mars structures

By Dave999
in It's a Conspiracy!

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  C-Squarez said:

Who said it wasnt real? I am confused as to why you would say it wasnt a real "face".

Because when high resolution pictures were taken, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't a actual structure in the shape of a face, it just looked like one due to shadows, and the low resolution of the image.

Grand Master

mrchetsteadman

Posted
Posted
  The_Decryptor said:

Because when high resolution pictures were taken, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't a actual structure in the shape of a face, it just looked like one due to shadows, and the low resolution of the image.

Oh okay. Do you have a link to these images? I have yet to see them. Thanks!

Grand Master

jackwanders

Posted
Posted

I know this is Area 51 and all, but Hoagland? You're putting stock in anything Hoagland has to say?

  C-Squarez said:

Oh okay. Do you have a link to these images? I have yet to see them. Thanks!

Here's a page on Hoagland's 'Face' claims:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face.html

Here's a page on his 'glass tubes' claim:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/glassworm.html

Grand Master

Blue-Vision

Posted
Posted

Who said anything about putting stock into ANYONE on CtC ?? I didn't. I said it was creating a stir, and it's interesting -- not a word about it being true tho. :D

I enjoy thinking outside the box. Gives me something to do besides mull over everything ELSE going on that I can't change.

Oh, and just for the record -- Bad Astronomy is a good read as well -- dose'nt mean that anything that place says is true either.

Grand Master

jackwanders

Posted
Posted
  GZT said:

Who said anything about putting stock into ANYONE on CtC ?? I didn't. I said it was creating a stir, and it's interesting -- not a word about it being true tho. :D

I enjoy thinking outside the box. Gives me something to do besides mull over everything ELSE going on that I can't change.

Oh, and just for the record -- Bad Astronomy is a good read as well -- dose'nt mean that anything that place says is true either.

Obviously. How good a read something is doesn't determine its veracity. However, which conclusion seems more reasonable? That there are glassy tubes on Mars, which necessitates that some intelligent beings created them, which means that Mars once had intelligent life, and yet the only remnants are a face and some glass tubes built into the side of a valley...

or, that these are actually just old river beds, and what appears to be convex is actually concave because the image is being viewed 'upside-down', as it were, and that the 'ribs' are simply dunes or ridges caused by wind or water (from when mars had flowing water), and that the shiny appearance is a result of the image processing techniques, and not because the feature is actually shiny?

Enthusiast

Dave999

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  GZT said:

Who said anything about putting stock into ANYONE on CtC ?? I didn't. I said it was creating a stir, and it's interesting -- not a word about it being true tho. :D

I enjoy thinking outside the box. Gives me something to do besides mull over everything ELSE going on that I can't change.

Oh, and just for the record -- Bad Astronomy is a good read as well -- dose'nt mean that anything that place says is true either.

Richard was an advisor for CBS (Walter Cronkite)on the NASA apollo missions,

Grand Master

jackwanders

Posted
Posted
  Dave999 said:

Richard was an advisor for CBS (Walter Cronkite)on the NASA apollo missions,

So he says:

  Quote
Hoagland has claimed a close friendship with legendary CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite. While Hoagland was a minor fact-checking assistant to Cronkite during the Apollo Missions, Cronkite has specifically distanced himself from Hoagland. According to his daughter, Kathy Cronkite, during an on-the-air radio morning show on KLBJ-FM in 1994 where hosts Dale Dudley and Bob Fonseca were discussing Hoagland's claims, Kathy was very frank in relating her father's wishes that Hoagland would "quit referring to [her father] ever again as long as he keeps acting like a kook".

Regardless, his claims are not buttressed at all by the 'fact' that he did some fact checking for Cronkite.

Grand Master

jackwanders

Posted
Posted (edited)
  Ethan Markham said:

I see it as the husk or shell or skin of a giant snake-like creature (a species of wanslithert, in technical terms). Have they detected any life readings from anywhere nearby? Please post! :huh:

:sigh:

You're serious, aren't you...No, no 'life readings' have been detected. This isn't Star Trek, where you can just hit a button on a computer and scan a planet for life...

Besides, they're not tubes. it's your brain playing tricks on you. Humans are accustom to viewing images with light coming from a certain direction. From above. This is only natural, as the sun is above us. Convex objects (rounded, like a dome or tube) have highlights on the top, shadows on the bottom. Concave items (bowls, valleys), have shadows on the top, highlights on the bottom.

When we're faced with an image that doesn't give us any perspective, our brains rely on this information to make sense of the image we're looking at.

Take this .gif of a crater from the moon. Obviously a crater. However, when it flips 180 degrees, it no longer looks like a crater. It now looks like a dome. What was and still is concave now appears to be convex.

post-20217-1161350918.gif

The same thing is happening here. What looks like a convex tube is infinitely more likely to be a valley. I refrain from saying "actually" because I obviously cannot know for certain, as I can't go to Mars and look at it myself. However, probability tells me I'm looking at an inverted photo of a valley, and not a photo of a fossilized giant snake, or a glass tube built into the side of a valley. Ask yourself this as well. Why do these tubes only appear in valley walls, and nowhere else on Mars?

Not good enough. Look at it for yourself, in 3D.

http://www.raygirvan.co.uk/apoth/nirgal.htm

If you have red/blue 3d glasses, use the link on the page to view it that way. If not, use either of the stereopairs and view it like a Magic-Eyes picture. Get your face about 8-10 inches from your monitor and cross your eyes (or relax them) until a 3D image appears between the two 2D images. You'll instantly see that the ribs are ridges along the wall of a very deep valley, not the supporting structures of a convex tube.

Edited by Jack31081
  • 2 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.