Mars: Ancient Art Discovered

No, and the other four times you tried to post it weren't too convincing, either.

Which four times?
I was not visiting the forum for years

e s

Anybody can assert anything. Wheres the pictures? This is just some writer getting hyped up. Are we supposed to comment on something without data? thats silly.

Hey Buddy . . . wanna buy a bridge?

Bow down little Extrasense, Jespah is The Great Oracle of our civilization. She sees and knows all.

(You may leave your offerings on the altar at the bottom of this forum)

farmerman,

there are references in the linked item.

I am moving them here for your convenience:

http://marslife.us/press/WHAT_ABOUT_LIFE_ON_MARS.pdf
http://marslife.us/proof"


eS

Ok FM:
RL, BD, Gunga, and Spendi have often called you out for being a scientific charlatan but extrasense has provided proof positive with this post. We have irrefutable evidence that there are some pretty great art galleries on Mars but your ignorance of science is telling as you refuse to believe.

Come on:
First link using quotes from reputable scientists out of context... (you do see the quotation marks don't you.)

Written up in a prestigious science peer-reviewed journal "Woman's World."…(or are you gonna' say Anna Goldberg has no peers?)

Use of pseudonym by author… (so that the operatives from site 51 don't cause him to have an "accident".)

Not providing references to original Mars photos… (so that the data doesn't suddenly disappear.)

Not providing latitude and longitude co-ordinates of the art forms (so other scientists trying to get the information out aren't suddenly cut off from their grant money by mysterious government agencies)

Its all there man! Don't make me get Spendi over here to quote Spengler, Rabelais, or St. Thomas Aquinas at you, just admit it's all real and your non-existent science credentials are showing.

Whew! That was hard work. I don't see how these nuts do it!

The only relevant thing that you are claiming - is incorrect, as at the "proof" site every picture has reference to NASA original in its name, which has timestamp, which is corresponding to Sol and Rover location.


So, try it again


eS

So what's your take on The Man in The Moon? Here's a very good photo that I think proves he is real:

Since my client meeting was canceled and I'm bored, I'll respond. Your first link has no photos, your second is a PDF that has photos with a copyright line and your third link doesn't work.

But I'm voting a BIG YES!!! anyway. I'm convinced. Pyhsical Review Letters is always behind publishing ground breaking stuff like this anyway.

I'm voting for the man in the moon too!

These must be them.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Sorry, I have assumed you have used it.

corrected links:

http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/61076005cp.shtml
http://marslife.us/press/WHAT_ABOUT_LIFE_ON_MARS.pdf
http://marslife.us/proof/


eS

Well I don't want to rain on your parade and I know you are going to believe what you want but this:

http://marslife.us/proof/Estimating-Probability-of-Life-on-Mars.htm

for example, isn't a methodology it doesn't even rise to the level of gobboldy-gook.

If you know someone who understands proabability (science not withstanding) show it to them and see if they can make anything out of it.

No offence but I didn't need to look any father.

I cant deny that the object does look sorta lifelike. However, if this guy is a true science guy, He should submit the photos for some kind of JPL corroboration. I mean, if this was taken via the Rovers, why havent they made a big deal like they did with the "blueberry rocks". Also, Im not so certain about the obvious layering behind the object. Everything we have seen to date is only slightly reminiscent of sedimentary rock. This stuff looks very undeniably sedimentary. Could the pic be nfaked? Any kid with a Paintbrush or Photoshop program can doctor up pictures .

I am not sure, which object you are talking about.
As far as I can see, no doctoring is involved.
The objects reference the original NASA pictures, which are consistent with the images at the proof site.

As to your requirement that NASA/JPL were involved, how do you know that they are not?
They probably are afraid to go on record about this, as the inevitable controversy might cost them billions in funding.
Who can blame them?


eS

Really?

I do know Pobability theory, and the methodology seems OK to me.


e s

one thing's for sure. If there was a civilization on Mars it seems to be gone now. Just as we will be one day.

so pass me one of those bongs would ya?

Like that "face" on Mars, this one is seen from one view and the holes could be the pocks left from the spherules of Siderite and Sulphosalts. I believe that you have a bit of "Conspiracy theory" boiling within you.
Since the shot has an ability to be viewed in 3-D, why hasnt there been a "fishnet topo reconstruction" been done?

Photo reconstruction and photogrammetry is a well established tool. Im no expert in it(and I dont think that you are either) . In that respect we are both observers. Im interested , skeptical, open minded,but not jumping to any unwarranted and premature conclusions. You seem to be like those guys who claimed to have found underwater city scapes, (when it turned out that those underwater blocks were just orthogonally fractured basalt blocks near an old ocean vent.

I wonder if you have 3D glasses.
The things look provocative at the least, that's all.
If you want, I could sent you a pair of 3D glasses, as I have spare ones.


Best,

eS