PDA

View Full Version : serious science discovers Mars life



MAP
2004-Feb-13, 12:31 AM
+ What shall we do when the question, "Is there life on Mars"
is first affirmed by science ?

But we need not wonder any longer, and must indeed
prepare to deal with this certainty. As shown on my
internet site, Spirit Rover has now provided this same
proof of Mars life we sought.

To view my current presentation (updated), please visit
the following address:
http://krs4sure.2itb.com/DISCOVERY2

http://krs4sure.2itb.com/DISCOVERY2

For the past two weeks, I have presented, at this site,
images from the Spirit Rover photos showing living people
near the rover.

The implications of this discovery are great_ discovery of
a living civilization on a visited planet would, of necessity,
mean discontinuance of random explorations thereof...
an end to plans of exploiting the other planet's resources...
but, as has been my view for several years, having once
discovered such advanced life as we apparently find today
on Mars, the potential for humanity's betterment are
enormous.
Indeed, during the three decades of our [mechanical assaults]
on their planet, [Mars] has remained peaceful... it is our place
now to advance a peace with our newly discovered neighbors.

Please take a moment to visit the site listed above... I
look forward to serious discussion of this issue here and
elsewhere, and welcome any serious attempt to dis-prove
this which I consider a first unchallengeable proof to the
important question of Mars life.

Feb 12 / 2004

MAP
M.A. Perafonte' / perafonte@hotmail.com

[all serious email inquiries will be answered]

Rue
2004-Feb-13, 12:59 AM
Welcome.

Interesting observation. You do realise however that this man would be extremely small. If he were a guest in your house you would have to put the cat in the basement.

Espritch
2004-Feb-13, 12:59 AM
I think the following link adequately explains this.

http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html

The image does bear a vague resemblence to a man but that doesn't actually make it a man.

N C More
2004-Feb-13, 01:13 AM
Hey, I think I recognize that guy! Isn't he "Vladimir Lenin" from the BA's shower curtain?

MAP
2004-Feb-13, 02:13 AM
*
Yes, some good replies already.

I will remind the readership, any serious reply will be
considered... I am as anxious to see any PROOF refuting
my claims in this matter... I simply do not believe any
such is forthcoming.

---------------
To the first reply - yes, a man, small by our standards
on Earth... I am guessing 2-to-4 inches ?

I do not have a house cat... perhaps this man will now
visit me more readily ? :-)

-------------
Regarding the second reply... "adequately explains" ?
Hardly. This fact of perceptual science ...pareidol... has
become a too popular excuse... I am sorry, we could also
turn off our monitor, and say in honesty we saw virtually
nothing in a picture. In fact, such illusory effects as you
quote so hastily have, themselves, strict guidelines for
qualification.

The [problem] rather, is that followers of the various Mars
events have become too accustomed to claims of unusual
objects, and want to automatically answer "NO" to every
such claim... and what if a valid one is made ? Mine is totally
valid.
To quote myself further: "Unfortunately, comments such as,
"...but it's only rocks and sand", or, "lots of people see
things in piles of leaves or on potato chips", can't be applied
when we have solid physical objects visible in a photograph,
consistent with every characteristic of human form and
features".
Anyone willing to look carefully at this image will find this
clear... the detail of the figure presented is too great to be
explained by this ink blot / illusion kind of "answer".
In fact, the figure here -is- somewhat difficult to discern, but
this is a result of the exteme enlargement needed to show
such a small figure.
The more important fact here is: since this figure is of this
greatly reduced scale... we must also assume a great more
detail must be present than is first obvious to casual inspection...
we could not "imagine" his clothing, his shoes... if such intricate
detail were not present, even though much of it is lost in the
photographic rendering...
...rather than "dissolve" on closer inspection, this figure becomes
more affirmable, again to the limit of what the photo can show.

---------------
To the third replier: yes it's fun to make fun sometimes...
but more than to entertain, I have posted to this particular
forum to reach those with a serious interest in this matter.

Musashi
2004-Feb-13, 02:17 AM
I do not see the researcher, even in the closeup image. Using your standards, I guess I can now say that I have provided uncontestable evidence that the 'researcher' does not actually exist, right?


We have, again, nearly exhausted any possibility of this NOT being the same real person described...

Not by a long shot.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Feb-13, 02:29 AM
Assuming you are serious:

The burden is not on us to show you are wrong. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide adequate evidence for your extraordinary claim.

To be frank, I don't even think it looks much like a man. Proof of life on Mars will have to be iron-clad. All the furor over the Mars rock showed that very well.

beck0311
2004-Feb-13, 02:57 AM
To quote myself further: "Unfortunately, comments such as,
"...but it's only rocks and sand", or, "lots of people see
things in piles of leaves or on potato chips", can't be applied
when we have solid physical objects visible in a photograph,
consistent with every characteristic of human form and
features".
Anyone willing to look carefully at this image will find this
clear... the detail of the figure presented is too great to be
explained by this ink blot / illusion kind of "answer".
In fact, the figure here -is- somewhat difficult to discern, but
this is a result of the exteme enlargement needed to show
such a small figure.
The more important fact here is: since this figure is of this
greatly reduced scale... we must also assume a great more
detail must be present than is first obvious to casual inspection...
we could not "imagine" his clothing, his shoes... if such intricate
detail were not present, even though much of it is lost in the
photographic rendering...
...rather than "dissolve" on closer inspection, this figure becomes
more affirmable, again to the limit of what the photo can show.


Your argument rings hollow with me. First of all, the "solid physical object" doesn't seem to be casting a shadow. When I look at it, his hair looks to me like a shadow being cast into a depression by the lip of the ground that is at the same level as the rest of the ground. The claim that this picture is conclusive proof that a tiny humanoid who breathes CO2 and lives on an extrordinarily cold, waterless (in a pragmatic sense) planet seems to be a bit of a stretch. A blurry photograph, of an "object" that reasonable people could disagree about what they are looking at falls way short of the evidence required to prove that there is life on Mars.

Tensor
2004-Feb-13, 03:51 AM
I will remind the readership, any serious reply will be
considered... I am as anxious to see any PROOF refuting
my claims in this matter... I simply do not believe any
such is forthcoming.

You don't believe or you will simply reject anything we present (because it doesn't support your idea) to refute you.

---------------

To the first reply - yes, a man, small by our standards
on Earth... I am guessing 2-to-4 inches ?

I don't see it, but I'm thinking you believe that this little "man" is intelligent. If so, I would like to see you explain how any higher intelligence could be packed into about 6cc of volume.


This fact of perceptual science ...pareidol... has
become a too popular excuse... I am sorry, we could also
turn off our monitor, and say in honesty we saw virtually
nothing in a picture. In fact, such illusory effects as you
quote so hastily have, themselves, strict guidelines for
qualification.

And claims for little men on mars don't?


The [problem] rather, is that followers of the various Mars events have become too accustomed to claims of unusual
objects, and want to automatically answer "NO" to every
such claim... and what if a valid one is made ? Mine is totally
valid.

So you say. You present a fuzzy picture and claim its a little alien. How valid is that?


To quote myself further: "Unfortunately, comments such as, "...but it's only rocks and sand", or, "lots of people see
things in piles of leaves or on potato chips",

Good, no authorative source except yourself. This makes a valid claim?


can't be applied
when we have solid physical objects visible in a photograph,
consistent with every characteristic of human form and
features".

Actually, to me, it looks more like a hampster than a human.



Anyone willing to look carefully at this image will find this
clear... the detail of the figure presented is too great to be
explained by this ink blot / illusion kind of "answer".

Actually, I look at the thing for 20 minutes and all I can really see is what looks like a fuzzy picture of my daughters hampster in between the Playboy bunny symbol (another bunny, mars must be the bunny planet)


The more important fact here is: since this figure is of this greatly reduced scale... we must also assume a great more
detail must be present than is first obvious to casual inspection...
we could not "imagine" his clothing, his shoes...

Sorry, Lowell could imagine canals on mars where none exsited, by assuming what must be there to connect what he thought he saw. You claim appears to me to be of the same thing?


if such intricate detail were not present, even though much of it is lost in the photographic rendering...

So you're assuming other detail must be there just because you think it has to be there to show what you think you see? That's very convoluted and it reminds me of the mars face of a few years ago.



...rather than "dissolve" on closer inspection, this figure becomes more affirmable, again to the limit of what the photo can show.

I'll disagree with this as, like I said, I don't see what you claim you see.

MAP
2004-Feb-13, 04:41 AM
* ...firstly, let me thank all those who would reply to this post.
I am not, again, adverse to disagreement... but, would ask
that you scan the replies first before adding a new complaint.
We have heard already:
- its just rocks and sand...
- its an illusion, give it up...
- forgive me, but I dont see anything.

NO NO NO :-)

...but, one replier offered: "I do not see the researcher, even
in the close up".
I can accept that. I had looked at these photos for over a week
before this image became crystal clear to me. Obviously, if you
do not see what I am describing, you cannot agree with anything
I say about this which you do not see.
More to the solution of possible viewing difficulties: find the
image in question... study it casually for a minute... it is so familiar
to me, and so obvious now, I have no problem describing it from
the photo very completely, but this does not speak to anyone else's
initial propensity to recognize the same.
I can only repeat that my statements are both sincere and based
entirely in this very obvious and recognizeable form which I
describe on my internet site, if you will kindly accomodate my
"claims", until you recognize these images yourself.

...a second replier complained: "Assuming you are serious..."...
but I already say I am... and they continued: "the burden is on
you to provide adequate evidence for your extraordinary claim".
Completely inaccurate. I have presented this information
with the purpose of sharing my discovery... I myself have no
difficulty seeing or explaining this same image - but please note
above - no amount of explanation will make this more clear if
the initial image is at first unrecognizeable to you. I have not
in fact made any extraordinary claim... I have only remarked
on a very visible and obvious fact obvious in these pictures.
My intent indeed is firstmost to display this image... I consider
it speaks for itself... others seem to enjoy speaking wrongly
of it instead :-)
This same replier claims, "I dont even think it looks much like
a man"... but I never suggest that this figure will be fully visible
in a few brief glances... it is a matter to be studied... we do not
glance at a technical diagram to discern what it says - we study
it to read the data... but I assure anyone with an interest, all
that I describe is in fact as visible in this photo as I say.
The replier continued, "proof of life on Mars will have to be
iron clad", which caused me to laugh... for I have presented
exactly such iron clad irrefuteable proof already... I see,
instead, very small efforts at considering what was presented.
I will insist, however, upon the very most iron clad of rebuttals...
though, again, do not expect a single one.

The third new replier suggested certain photographic
discrepancies which are, however, not present... or, rather, I
shall refer them back to my presentation for the explanation...
the replier first says: "the solid physical object doesnt seem to be
casting a shadow"... true... but, I stated that this figure is a good
distance off the surface, and any shadow would not be visible in
this tight frame.
The replier continued: they saw the hair detail as being, instead,
a shadow cast in a depression... I didnt follow whatever "lip of the
ground" meant.
But the shadow remark is excellent... I could see this hair detail
as, for instance, a small crater-like depression with shadow...
except... if you consider carefully, this shadow and crater
depression would have to have the very exact contour of a
very regular hair line, including a part in the hair, including a
curl in front and back... I went to great lengths to provide the
clearest photo possible, and consider the ones provided
demonstrate these affirming details sufficiently.
I have not, however, asked -'what ELSE can you see in this
image of the man'... that is the the ink blot / tea leaf ploy :-)
We need to locate this basic likeness first before the explanation
can have a relevance.
The remainder of their reply is thus of that same bent... the
replier does not, first, recognize what is described, and politely
tries to suggest the evidence is less than sufficient... all expectable...
but, since this replier made a most conscientious effort, if only
to explain the facts away, I will state to them now - I am fully
prepared to describe, in utter detail, every reasonably
questioned feature I have remarked on, and to the fullest
agreement of anyone willing to accept such fact.

Sincerely having trouble with these images ? I offer counselling.

MAP
2004-Feb-13, 04:51 AM
* still no meaningful challenges from those complaining...
Im going home for the night... I would recommend to
anyone again that they read the posts, look at the
material, and refrain from simply disagreeing...
...this is to say, the statement, "I dont agree with
you, and thus what you say is wrong" (or ?!?)... wont
be considered as a challenge.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Feb-13, 04:58 AM
...a second replier complained: "Assuming you are serious..."...
but I already say I am... and they continued: "the burden is on
you to provide adequate evidence for your extraordinary claim".
Completely inaccurate. I have presented this information
with the purpose of sharing my discovery...


That's fine, but this is a board dedicated to pointing out errors.

What I said is not inaccurate in the least. You have made an extraordinary claim, asked for comments, and have dismissed salient points.

If you cannot see that your claim is most extraordinary, I'm afraid there is nothing more we can say to you.

TrAI
2004-Feb-13, 09:27 AM
Hmmm... It seems to me that when you claim it is serious science, you have to submit to the scientific method and peer review. Therefore the burden of presenting evidence in support of your claim is on you, its not on us to disprove it.

I personally think it's a shallow depression in connection with airbag slide mark. It looks flat, not a 3D feature, In fact NASA have a perspective rendered version of that exact airbag slide mark on the rover site:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040112a/airbag_drag_mark_3d-A10R1.jpg
and a color image:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040112a/P2530_Magic_Carpet-A10R1.jpg
I think that might be enough to support my claim of it being a mark on the ground...

Amadeus
2004-Feb-13, 12:33 PM
I'am sorry if this sounds rude but is this a wind up? :o

As far as I can tell this is a mark in the ground nothing more. [-(

TriangleMan
2004-Feb-13, 12:36 PM
I have to agree with Amadeus. I don't really see anything at all, much less lifeforms.

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-13, 01:53 PM
Shades of Piper! :roll:

Ulster
2004-Feb-13, 02:13 PM
Map, it is up to you to validate your claim. For example, if you walk up to a group of people on the street and state that little tiny fairy people live in matchboxes at McDonald's, you must be prepared to prove this statement regardless if you have a picture of the little guys.

That example may seem extreme, but so does your claim.

Gmann
2004-Feb-13, 02:16 PM
You have got to be kidding! Yes, I agree that the squared in area looks like a fossilized tiny humanoid. The entire rock also looks like a giant seahorse. There is also a face just outside of the square below it. Don't be faked out by the appearance of an object, I once saw the image of Lincoln in a bathtowel. We see all kinds of familiar objects in mundane places, that doesn't mean they are actually there, just that we percieve them. Check the "visitation" article on the Website that hosts this board (this board has a killer website attached to it). Tha BA 8) posted a picture of a visitor in his shower. Did Vladimir Lenin really hang out in the BA 8) 's shower? Probably not, but that is what the picture implies. Don't try to draw too much from a mere image until you get some data that points to what the image area is made of, that will tell the real story.

SciFi Chick
2004-Feb-13, 02:39 PM
Hey, this makes me think of that guy over on James Randi's board, that sees faces on his monitor and wants to get the million dollars.

Swift
2004-Feb-13, 02:47 PM
... state that little tiny fairy people live in matchboxes at McDonald's, you must be prepared to prove this statement regardless if you have a picture of the little guys.
You mean they moved! Then who's been eatting my fries? :roll:

majic
2004-Feb-13, 03:16 PM
The topic starter is either a hidden troll (having great fun seeing people even trying to provide sensible explanations for someone elses illusion), or he is in fact truely seeing things in that muddy depression. I have stared at that image for half an hour, on and off, and the more I look at it, the more it looks like mudd.

Thats all it is as far as I am concerned, I do not see any clear differences in color OR shape that make it significantly different from the rest of the muddy environment.

Amadeus
2004-Feb-13, 03:37 PM
DNFTT

Do Not Feed The Troll

Hamlet
2004-Feb-13, 03:41 PM
Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum. :D

Amadeus
2004-Feb-13, 03:49 PM
Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum. :D

"Who watches the Watchmen?"

If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back :lol:

Hamlet
2004-Feb-13, 04:11 PM
Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum. :D

"Who watches the Watchmen?"

If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back :lol:

No pat on the back for me :( I had to look it up. It seems very interesting though.

foxd
2004-Feb-13, 04:38 PM
This is the same mental mechanism that find "subliminal images" in adverising. Wilson Brian Key wrote a whole series of books on these with examples. Of course he had to tell you what you saw and his description of how to see them matches MAP's approach.

I do have to ask MAP the following question though: "Do you think that the word "SEX" is subliminally written on RITZ crackers to make you think they taste good?"

Amadeus
2004-Feb-13, 04:52 PM
Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum. :D

"Who watches the Watchmen?"

If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back :lol:

No pat on the back for me :( I had to look it up. It seems very interesting though.

Heres a clue "Dr Manhattan"

TriangleMan
2004-Feb-13, 06:18 PM
Another clue: "Antarctica"

MAP
2004-Feb-13, 06:30 PM
+ I have again presented my information with the intent of sharing
this important discovery.

While I asked, yesterday, that new repliers first read through
previous replies, so as not to simply repeat, most of the new
repliers did not observe this request...
...I will ask again, if you wish to offer a reply, please refrain
from misquoting... from replies inobservant of the initial topic -
see my original post for this, in case you've lost it in the flak.
If in fact -you simply do not see it yet- this is not grounds
for a complaint per-se... kindly suggest what you do see
instead... one replier remarked on the colors in my photo...
but my presentation was only black and white pictures...
I do not claim these details are as visible in anyone else's
pictures or presentation.
Another replier suggested that they looked at a picture
for 20 minutes, and could see no more than "bunny ears"...
this is apparently a comment about the [scrap of insulation]
picture posted here last week... I too saw something like
bunny ears in that, but, sorry... thats not my photo either :-)

Of course, refrain from personal attacks.

If again you are convinced you can offer ANY substantial
dis-proof of my claim, please do outline this carefully.

I show in my presentation that a photograph shows clear
evidence of a small man, alive on Mars, who has approached
the Lander at close range, and is looking into it's camera.
This fact is based on simple observation of what is visible
in the enlargement of the NASA/JPL photo... I have further
stated my intent to demonstrate, fully, every detail my
presentation describes, that any reasonable question
might be answered.
That offer remains in full... however, as I remarked last night,
no reasonable challenges have been made thus far, and I do
not expect any can or will.

dummy
2004-Feb-13, 06:50 PM
Is this the man?

http://games.paradum.com/man_none.jpg http://games.paradum.com/man.jpg

Obviously quick a doodle, but I just wanna make sure we're talking about the same thing before I post the rest of what I've got to say.

beck0311
2004-Feb-13, 07:15 PM
If again you are convinced you can offer ANY substantial
dis-proof of my claim, please do outline this carefully.


MAP you have been told repeatedly that since it is your claim you must provide the evidence. We are not required to disprove your claim.

You might go to the library and check out The demon haunted world by Carl Sagan. Read, specifically Chapter 10 titled "The dragon in my garage". I will provide a very brief paraphrased version of the conversation:

Claimant: I hava a dragon in my garage.
Friend: Cool, let's see it!
C: It's invisible.
F: Oh, let's throw powder on the ground so we can see it's footprints.
C: It always hovers a couple inches above the ground.

...and so on.

My point is that it is not reasonable (and often not possible) for a person to expect his claims to be taken seriously unless that person provides the evidence. Earlier I mentioned that your researcher did not seem to be casting a shadow to which you replied that he is floating above the ground. He can't really be floating too high, since the camera taking the picture is on a rover (or so I gather, it doesn't look like a picture taken from any of the orbiting spacecraft) which isn't exactly towering above the ground.

You also seemed a bit incredulous by my statement that the "hairline" looks like a shadow in a depression. You seemed skeptical that a shadow could so closely resemble a hairline. An interesting time to become skeptical. Seems like a case of "my mind is completely open, until someone makes a comment that refutes my original claim". I do not mean to come across as hostile to you, but your claim is to say the least extraordinary, and since the one picture that you have provided as proof, I am under no obligation to believe it. You seem to want a rigged game, you want to know what we think about your claim, but you want to place unreasonable constraints on us. You are saying, "look at my picture, doesn't it look like a tiny human? Please do not respond by saying that it doesn't look like a tiny human, or by pointing out that the claim that it is a tiny human requires a lot of proof".

This is the last that I will post on the issue.

Amadeus
2004-Feb-13, 07:22 PM
If again you are convinced you can offer ANY substantial
dis-proof of my claim, please do outline this carefully.


Ok.. to be honest I really thought you were simply on a wind up so hears my questions to your "proof"

1)Where is it's shadow. All the rocks in the scene have a shadow.

2)Do you think that if it was a "little man" NASA would have said something? they have teams of people pouring over ever image that comes in. Or if you beleive in the "NASA is keeping the truth from us" theory why did they publish the photo?

3) The burden of proof rests on you

4) Do you not think it more likey that its a smear in the mud/soil?

5) Pixies do not exist


P.S please change the type size on your site as you have to move the screen accross to read it which is highly annoying.

TrAI
2004-Feb-13, 07:24 PM
Hello MAP

I don't know if you noticed my post earlier on the thread, but as you don't seem to have commented on it, you probably haven't. Anyway, it seems the alien man you refer to, is in fact a part of a depression made by the airbags sliding over the ground. If you look in other pictures of the same spot, you clearly see the same shape, and in the perspective rendering of the site
( http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040112a/airbag_drag_mark_3d-A10R1.jpg ) one can see that it is a depression in the ground(it also have a little rock in it). As this depression is the only feature in the area you have outlined, I have to conclude it is the same feature as in the rendering (I have made a box around the area here: http://home.no/trai/pic1/mc.jpg ). The perspective renderings are made from the stereo pairs the pancam makes, and would, if it was an alien creature, show it has height too, like the rocks do, but since it doesn't, i don't think it can be a creature...

dummy
2004-Feb-13, 07:45 PM
Well I'll post anyway. Seeing as these apply no matter what the shape of the man.

Shadow
http://games.paradum.com/man/shadow.jpg
As seen in your original images, and pointed out by a few people here, the figure has no shadows. You can quite clearly see the surrounding rocks have visible shadows, and these rocks are quite a bit shorter than the 'man'. There should be a relatively long shadow coming out from underneath him, facing the bottom left of the picture.


No movement
http://games.paradum.com/man/notmoved.jpg
The image you're talking about was taken Sol 7, by all filters. This means that the camera had to pause between photos so that filters could be changed.

http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p007.html

Lets look at the left cameras times (spacecraft time in seconds):
26991536, 26991583, 26991633, 26991663, 26991831

Edit: Adding reference for file naming convention info ( http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/mer00d.html )

As you can see there is quite a gap between these photos, yet the man doesn't move at all. That's a good 300 seconds between the first and last left cam picture.


Colour
http://games.paradum.com/man/colour.jpg
These have been made by simply merging L2, L5 and L6 filters. It is not true colour, but it gives an indication of what colours different bits of the picture are. As you can see the man is the same colour as the other disturbed soil. Also a rock (with the blue shade, the same as other rocks) is clearly visible (as pointed out before, with a shadow).


Stereo Image
http://games.paradum.com/man/stereo_1.jpg
http://games.paradum.com/man/stereo_2.jpg
This is the one that really puts it beyond doubt for me. The image you're talking about was taken with a stereo camera. In the images above I have used raw images on each of the L and R camera. The bottom two are 2P126991536EFF0205P2530L2M1.JPG and 2P126991536EFF0205P2530R2M1.JPG. As you can see by the filename these shots were taken at exactly the same time.

I arranged the above images so that you can do cross-eye 3D on them. Try it, you'll notice that the man is simply flat along the floor, well as flat as disturbed martian soil can be.


Le conclusion
Unless you have explanations for each of the above, there is absoulutely no credability in anything you have posted on your site.

Swift
2004-Feb-13, 08:00 PM
I arranged the above images so that you can do cross-eye 3D on them. Try it, you'll notice that the man is simply flat along the floor, well as flat as disturbed martian soil can be.
Nice work Dummy (you picked the name :) ) Actually, when I do the 3D, it doesn't look flat, it looks like a depression. Even less of a man.

MAP
2004-Feb-13, 08:09 PM
+ One replier is an avid quoter... unfortunately, also a
misquoter, but I will explain these remarks for anyone
reading the thread.

...they complain: "You don't believe or you will simply
reject anything we present (because it doesn't support
your idea) to refute you".

In fact, the only comment I made similar to this was that
I was open to any reasonable evidence [dis-proving] any
of my statements... not at all as the complaint claims

This replier further wrote:
"I don't see it, but I'm thinking you believe that this little "man"
is intelligent. If so, I would like to see you explain how any
higher intelligence could be packed into about 6cc of volume".

This is an excellent question. First, they say, they "dont see it"...
but there are some very good reasons WHY the images presented
might be difficult to see initially... these will be covered when I
make more formal presentation of my discovery.
But, how can we explain higher intelligence in a smaller person...
people appearing to be no more than a few inches tall ?
The dinosaurs were very very large, but spent most
of their time munching giant weeds... "higher intelligence" is
the issue, but not necessarilly equated to size, is it ?
In fact, the people of Mars could be exactly as intelligent as we
are, if existing in some more advanced society, and this is what
is apparent to me, at very least.

The replier then says, apparently in reply to another comment,
that, "And claims for little men on mars don't?" (this is, don't
require strict proof - again, as per my comment to another
question).
But, yes, of course.
To repeat however, this itself is the topic of my initial article...
that in fact proof of a small man visible in the Mars photos is
being offered... understand, this is my purpose in presenting,
and not related to the slew of unrelated replies... the replier
offered "a quickie reply", oblivious however to any information
presented in the original article... fair enough... this isn't
a classroom... no demands are made... but no nonsense
replies can be honored.

Another typical complaint from the replier: "So you say.
You present a fuzzy picture and claim its a little alien. How
valid is that?
This would be a good complaint, but that I cannot answer
to the quality of the photo any more than I have... it is, I
state, an extreme enlargement... I did not present "a fuzzy
picture"... my picture very clearly shows, within limits of the
photo provided, all the same detail upon which I remarked.
How valid is it... it's a NASA/JPL photo... does that make it
more or less valid ? I again only remark on what is clearly
visible in that photo... these are my honest and valid comments...
but will everyone see this immediately ?
I cannot diminish my factual observations based on casual
perusal of these by others.

Evidently convinced they are being lied to or cheated, the
replier then offers, "Good, no authorative source except
yourself. This makes a valid claim?".
Well, this is more a personal attack on my integrity as an
observer, but deserves the better reply nonetheless.
There simply ARE NO OTHER SOURCES for information
on this discovery, more than the original photo which
itself proves this fact out... I am the discoverer... but this
point also explains why I ask that any formidable dis-proof
of my statements might be made, and are fully welcome if
they can be made.

The replier's comments then disintegrated a bit... he first saw
a hamster... then a bunny... but then another good question...
I really do believe this replier was TRYING to agree with me,
but simply could not... they say, "Sorry, Lowell could imagine
canals on mars where none exsited, by assuming what must be
there to connect what he thought he saw. You claim appears to
me to be of the same thing?".
Excellent, but not again the point I offered... nonetheless,
Lowell's observation of "canals" is a good case. For, what
indeed, did we find in the satellite photos of Mars, but
enormous "canals", seen to be gigantic ancient river channels,
larger than any on Earth ? Not riverboat canals certainly...
but he did see the same channels, and that they appeared to
be connected in a logical arrangement.
To my point however... that, not only is this figure of a man
as I describe, generally visible, even in the larger view... that is,
in the original frame, in which he appears very small... but
that, in each subsequent enlargement, we can further establish
such detail, always affirming his features, his spectacles, his
shoes, the platform upon which he is flying... my statement
remains valid by any inspection of the facts presented... the
"reply" rather soundly ignores the facts presented.

The replier continues somewhat with this same line...
"So you're assuming other detail must be there just because
you think it has to be there to show what you think you see?".
My reply immediately above answers this, but... I do not
assume anything in my presentation... rather, I offer clear
and visible evidence that the detail I remark on is itself
present... nothing is assumed in that... I never state 'I
assume such detail is present'... I state that such detail
is present.

They add: "That's very convoluted and it reminds me of the
mars face of a few years ago".
Well, again, the replier is remarking on claims made in other
presentations, not in mine... "Joe is a good guy... Joe works
at the railroad... railroads are too noisy... Joe is thus a
major shlemeil(sp?) for working at a railroad... but this
reminds me of Steve who works for the highway department...
Steve lives in Texas... I sure do like rodeos pardner"... such
is "convoluted" and illogic, both.
Where will such complaints end ? Any convenient place the
replier wishes to interject an "I told you so"... but nothing
again is demonstrated.

My original statement remarks only on detail visible on more
careful inspection... not again in casual observation of the
material... not again in recollection of dust bunnies or
ink blots or potato chip faces.

Amadeus
2004-Feb-13, 08:12 PM
I arranged the above images so that you can do cross-eye 3D on them. Try it, you'll notice that the man is simply flat along the floor, well as flat as disturbed martian soil can be.
Nice work Dummy (you picked the name :) ) Actually, when I do the 3D, it doesn't look flat, it looks like a depression. Even less of a man.

Ah well that explains it then. He was walking along minding his own buisness and having a smoke when the lander bounced into him knocking him face first into the mud. The resulting image just his impression ala "shroud of turin" :lol:

oops... more troll feeding. Must stop.

P.S Hamlet. It was "The Watchmen" by Alan Moore. Well worth a read.

MAP
2004-Feb-13, 08:55 PM
* ...some more fair questions, which I will answer before going
to lunch.

"dummy" (his or her screen name, not my remark, by the way :)
asks: "Is this the man", and then shows a photo, with a
second photo he has drawn on.
I will not however comment on photos not presented at
my internet site... in particular, I have tried to accentuate
detail there; where, drawing pen lines over such delicate
detail obscures it to the extreme... but, obviously, yes, that
is generally the figure I am referring to.

Another new replier comments irately: "MAP you have been
told repeatedly that since it is your claim you must provide the
evidence. We are not required to disprove your claim".
Have I really... been "told" ? Please read my reply to this
statement posted earlier today... in short, I say, yes, I have
presented this, but only for the purpose of initial consideration.
Please consider, a [debate] has two sides, not one... while I
say this point is irrefuteable, I am not adverse to arguing it...
in which case, it is the opposing side who must demonstrate
clearly any fault in my statements. No matter... this complaint
is repeated verbatim from a previous one... it could be
repeated many more times... the answer cannot change...
my formal proof will follow in the coming months.

This repeater follows by saying, repeating again...
"Earlier I mentioned that your researcher did not seem to be
casting a shadow to which you replied that he is floating above the
ground".
This is what I said... I said it to show why no shadow would
be obvious... that point remains valid... IF this figure were on
the surface, there would be a shadow next to him... there is no
shadow... what does this show ? It might show that he is not
on the surface, obviously. But, it might prove the object in
question is not solid... I offer other proof of his solidity.

This replier then completely falsifies what has been said...
where, in my reply to one post, regarding an apparent shadow,
it was I who stated, this hair detail could be taken to be a
simple shadow, but that it too closely follows the contour of
a regular hairline, of a part in the hair, of curls of hair both
in front and behind the head... this again was my comment...
the replier is arguing, but offering no valid comment... has
moreover falsified the report to suggest an error which is
their's alone.
This replier then, thankfully, tells us they will not reply again.

The next new replier also follows this shadow remark, and
again wrongly... they ask: "1)Where is it's shadow. All the rocks
in the scene have a shadow". Right again... or, rather, that
was MY point... IF this object was either on the surface, or,
was a rock, it would cast a shadow there, but does not... this
again shows the figure is NOT on the surface.
The replier then asks what I think NASA would do if this was
the same figure I state it to be... but, again, I have stated that
I discovered this, not in any way suggesting that NASA presented
this AS a photo of a small person on Mars.
I have not heard from anyone at or with NASA/JPL in regards
to my discovery.
The replier then repeats this ever popular "burden of
proof" complaint... I will not give my answer to this endlessly,
but refer the replier to other answers given in my replies to
this complaint.
To suggest that this issue will receive serious consideration here,
I have concluded, is essentially impossible. I will nonetheless
defend my statements.

This replier then asks why this cannot be a smear in the mud,
and finishes by teling me pixies do not exist.
It is, perhaps entertaining to offer such remarks... but, like the
avid "quoters", a list of such demeaning remarks give them no
more credence.

The next new replier refers to a rendering which is in fact
part of my next update... however, they overlook the obvious...
the 3D rendering of this scene very clearly shows the figure I
describe, and that he is VERTICAL to the surface, not flat or
on the surface... not, then, a depression on the surface.
I'm glad this replier took time to consider the question
presented... but this 3D rendering is part of the indisputeable
proof of this figure's solidity or 3-Dimensionality.

Hello TrAI, and thank you again for replying.

dummy
2004-Feb-13, 09:03 PM
This repeater follows by saying, repeating again...
"Earlier I mentioned that your researcher did not seem to be
casting a shadow to which you replied that he is floating above the
ground".
This is what I said... I said it to show why no shadow would
be obvious... that point remains valid... IF this figure were on
the surface, there would be a shadow next to him... there is no
shadow... what does this show ? It might show that he is not
on the surface, obviously. But, it might prove the object in
question is not solid... I offer other proof of his solidity.


Regardless where the man is, he casts a shadow. The angle that the picture is taken at, and the angle that the shadows are cast, makes it highly unlikely that he'd be able to be that high of the ground, and still in the picture. Also, can you please explain exactly which raw image file you used on your site?

Please read my 4 other pieces of evidence explaining exactly why this simply CANNOT be a man. You seem to have ignored them totally.

Rue
2004-Feb-13, 09:18 PM
MAP: please address the shadow issue and the fact that this man has not moved over the period of time mentioned.
Here with some embellishment is the hovering man and roughly where the shadow should be.

http://www.edsel.ca/add_misc/man.jpg

And the Isoview.
http://www.edsel.ca/add_misc/man2.jpg

Swift
2004-Feb-13, 09:20 PM
Even if this little man was floating above the surface, he would still have a shadow. Clouds make shadows. If I hold my hand a foot over the ground, it makes a shadow.

So now are you saying that its a little semi-transparent floating man? You need to read this http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html

russ_watters
2004-Feb-13, 09:27 PM
Hey, I think I recognize that guy! Isn't he "Vladimir Lenin" from the BA's shower curtain? Looks more like Mr. Potato Head to me.
If again you are convinced you can offer ANY substantial dis-proof of my claim, please do outline this carefully.

That offer remains in full... however, as I remarked last night,
no reasonable challenges have been made thus far, and I do
not expect any can or will. Sorry, none required. Its up to you to provide us with what we consider compelling evidence. We don't have to convince you you're wrong, you have to convince us you're right. Sorry if you consider that unfair, but thats the way science works. If you wanna play ball, you have to follow the rules of the game.

You have not provided what we would consider compelling evidence, therefore there is nothing to your claim.

And quite frankly, looking at the pictures in context, its pretty hard to think they are anything other than smeared dirt. You can zoom in really far on just about anything and find unusual patterns. But zooming out often gives a better representation of what you are really looking at. Anyway, I have a hard time believing that you even believe what you are saying.

MAP
2004-Feb-13, 09:29 PM
+ ...the poster using name "dummy" followed up to
their previous reply, and offered some interesting
observations... but, all of these overlook proof I
have presented, or will present in scheduled updates
to my "Researcher" page.

This replier annotes one of their images with
the title: "No movement".
But I have stated, relative to my larger presentation,
that it can be shown that this figure IS moving during
the duration of exposures included in the composite
image presented by NASA/JPL.
This point will be part of my formal discussion of my
discovery.

I am somewhat aware of the process used to obtain
such multiple filtered exposures... the replier however
seems to be pointing at ONE exposure made of
"The Researcher", and saying 'it doesnt move_ it doesnt
move', but I can only agree - one such exposure and
image would not move or indicate movement... what
point does the replier's comment make ?

This same replier stated, "As seen in your original images,
and pointed out by a few people here, the figure has no
shadows".
Actually, I replied to this before... but... lack of a shadow
only again proves the figure is NOT on the surface... IS
above the surface... the replier is striking out, although
their remarks are very polite.

They continued: "There should be a relatively long shadow
coming out from underneath him, facing the bottom left of
the picture". This is an annoying problem... readers of
my post seeing such remarks will mistake this kind of
statement for something I have said, which it is not.
But, again, there will be NO shadow IF this figure as I
remark is above the surface... or, I said, such shadow
would not occur in the immediate area of the object
above the surface.

The replier continues, as I had asked NOT be done,
by offering a photo from someone else's presentation...
this attractive color photo of the same scene, unfortunately,
is a poor demonstration of points made in my presentation,
and I do not discuss it therefore, except to remark thus.

The replier then boldly states: "Unless you have
explanations for each of the above, there is absoulutely no
credability in anything you have posted on your site".
This is laughable... but... as is repeatedly shown, none
of the replier's remarks are themselves valid... so we
could say of his claim 'unless my errors are proven
correct... instead... unless you can prove, by my errant
replies, that your statements are correct'... etcetera...
the only dis-proof I can accept at present, unfortunately,
must deal with points I myself have made... it is not my
intent to argue any new claims made ABOUT my statements...
this issue is essential in any correct discussion.

Thank you again for looking at the material.

N C More
2004-Feb-13, 09:31 PM
I just finished reading this entire thread and the thought that comes clearly into my mind is that .....Map is pulling our leg, yanking our chain, trolling our harbour, givin' us the business....whatever you want to call it!

Nothing anyone can, could or would say to this fella is going to change anything...it's all a game! This is, of course, just my humble opinion.

Hamlet
2004-Feb-13, 09:35 PM
P.S Hamlet. It was "The Watchmen" by Alan Moore. Well worth a read.

Thanks Amadeus! I did find a reference to it on the web and it looks very interesting. I'll keep an eye out for it on my next trip to the book store.

Amadeus
2004-Feb-13, 09:36 PM
I just finished reading this entire thread and the thought that comes clearly into my mind is that .....Map is pulling our leg, yanking our chain, trolling our harbour, givin' us the business....whatever you want to call it!

Nothing anyone can, could or would say to this fella is going to change anything...it's all a game! This is, of course, just my humble opinion.

This was my first impression too. But If this is a troll then he/she is putting a lot of time and effort into it. :o

TinFoilHat
2004-Feb-13, 09:46 PM
MAP, you seem to be conspicuously avioding the issue of the stereo image pairs which dummy brought up. It is possible with the provided stereo images to tell exactly where an object is in three-dimensional space. The stereo images in dummy's post conclusively demonstrate that the "little man" is a depression in the soil, rather than an object floating in mid-air.

JohnOwens
2004-Feb-13, 09:47 PM
Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum. :D

"Who watches the Watchmen?"

If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back :lol:

I mainly know it from one of my favorite "fortune cookie" quotes:

You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. =D>

dummy
2004-Feb-13, 09:48 PM
I am somewhat aware of the process used to obtain
such multiple filtered exposures... the replier however
seems to be pointing at ONE exposure made of
"The Researcher", and saying 'it doesnt move_ it doesnt
move', but I can only agree - one such exposure and
image would not move or indicate movement... what
point does the replier's comment make ?

I think you'll find I showed ALL exposures over a 300 second period. You obviously failed to read my point properly, or look at the link I provided. Also, the only movement shown (in the RAW IMAGES THEMSELVES) are when the Left camera is used instead of the Right. In this instance, it will move as its from a different perspective



This same replier stated, "As seen in your original images,
and pointed out by a few people here, the figure has no
shadows".
Actually, I replied to this before... but... lack of a shadow
only again proves the figure is NOT on the surface... IS
above the surface... the replier is striking out, although
their remarks are very polite.


Read my previous post on shadows. He would have to be considerably high above the ground for no shadow to be there. Much higher than a point between the pancam and the floor. Also, the higher up he gets the smaller he also becomes due to camera perspective. Next you'll be saying he's 2mm tall and is floating directly in front of the lens.





They continued: "There should be a relatively long shadow
coming out from underneath him, facing the bottom left of
the picture". This is an annoying problem... readers of
my post seeing such remarks will mistake this kind of
statement for something I have said, which it is not.


I never once said that you made such remarks. I rightly said there should be a shadow moving towards the bottom left of the image



The replier continues, as I had asked NOT be done,
by offering a photo from someone else's presentation...
this attractive color photo of the same scene, unfortunately,
is a poor demonstration of points made in my presentation,
and I do not discuss it therefore, except to remark thus.


I used the same RAW images you did buddy, from the same place you got them. That has no relevance whatsoever. The only difference is that you've zoomed in on yours and drawn a box.




The replier then boldly states: "Unless you have
explanations for each of the above, there is absoulutely no
credability in anything you have posted on your site".


Which you obviously don't have. You can't simply discredit my explanation because I don't use the image you did. And as explained above, one of the raw images I put forward as proof is one you've used to make your images. He's an example of what you're doing:

`Murderer: I didn't kill the man. Look at this photo I have processed. That is not a gun I am holding, that is in fact a banana. Look, I have drawn a box around it!'
`Policeman: We have these other 5 pictures of you holding a gun, and this one of you shooting them. All were taken by the same person, minutes apart, of the same scene!'
`Murderer: Those do not count as they're your presentation, not mine. Therefore I could not possibly have murdered that person'


I just finished reading this entire thread and the thought that comes clearly into my mind is that .....Map is pulling our leg, yanking our chain, trolling our harbour, givin' us the business....whatever you want to call it!

Nothing anyone can, could or would say to this fella is going to change anything...it's all a game! This is, of course, just my humble opinion.

I think I'm going to agree with that. I put forward 4 logical and scientific reasons why that thing is no way a martian being, the poster ignored all 4 either claiming 'it's not touching the floor' or 'that is not the original image I used'. One of those is the original images you used, and it really does not matter. You 'man' can be seen in all those raw images.

This is the last post I'm going to make, as I get very sick of repeating myself to people who don't want to listen.

Humphrey
2004-Feb-13, 10:19 PM
MAP is obviously leg-pulling like NC said.

MAP: If you are serious you have to back up your claims with evidence more than what you have said on here. We are more than willing to debate this, but you have to show evidence that this can be a man, and that a man can live on mars .

Plus where is your evidence that a man that small can be as smart as us or evidence of their advancved civilization as you say?

No moaater how many times you shake your head to this statemnet: The burdon of proof is on you, and only you. You came to us to present your "evidence" (or lack thereof) and You have come to us for debate and discussion. We cannot do that with a few grainy images you have on your site. We need more than that.

JimTKirk
2004-Feb-13, 10:32 PM
MAP - Perhaps you were unaware that one of the 'repliers' you answered is the person that owns this board and can do anything he pleases to posters that will not provide proof based on scientific methodology. I suggest you read and heed the BA's 8) remarks and provide more than a blow-up of a low quality Jpeg image as your proof.
Many have stated many ways your postulate is incorrect, yet you provide no real proof (like where the shadow for the 'guy' is at!) :o
You say the image moves but you were shown it stayed steady in 6 minutes of exposures.
Do you have any background in photography to state with certainty that there is any dimensionality anywhere BESIDES the 'head' area that so obviously is a slight depression?

russ_watters
2004-Feb-13, 11:47 PM
I just finished reading this entire thread and the thought that comes clearly into my mind is that .....Map is pulling our leg, yanking our chain, trolling our harbour, givin' us the business....whatever you want to call it!

Nothing anyone can, could or would say to this fella is going to change anything...it's all a game! This is, of course, just my humble opinion.

This was my first impression too. But If this is a troll then he/she is putting a lot of time and effort into it. :o Always a tough question: can someone be so dedicated to woowooism that they would construct an elaborate website for the purpose of perpetuating a hoax? Answer: clearly yes. A number of people devote their entire lives to it. Most for financial gain, but some just for kicks. But there are people who actually believe what they are saying. The tough part is identifying which is which.

Rc2000
2004-Feb-14, 12:34 AM
A depression or mark in the dirt. Yep, sure looks like that.
MAP, one thing I've noticed here -- people are willing to listen. But evidence needs to be more than something like this.

Dummy, way to go dude! =D> That 3D set up works perfect. Really shows the rocks sticking up and the 'man' as being a depression.

Rc

LFuzzy
2004-Feb-14, 12:59 AM
I think you are all wrong. See my version of this image.
It is actually an engineer. The pocket protector gives it away.
Also, notice that he brought along his pet. (towards the left).
http://home.comcast.net/~know-won/IMAGES/dtlnu3.jpg

-LF

JohnOwens
2004-Feb-14, 01:08 AM
I think you are all wrong. See my version of this image.
It is actually an engineer. The pocket protector gives it away.
Also, notice that he brought along his pet. (towards the left).
(image snipped now that it's fixed above)

-LF
I think this is what you meant. Switch the backslash to a regular slash.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 01:20 AM
+ with over 1000 views, and 50+ replies, I consider my
job is essentially done here... I have sought no more
than to present this discovery, and, as stated, will
present a more formal discussion of these facts soon.

Many of the last repliers complained about the shadow
issue... this I explained several times, but will add -
there is indeed a local shadow on the figure, as would
be expected of an object above, but not on the surface.

To those who continue to see this as something on the
surface, I cannot again merely explain a way for you to
see this as I do in 3-dimensional space... the 3D NASA
rendering indeed shows this figure to be VERTICAL...
perpendicular to the surface, not on it. It is not mine
to continually correct obstinant refuting of such obvious
fact.

I will remind all repliers again... simply disagreeing
with points made in my explanation is neither newsworthy
nor appreciated. If you can make such arguments
independently, I urge you to do so... I will not cooperate
in the desecration of my own material, however.
If you consider, by "back talk" you will discredit my
arguments, this isn't the fact... all my arguments are
offered in support of this obvious fact... back talk does
not constitute dis-proof... there is no burden here, but
a challenge which shall never in my estimation be
answered.

To the poster who imagines themselves captain kirk...
I take your "rebuttal" as seriously as your nickname...
not at all. If the owner of this bulletin board is concerned
with what I have posted, he is welcome to remark on
that, but has not. I indeed applaud the bulletin board
for openly speaking against such ridiculous presenters
as the "never went to the Moon" and similar hoaxes...
I did not, however, expect the extreme degree of
open hostility toward the factual material I presented
instead.
Enough apology... none really... merely to clarify...
am I a "troll"... is this a joke... have I presented in
vain... such "questions" deserve their very own
board here - "Naysayers and Rude Fantasizers", but
I will not be posting there :-)

JohnOwens
2004-Feb-14, 01:27 AM
To the poster who imagines themselves captain kirk...
I take your "rebuttal" as seriously as your nickname...
not at all.

Are we, then, to assume that you are an actual map? Or that this is hypocrisy on your part? If the former, what region are you a map of?

Ulster
2004-Feb-14, 01:39 AM
Map, the reason that the "burden of proof" argument is ever so popular is because you have not convinced anyone. Therefore, you haven't done your job. In essence, when you attempt to shift the burden of proof you are resting your case.

In fact, I say you are a troll. Since I just made this claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Rue - LOL on your figure. It looks strangely like a South Park character. I can't wait until Cartman shows up and unfolds his probe.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 01:42 AM
+ ...to Rue's reply...

This is very nice work. You, as with many others,
are now essentially affirming that they see the
figure I name, but are apparently still in disagreement
over the shadow issue or others.

Now please understand this... because, as I stated
to another replier, I have indeed established that
this "Researcher" has, in the same photo, been shown
to have moved a considerable distance. My remark
to them applies to your's in part... that is, simply, in
looking for proof of movement, we cannot focus on
only ONE of these images... is this clear ?
What I mean by this is monumental in itself... this is
"The Researcher" which I myself highlighted and indicated,
and which many have now identified... is but ONE of
the multiples of this figure... this will be central to my
forthcoming update, but I explain it now to this worthwhile
question.
With this, of course, some of the other [issues],
especially regarding the shadows or the general
appearance of this figure, are also to be answered...
ergo, because he appears in this photograph - NOT in
one location, but is exposed in MANY different positions,
his appearance in the photo is necessarilly reduced...
I think that much is clear (excuse the pun).

I hope this will help, and thanks again for you effort.
Oh... to your question regarding the apparent absence
of his shadow where you have projected... I cannot
completely agree with your projection, however...
because, again, of this -split image- factor, no single
shadow projected from this figure would itself appear
fully dark in the end photo.

To "swift's" comment, following yours, simlarly...
right swift... sort of... but, there is a major difference
between the shadow cast by an object directly on the
surface (not the case I claim), versus the diffused
shadow cast by an object signifigantly away from the
same surface. Try your hand over the table example...
with the hand very near to the tabletop, the shadow is
very much more dense... moving your hand away from
and above the same surface diffuses the shadow diffuse
considerably... with the added factor of the -split image-
necessitated by movement during multi-exposures, the
shadow of "The Researcher" would be minimal at best.

So... no... not exactly a transparent person... but
rendered transparent by this process of the implicit
photographic separations. The fact we see this
figure so clearly in the picture is perhaps indication
that he has remained near stationary for several
consequetive exposures.

JohnOwens
2004-Feb-14, 01:58 AM
To "swift's" comment, following yours, simlarly...
right swift... sort of... but, there is a major difference
between the shadow cast by an object directly on the
surface (not the case I claim), versus the diffused
shadow cast by an object signifigantly away from the
same surface. Try your hand over the table example...
with the hand very near to the tabletop, the shadow is
very much more dense... moving your hand away from
and above the same surface diffuses the shadow diffuse
considerably... with the added factor of the -split image-
necessitated by movement during multi-exposures, the
shadow of "The Researcher" would be minimal at best.

Of course, you're doing this with a tabletop in sunlight, not indoor lighting, right? And allowing for the smaller angular size of the Sun from Mars, causing even less of a penumbra? If you put your hand over the table in sunlight, I think you'll find it needs to be quite a distance away before it loses a hand-like shape (especially for one so skilled at finding vague shapes as yourself).

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 02:11 AM
+ ...many replies have addressed very signifigant
questions, which I myself had to answer before fully
accepting this image of "The Researcher".

Judging again from the 1000+ replies in several
days, many more have seen and generally agreed
with the statements made in my presentation... have
not bothered leaving a reply such as "yes, I see it".

With this, there are persistent spammers... name callers...
troublemakers here... I wish to reassure everyone
nonetheless, every effort to make a legitimate presentation
and to update this, is being made.
Thanks again to those taking time to offer legitimate
inquiries into this matter.


This forum is not moderated.

Musashi
2004-Feb-14, 02:15 AM
Well, MAP, if you ever get a legitamate presentation, let us know, I am sure we would like to see that.

Musashi
2004-Feb-14, 02:19 AM
wait, 1000+ replies? I see about 60. 11 of those are you, so that makes it right about 50. Maybe you mean views.


Judging again from the 1000+ replies in several
days, many more have seen and generally agreed
with the statements made in my presentation... have
not bothered leaving a reply such as "yes, I see it".

That is the biggest load of crap yet. You cannot just assume that anyone who hasn't posted agrees with you. That is stupid. Not to mention, those aren't unique user views. So, if I have checked this thread out 20 times, that is 20 views. If that is how you determine the validity of your hypothesis, then you will never get a legitamte presentation up, and you have much moer fundamental issues to deal with before you start talking about men on mars. I hope that you don't acutually devote too much more of your time to your idea that that picture is proof of life on Mars. It is, in all reality, a waste of time.

Amadeus
2004-Feb-14, 02:26 AM
MAP.. A bit of free advice. This is a very polite board and everyone here has tried to explain the facts to your in a reasonable way.

But please face facts that this is just a smear on the ground. Because if you were to take these "findings" to any other board you would be shouted into the ground. People here have a lot of knowlege in this area and you should listen and take their comments seriously.

I now believe that you believe in what you say. But you have not been able to convince or even make people doubt this could be anything else than what it so blatent is. This kind of thing has come up a lot in the past month. We have had discussions about a lot of "objects" on Mars so we have gotten pretty good at looking the stuff and seeing it for what it is.

The fact that this thread has had a 1000+ views and so many replies is that the people on this board actualy care and are trying to show you the light on this subject.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 02:48 AM
+ ...to "dummie" - cmon, try now !
I have indeed answered to every one of your
"challenges", but all are illegitimate... is your
resounding claim now made valid, because your
own "replies" have been so incorrect ? I cant
salute your efforts, but only because they are
an "attack" on perfectly reasonable points.

I admire the work you have done, but must tell
you, you have gone off on a tangent.
I am no more than presenting initial proof of this
figure... which you yourself have thoroughly
recognized in your excellent photo essay response.
Why do we remain in disagreement... or, rather,
how could we ? You agree with me, admit it :-)

My comment indeed addressed the fact you have
only indicated the ONE image... this would be the one
you drew little arrows around... can we again expect
this ONE image to move or change position ? That
isn't what I'm saying... don't waste and further time
considering it is.

"dummie" then says: "You obviously failed to read my
point properly, or look at the link I provided".
Please get this much clear... I am not here to prove
your invalid arguments for you... since they do not apply
to MY thread, I can only try to answer to them as
politely as possible, given a number of more appropriate
replies to answer.

"dummie" continued: "Also, the only movement shown
(in the RAW IMAGES THEMSELVES) are when the Left camera
is used instead of the Right. In this instance, it will move
as its from a different perspective".
Wrong... that isnt movement inherent to the frame... that
is "moving the camera"... not even that... its a different
camera with slightly different position. Sorry you didnt
follow my comment... again.

"dummie" continued: "Read my previous post on shadows.
He would have to be considerably high above the ground for
no shadow to be there. Much higher than a point between the
pancam and the floor. Also, the higher up he gets the smaller
he also becomes due to camera perspective. Next you'll be
saying he's 2mm tall and is floating directly in front of the lens".
I'm sure the replier meant "please read his previous post"...
but I did... and then provided the answer.
Sort of is the most I can agree with your next point... but
relatively speaking, this figure is... my presentation suggests
at least several heights above the surface... please read my
follow-up to the other repliers asking about the shadow
issue... there is a very lot of information your replies choose
to omit in favor of championing their incorrect views.
And next, I'll be "claiming"... again... could I ? That this
figure is very small ?? Hello ? Did I say very small
already a dozen times... yes. Didn't I also point out
that -this figure is positioned very near to the Lander,
looking directly into it's camera ? Yes. So... your point is...
perhaps... that I said these things, but didn't mean them
sincerely enough ? Sorry. Not meaningful replies... please
stop unless you have something to offer.

I said:


...readers of my post seeing such remarks will mistake
this kind of statement for something I have said, which it
is not.


...and the replier says: "I never once said that you made
such remarks".
The replier isn't getting my comments whatsoever... too bad.

I have again answered the shadow issue.

No the replier gets slightly hostile: "I used the same RAW
images you did buddy, from the same place you got them".
Aww gee... and we're not even buddies. Well... I don't
even agree with a LOT of the images other people present...
my presentation includes enlargements and enhancements
not shown elsewhere, and I have limited my statements to
those.

This replier ends, saying: "This is the last post I'm going to
make, as I get very sick of repeating myself to people who
don't want to listen".
Right.. but, again, considering the replier's complete
disregard for my statements... that I even answered his
incorrect "replies"... yes... perhaps it's best they retire
from this replying to the unappreciative thread starter :-)

Do not go away sad... in fact please stay... really, I
am not arguing against -you- personally... but only
your apparent disregard for the facts presented.

I dunno... sympathy points may be more what you were
looking for here :-)

Rc2000
2004-Feb-14, 03:22 AM
hmmm

---No one agrees with you.
---You stated earlier you was leaving, but continue to come back and press your 'evidence' as fact.

This is the last post I'm going to make, as I get very sick of repeating myself to people who don't want to listen.
---Then you proceeded to make at least 6 more very long posts after this. The last one finishes with ---

Right.. but, again, considering the replier's complete
disregard for my statements... that I even answered his
incorrect "replies"... yes... perhaps it's best they retire
from this replying to the unappreciative thread starter

Do not go away sad... in fact please stay... really, I
am not arguing against -you- personally... but only
your apparent disregard for the facts presented.

I dunno... sympathy points may be more what you were
looking for here

You are baiting , trolling, whatever fits. Your comments are slowly turning to snide remarks that you're sugar coating, but still snide remarks none the less.
Or you're deliberately doing all this to get reactions from people for a research paper you're doing on how people react to (insert whatever term best fits all this).

This board has some very intelligent and straight thinking people. And they're pretty cool too. That's what I really like about the BABB.

Rc

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 03:26 AM
+ to "musashi"... why are you here ?
Simply to be hostile it seems... nothing you have
replied suggests any more.

Great catch though... where I did indeed first remark
in another reply:
"+ with over 1000 views, and 50+ replies"
...in error, I said in one following reply:
"Judging again from the 1000+ replies in several days"...

Even though I clearly had meant "1000+ views, and
not replies, you were quick to spew more hostility.

What would this board be without your vitriolic comments ?
A much happier place I'm sure.

Swearing gets you more hostility points though... you
swore in yet another "reply", but only to emphasize
another errant point. The simple fact is... virtually none
of what you or your spamming pals comment addresses
the issue of the thread... this would be the topic I set,
not the foolishness you among others have contributed
here.

N C More
2004-Feb-14, 03:27 AM
I, for one, understand exactly what Map is saying.

It doesn't matter what is offered in support of the contention that this picture is not that of a "martian". Everything will be classified as "challenges" and "attacks" to Map's "truth". Nothing will ever be accepted that changes Map's belief that this picture is that of a martain life form...absolutely nothing has that power.

I don't know what the motivation for this mind set is... sincere "true believer" or some type of trolling? It doesn't really matter though, does it?

LFuzzy
2004-Feb-14, 03:51 AM
Actually, he is NOT a Martian. He IS an earthling. :o
NASA and the JSA (Japan Space Assn.) developed this miniature spaceman
because that was the only way they could make the mission work. :wink:
Unfortunately, he fell out of the rover. #-o That is why the rover had a malfunction.
It took NASA a few days to figure out how to get him back inside. :^o

-LF

mk ultra
2004-Feb-14, 04:09 AM
The simple fact is... virtually none
of what you or your spamming pals comment addresses
the issue of the thread... this would be the topic I set,
not the foolishness you among others have contributed
here.

The issue is about what you think is in the image right?
So can you tell us if you see something unusual in these images from Phatfinder.
http://www-pdsimage.jpl.nasa.gov/jbcache/mpf/mpim_0001/browse/mars/seq0031/c1246xxx/i861128r.htm
The Shuttle with 2 little men?
http://www.martian-lifeforms.com/images/0429_9.jpg

The mouse under the rover(Pathfinder)
http://www.martian-lifeforms.com/images/j24.jpg

Note I show directly the images because it could be long to load all the images on this site to find it.They are located at gallery 1 and 3 (Edited)

Your imagination is the only limit welcome to the Twilight Zone.
http://www.martian-lifeforms.com/

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 04:09 AM
+ to "Rc2000"

I guess your remarks are as welcome as some...
you have neglected to read what was said as well.

dash "I said I was leaving", end dash.
You wish maybe I had said that, but no, that was
the replier's comment, not mine.

This brings up an interesting fact though... as it
seems a great many repliers here feel obligated to
confuse other people, other pictures, and other
remarks with those I have offered.

dash "nobody agrees with me"

This is again an important point... because I have
several times pointed out - by their disagreement
with what I have stated, in fact, nothing is being
remarked respecting what I did state... you are
simply one of these disagreeing. My point with
this is... WHAT proof of your complaints is there...
OR... how would any such complaint relate to the
topic. You're just name calling and wasting space
on your refuting of non-issues.

Well no... I am not making snide or sugar coated
remarks... rather, the false complaints against my
well intended statements have elicited equally as poorly
intended replies... I state no more than that responsible
claims would be honored... and several people have
indeed offered such... and I have answered these with
equally reasonable replies... you are on the attack, but
without due cause.

Baiting... trolling... sounds like fishing... but I dont care
whatever it is you are insinuating... I have no more than
defended every statement made in my presentation...
and with the express purpose of making these points
clear to anyone scrolling through the myriad
off-centered replies mixed with the responsible ones.
Someone you know may have been the subject of a
response you did not agree with... perhaps even you...
this isn't difficult to imagine though - let's look at your
comments... demeaning, insulting, lies, and accusations
of falsifying the information I presented... what kind of
"troll" or whatever is that ??
Is that what is to be expected from this "great little
board of very responsible intelligent people you know
so many of here" ? Count me out... Help me please...
Never mind... I dont really want your help.
Leave me alone. There now, I feel better :-)

Oh... my long replies... yes... sometimes the least
little errant claims require the longest explanations...
I am getting tired of those however, and may indeed
soon move to more fertile ground.

But I know the answer here, I'm fairly sure.
Because this board is concerned with the several real
"non-issues"... it is... the faked moon landings etcetera...
a lot of the repliers camped out here are convinced their
job is to dump on ANYBODY posting here at all... thats
so good :-)

Yea... I already said this... oh well.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 04:18 AM
+ to "mk ultra" reply...

Great point.. thanks for your support.

What do I see in that... hey... it really is an interesting
image, isn't it ? I cannot comment now, as I have not
studied that particular image, and am involved with
another presentation... the subject of my post.

Yes... indeed... the issue is "what did Map find in
this incredible image he is trying to share with us"...
believe me sincerely, I am completely confident
"The Researcher" is as I have commented, a very
real living person on Mars.

The implications of this are admittedly great.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 04:23 AM
+ special thanks to "LFuzzy" for their several humorous replies !

Well... could this small person be a NASA secret... one
TV series from the 60's had such a topic... "W.O.G"...
World of Giants... great series... but no, I feel, in seriousness,
we are seeing a person from Mars itself.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 04:28 AM
+ to... Amadeus... JohnOwens... Ulster...russ_watters

My sincere apologies to all the above... sorry... I just
cannot find a bit of sincerety or understanding in any
of your replies thus far... please keep trying if you
do have something to say.

Tensor
2004-Feb-14, 04:29 AM
+ One replier is an avid quoter...

Yep, I am. I believe in answering specific statements or questions. And you don't have to be afraid to use my name. That's why I quoted you directly from your statements...


unfortunately, also a misquoter, but I will explain these remarks for anyone reading the thread.

... and since I copied your quotes directly from your post, please show me exactly where I misquoted you.


...they complain: "You don't believe or you will simply
reject anything we present (because it doesn't support
your idea) to refute you".

My fault here. The statement should read:
You don't believe, or you will simply reject anything we present (because it doesn't support your idea) to refute you.

I missed putting in the comma. I was refering to your statement that you didn't believe that any evidence would be forthcoming. And also set limits on what you would accept as evidence. That sounds to me as if you will reject any evidence that doens't fit your claim.


This replier further wrote:
"I don't see it, but I'm thinking you believe that this little "man"
is intelligent. If so, I would like to see you explain how any
higher intelligence could be packed into about 6cc of volume".

This is an excellent question. First, they say, they "dont see it"...
but there are some very good reasons WHY the images presented
might be difficult to see initially... these will be covered when I
make more formal presentation of my discovery.

So you tell us that you see something there, and when I didn't see it, you say that there are other reasons why I might not be able to see it. I'm sorry, but I can only comment on what you present. I can't comment on something you haven't presented yet.


But, how can we explain higher intelligence in a smaller person...people appearing to be no more than a few inches tall ?
The dinosaurs were very very large, but spent most
of their time munching giant weeds... "higher intelligence" is
the issue, but not necessarilly equated to size, is it ?

No, but you are talking about something with a very small brain, and all I asked was how do you get intelligence into such a small cranial cavity. And the situation is worse than I originally posted. I made a error in figuring out the size of the cranial cavity and instead of 6cc it should be .05 cc. That's an awfully small brain to try to hook into any kind of intelligence.


In fact, the people of Mars could be exactly as intelligent as we
are, if existing in some more advanced society, and this is what
is apparent to me, at very least.

It seem you have this backwards, how would they create an advanced society if they don't have the intelligence in the first place?


The replier then says, apparently in reply to another comment,
that, "And claims for little men on mars don't?" (this is, don't
require strict proof - again, as per my comment to another
question).

You were challenging the use of the word pareidol, what I believe most of us here think is happening with your "little man". By saying this:


In fact, such illusory effects as you quote so hastily have, themselves, strict guidelines for qualification.

you seem to be saying that we need strict guideline to refute you, but you don't need strict guidelines to present what you claim is a "little man". All you provided is a fuzzy enlargement and an opinion of what you see. Your opinion is hardly a "fact"


the replier offered "a quickie reply", oblivious however to any information
presented in the original article... fair enough... this isn't a classroom... no demands are made... but no nonsense replies can be honored.

Hold on, I went to the link, I read your article and I looked at the photo for 20+ minutes. here are some quotes from your article:



...and while it is a very clear and unmistakable likeness...

This image is again nearly incontestable in what
it shows...

I do not believe anyone viewing these pictures will have any reason to
contest my description therewith...

...we can already discern this person quite clearly.

If it is "Unmistakable, nearly inconstestable, or clear as you claim above, why is it so hard for various people here to see?


Another typical complaint from the replier: "So you say.
You present a fuzzy picture and claim its a little alien. How
valid is that?
This would be a good complaint, but that I cannot answer
to the quality of the photo any more than I have... it is, I
state, an extreme enlargement...

And so.....? You presented the photo as evidence. I'm saying the enlargement is not clear enough to claim the "little man is clearly visible, thats all.


I did not present "a fuzzy picture"...

Wait a minute, you say you can't answer as to the quality (or lack of it) of the photo, but then claim you didn't present a fuzzy photo, well, which is it?


my picture very clearly shows, within limits of the
photo provided, all the same detail upon which I remarked.

Again, clearly shows to you. Myself and others here either don't set it or see something else.



How valid is it... it's a NASA/JPL photo... does that make it more or less valid ?

What is valid? The picture, yes. Your claim, I feel no.


I again only remark on what is clearly
visible in that photo... these are my honest and valid comments...
but will everyone see this immediately ? I cannot diminish my factual observations based on casual perusal of these by others.

I believe they are honest. But, that doesn't make them factual to everybody.



Evidently convinced they are being lied to or cheated, the
replier then offers, "Good, no authorative source except
yourself. This makes a valid claim?".
Well, this is more a personal attack on my integrity as an
observer, but deserves the better reply nonetheless.
There simply ARE NO OTHER SOURCES for information
on this discovery, more than the original photo which
itself proves this fact out... I am the discoverer... but this
point also explains why I ask that any formidable dis-proof
of my statements might be made, and are fully welcome if
they can be made.

Others (dummy in particular) have offered disproof of your current claim, you have rejected it.


The replier's comments then disintegrated a bit... he first saw a hamster... then a bunny...

How is this disintegrating? I told you what I saw in the photo. After studying the picture a bit more, I will admit I see a head, with a beard. But, not in the same place as the head of your "little man". So I have seen a hampster, a rabbit's head, and a man's head with a beard(and probably not coincidently we have rabbits and hampsters as pets and I have a beard), all in the same place as you have see a "little man with a beard". That should indicate that it is far from clear.


but then another good question...
I really do believe this replier was TRYING to agree with me,
but simply could not...

Nope, don't agree.


they say, "Sorry, Lowell could imagine
canals on mars where none exsited, by assuming what must be
there to connect what he thought he saw. You claim appears to
me to be of the same thing?".
Excellent, but not again the point I offered...

It may not be the point you offered, but it is very relevant. It simply points out that people may see things; in pictures, or in the case of Lowell, looking through a telescope, that simply aren't there or it's what they want to see. Similar, I feel, to you seeing the "little man".


nonetheless,
Lowell's observation of "canals" is a good case. For, what
indeed, did we find in the satellite photos of Mars, but
enormous "canals", seen to be gigantic ancient river channels,
larger than any on Earth ? Not riverboat canals certainly...
but he did see the same channels, and that they appeared to
be connected in a logical arrangement.

Sorry, I but those river channels cannot be seen in earthbound telescopes. What he saw were optical illusions. Others looking at Mars today can see them and even people looking at CCD images of Mars will claim they can see canals.


my statement remains valid by any inspection of the facts presented... the
"reply" rather soundly ignores the facts presented.

Nope, you've presented one fact. That there is a picture. The claim of there is a "little man" in the picture is your opinion, based on what you claim to see, not a fact.



The replier continues somewhat with this same line...
"So you're assuming other detail must be there just because
you think it has to be there to show what you think you see?".
My reply immediately above answers this, but... I do not
assume anything in my presentation... rather, I offer clear
and visible evidence that the detail I remark on is itself
present... nothing is assumed in that... I never state 'I
assume such detail is present'... I state that such detail
is present.

From your original post:


we must also assume a great more detail must be present than is first obvious to casual inspection... we could not "imagine" his clothing, his shoes... if such intricate detail were not present, even though much of it is lost in the photographic rendering...

Care to explain why you say assume in your original post and then claim that you do not assume anything?



They add: "That's very convoluted and it reminds me of the mars face of a few years ago".
Well, again, the replier is remarking on claims made in other
presentations, not in mine...

Nope, just comparing the two. Many people claimed (and some still claim) that the "Face" appears not to be natural in the photographs. Just as you are claiming that there is a "little man" in your photograph. Others saw the face as natural, just as many here see your "little man" as just soil and/or rocks.

mk ultra
2004-Feb-14, 04:30 AM
Yes... indeed... the issue is "what did Map find in
this incredible image he is trying to share with us"...
believe me sincerely, I am completely confident
"The Researcher" is as I have commented, a very
real living person on Mars.

The implications of this are admittedly great.
Take care than your imagination blinds you about "The Researcher"
because that is really an optical illusion.You can believe all people here who have pointing this to you.
Same thing for the mouse under the rover(Pathfinder) who is only a stone "the eyes" are shadow mades by the rover.
See image page 3 of this thread
or
See the last image gallery3
on this site.
http://www.martian-lifeforms.com/

JimTKirk
2004-Feb-14, 04:36 AM
MAP - Perhaps this forum is not the best place for your 'truth'. Please look at www.godlikeproductions.com for people who will look at what you present and actually agree with you. :D :D :D

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 04:47 AM
+ to "tensor"... ok... I used your real psuedonym :-)

My original comment stands... you simply select
large bodies of text, and then make some bold
statment apparently related... nearly all of your
latest reply is also filled with such, but I will offer
some examples.

I replied to the effect that you among others were
fond of remarking on other presentations... you deny
this, but then continue with this later in the same paragraph...
my presentation has nothing to do with the "face on
Mars". I have repeatedly asked for comments to be
restricted to statements I HAVE MADE... that they will
therefore be of relevance.

Yes... we can also raise the ISSUE of the famous
face on Mars... but I could as easily ask you about
your voting record... it simply isnt relevant to the issue
at hand... neither, unfortunately, is your stubborn
"point by point" style of disagreement... its very simple
really... either you DO agree that what I presented is
valid, or, by suggesting some unknown fault in this,
may establish why it is not... there is no opinion
involved... it is a factual matter, purely.

Your complaint about my use of the word "assume" is
also typical... I merely meant by this, my presentation
is not FIRST based on any such assumption as is
inferred... it is based in fact... such facts, I commented
COULD be assumed of the photo presented, because
in fact, that photo was not of high enough resolution to
show those clearly.

I am not, again, trying to argue... you looked at my
presentation... I looked at your replies... I do appreciate
this in a way... we do not have much to say to one
another however.

Rc2000
2004-Feb-14, 05:07 AM
*shrugs, scratches head, then heads over to Orion's Arm to catch up on Archailects*

ktesibios
2004-Feb-14, 07:03 AM
I had to rock my glasses around a bit to get the images to superimpose, but once I got them in register, Dummy's stereo pictures worked gorgeously. Just like a Viewmaster (remember them?)

It was so clear that the "little man" is a depression in the surface rather than anything above it, while the rocks show up as raised.

I've got to admit I'm impressed. =D>

majic
2004-Feb-14, 09:36 AM
Oh my god. You actually mean that we BUMPED OVER the first living creature we encountered? Smashed by our airbags!! You can actually see his sock left below him :( The poor thing ....

Now I see he also was busy drawing some of his favorite zoo animals !

http://majic.gamepoint.net/yeahyeah.jpg

Paul Beardsley
2004-Feb-14, 10:46 AM
I have viewed this discussion with some interest and a lot of bemusement.

Many posters have come up with very articulate and sensible challenges to MAP - notably beck0311 and Tensor - but to no avail.

Even if the "man" was far more convincing than is in fact the case (e.g. if it looked even slightly like a man), the burden of proof would still lie with MAP. Yet he persistently refuses to recognise this.

We know it's not a little man on Mars. That's not us being arrogant or closed-minded or part of the conspiracy - it's just that there's absolutely no reason to suppose it is a man, and a host of reasons to think it is not.

The Face was at least face-like enough to make sensible people pause for thought and perhaps indulge in a few minutes' idle speculation about ancient Martian civilisations (until we got better pictures of it, of course). But the Man is not man-like enough to do anything like this. It's not even an optical illusion.

So why persist with the debate with one person who is absolutely determined to remain self-deluded? (I am not being critical, I really want to know. I am as guilty as anyone of trying to get unreasonable people to apply reason.)

The fact is, MAP is one individual. His claims will convince no-one. Not wishing to be ad hominem, but it has to be said that his prose style is so rambling and vague that he's never going to get his "findings" published. There's certainly no danger of him achieving the "fame" of Sibrel or Hoagland.

So just let him get on with it. Let him be happy thinking he knows the truth and we're missing out on the greatest discovery ever.

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Feb-14, 10:47 AM
I'd like to know when and where this 'formal presentation of discovery' will take place. If possible, I'd like to be in the audience.

johnwitts
2004-Feb-14, 11:32 AM
I did try to read the whole of this thread, I really did. By halfway down page 2 I lost the ability to read, so has anything been decided here?

N C More
2004-Feb-14, 12:37 PM
So why persist with the debate with one person who is absolutely determined to remain self-deluded? (I am not being critical, I really want to know. I am as guilty as anyone of trying to get unreasonable people to apply reason.)

The fact is, MAP is one individual. His claims will convince no-one. Not wishing to be ad hominem, but it has to be said that his prose style is so rambling and vague that he's never going to get his "findings" published. There's certainly no danger of him achieving the "fame" of Sibrel or Hoagland.

So just let him get on with it. Let him be happy thinking he knows the truth and we're missing out on the greatest discovery ever.

Hooray! Someone who thinks as I do! There's absolutely NOTHING that anyone could ever say to change Map's belief about this. All that's left is to move on.

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-14, 01:13 PM
Sorry to jump in so late, but I could not just let this one slide:


If the owner of this bulletin board is concerned
with what I have posted, he is welcome to remark on
that, but has not.

The owner of this board is Dr. Philip Plait aka The Bad Astronomer. His remarks on what you have posted are on the first page of this thread. You have ignored what he said, just as you have ignored or dissed every poster who disagrees with you.

Gmann
2004-Feb-14, 01:58 PM
Everyone take a close look at the interpretation presented by Majic, it can't be..it might be... :o it IS, Homer Simpson, the first man on Mars #-o

+ as for the poster who calls himself Map. If you are looking for someone to validate your claims, you are going to have to present a better case. I could show you the Sphinx in the sand on the shore of Lake Michigan at a park in Winnetka IL. I know the image has not been modified, because I took the picture, and my son made the footprint that looks like the Sphinx when you go to max magnification. It still proves nothing. There are no ancient Egyptian artifacts in Winnetka IL, period.

(edited to add: I know, don't feed the trolls, sorry didn't read the sign in time)

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 07:59 PM
+ to the reply by "Paul Beardsley":

Unfortunately, there is no discussion here... what
you have viewed, and inadvertantly or not contributed
to is a mud-sling.

I was amused by the replier's comment: "Not wishing
to be ad hominem"... but, in fact, the majority of "repliers"
here have followed this rule of Ad Hominem completely
and relentlessly... as, again, the replier does, in following
with: "_but it has to be said that his prose style is so
rambling and vague that he's never going to get his
"findings" published".

This - to those who had not known what the term meant, IS
Ad Hominem itself... personal attack... irrelevant argument...
in the bulletin board genre, "off-topic" remark.

And, the replier ends with another zinger... "There's certainly
no danger of him achieving the "fame" of Sibrel or Hoagland".
* Sibrel - advocates the somewhat non-believable theory
we never went to the Moon... Richard Hoagland began by
championing the "Face on Mars"... which was later shown
either to have been doctored in the first very convincing
presentation, or, later, that it was more rock formation,
less carved stone figure... interesting presenters... NOT
again related to my article in the least.

So... what has this replier demonstrated ? How do his
remarks relate to MY topic ?

The replier continues: "We know it's not a little man on Mars".
* But, no demonstration has been offered dis-proving any of
my original statements regarding the presence of this small
person in the NASA/JPL photograph.

And then he says: "That's not us being arrogant or closed-
minded or part of the conspiracy".
* Are we a conspiracy already ? I have no difficulty seeing
this detail in the original NASA/JPL photo, and not in the images
I presented (see link at end)... however, as commented earlier,
I can easily accept that not all viewers will see the image
immediately. This matter is one covered more fully in my
upcoming formal presentation on this discovery.

...the replier then remarks: "it's just that there's absolutely
no reason to suppose it is a man"...
* and this completely overlooks the topic... I make my
presentation based on the obvious fact this area DOES in
fact appear to show a small person on Mars... it appears so
to me... many of the repliers have had no difficulty locating
this same figure, whether they concur with my statements
in whole or not.

...but the replier ends on a point of interest: "and a host of
reasons to think it is not".
Yes... but "the host of reasons" cited were omitted from the
replier's comments... however, I will remind them, several
good challenges have been made... that the atmosphere of
Mars is not [humanly] breathable... the temperature of Mars
too extreme... there are in fact a bevy of solid reasons why
WE MIGHT NOT initially accept the premise of a man being
alive on Mars... being present in this photograph... but again,
the replier offers no reason at all !!

I am tiring of retyping this request, but it is warranted here...
IF you, the reader, feel you have ANY reasonable argument
to offer as dis-proof of statements made in my presentation...
(...a link is next...) please, by all means, include them here...
this is certainly why I have opened this matter to discussion.

link to my original presentation of this discovery:

http://krs4sure.2itb.com/DISCOVERY2

With this, I will again ask that comments on this thread be
restricted to my original topic... moreover, to materials I have
presented at my internet site... not to other presenters... not
to other topics.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 08:21 PM
If you are looking for someone to validate your claims, you are
going to have to present a better case.

To this replier: But I myself am already convinced of
it's validity... as stated, I present this here only in the
effort to share the discovery initially.

To the replier's example of a "sphinx" seen in their photo
of a footprint in sand... there are endless instances of
such recognizable images in unexpected places... the
example I present is however shown to be solid, 3-dimensional,
and possessing every common attribute of a living person -
though I do not suggest they are a human from Earth.
These are things we CANNOT likewise prove to be present,
for instance, in the footprint in sand.

I am working to add new material to my presentation,
but I feel such replies as I quote indicate a fundamental
inability to see the basic figure as I present it... from these
repliers, we cannot expect any validation... or... for them
to admit to something they do not see would only be
dishonesty.
In coming updates to my presentation, I discuss several
possible problems with viewing this particular figure, and
have discussed some of these here.

MAP

Humphrey
2004-Feb-14, 08:25 PM
[slaps head]
MAP: I urge you strongly to read the posts in this topic. You ssay several times in your last post that nobody has answered your questions wehn many, many of us have. You are just ingoring their posts or handwaving them away because they do not use your edited pictures.

You brought up the idea that the little man cannot possibly live unaided in that atmospher. So what is yor explanation of that? How can he live on the martian surface? Also why have we not taken any pictures of this man before? Can you give us refernce numbers and/or links to pictures on the NASA sight that nshows this man in other pictures?

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Feb-14, 08:31 PM
If the owner of this bulletin board is concerned
with what I have posted, he is welcome to remark on
that, but has not.

You can see a figure of a man in a few pixels of an image from Mars, but haven't noticed that I replied not just once but twice to you, both times on the first page of this thread?

I was the one who said the burden of proof is on you, and you have repeatedly said it isn't. Sorry, but that's not how science works. If you want us to listen to you, you have to do better than simply assert that what you found is irrefutable. Speaking of which, you said:



If in fact -you simply do not see it yet- this is not grounds
for a complaint per-se..

And then, a few lines later in the same post, you said:



I show in my presentation that a photograph shows clear
evidence of a small man

If it's so clear, then why do we not see it right away?

Let me get this straight:

What we have here is an extraordinary claim with little or no evidence, a claim that it is easy to see, a claim that it is not easy to see, and clear and direct evidence against it that has been politely offered, and ignored.

This behavior is decidedly troll-like. You have been thoroughly shown that what you are seeing is a case of pareidolia, and not anything real on the martian surface. This thread has gone on quite long enough, I think, with no real evidence from you. So, as we say in the US, it's time to put up or shut up. Show us clear and direct evidence that your claims about this figure is more than a coincidental alignment.

MAP
2004-Feb-14, 08:43 PM
"Kaptain K" writes:
"The owner of this board is Dr. Philip Plait aka The
Bad Astronomer. His remarks on what you have posted
are on the first page of this thread. You have ignored what
he said..."

I was not aware he was the board owner... however, I did
in fact comment on that post already... his reply stated
no more than that he could not readily admit to seeing the
image I discussed at all. Had he further to say on this,
I feel certain he could have.

I do address that issue of "just cant see it yet" repeatedly,
and have answered to many others complaining of the same...
while there are again numerous reasons any one viewer might
have difficulty seeing the presented image as intended, I do
not fault their present inability... I have no more than refused
to support prattle and insult replies added to my well meant
thread here.

...but, this replier continued: "just as you have ignored or
dissed every poster who disagrees with you".
What shall be expected, when NONE of the replies I have
taken issue with addressed the subject of my post ?
I have in fact at least looked at every reply... and answered
to every reasonable question... you mean, more likely, I have
not agreed with the disagree-ers... no I do not :-)

If you are truly concerned with the status of this post, or this
bulletin board, please follow courteous convention and address
actual issues, moreover, the topic of the thread... if you wish
only to complain, why not start a separate thread ? I specifically
DO NOT encourage such complaining here.

MAP

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Feb-14, 10:28 PM
It has now been an hour and a half since my last post. You replied 12 minutes after I posted, and didn't answer my direct question of you.

You may claim you have answered questions, but you haven't. What you are saying boils down to only "It's real because I say it's real."

That won't work on this board. My last post made it clear why what you are doing is illogical. I won't repeat myself.

As for others replying in this thread, and I will single out Musashi in particular: watch your tempers. I am very tired of people here getting angry and posting in anger. I will ban regulars here, as I believe I have indicated in the past. I don't care who you are or what your post count is. BE POLITE OR BE BANNED. How many times do I need to say this? I do not want apologies, I want action.

This thread is locked. MAP, if you want to continue this in another thread, then be very careful how you support your claims.

This thr