60 replies to this topic

[ShadowSot]

Why have people started to link to ATS threads like they are a good reference source lately?

It's another forum, not a documentary site.

[badeskov]

xris, on 01 August 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

Im not saying every skeptic or saying the majority but there is size-able amount of vociferous skeptics ready to pounce without first considering or actually reading the links provided.

I certainly understand what you are saying xris, and there are extremes in both camps (although I hate that division into camps). But I will also say that some of the skeptics that delivered "cheap' jabs in this respect are also the skeptics that were the first to give very detailed explanations on what was being seen in earlier images, giving substantial references and generally spending a lot of time explaining in layman's terms what they perceived the images to show. Just to be met with a shrug and Hoagland knows better. Now, that can make some people a bit antsy, Particularly when it happens over and over again. So yeah, a couple of cheap jabs seems reasonable now and then.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

ShadowSot, on 01 August 2010 - 03:43 PM, said:

Why have people started to link to ATS threads like they are a good reference source lately?

It's another forum, not a documentary site.

Well, in mcrom's defense, he was pointing to questions asked there that he could not find any answers to and not using it as a reference as such. That said, he could start a topic here and probably get the answers he is seeking (albeit probably not the ones he would like).

Cheers,
Badeskov

[DONTEATUS]

badeskov, on 01 August 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

Well, in mcrom's defense, he was pointing to questions asked there that he could not find any answers to and not using it as a reference as such. That said, he could start a topic here and probably get the answers he is seeking (albeit probably not the ones he would like).

Cheers,
Badeskov

At least He`s not Asked BillBren or Burn or what ever that MIB thinks he is ! I believe that  anyone with a little common since can See that The Face on Mars is nothing more than a mountian being made into a Massive Dream image!

Attached Files

•  26013_1429109367032_1211770288_31261648_2243365_n.jpg   47.46K   3 downloads

[mcrom901]

badeskov, on 01 August 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

I just saw the "Moon rising" movie title in that thread you pointed me to and I ran away - fast. Secret EVAs in the Apollo program?? Aliens?? Is there anything specific you would like to know? Hard to guess what was really going on in that thread, to be honest.

cheers... no worries... but i was specifically referring to the last post on that page... where lunar colours were discussed, which seemed missing in jaxa's data.... details of which being...


'aristarchus crater' by jaxa's hdtv....




colours of the aristarchus crater from other sources....

Quote

10. Aristarchus Plateau (Real Color)

A mosaic of more than 250 images showing the complex and diverse Aristarchus region of the Moon in approximately “natural” colors (blue = 415 nanometers, green = 750 nanometers, red = 950 nanometers). The plateau is an uplifted block of complex, highland terrain, partly flooded by later mare basalt lavas. Dark, pyroclastic glasses partly cover the uplifted terrain. The crater Aristarchus (47 kilometers in diameter) has formed in the southeast corner of the plateau, excavating both highlands and mare rocks.

http://www.lpi.usra....d/slide_10.html

http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1973008089.pdf

Quote

Optics: Meade 10” f/10 LX200GPS UHTC at f/28 with 18mm eyepiece projection.
Camera: Canon D60.
Dates/Times: 20 August 2002.
Location: my backyard observatory in Austin, Texas.
Exposure Details: 17x1sec.
Processing: MaxImDL (align, combine), AIP4WIN (deconvolution), Photoshop (levels, curves, etc.).

http://www.rc-astro....oto/id1126.html

Quote

Scope: TMB 80mm
Barlow: 2.5x barlow
Camera: DMK 41AF02
Filters: Astronomik RGB
Location: Ghent
Exposure:
Remark: The colors of Aristarchus region

http://www.astronomi...on20070204.html

Colorful Aristarchus Plateau

ARISTARCHIAN COLORS

Quote

Color effect at Aristarchus and Vallis Schroteri's Cobra Head

"Early in the evening of October 29, 1963, Mr. Edward Barr and I had started our regular lunar observations... When I started to observe at 1830 MST I concerntrated on the Cobra Head of Schroeter's Valley... at 1850 MST I noticed a reddish-orange color over the dome-like structure on the southwest side of the Cobra Head. Almost simultaneously I observed a small spot of the same color on a hilltop across the valley. Within two minutes these colors had become quite brilliant and had considerable sparkle. I immediately called Mr. Barr to share this observation with me. His first impression of the color was a dark orange. No other color spots were noted until 1855 MST when I observed an elongated streaked pink color along the southwest rim of Aristarchus...at approximately 1900 MST I noticed the spots of color at the Cobra Head and on the hill across the valley had changed to a light ruby red...I had the impression that I was looking into a large polished gem ruby but could not see through it. Mr. Barr's impression of the color at this time was that a little more dense than I had described it... By 1905 MST it was apprent that the color was fading".

- Taking Science to the Moon- Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program, by Donald A. Beattie, chapter 2, p. 25

Transcript quote by James Greenacre, employed at the time by th US Air Force Lunar Mapping Program at the Lowell Observatory.

http://the-moon.wiki...Colored regions

there is definitely something fishy as far as the lunar colours are concerned.... cause we have also witnessed nasa replacing pictures with altered versions....

image #S69-40308 from the DAC imagery was available until 2-22-2010 on the Human Space Flight website



which was replaced with the following....



http://spaceflight.n.../s69_40308.html

[mcrom901]

the same crater discussed here as well....



which makes one wonder... what was that famous quote "THE MOON IS ESSENTIALLY GRAY, NO COLOUR" all about

hmmmmm.....

apollo 8

apollo 11



http://spaceflight.n...128e006611.html

[mcmchugh99]

Once again, as a historian, nothing would give me greater happiness than learning that there was an ancient civilization on Mars or that there might have been ET visitors in the past.  I'd be pleased if there were real historical or scientific evidence for something like this, but evidently this isn't it.

I know there have been many technical arguments over the years about the vailidity of these "Face on Mars" pictures, but I never said much about them because I didn't know much about the science and technology involved.

Well, too bad we haven't yet found any relics or artifacts of an alien civilization out there--maybe we will someday.  Just the fact they we have advanced so rapidly in a relatively short time to even be able to take pictures of Mars is remarkable.  This would have been pure science fiction 100 years ago.

[DONTEATUS]

We all mostly agree on this point,and If by chance someday we Dig up a Alien space craft with a Cro-magnum Man at the Controls we may need to change the History Book`s !

Attached Files

•  27937_1434794627019_1147531040_1318301_1211793_s.jpg   9.18K   3 downloads

[farandaway]

I can't believe anyone really thought it was a face in the first place.  (The real face was eroded by the canals eons ago.)

What does this mean for the Martian Stonehenge?

I keep seeing faces in the clouds, I know they're living in our atmosphere.  Hurricane Katrina was an alien conspiracy!

[Drewcifer]

This is pretty funny, the second I looked at the picture in the OP's link, I immediately saw a face. Am I the only one? If anything it looks way more pronounced than any old pictures of "the face". In fact I never really cared much for the whole face on Mars idea and wasn't really convinced. Looking at this picture, the right side that's in the shadows really appears to be half of a face. I see an eye a nose and a mouth, he looks like he's pissed. And the left edge of the shadow is the peak where symmetry on the other side should appear, there appears to be a "brow" to line up with the eye on the opposite side.

Anyway, how big is this mountain? Just curious. In the old pictures I think what intrigued me more than the fact that it looked like a face was just the fact that it looked like the mountain came out of a plain, but that might just be the way it's isolated in the image.

Quote

I certainly understand what you are saying xris, and there are extremes in both camps (although I hate that division into camps). But I will also say that some of the skeptics that delivered "cheap' jabs in this respect are also the skeptics that were the first to give very detailed explanations on what was being seen in earlier images, giving substantial references and generally spending a lot of time explaining in layman's terms what they perceived the images to show. Just to be met with a shrug and Hoagland knows better. Now, that can make some people a bit antsy, Particularly when it happens over and over again. So yeah, a couple of cheap jabs seems reasonable now and then.

There are extremes on both ends of the spectrum if you ask me. It's great to have a healthy amount of skepticism, but some step over the edge and become debunkers, uninterested in the possibility of any truth in dissenting ideas at all. These positions are just as disrespectful as the fringers that refuse to listen to reason.

I totally understand that you're saying people can get irritated to continuously repeat their claims, but I'm new here, and when I come in, I see disrespectful behavior. I don't think it serves a cause to become bitter to the opposition and show it, especially when people who didn't see the past history are looking in, making their own conclusions on what's happening in the present. There are plenty of strong skeptics on this board, if you're feeling irritated, leave it to another, I'm sure someone will jump on it when something ridiculous pops up. If you can't hold a high standard it might be better to not comment, because it just makes fence sitters think you're being dismissive.

Of course, it's fine to have a good sense of humor, and in case you didn't catch it, that's what my first paragraph was about.  

[AI Construct]

I don't know how anyone can wholeheartedly say that this Nasa image is final proof that debunks the mythical face on Mars. It's only a partial picture of part of the so called face rather than the whole face and even if there was a face on Mars, most of it would of probably eroded away by now. If people are going to prove something or debunk something, at least be rational about it and use good reasoning while doing so.

There's plenty of eroded pyramids on Earth that to onlookers no longer look like pyramids, but that doesn't change the fact that in the past they were pyramids.

http://www.touregypt...menemhet3hp.htm
http://www.nemo.nu/i...dor/tetipyr.htm

[TwoXMike]

Mac E, on 30 July 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

I'm glad NASA took care of that myth, although I'm sure there will be consipracy theories that live on.

Now I should start by saying that I look at things in the rational mind and the conspiracy mind and going by how governments and wealthy organizations lie to the public constantly not to mention that one a show called The Universe I was watching the scientists said that if alien life were proven that religions would be destroyed, people would become irrational etc etc. And the fact that the "face" on Mars was a leak ie before NASA has a chance to doctor it. Of course NASA is going to say it is just a rock or a mountain or whatever and they have had a couple of years to perfect the picture to make it look like just a rock

[SandySea]

Is it possible?  Can it really be that some people on this site actually believe what NASA tells them?  NeverAStraightAnswer NASA?)
Next you'll be believing newspapers, politicians and the history channel!  

[Eldorado]

SandySea, on 21 August 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

Is it possible?  Can it really be that some people on this site actually believe what NASA tells them?  NeverAStraightAnswer NASA?)
Next you'll be believing newspapers, politicians and the history channel!  

Nah, YouTube is the best place for the real truth about everything.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

SandySea, on 21 August 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

Is it possible?  Can it really be that some people on this site actually believe what NASA tells them?  NeverAStraightAnswer NASA?)
Next you'll be believing newspapers, politicians and the history channel!  

Whereas (say) Alex Jones can be believed?  Is it that "independent" sources seem to be trusted more because they're not sponsored by governments or big business? What do people like Alex Jones or those behind other conspiratiorially-minded websites, or people who put something up on Youtube, want? Viewers, listerners, hits, don't they. How would they get them? By being as dramatic as possible and always going for the most dramatic angle, wouldn't they? So in what way are they any different from the mainstream media?