Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

GOM · 2002-07-18 10:39:34

Still sleeping?!

Rumor has it that NASA is hiding some very interesting detailed pictures of The Face.

It's only rumor at this point....

Hopefully we can find out more soon. A lawsuit is being discussed to get NASA to release the pictures. I don't think a lawsuit is the way to go, but many people are getting frustrated.

Mark S · 2002-07-25 14:01:03

I think that NASA is having fun by screwing with Richard C. Hoaglund.

We got the infrared images of Cydonia after quite a delay. However, these images are daytime images, which aren't very different from visible-light images. Hoaglund is waiting for the nighttime images, which he believes will be quite different. Parts of the face (such as an underlying structure) will radiate heat differently than others. Hoaglund claims to have "White House sources" that have indicated to him that the image does exist, but NASA does not want to release it because it would point to an alien presence on Mars. I think that the American people need to get on NASA's case to release the image, if only for the fact that a taxpayer-funded organization is holding out on them.

GOM · 2002-07-29 22:44:41

Test....

GOM · 2002-07-30 14:13:36

Something strange is going on with this thread....

It says there are 4 pages, but I cannot see the 4th page.

GOM · 2002-07-30 14:14:37

Test.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Test

Phobos · 2002-07-30 21:30:44

A post to bump up GOM's missing message

Palomar · 2002-07-31 09:52:59

A post to bump up GOM's missing message

*I've found that when the last message cannot be viewed because it's "sandwiched" between the last page and the new next page, hit the "+add reply" button and then scroll down the computer screen. Not only will a blank field appear for your "response" [as usual], but you can view the posts in descending order, i.e. the very last post [the "stuck" one] is nearest the top of the screen and just beneath the blank field which you type something new into.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-31 10:27:13

Maybe the people who hide the Face on Mars are trying to hide these posts....

Set the truth free!!!

Adrian · 2002-07-31 14:02:30

Fixed it. No idea why it happened.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-13 04:08:54

Hi Phobos!
I think there probably is a valid reason to hide the discovery of artifacts on other solar system bodies. That reason is religion. Many people believe that their religion puts forward the incorruptible word of God ... straight from God's mouth, so to speak.
Nowhere in the bible, koran, torah (apologies if I have misspelt any of these), does it mention that on the eighth day, God created Martians. Since these religious texts are meant to describe the facts of creation and God's plan for us, they must be complete. How could God tell us that He created the sun, moon, and stars etc., and then accidentally forget to tell us about His creation of a complex ecosystem on our next-door planet. Or that aliens from another blue planet in a neighbouring star system visited Mars and carved faces out of the rocks there. An omission is a lie ... and God doesn't deceive his children, right?
So let's imagine that we find indisputable evidence of intelligent life, either past or present, on Mars ... and I'm not saying I think we will, by the way. All of a sudden, every religious text on Earth is incomplete.
WHAT?! ... THE WORD OF GOD IS INCOMPLETE?!! God's kept us in the dark about something so important? It can't be so! Maybe all this religion stuff is a load of baloney after all!!
Just imagine the collapse of organised religion. Some people's whole lives, from dawn 'til dusk, every day, revolve around one major religion or another. Unlike Cindy's enlightened "renaissance man", many of these people associate morality entirely with religion. Only their religion prevents them from behaving like barbarians. In fact, religions have been credited with keeping large sections of humanity civil and controlled (maybe read 'controllable') for countless centuries. They form an important part of the structure of civilisation and, maybe for this reason, their existence, though undoubtedly the cause of immense bloodshed and misery, has been tolerated or even encouraged by societies all over the world.
I think there is very good reason for believing that the sudden revelation of intelligent life elsewhere would cause major upheavals in many countries. Maybe not overnight. It may take a while for the full gravity of such a revelation to take effect. But I think it could potentially be serious when it happens. Organised religion is a powerful crutch to many people and if it were to be undermined, the results might be more dramatic than an open-minded agnostic could conceive of.
The Brookings Report, which I'm sure most of you are familiar with, was compiled by intelligent people. I'm sure they submitted their conclusions in good faith, fully believing that secrecy and a policy of gradual information "leakage" was best for the world. As much as many of us would like to believe otherwise, most of the population of Earth is as deeply and profoundly submerged in the dogma of their particular religion as they were when the Brookings Report was first written. We're probably just as vulnerable today as we were in the 1950s to the social unrest they feared then.
No. The secrecy question is not a show-stopper when it comes to conspiracy theories. I believe that this aspect of conspiracy theories probably does stand up to logical scrutiny ... sad though it is to admit we've made so little intellectual progress in half a century. Some of us would still be burning witches if given half a chance.

Phobos · 2002-08-13 18:00:27

Nowhere in the bible, koran, torah (apologies if I have misspelt any of these), does it mention that on the eighth day, God created Martians. Since these religious texts are meant to describe the facts of creation and God's plan for us, they must be complete. How could God tell us that He created the sun, moon, and stars etc., and then accidentally forget to tell us about His creation of a complex ecosystem on our next-door planet. Or that aliens from another blue planet in a neighbouring star system visited Mars and carved faces out of the rocks there. An omission is a lie ... and God doesn't deceive his children, right?

Oh man, I suspected religion might be a problem and a reason to conceal evidence of e.t. civilizations but I think I under-estimated its influence. I can see how a great percentage of the world would have the rug pulled out from under their feet from this "lie by omission." I have a hunch however that a lot of these fundamentalists would protect their beliefs by accusing the people who disseminated the information to the public of being wicked liars or they'd conclude that the e.t. civilization was really a colony of demons or something similiar. Religion, after all, isn't reasonable in that it usually asks you to believe based on no evidence whatsoever so I don't think a lot of fundamentalists would suddenly ditch their religion but enough probably would to cause serious trouble. So, unfortunately, I have to agree with you that perhaps it wouldn't be in our best interest to just unload this kind of evidence on the public if such evidence actually existed. But then again maybe revealing the evidence for e.t. civilizations should any be found would be good but painful shock treatment to rid us of some archaic beliefs.

Just imagine the collapse of organised religion. Some people's whole lives, from dawn 'til dusk, every day, revolve around one major religion or another. Unlike Cindy's enlightened "renaissance man", many of these people associate morality entirely with religion. Only their religion prevents them from behaving like barbarians. In fact, religions have been credited with keeping large sections of humanity civil and controlled (maybe read 'controllable' for countless centuries.

I agree with the stance that religion has been a powerful tool of control through the ages, and I also agree with what you put in parenthesis, I don't think religion or strong authority has kept people from turning into barbarians, I think it has merely facilitated the desire by the elite few to have controllable subjects. I'm sure Clark will make the argument that if we don't have the heavy boot of authority on our chests we'll turn into raving lunatics but I should say in advance that I disagree.

Mark S · 2002-08-14 08:15:19

The topic of aliens and religion is always a fascinating one, so I will add my two cents:

1. I feel that only the fundamentalists, who reject evolution and treat the holy books as being the literal word of God, will react negatively to the evidence that mankind is not alone.

2. Most mainstream Christians will be able to accept the idea of aliens. For them, the omission of the subject in the Bible does not invalidate the idea. If God is truly omnipotent, and if He has created a nearly infinite universe, it would be foolish to believe that humans are alone.

3. Maybe the Bible does describe aliens. Ever since Von Daniken started looking for evidence of E.T. on earth, people have been drawing connections between Biblical angels and extraterrestrials. Of course, the Grey aliens of popular folklore are nowhere as benevolent as the Biblical angels. But the possibility of a connection still exists, especially when one reads the original text of Ezekiel. If angels and aliens are one and the same, it would have profound implications for the big three religions.

GOM · 2002-08-14 12:38:12

If angels and aliens are one and the same, it would have profound implications for the big three religions.

Yes. But once you equate angels with "aliens" you will also remember that there are fallen angels. They are not nice at all. Personally I believe the arrival of any alleged aliens will most likely be one of the greatest deceptions ever perpetrated. People like Dr. Greer believe in the "good aliens" helping to rescue planet Earth. He even says he has telepathic communications with these "good" aliens. I am extremely doubtful....

Palomar · 2002-08-14 13:02:42

*As regards sightings of "aliens" here on Earth: I once read an article [cannot recall the author or source, I'm very sorry to say...this was YEARS ago] wherein the author discusses the phenomena of UFOs, faeries, gnomes, spirits, etc., and people seeing these things. His idea was that these are all projections of the human psyche, in that people claim to see these things...but their IMAGES have changed with the passing generations; thus, a person living in 14th century Europe might see a "water sprite" and in 1972 America someone sees a UFO . He also pointed out that most people who "see" these "beings" are usually alone...no witnesses, no confirming testimony.

Sorry...I'm a Missourian on issues like these: Show Me.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-15 05:34:12

Hey, a lot of American scientists are actually Christians. So I don't see how, exactly, religion would play a role in some sort of coverup. The religious argument is okay, but it just doesn't sit well with me because scientists are scientists, regardless of religion.

But anyway, why do we cover things up? Because we don't want someone to know something. So what reason would we have for covering something up on Mars? Well, perhaps we are looking for futuristic technology there, and we don't want anyone to know about it beacuse we want our hands on it first.

A coverup is possible (no one said it wasn't), but it would undoubtedly require more resources than you can imagine.

Cindy,

Show Me.

YOU DON'T SEE IT???

My god, they've gotten to Cindy! Their mind-wave machines convinced her the Face isn't a face at all!

We're doomed!

::puts on metal hat::

Palomar · 2002-08-15 09:01:46

Me: Show Me.

Josh: YOU DON'T SEE IT???

My god, they've gotten to Cindy! Their mind-wave machines convinced her the Face isn't a face at all!

We're doomed!

::puts on metal hat::

*LOL! No, you misunderstood me! I wasn't talking about the Face on Mars...I was talking strictly about people claiming to have seen things such as spirits, nymphs, sprites, "flying saucers," etc.

As for the Face on Mars, I recall the first time I saw a photo of it -- in 1976 or early 1977 [hey, I was only 11 and 12 in those years, so don't misconstrue me as being ancient!], shortly after it had been taken. I was stunned...then I thought it was a hoax...until I heard this photo had been taken by NASA...then I was STUNNED again!

I've seen the more recent photos as well. As I've said before, perhaps it was all a matter of the interplay of light and shadow. The 1976 photo DID look like a Face, no doubt about it. The more recent photos don't show features so starkly displayed...but, of course, 2-1/2 decades have passed since the first photo was taken, i.e. erosion.

I'm neutral about the matter. I definitely would like for NASA to program one of their 'bots to hum over to the actual site and do some serious sniffing around...if they have done this already, then I guess I missed some information somewhere. And if they HAVEN'T done this -- then why?

BTW, can I have a BLUE metal hat? These ugly olive-colored ones just do NOT go with my complexion and eye color. Thanks!

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-15 11:06:16

LOL! No, you misunderstood me!

The mind wave machines are more powerful than we thought!

As for the Face on Mars, I recall the first time I saw a photo of it -- in 1976 or early 1977 [hey, I was only 11 and 12 in those years, so don't misconstrue me as being ancient!], shortly after it had been taken. I was stunned...then I thought it was a hoax...until I heard this photo had been taken by NASA...then I was STUNNED again!

I first saw a photo of the face, when I was around 10, in a Viking Lander book from the library (in the mid to late 80s, yes, I'm a young whipper-snapper! ), I was truely bewildered. It just blew me away. I had dreams of going to Mars and studying the ?Egyptian-esque structure.?

The book accurately debunked it as shadows, and left a bit of uncertainity up in the air, but I still imagined it was actually something amazing.

It wasn't until MGS (25 years after Viking! ) did I realize, with certainity, that The Face was just a unique mound. But with MGS, came even more surprises, structures that looked like pyramids! So I once again, stopped to contemplate this area. I still have no solid opinion on the matter. But I would say, without fearing being wrong (I would happily be wrong, to be honest), that it's most likely a geological thing.

I definitely would like for NASA to program one of their 'bots to hum over to the actual site and do some serious sniffing around...if they have done this already, then I guess I missed some information somewhere. And if they HAVEN'T done this -- then why?

HAH! I just had the most amazing idea in the history of ideas. They could land a rover near Cydonia, maybe, a hundred miles or so... get this; what if, after the ?Mission Objectives? were accomplished, the people in charge of the rover set it off on a Mission to Cydonia? It would take about three Martian Years to arrive (assuming 2 travel time, and 1 stoping / data collection / recharging / working out problems time), and it would gather tons of data on its way.

And even if it didn't make it, it'd be something to do while we patiently wait to go to Mars with a manned mission. I hate it when NASA scraps extended missions. The scientists should be allowed to get all they can out of missions. When NASA denies extension grants, it's like throwing away a perfectly good piece of equipment.

But that sort of answers your question why... NASA is largly civilian, people ask for grants, and NASA gives them the go ahead. Do you really think NASA is going to give people a grant for ?Observational Fly-By of the Martian Face?? Especially now, with the high resolution images practically saying nothing is really there?

BTW, can I have a BLUE metal hat? These ugly olive-colored ones just do NOT go with my complexion and eye color. Thanks!

Eheheheh, noted.

You need to fill out your profile.

::josh's way of asking what color your eyes are::

Phobos · 2002-08-15 22:13:30

I first saw a photo of the face, when I was around 10, in a Viking Lander book from the library (in the mid to late 80s, yes, I'm a young whipper-snapper! ), I was truely bewildered. It just blew me away. I had dreams of going to Mars and studying the ?Egyptian-esque structure

I was around 10 myself when I first saw the face. It saw it on a book cover when I went to the bookstore with my mom. I remember staring at that mysterious face for a long time. I even kind of remember the title of the book, I think it was something like "The City on the Edge of Forever." I think that's when I got first pumped up about going to Mars and running around that city in outer space. So even though I don't believe in the face now, I guess it wasn't an all bad experience considering it fired up my imagination about Mars.

Phobos · 2002-08-15 22:13:39

I first saw a photo of the face, when I was around 10, in a Viking Lander book from the library (in the mid to late 80s, yes, I'm a young whipper-snapper! ), I was truely bewildered. It just blew me away. I had dreams of going to Mars and studying the ?Egyptian-esque structure

I was around 10 myself when I first saw the face. It saw it on a book cover when I went to the bookstore with my mom. I remember staring at that mysterious face for a long time. I even kind of remember the title of the book, I think it was something like "The City on the Edge of Forever." I think that's when I got first pumped up about going to Mars and running around that city in outer space. So even though I don't believe in the face now, I guess it wasn't an all bad experience considering it fired up my imagination about Mars.

Palomar · 2002-08-16 09:04:37

BTW, can I have a BLUE metal hat? These ugly olive-colored ones just do NOT go with my complexion and eye color. Thanks!
Eheheheh, noted.
You need to fill out your profile.
::josh's way of asking what color your eyes are::

*Blue-green eyes with a small patch of hazel in the lower corner of the iris of my left eye.

--Cindy

Adrian · 2002-08-16 13:09:32

But that sort of answers your question why... NASA is largly civilian, people ask for grants, and NASA gives them the go ahead. Do you really think NASA is going to give people a grant for ?Observational Fly-By of the Martian Face?? Especially now, with the high resolution images practically saying nothing is really there?

This is exactly it. NASA is not going to spend significant amounts of money checking out Cydonia (cover up!) because it's convinced that there's nothing interesting there. NASA researchers are not going to ask for any money because they feel there are more interesting things to look at.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-22 01:56:28

You may be interested to know that Richard Hoagland and his intrepid band of Face enthusiasts are working overtime!
They are analysing new IR pictures of the Cydonia region, which they believe will finally provide unequivocal proof of artificiality. They believe NASA is on the back foot over this and scrambling to initiate urgent damage control.
Apparently there is an informant at NASA who has been keeping Richard and company supplied with 'inside information', and s/he maintains that the top brass is very disturbed at the prospect of premature full-disclosure to the public.
One NASA employee (at least I infer he works for NASA) has intimated he has tampered with the data Hoagland is working on, and it is therefore invalid. If the data HAS NOT been tampered with, why would a NASA employee suggest that it had? If it HAS been tampered with, why would a NASA employee do such a thing? In any event there are now vague indications from the Hoagland camp that legal action will be taken if the assertions of tampering are adhered to, because it is probably illegal to alter data gathered for the public using public funding, with the intention to mislead.
This is all terribly exciting stuff ... if you can believe any of it! It seems that all will be revealed as of August 29th (next week), unless Richard Hoagland has an unfortunate accident between now and then!!
I can't wait!
What? .... No, not for the accident, silly ... for the information!!

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-22 10:42:06

Well I'm sure if our fossils will be around to find than something equivilant to fossils of our cities and roads would suredly be found in the less geologically active areas.
I do agree, however, that

Thats what they have said about each and every single picture there is of that area.
And what counts as that proof?
Is there a new building there, under construction? Is there a scaffolding with little martians scurrying about doing renovations on the face, perhaps making it look more face-like to convice us silly Terrans that they are really there?
I know it sounds sarcastic, but it seems to me that even with the most high resolution pictures, from orbit we still cannot make definate conclusions (unless of course something like what I mentioned above was to be seen).

I look at it this way, despite the fact that it would be an incredible motivator to send people to Mars ASAP if they turned out to be artifacts. However, since we cannot confirm their artificiality from orbit without sending one of the super expensive CIA spy sats they have looking down here (even then there will be skeptics and believers after unambiguous visual evidence makes an outcome one way or another)
So the motivations for going to Mars are going to be our own, for exploration of a new land and for economic reasons. We'll just have to wait till we go then to find out for sure what the landforms in Cydonia are, they are not and will not be the reason we send people...IMHO anyway

Your friendly neighborhood Martain...(who doesn't think he has any ancient ancestors on the home world {; )
-Matt

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-22 15:47:11

Ahh, this quote from Hoaglands site strikes me the most.

If the data isn't useful for scientific purposes, then why did NASA release it at all? And the supposed "fact" that it was not properly "calibrated" didn't stop NASA from making scientific conclusions of their own in their image caption and press release, did it? In fact, this data was so good that NASA saw fit to declare the Face "a normal geologic feature," of Cydonia.

The reason NASA releases these daily images is primarily PR. If I was one of the NASA scientists working with Odyssey THEMIS, I would certainly set up a little daily picture database. I mean, really, I'm working with other scientists, and we're speculating and so on. Hell, I bet the daily picture site would mirror last nights discussion with my fellow scientists.

If the data was useful for scientific purposes, then why have the PDS (and other raw data repositories)? Don't scientists generally want raw data? Why would scientists want data that was calibrated by someone else, done in their own personal way to suite their scientific approach?

Sure, the images released by NASA probably can be used to judge something scientifically, but in no way are those images ?pure scientific data.? In which case, you have to assimilate the approach the inital scientists was taking.

Consider the following situation. Say I grow plants, but I do it a certain way. I use a hydroponic approach, with my own formulas, and lighting conditions. Can another scientist take my data and use it? He can, but only if he's following the same approach.

Why is it that Hoagland never works on raw PDS data?

Palomar · 2002-08-23 08:58:04

Phobos: I was around 10 myself when I first saw the face. It saw it on a book cover when I went to the bookstore with my mom. I remember staring at that mysterious face for a long time. I even kind of remember the title of the book, I think it was something like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

*Mmmmm. I always loved incidents like that as a kid. I've never lost my sense of wonderment, but of course it's not as pure and sharp as it was, now that I'm an adult [abit of cynicism started to set in around 30...].

Phobos: I think that's when I got first pumped up about going to Mars and running around that city in outer space. So even though I don't believe in the face now, I guess it wasn't an all bad experience considering it fired up my imagination about Mars.

*Apparently it was a good experience.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-18 10:39:34

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#2 2002-07-25 14:01:03

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#3 2002-07-29 22:44:41

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#4 2002-07-30 14:13:36

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#5 2002-07-30 14:14:37

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#6 2002-07-30 21:30:44

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#7 2002-07-31 09:52:59

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#8 2002-07-31 10:27:13

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#9 2002-07-31 14:02:30

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#10 2002-08-13 04:08:54

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#11 2002-08-13 18:00:27

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#12 2002-08-14 08:15:19

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#13 2002-08-14 12:38:12

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#14 2002-08-14 13:02:42

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#15 2002-08-15 05:34:12

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#16 2002-08-15 09:01:46

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#17 2002-08-15 11:06:16

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#18 2002-08-15 22:13:30

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#19 2002-08-15 22:13:39

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#20 2002-08-16 09:04:37

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#21 2002-08-16 13:09:32

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#22 2002-08-22 01:56:28

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#23 2002-08-22 10:42:06

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#24 2002-08-22 15:47:11

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#25 2002-08-23 08:58:04

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

Board footer