "otherwise" probably meant "More complex life forms". Say for example a sort of plankton, which are different and more complex than microbes yet can't build any of the stuff you think is on Mars.
You've already stated that fossils could be "relics". So your point has kinda been undermined entirely.
So it's pretty obvious that he's asking if there's any fossils or other remains of microbes or more complex lifeforms, not about any structures or similar.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Nasa dont fake photos!? LOL

You ever hear of those whistleblowers back in the 2001 disclosure project who were ex-nasa employees? The ones that broke their national security oaths and tesified to the fact nasa have entire compartments that filter all photos before the public gets a hold of them? Go learn if you havent. Thats a different topic tho.

So you just swallow everything you read on the internet then?

GarlicBread wrote: »

They altered the hi rez version of the face because it would have been so painstakingly obivious it was a damn face upon the official release, when so many people were waiting to see it. They didnt need to alter anything else because focus was on the face and not on all the other anomolies.

Is it not possible this isn't the case and that the face is simply a product of paredolia and cranks spreading rumours?

GarlicBread wrote: »

They dont have the capacity(or audacity) to fake the entire surface as they would be caught out by the other agencies that are also mapping it.

Hang on, you just said they have "nasa have entire compartments that filter all photos before the public gets a hold of them".
So how can you claim both this and that they don't have the capacity?

And why haven't any of the other space agencies call them out over the face?

GarlicBread wrote: »

You talk about blurry pictures.....


Does this look like a blurry photo to you? Does it look like somthing that happened by accident?

Does the tube in this photo look blurry to you? Or can you even see the sun light reflecting off it?

Yes. they are both quite blurry. And that little bright spot is clearly not a reflection. Note how there's similar bright spots in the middle right of the image, where the ground smooths out a little.

And I'll take it you've no intention of actually answering those questions then?

GarlicBread

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Why would the ESA spokesman dodge the question to protect NASA and the US government? If anything, they'd be racing to be the first space agency to produce evidence of alien life and life on mars, and get there before NASA.

He didnt quite dodge the question, he answered it indirectly. My opinion would be that its just not somthing they want in the public domain until the time is right. They prob cooperate policy wise on an international level, including all the other space agencies.

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

And I'll take it you've no intention of actually answering those questions then?

What questions? Your throwing them at me faster than i can answer, im only human.

Funny how you didnt try to discredit the disclosure project witnesses, cause you know its true .

You asked me about experts, and i tell you, i am not going through every documentary / lecture etc that i have ever seen just to satisfy your unquenchable thirst to find holes in my arguements. Off the top of my head, Tom Flandern and Richard Hoagland are two of the top dudes, but theres many more. Easy enough to look into if you have an internet connection, just type 'mars' 'documentary' 'cydonia' or other key words and you'll find a rake of people + stuff.

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. they are both quite blurry. And that little bright spot is clearly not a reflection. Note how there's similar bright spots in the middle right of the image, where the ground smooths out a little.

And I'll take it you've no intention of actually answering those questions then?

I'll take it you have no intention of acknowledging that a giant perfectly T-shaped structure exists on the surface of mars?



For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.

King Mob

GarlicBread wrote: »

What questions? Your throwing them at me faster than i can answer, im only human.

The same ones I've been repeating everytime you've ignored them.

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 wrote: »

Funny how you didnt try to discredit the disclosure project witnesses, cause you know its true .

Well no I don't believe it's true. I do believe however you swallow everything you are told on the internet.

GarlicBread wrote: »

You asked me about experts, and i tell you, i am not going through every documentary / lecture etc that i have ever seen just to satisfy your unquenchable thirst to find holes in my arguements. Off the top of my head, Tom Flandern and Richard Hoagland are two of the top dudes, but theres many more. Easy enough to look into if you have an internet connection, just type 'mars' 'documentary' 'cydonia' or other key words and you'll find a rake of people + stuff.

I have read up on the theory extensively.
Hoagland is a lying crank, the fact you think he's a top dude of anything says a lot.

GarlicBread wrote: »

I'll take it you have no intention of acknowledging that a giant perfectly T-shaped structure exists on the surface of mars?

Well I didn't say it wasn't there, just that it likely is not artificial. And also it's nether perfect, not T shaped. It looks more like a number 1.

GarlicBread wrote: »

For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.

Yes because whoever altered that image put them there while he was "undoctoring it".

RoboClam

GarlicBread wrote: »

I'll take it you have no intention of acknowledging that a giant perfectly T-shaped structure exists on the surface of mars?



For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.

This mountain looks like a cat, what could this mean?! The cat's out of the bag, almost.....



This clearly looks like a foot. I can only surmise that giant humans walked the earth.

Or, maybe they are just natural formations which we unconciously try to make patterns out of. Pareidolia.

King Mob

RoboClam wrote: »

Shopped, surely?