PDA

View Full Version : Forum section for Mars?



Dancar
2004-Jan-12, 09:14 PM
Well well,

enterpisemission.com finally put up a page claiming that the Marlander came down in a field full of broken machinery and casing objects:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/spirit.htm

Since the Planet X failed prediction is now more than six months old and Nancy has fadedinto background of internet loons, is it time for a section about people who manipute pictures from Mars to "prove" their speculations about Martians?

Dancar

Superluminal
2004-Jan-12, 11:40 PM
I was looking at Odessy pictures of the landing site last night, the area is more heavily cratered than I had thought it was. So, you have an area where the rocks have been taking a beating for millions if not billions of years. Naturally you are going to have rocks that have been shatered into all kind of shapes. What I see in the pictures are what I would expect rocks to look like that have been beat all to heck.

Some time ago there were some pictures from MGS the woo woos claimed to show underground tubes. Artifacts of intellegence of course. Or the roots of some large plant. On the full 360 view NASA released today, scroll over to the hills, scroll back to the left a few degrees, down from the horizon is a line of small sand dunes. Now try and imagine what they would look like from above. Mystery solved, they are just sand dunes.

But I doubt that Hoagland will see it that way.

JonClarke
2004-Jan-12, 11:47 PM
I agree, there should. The Mars conspiracy loons are quite common on mainstream space sites as well. Mind you the Hoagland site is so far out now I wonder if he is not parodying himself, deliberately or not.

The thrust of the loons is not "we have not gone to Mars" but "NASA (and now ESA as well) is hiding the truth about the real nature of Mars".

Issues are:

The Cydonia complex

Martian "tunnels", "glass houses", "worms", trees", and supposed liquid water at the surface

The "Ghoul" and apparent high failure rates

Missing images

Delays in data release

Coloiur of Mars

These need to be hit on the head hard before they get too entrenched.

Jon

jest
2004-Jan-12, 11:58 PM
I agree, there should. The Mars conspiracy loons are quite common on mainstream space sites as well. Mind you the Hoagland site is so far out now I wonder if he is not parodying himself, deliberately or not.

The thrust of the loons is not "we have not gone to Mars" but "NASA (and now ESA as well) is hiding the truth about the real nature of Mars".

Issues are:

The Cydonia complex

Martian "tunnels", "glass houses", "worms", trees", and supposed liquid water at the surface

The "Ghoul" and apparent high failure rates

Missing images

Delays in data release

Coloiur of Mars

These need to be hit on the head hard before they get too entrenched.

Jon

Until the end of time, people will think whatever they want to think, based on their own opinions. It's the fuel of wars, pointless debates and woowoo websites. But perhaps a mars forum might be good. I mean, in the next long while there will be a lot of new images and discoveries to be straightened out by the us, the level-headed.

Superluminal
2004-Jan-13, 12:51 AM
Yeah worms, I forgot that those formations also were evidence of giant worms. :roll:

Dancar
2004-Jan-13, 05:59 AM
I don't know why Hogland thinks these rocks look like machinery or metal canisters. Most of the objects look like broken basalt to me - like you might see near Little Lake, California or eastern Washington State.

Why go for a fantastic interpretation where the data looks more like an ordinary one?

Dancar

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Jan-13, 07:13 AM
...ummm...because if you only saw rocks, no one would pay any attention to him?

Diamond
2004-Jan-13, 09:05 AM
I don't know why Hogland thinks these rocks look like machinery or metal canisters. Most of the objects look like broken basalt to me - like you might see near Little Lake, California or eastern Washington State.

Why go for a fantastic interpretation where the data looks more like an ordinary one?

Dancar

Because there's no money in stating a banal result.