591 replies to this topic

[The Religious Hoax]

Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table?   Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously.  You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up.  Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave.

[Moonie2012]

The Religious Hoax, on 02 June 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table?   Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously.  You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up.  Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave.

Nobody who supports this as some sort of "alien base" or whatever has actually SAID anything that supports that theory in any decent capacity.

Considering it's a blurry white pixel-ey squiggle on Google Mars (if it is anything like Google Earth it has PLENTY of bugs and flaws), it's not surprising that no one can come up with a decent argument for it being a "base".

Edited by Moonie2012, 02 June 2011 - 09:44 PM.

[TheMcGuffin]

bmk1245, on 02 June 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

YT generation - straight way to idiocracy...

TMG, TRH, and, ah... bee. Why not follow link (with links werein), Boon provided, and check data for yourself, for potatoes sake! There you will find Gigs of data. Everything is served on silver plate, with golden spoons, just one little effort to do something by yourself.
(I'm not done this yet - ~300KB/s/file very slow - but, hell I'll download all related files and see for myself)

PS and ah, many thanks go to Boon

PPS I think Peri will come and will present interesting info.

You mean pictures like these:

[The Religious Hoax]

Moonie2012, on 02 June 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Nobody who supports this as some sort of "alien base" or whatever has actually SAID anything that supports that theory.

Nobody.

You are correct.  But there are additional pictures showing the same object, which almost dismisses the artifact or glitch argument completely.  If that option is off the table, what is left?   I won't pretend for a second to know what that is.  But unfortunately conventional means no longer suffice for this explanation.

[TheMcGuffin]

The Religious Hoax, on 02 June 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table?   Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously.  You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up.  Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave.

Second that.  BMK's views are all too familiar, of course, but the Moonie is new to me.

[bmk1245]

The Religious Hoax, on 02 June 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Instead of stereotyping us BMK, why don't you bring some substance to the table?   Unlike you, Boon brings intellectual skepticism to the table, and I take him very seriously.  You and Moonie would rather continue disparaging us without backing anything up, and blatantly ignore subsequent posts backing this YT video up.  Both of you need to grow up, learn to be polite or just leave.

I already said, I'm looking in it, so why don't you just do the same. Afterwards we can share results.

[bmk1245]

TheMcGuffin, on 02 June 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

You mean pictures like these:

Did you looked at Boon's link (and links werein) at all?! Did you downloaded data, and converted to more visual image? Can you post your findings, or you will still relate on YT, huh?

[Kantzveldt]

The Religious Hoax, on 02 June 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

You are correct.  But there are additional pictures showing the same object, which almost dismisses the artifact or glitch argument completely.  If that option is off the table, what is left?   I won't pretend for a second to know what that is.  But unfortunately conventional means no longer suffice for this explanation.

That's true, if the object has appeared on more than one Nasa image that rules out a pixel artifact.

[The Religious Hoax]

It really sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Socio]

The Religious Hoax, on 02 June 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

It really sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sure does, and if it was an ice patch I would expect to see more than just one in the area.

[Moonie2012]

Kantzveldt, on 02 June 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

That's true, if the object has appeared on more than one Nasa image that rules out a pixel artifact.

Fair enough, but that STILL doesn't lend any credence to the whole "base" idea. All it proves is that there's a white-ish thing on a sea of brown.

Edited by Moonie2012, 02 June 2011 - 10:29 PM.

[TheMcGuffin]

According to NASA, Mars bases might look something like these.  They would have to build them near ice fields or some other source of water, since it would not be economical to carry it all to Mars.

[TheMcGuffin]

And there is even such a thing as a "Mars Homestead Society".

http://richardtrombl...homestead-mars/





Just don't end up looking like this:

[mattavich123]

Can't see a thing.

What kind of idiot spends their days scanning an ENTIRE PLANET and claims there are aliens there at the first sight of a stupid f-king blurry squiggle.

Edited by mattavich123, 02 June 2011 - 10:45 PM.

[TheMcGuffin]

mattavich123, on 02 June 2011 - 10:45 PM, said:

Can't see a thing.

What kind of idiot spends their days scanning an ENTIRE PLANET and claims there are aliens there at the first sight of a stupid f-king blurry squiggle.

Who says that it's always aliens?   For that matter, who says that it's just the US government?  I can think of any number of possibilities.

In this world, about 10% of the people make things happen, 20% watch things happen and 70% wonder what happened.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 02 June 2011 - 11:05 PM.