Face on Mars or Face in my Curtains?Ü

Matt D Skeptic

Registered Senior Member
Well, I wake every morning and see faces in my curtains without the need for Carlotto and McDaniels supercomputer. What I cannot fathom is why everyone gets so excited when lines connecting 3 humps form a triangle then SELECTIVELY connecting them to 3 other blips in the landscape finding another set of triangles - gosh, that is just about as much proof as an alien craft landing in New York and the inhabitants giving us all a big kiss.

Before this gets deleted by Dave - who I must admit is doing a damn fine jobs of things and this site is a vast improvement......BUT and this a big BUT (enough grovelling-where is Warpspace these days??)

These computer specilists are CONVINCED the moon landings were faked and that NASA duped them, but then they use NASA material to "PROVE" extraterrestrial existence on Mars and even use NASA images to submit that structures are on the moon. I mean come on guys, you cannot have it both way. This is very selective. "We believe THESE photos to be true, but THOSE must be faked?" Which is it to be?

What has happened to the "tear" on the cheek of the face since the recent photos of Mars were taken? And the headpiece?

Everyone knows Martians are subterranean and dissolve in sunlight, so why would they build on the surface?

What is it to be? Faked photos or not? If NASA made one lot up, then why not the others? You cannot say we believe these but not those. Richard Hoagland is prime candidate for this. Close 2nd is David Percy. Graham Hancock you are a naughty boy and need some spanking too. Someone somewhere is havin' a larf-innit. Best Wishes, MDS.

You know it to be so
That's a very good point about the photo evidence. From your skeptics point of view it was, although obvious, a good point to raise. :)
I don't believe the Moon landing was a hoax. Does that make me eligable to offer NASA photos in any debate??...who knows.....
Well, from the photos I have seen, and I will paste the web site when I can remember where I saved so everyone can get the idea- I think the photos were touched up at least. With the cold war etc..waging it was understandable. I don't agree with the avid proponents of the complete fake theory, some of which (ie DAVID PERCY) is adamant that in one of the James Bond films, I think it was Thunderball (?) where JB stumbles upon a cinema studio where filming of a MOON landing is taking place -anyway...Percy thinks this is DIRECT proof that the moon landings were faked! What a nutter. - It's a story......James Bond is not real

Anyway Dave, I just get sick of all the nutters with mail order qualifications lecturing and writing comlete toilet.

I don't believe there is enough evidence for a face on Mars since the only people doing computer enhancements seem to be those that WANT to see a face. The city and even beachfront property is utter nonsense. Joining 3 humps together and getting a triangle with angles that all add up to 180 degrees is not proof anything. I CAN see that Mars was once water logged and accept the professional planetary scientists theory that life could have, and probably did to some degree evolve but until we have decent resolution pictures and not the NASA nonsense we cannot tell. If the Hubble telescope is as powerful as NASA boasts (and its new replacement even more so) why is it that the pictures of Mars are so grainy and deliberately ambiguous? If there exists an OLD telescope as powerful as Hubble etc and the wonderful spy satellites the CIA \ NSA (whatever) have that can see if a person has dandruff how come the Mars pictures are so utterly useles??

That is what should be debated. Mabe it has been here before and I have missed it?

There is no proof of anything. But absence of proof is not proof of absence. Who knows....we are all being had. It is a giant conspiracy by publishers to shift otherwise unsellable boóks and videos??

You know it to be so
You make some very good points.

However, I must object with respect to the claims of deliberate planetary image degradation.

First of all, last time I checked even the finest LEO satellites can only resolve down to a meter or so. They will certainly not be able to see dandruff; they couldn't even read a licence plate (contrary to the hype in recent techno-flicks). Atmospheric distortion, glare and dissipation alone will probably make such feats impossible even within a few decades.

As for Hubble's Mars photos, I am not at all surprised at the 'graininess'. Hubble has a big advantage over the terrestrial telescopes in that it resides outside the interfering atmosphere. However, it is at a big disadvantage with respect to the latest terrestrial 'scopes when it comes to lens size. Hubble's mirror is tiny by modern standards, and it is the size of the mirror that ultimately determines angular resolution. Due to its location, Hubble is well-suited for seeing extremely faint objects billions of lightyears away, but it is not equally well-suited for high-resolution photography. Besides, what do you need Hubble photos for when MGS has given us resolution you couldn't dream of even with the largest telescope?
Boris, sorry I should have made it clearer. I did not mean to use Hubble to view Mars, but wanted to use it as an example that decent quality images can be seen by a relatively old machine. Why is it that the Mars global surveyor and its hangers on dish out such poor quality images when there is clearly much better machinery around`? It seems odd that's all. Strange indeed. NASA's refusal to accurately survey cydonia etc should have buried this thing once and for all. I guess by not doing so they have managed to create a self perpetuating mechanism for funding?? Send one probe there, whet the appetite of Joe Public and fob him off with bureaucratic nonsense, send another probe there etc etc when clearly there exists both the money, technology and above all public interest in settling this.

However, Hoagland, Hancock and Percy will no doubt computer enhance and generally buggar around with every pixel and piss people off with their tedious "science" of joining dots and sacred geometry in randomly forming hills..

The bottom line is that there is the will and the way and it is not being implemented. Isn't NASA publicly funded?

Hoagland and the dot joiners are a tedious irrelevance.

You know it to be so
Americans have about as much control over the funding of NASA as they do over their 'distinguished gentlepersons' that are supposed to represent them.

Yes, technically NASA funding is dictated by public support, but this is usually after the fact and usually only a negative response. As long as NASA doesn't blow-up another space shuttle and/or have another satellite deficate all over the Pacific Islands, they will be able to maintain status quo. This, of course, includes funding outdated, and imprecise means of analysis (e.g. Hubble).

Further, since the powers that help drive the funding mechanisms in congress often are one in the same with those that dictate what is news, as long as THEY wish NASA to continue, it will be so. Process politics at its best.

It's fun watching the American machinery work from a vantage point of distace.

I agree !
American politics & policies are basically for sale. If you have enough MONEY you could get any law or policy implemented