Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    RoboClam
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭RoboClam


    King Mob wrote: »
    Shopped, surely?

    You're dead right. That's what I get for googling "Interesting Mountain Formations". But yeah, the point still stands.


  • Options
    #63
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,231 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Don't worry there's plenty of real examples
    NewHampshireOldManMountain.jpg

    badlands_guardian.jpg

    Here's a list of them even:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rock_formations_that_resemble_human_beings


  • Options
    #64
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    And then there is the true colour of mars , whats the real colour minus the filters they use , who knows .


  • Options
    #65
    GarlicBread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 270 ✭✭GarlicBread


    King Mob wrote: »
    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?


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

    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.

    I answered that one already i think, because the face was the point of controversy that needed attention. Everything else dosent really matter and its just stupid to attempt to fake alot of the surface as they would be caught out badly eventually by the other agencies that are mapping it aswell.

    No, I think it is absolutely impossible that all of these photos and combined opinion amounts to natural features. Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.

    The smiley faces seem to be large craters with mountains for eyes perhaps? Alot of craters on mars, prob quite a few of them that have cliffs or mountains in certain positions, not that amazing really. It not as if they are on par with the Mona Lisa.

    I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.

    (Disclosure Project) When a large group of highly specialized people, armed with decades of experience, top lawyers and a mountain of evidence, takes on the US gov and nasa, you can be damn well sure ill believe it. Jiving with the disclosure project isnt just swallowing any old crap, an estimated billion people have seen that conference and they have not been caught out on anything, including the two ex-nasa witnesses, whos stories still stand tall.

    Theres been 2 more disclosure project conferences since 2001 with all the same information coming out again and again from different people. This time they were both covered by the mainstream media. Anyone who still ignores this is living in fantasy land.

    I take offence to your assertion that i believe anything im told on the webzor. If theres a significant amount of foolproof evidence going for somthing and only irrationality or ignorance going against it, then one must logically assume that there may be somthing to it.

    Richard Hoagland may be many things, but he aint no liar. He was a journalist working with nasa a long time ago and he knows more than anyone when they are baking porky pies. Outside of officialdom, hes the top authority on Mars, like him or loath him.


  • Options
    #66
    lordstilton
    Registered Users Posts: 174 ✭✭lordstilton


    Havn't been keeping up to date with your "top authority on Mars" ...... The image from the HiRISE camera on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, released in April 2007, was so detailed that even Hoagland appears to have abandoned his contention that the whole structure is a face. In the epilogue to his book released the following October, he analyzes instead the details of the face mesa within the MRO frame that he says are "obviously collapsed geometric ruins [with] parallel walls, multiple, 3-D planes, twisted beams, and thin girders."[37]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Trine
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭Trine


    What scale are the photos with the "glass tubes"? As far as I recall the "face" is over 2km across, which for me anyway completely dismisses any notion of them being artificially made.

    I'm guessing the "tubes" are at least a km across, which again ridicules any notion of them being structures.


  • Options
    #68
    BigDuffman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭BigDuffman


    I've always wondered what exactly to people think the "shady US govt." have to gain by not telling us about something that may be of alien origin?!

    There's a rock formation up the road from that looks a bout like podge & rodge....hmmmm


  • Options
    #69
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,231 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    GarlicBread wrote: »
    I answered that one already i think, because the face was the point of controversy that needed attention. Everything else dosent really matter and its just stupid to attempt to fake alot of the surface as they would be caught out badly eventually by the other agencies that are mapping it aswell.
    But that directly contradicts everything else you say.
    You claim that the other photos obviously show what you also say nasa are trying to cover up. They wouldn't even need to fake them, just not release them.
    And why don't the other agencies call them out on what you are claiming they did on the HiRes shots of the face?
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    No, I think it is absolutely impossible that all of these photos and combined opinion amounts to natural features. Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.
    Well good to know you're closed minded on the matter.
    Then how do you explain the examples of faces and stuff right here on earth?
    How come these aren't impossible?
    Also if you actually understood anything about math and probability you'd know that trying to ascribe a probability to something like that is stupid at best, dishonest at worst.
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    The smiley faces seem to be large craters with mountains for eyes perhaps? Alot of craters on mars, prob quite a few of them that have cliffs or mountains in certain positions, not that amazing really. It not as if they are on par with the Mona Lisa.
    So how can these form naturally?
    How does a popular image from the 80's appear on Mars?

    Now note everything that you've just said and likely will say in response to the above questions apply exactly the same to your position.
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.
    You can't lie or get away with on the internet? Really?
    Is that the only reason you believe this nonsense?
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    (Disclosure Project) When a large group of highly specialized people, armed with decades of experience, top lawyers and a mountain of evidence, takes on the US gov and nasa, you can be damn well sure ill believe it. Jiving with the disclosure project isnt just swallowing any old crap, an estimated billion people have seen that conference and they have not been caught out on anything, including the two ex-nasa witnesses, whos stories still stand tall.

    Theres been 2 more disclosure project conferences since 2001 with all the same information coming out again and again from different people. This time they were both covered by the mainstream media. Anyone who still ignores this is living in fantasy land.
    Again, you're just blindly swallowing what they are telling you.
    Have you actually looked critically at any of this?
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    I take offence to your assertion that i believe anything im told on the webzor. If theres a significant amount of foolproof evidence going for somthing and only irrationality or ignorance going against it, then one must logically assume that there may be somthing to it.
    I only assert it because that's the only conclusion i can arrive at.
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    Richard Hoagland may be many things, but he aint no liar. He was a journalist working with nasa a long time ago and he knows more than anyone when they are baking porky pies.
    He's a liar. he claimed that he designed the Voyager Plaques. This is a lie.
    Oh and practically everything else her claims is either made up or outright lies.
    Or do you believe all his "hyper dimensional physics" and that the government is plotting to blow up Jupiter?
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    Outside of officialdom, hes the top authority on Mars, like him or loath him.
    I lol'd so hard.
    But yea, outside people who understand science and know what they are talking about, he's the top alright.


  • Options
    #70
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    King Mob wrote: »
    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.

    Richard Hogland is a nutter he also claimed a few months ago that phobos 2 was a fifteen mile wide spaceship ,just him and no one else:confused::confused:what in the world is he smoking


  • Options
    #71
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,179 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    GarlicBread wrote: »
    I answered that one already i think, because the face was the point of controversy that needed attention. Everything else dosent really matter and its just stupid to attempt to fake alot of the surface as they would be caught out badly eventually by the other agencies that are mapping it aswell.

    No, I think it is absolutely impossible that all of these photos and combined opinion amounts to natural features.

    Here is a 3D representation of the "Face on Mars compiled from images taken by the European Space Agency's Mars Express probe currently orbiting Mars:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDBVO2QEYgU


    It is clear that this is not a face but a mesa in the the Martian desert. Such mesas are also found on earth and tend to be found in dry arid locations such as deserts for example:

    ar123456529854999.JPG

    This mesa is in Arizona, USA and is similar in appearance to the "Face on Mars". There are also many more examples that can be seen from a quick google search. So to say that it is absolutely impossible that these Martian features are natural is to take a very bias and close-minded point of view.
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.

    The smiley faces seem to be large craters with mountains for eyes perhaps? Alot of craters on mars, prob quite a few of them that have cliffs or mountains in certain positions, not that amazing really. It not as if they are on par with the Mona Lisa.

    Tom Flandern also proposed that the civilisation that "built" the "Face on Mars" etc. actually came from a long lost planet between Mars and Jupiter that was destroyed millions of years ago and that the remains of that planet is now the asteroid belt. Unfortunately for this hypothesis it is now understood that the entire asteroid belt has a mass of just 4% of that of our Moon (and our moon is much smaller than Earth or Mars) and would be around this size:

    Rhea_Earth_Moon_Comparison.png.

    The smallest object is Saturn's moon Rhea which has a similar mass as the entire asteroid belt put together. A planet could never form with that little mass with Jupiter next door as it would continually rip it apart with it's massive gravity well. I would take his hypothesis with a massive pinch of salt.
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.

    I just laugh at Hoagland at this stage. He just jumps to conclusions without doing any sort of investigation and he is the King is mis-interpreting images for his own gain. I presume he has alot of books to fill with his non-sense so he must make up stuff on a regular basis to keep up.
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    (Disclosure Project) When a large group of highly specialized people, armed with decades of experience, top lawyers and a mountain of evidence, takes on the US gov and nasa, you can be damn well sure ill believe it. Jiving with the disclosure project isnt just swallowing any old crap, an estimated billion people have seen that conference and they have not been caught out on anything, including the two ex-nasa witnesses, whos stories still stand tall.

    Theres been 2 more disclosure project conferences since 2001 with all the same information coming out again and again from different people. This time they were both covered by the mainstream media. Anyone who still ignores this is living in fantasy land.

    One the key witnesses of the Disclosure Project, Karl Wolfe, has been totally discredited primarily because he said he saw images of alien bases on the Moon taken by a NASA space probe in 1965. The problem is that the space probe he refers to didn't go to the Moon until 1966.
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    I take offence to your assertion that i believe anything im told on the webzor. If theres a significant amount of foolproof evidence going for somthing and only irrationality or ignorance going against it, then one must logically assume that there may be somthing to it.

    Richard Hoagland may be many things, but he aint no liar. He was a journalist working with nasa a long time ago and he knows more than anyone when they are baking porky pies. Outside of officialdom, hes the top authority on Mars, like him or loath him.

    Hoagland doesn't have a scientific bone in his body. He just makes random stuff up to sell books. His latest one is that Mars' moon Phobos is actually a spaceship :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    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?

    FaceMars.jpg

    For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.
    Why does he have a big blob on his cheek? Why is one 'eyebrow' raised above the other Roger Moore style? Why does he have a pointy chin in the middle of his lower lip?

    It's a cool image, but if you look at 10,000 hills in various different harsh lighting situations, you're going to find faces, teacups and probably iPhones in there.


  • Options
    #73
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    GarlicBread wrote: »
    Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.
    That was ludicrous, I laughed out loud at that bit of the video. How exactly did they work out the odds I wonder, he never explained. Some thing like this perhaps...

    "What are the odds of finding a moustache on Mars?"
    "Um, a million to one."
    "Ok, multiply that by the odds of finding an eybrow on Mars"
    "Um, ok, a billion to one."
    "Now throw in an eye..."
    GarlicBread wrote: »
    I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.
    Oh dear. I laughed out loud there too. The amount of misinformation on the planet has mushroomed exponentially with the internet. Nowadays any crank can publish whatever they like, whereas in the past you had to pass some sort of quality control to get something published by professionals, or the wealthy cranks could pay to publish themselves.


  • Options
    #74
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    His latest one is that Mars' moon Phobos is actually a spaceship :D

    It probably is .


  • Options
    #75
    RoboClam
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭RoboClam


    espinolman wrote: »
    It probably is .

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1012/phoboslimb_marsexpress_big.jpg

    Definitely is a spaceship.


  • Options
    #76
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    RoboClam wrote: »
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1012/phoboslimb_marsexpress_big.jpg

    Definitely is a spaceship.

    Probably millions of years old . The solar system should be littered with junk from eons ago . Unless of course you believe intelligent life is unique and could only come about once through accident and out of all the billions of stars in the galaxy it could only happen on one planet in billions of years .
    Which i think would be a ridiculous assumption to make .


  • Options
    #77
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,179 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    espinolman wrote: »
    Probably millions of years old . The solar system should be littered with junk from eons ago . Unless of course you believe intelligent life is unique and could only come about once through accident and out of all the billions of stars in the galaxy it could only happen on one planet in billions of years .
    Which i think would be a ridiculous assumption to make .

    What is your basis for believing that Phobos is actually a spaceship?? I'm sure most rational people believe life is most likely elsewhere in the vast universe. So the only ridiculous assumption being made by anyone is you claiming phobos is a spaceship!


  • Options
    #78
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    Have you looked at the photos on the hoagland website , phobos looks to be artifical .


  • Options
    #79
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    espinolman wrote: »
    Have you looked at the photos on the hoagland website , phobos looks to be artifical .

    Hogland is a picture doctoring fecker trying to fund his website and books.Tell me this why is it only HE has made these stupid allegations ,no one else ,even the UFO community don't want anything to do with him


  • Options
    #80
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    hogland is an arrogant self-centred egotistical charlatan parasitical wanker


  • Options
    #81
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,179 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    espinolman wrote: »
    Have you looked at the photos on the hoagland website , phobos looks to be artifical .

    No it doesn't look artificial. Have you ever seen a spaceship with impact craters? Anyway all will be revealed as the Russians are sending a probe to Phobos this year to land and return a sample to Earth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,231 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    No it doesn't look artificial. Have you ever seen a spaceship with impact craters? Anyway all will be revealed as the Russians are sending a probe to Phobos this year to land and return a sample to Earth.

    That's because they disguised the spaceship to look like an asteroid.
    Duh, namloc.


  • Options
    #83
    Lone Stone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,405 ✭✭✭Lone Stone


    Maybe our ancestors were dumped on earth for being retarded


  • Options
    #84
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    No it doesn't look artificial. Have you ever seen a spaceship with impact craters?

    How would you know what an alien spaceship looks like . The aliens may build a spaceship like an asteroid if they were crab shaped with six heads .


  • Options
    #85
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,231 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    espinolman wrote: »
    How would you know what an alien spaceship looks like . The aliens may build a spaceship like an asteroid if they were crab shaped with six heads .

    Wow, I was taking the piss when I posted this.

    So you actually believe that it's an alien ship that looks exactly like an asteroid yet also looks like an alien ship?


  • Options
    #86
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    I what bothers me most about Hogland is when he decides to show everyone what the inside of phobos 2 looks like.He says it's a spaceship and heres what it looks like inside and the man never flew higher than 39,000 feet:rolleyes:

    An ancient, ET spaceship!

    And Keeper ... if any of this was even half-way correct ... of "an amazing, almost unimaginable treasure-trove of radical new science ... "magical" technologies ... and biological breakthroughs ..." that, all because of Mars Express' now-established confirmation that "Phobos IS significantly hollow ... and therefore, likely artificial"--

    Awaits all Humanity ... inside Phobos.

    Phobos-inside-cole.jpg

    Jesus wept ,he's a plonker


  • Options
    #87
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Looks like the 'radical technology' inside Phobos is mainly a line of three-wheeled tractors.


  • Options
    #88
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,179 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Sink The Banana wrote: »
    I what bothers me most about Hogland is when he decides to show everyone what the inside of phobos 2 looks like.He says it's a spaceship and heres what it looks like inside and the man never flew higher than 39,000 feet:rolleyes:




    Phobos-inside-cole.jpg

    Jesus wept ,he's a plonker

    Phobos also seems to have a unique gravity field where everything is attracted to the inside shell of the moon :D or maybe they are wearing velcro boots?


  • Options
    #89
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Phobos also seems to have a unique gravity field where everything is attracted to the inside shell of the moon :D or maybe they are wearing velcro boots?

    They have nice clothes and lovely robotic ploughs as well ,what a load of shit lads


  • Options
    #90
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Will we never learn.... fupping developers!...building their **** and then fecking off when things get hot, ghost pyramids, crazy Metro's and the gubberments covering up for them!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Boo Radley
    Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Boo Radley


    GarlicBread wrote: »
    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:.

    Surely all he meant was a relic in the sense of a fossil/remains of a microbe etc.

    Not debating anything about Mars rather your interpretation of what he was "really" trying to say.


Advertisement