Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

Palomar · 2002-09-17 09:15:33

Shaun: I know, Cindy, it's easy to get caught up in conspiracy theories. But it's also very easy to join in with a group of people ridiculing a new idea or concept. I'm still amazed that, some years after the Wright brothers' first controlled powered flight, people were refusing to believe it had happened.

*Sorry it took me a while to get back to this thread, and to respond to your post. I see your point, Shaun. I don't mean to sound overly snide about Hoaglund, but I have gotten very tired of people claiming to be the target of Big Brother-like attacks, hostilities, etc. Is he really THAT important to my government? I'd like to see proof that he is.

As if the FBI, CIA, and other U.S. governmental agencies doesn't have enough on their hands with the Middle Eastern terrorist concerns, searching out sleeper cells here in the US, on and on. I guess I grew up being exposed to too many fundamentalist Christian preachers going on and on with their fantasies of the federal gov't being on the verge of confiscating all King James versions of their bibles, supposedly threatening to move in and close down all fundamentalist/evangelical sects of Christianity, on and on, to give any claims by Hoaglund much credence. They apparently were either paranoid and/or delusional in thinking they were somehow so important, or such a perceived threat to the gov't, because King James versions of the bible are still rolling hot off the presses and none of their churches have been closed all these years since my childhood!

I think he's just trying to get attention, or feel extra important.

Shaun: Considering the potentially enormous significance of finding artificial structures on Mars, isn't it worth some time and effort to study what is being claimed, fairly and openly, so that it can be either proven correct or duly refuted?

*Sure. I just don't want to see it being tarnished with an "they're out to get me!!" persecution complex.

Shaun: I've seen the evidence. I'm not a complete idiot (I hope! ).

*You are NOT an idiot of any sort. I think you're marvelous, fair, and very smart. This isn't a matter of me being overly skeptical about whether or not there are artificial structures on Mars; I am entirely open to the possibility there are. What I'm overly skeptical about is Hoaglund's coming off with this "they are out to get me" attitude.

Shaun: There is a case to answer here. Neither ridicule nor silence is an adequate response.
Try this site for an interesting viewpoint which, incidentally, mirrors my own:-
http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata2.html

*I'll check it out; thanks.

Shaun: P.S. Sorry. Can't seem to get a direct link for you. You'll have to type it in!

*Chivalry is dead!

No problem.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-18 03:41:50

Let's quote MarsNews.com, shall we?

First of all, any reasonable person who compares the high-resolution image available on the Enterprise Mission website with the low-resolution NASA version can see that they are from the same dataset - the Mars Odyssey IR instrument. It is impossible to ADD that much data to NASA's low-res image to create the high-res version, as many are claiming was done.

Okay, so they're saying that images available on the Enterprise Mission site are the higher resolution, more detailed version of the two.

How can an antialised image have more detail than an aliased image? We don't have to look at these images subjectively to know that the images on TEM are antialiased. The edges are smoothed. It's obvious.

The key, here, is that digital images naturally come out aliased. Zoom in on a picture of something with lots of lines taken with a digital camera. What do you see?

Guess what? Hoagland admits that the data on the site is filtered (and thus the argument that the data is ?clearer? is compromised). On the ?IR analysis? page he says:

The "real" one (in our published version) had a mild (0.42) Gaussian blur applied to it. Keith mistakenly applied this to the original image in an attempt to enhance what appeared initially to him to be a "fuzzy," noisy image (attesting to the absolute limits of simple visual inspection of IR data for meaningful content! ). Fortunately, he saved an unblurred copy of the original -- which we intend to publish as corroboration that, in fact, our "real" THEMIS IR Cydonia image was originally untouched.

They ?intend? to publish the unfiltered image, they just have not yet. You know why? Because it's taking them an awfully long time to get it right, maybe? They have to make sure each aliased edge pixel is so and so long. They probably have to do it by hand. It's going to take days of painstaking editing to pull it off. Assume they ever ?intended? to in the first place.

Hoagland defends the filtering with this comment, As the ENVI software manual points out, in a true multi-spectral IR image, you cannot "destroy" or add to the data with a simple filter, like a "Gaussian blur".

Most filters destroy information. That's just a simple fact of nature.

For example, the following few filters can be reversed:

Negation.
Sharpen (which he latter says can't be reversed, he's wrong, as sharpen only works at the pixel level, it doesn't change neighboring pixels, one or two levels of sharpen can easily be reversed if given the proper algorithm, and if the frequency isn't too high).
Resize upwards (if it's a factor of four and it uses a nearest neighbor algorithm).

There are probably a few more, but I cannot think of them at the momment. Any filter that doesn't have a 1:1 mapping ratio (can't be reversed) does destory information. And it just so happens that a Gaussian blur is one of those that can't be reversed, and does destroy data. I don't have the time or energy to download to the ENVI software, but it's probably true a filter would not damage the data much, from an analytical perspective. But how can he expect anyone to use that data, if he himself won't use data that was irrevocably ?altered? by, say, NASA? Is that not at least hypocritical? The point of the PDS, is to give people calibrated data that can be reversed to its raw self.

He says to Christensen, in an email on the the ?IR analysis? page that, ? the person who obtained this image has discovered that he did keep a completely unaltered version of the source data, and we will be publishing that along with a full explanation of this minor discrepancy on Thursday.?

He has yet to do this. Once he does, I will analyze the data myself, and I will email both Hoagland, and those who are on the THEMIS team with my results. That's assuming he ever does, though.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-19 06:24:09

Hi Cindy!
Thanks for your reply. I certainly see your point also!
The overwhelming majority of conspiracy theories are obviously nonsense. And your disdain for the paranoia that creeps into most of them is a very understandable reaction. I feel it too.
It's a fine line we tread in trying to filter out what COULD be a gem of truth in a pile of dirt ... that's the point I've been trying to make. There's a stubborn streak in my nature, too, which tends to make me dig my heels in if I see a new concept being laughed out of court because it doesn't quite fit in.
If it's nonsense, by all means let's throw it out! ... In fact, I insist that we do! But please, let's point out plain and simple reasons WHY it's nonsense, before we start throwing!

Incidentally, thank you for your kind compliments, which demonstrate the limitations of character judgment by keyboard(! ) 'Marvelous' ... I ain't! 'Fair' ... well, I can but try. As for being 'very smart', that's extremely easy to refute!
I'm next-door to computer illiterate! Lack of chivalry had nothing to do with my not providing a link for that website. The fact is, I'm still learning how to get computers to do what I ask them to do! Anything I do know (not much), I taught myself by trial and error.
But I've now mastered the art of producing reliable links (... pauses for thunderous applause from an appreciative audience!! ) and I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused.
In addition to the above faults, I confess also that I very much enjoy compliments (even though thoroughly undeserved ) ... especially when they come from an unmistakably intelligent young lady! Madam, you are altogether too kind!

Thanks Josh!
It's good to know you're on the case! Now I can rest easy, knowing that soon this TEM thing will be examined by someone with the background to be able to separate the fact from the fiction.
Maybe when you come to explain it to us, you might avoid arcane acronyms and esoteric terminology so that we can follow your reasoning? Hard to believe, I know, but I understand even less about computer imaging techniques than I do about creating links!!
???

Palomar · 2002-09-19 10:55:39

I'm next-door to computer illiterate!

*Me too. I know how to get around in the computer software programs related to the work I do, and can link web sites, use search engines, download software...that's about it. I don't know how to link to a photograph, such as at my mailing list (I'd like to have a portrait of Voltaire at the main page of it), or, for example, a photo of myself in the avatar space of a message board.

A few years ago a friend tried to "volunteer" me to give his wife computer lessons. Oh brother! ???

--Cindy

Mariner34 · 2002-10-01 08:43:31

Recently, The Mars Society(Spanish Chapter) published a re-print of Jim Burk's first article about the THEMIS IR Cydonia REAL Photo that Keith Laney( Image Processing Consultant & Unpaid NASA/AMES Contractor For The Mars Exloration 2003 Rovers) processed. When Keith processed the July 25,2002 version of the photo, he noticed that it contained block-like structures that look very much like underground buildings. This July 25,2002 THEMIS Cydonia IR photo is apparently not the same version of the photo that is presently on the THEMIS/ASU web site. Why, there is this difference is still very much controversial. However, I find Keith Laney's & Jim Burk's analysis of the IR photo are excellent ,& I strongly recommend that everyone read Jim Burk's series of articles about the Cydonia THEMIS IR Photo. They can be found at www. marsnews.com. The Mars Society(Spanish Chapter) Jim Burk Article On Themis Cydonia IR Real Photo

Tripp · 2002-10-01 18:17:06

Recently, The Mars Society(Spanish Chapter) published a re-print of Jim Burk's first article about the THEMIS IR Cydonia REAL Photo that Keith Laney( Image Processing Consultant & Unpaid NASA/AMES Contractor For The Mars Exloration 2003 Rovers) processed. When Keith processed the July 25,2002 version of the photo, he noticed that it contained block-like structures that look very much like underground buildings. This July 25,2002 THEMIS Cydonia IR photo is apparently not the same version of the photo that is presently on the THEMIS/ASU web site. Why, there is this difference is still very much controversial. However, I find Keith Laney's & Jim Burk's analysis of the IR photo are excellent ,& I strongly recommend that everyone read Jim Burk's series of articles about the Cydonia THEMIS IR Photo. They can be found at www. marsnews.com. The Mars Society(Spanish Chapter) Jim Burk Article On Themis Cydonia IR Real Photo

Mariner

There is only one photo.

Laney's processing and analysis of the IR DATA could not be more deplorable.

Burk is acting solely as a prejudicial supporter of TEM and neither Laney nor Burk have a clue what theyre' doing.

A Bit About Burk

Mariner34 · 2002-10-02 09:38:42

Dear Tripp, While I respect your right to have a different opinion,you are simply wrong. If Jim Burk is as incompetent as you say he is, why do many NASA web sites, ESA,ASU Astrobiology Section(http://astrobiology.asu.edu/links/) & The American Museum of Natural History (http://astrobulletin.amnh.org/D/1/5/)have links to his web site on their sites. Are all these people & organizations also incompetent? Since Jim Burk use to work for Microsoft(He helped design the Windows 2000 Operating System.),do you think Microsoft is also totally incompetent. In addition, The Mars Society(Spanish Chapter), The Mars Society(UK Chapter) & The Mars Society(Dutch Chapter) have republished Jim Burk's recent Cydonia articles or have placed links to those articles on their homepage. Are they all incompetent also? The bottom line is that RCH, Keith Laney & Jim Burk are all very competent Mars researchers that discuss the controversial subject of alien artifacts. Finally in addition to the fact that many organizations have links to Marsnews.Com on their web sites, many scientists think the concept of alien artifacts is very reasonable. A example of this kind of very competent scientist is Professor Alexander Zaitsev who discussed possible alien artifacts on the Moon in the SpaceDail.Com article entitled "Astronomer Speaks Up for ET".(www.spacedaily.com/news/seti-02b.html) Lets start talking about the "real" Situation!!!

Mark S · 2002-10-02 11:30:19

Since Jim Burk use to work for Microsoft(He helped design the Windows 2000 Operating System.),do you think Microsoft is also totally incompetent.

Whoever designed Windows XP is completely incompetent. Let's hope that Mr. Burk wasn't responsible for that resource-intensive, crash-prone software fiasco.

Tripp · 2002-10-02 14:54:04

Mariner

No sorry I am not at all wrong and am *ON TARGET* not only with regard to Burk's alleged 'journalism" which contains no objectivity nor grasp of the facts.. but I am on target about Cydonia overall and the improper methods applied to the ASU IR data, the grossly unfounded and inaccurate conclusions derived therefrom and these rediculous nonsense held forth By Hoagland and Laney that they allege to be "science."

Here is more on Burk TEM's Hoaxed Image

Incidentally I DO know IR analysis. In addition to being a profesional Geologist I also routinely applye such remote sensing surveys and analyses of the resulting data as ground penetrating radar (GPR), magnetometer, electromagnetometer (EM-31 & EM-34), seismic refraction, resistivity.. and Infrared .. in addition to others.

Burk has no grasp of scientific analyses, interpretation of data, proper data reduction and processing methodologies, geology, geomorphology.. nor even mere employ of objetive research in his latest attempt at .... dare i say .. "journalism".

Burk is neither a scientist nor a journalist and cannot even begin to define the relevant issues here.

And Laney? A researcher? Laney employs techniques that rob visual imagery of crucial salient image detail and has extended these same grossly inappropriate techniques to processing of Infrared data.. DATA.. creating a result that is entirely invalid and conclusions that cannot even be reasonably supported. Laney nowhere egages in legitimate "research" and had demonstrated repeatedly that he is extremely challenged in intepretation of 2 dimensional imagery into a 3-D mental appreciation. He has not bothered to spend a moment of time considering the real normal and natural topography and then goes off and declares that a vague resemblance that is in no way a divergence from that normal topography is an intelligent artificial artistic creation. This is not research. The is only mental laziness compounded by his certainty he already knows it all, prohibiting him from learnng anything to improve his stand. Additionally, I personally know for a fact that Laney's honesty & integrity are severely flawed.

Richard C Hoagland an "analyst"? Hoagland is nothing more than a modern day P.T. Barnum... a showman who wants the attention on *HIM*. How often have you seen Hoagland correct himself or modify his errant posts and assertions about morphologic shapes on Mars? Hoagland cannot even differentiate the evident "Tubes" on Mars from the longitudinal p-waves, or pressure waves, in a fluid pahoehoe-type lava flow, and went so far as to declare this to have "engineering control points". Even once corrected Hoagland never bothered to inform his readers nor educate them on what REAL morphology was represented. With regard to "Ron Nicks" and his support to "Enterprise Mission", I have no idea whether Ron's evaluations are only disregarded when he supports Hoagland or not, but i do know that Mr Knicks shows himself to be repeatedly ignorant of geomorpholgy and often times in ways that could be respolved by simple attention to detail, seen here: Mars Inca City, "The Mars Grid & 'Ron's Hole'" Incidentally this post somewhat addresses the Hydrates Chaos and Russia's Phobos 2 IR image thereof. No, the Russians did not state it was unresolved. Beyond that, the comparison to "A city" was not to suggest it demonstrated anything artificial, nor is this conclusion an option in Russia's lack of resolve. These features show themselves to be entirely natural in origin.

Here is an analysis of Richard C. Hoagland and the "Enterprise Mission" by ONE who you would think would be a major proponent and supporter of Hoagland given his own site's name of "Cydonia Imperative":.

" TEM's fault is not its willingness to address possible conspiracies and hidden knowledge, but its certainty that such conspiracies exist based on conveniently "symbolic" evidence... TEM's appeal is comparable to that of "The X-Files"--which, interestingly, TEM occasionally uses as a source. As entertainment, TEM fills a void with its inimitable formula of paranoia and science; Hoagland and Bara have created a thoroughly postmodern venue in which fact and fiction are broken down into pixels and liberally blended. TEM's role is seated more in myth-making than "science" in any conventional usage of the word. " ~ Mac Tonnies

Incidentally, Mariner, you might check my own post within this subject area in regard to showing not "artificial engineerings" on Mars but also evidence of a current presence.

The "face" and indeed all of Cydonia are entirely natural morphologies and there is not one single shred of evidence pointing ot any artificiality.. none whatsoever.

Mariner34 · 2002-10-02 15:52:11

Dear Tripp, Jim Burk graduated from the University of Florida with a degree in Computer Science. His degree included minors in Journalism & Communications. In addition, The Enterprise Mission has many professional geologists that have done research for them(Ron Nicks,etc.). Secondly, The Russian Phobos 2 scientists certainly perceived the Phobos 2 photo of Hydrates Chaos to be unexplained. The Phobos 2 Hydrates Chaos structures look very much like the possible underground structures in the THEMIS Real IR Photo.MarsNews.Com-Biographical Data On Jim Burk,Etc.

Tripp · 2002-10-02 17:21:57

Mariner
My response is incorporated into an expansion of my preceeding post.

Mariner34 · 2002-10-02 18:32:06

Dear Tripp, What evidence do you have that the Russian Phobos 2 scientists believed that the photo of Hydrates Chaos showed a completely understood structure? Have you discussed this photo with them?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-02 20:49:32

This is an interesting thread.
I have no skills in computer imaging techniques. I don't know what jpg (or is it jpeg? ) or Gaussian blur mean. So if there is skullduggery afoot in all this IR imaging of Cydonia stuff, I would be easy to fool! That's why I have to rely on the expertise and honest good nature of people like Josh Cryer to help me understand where the flaws and dishonesty are.
Isn't it sad that people have to take sides over something like this! Obviously somebody is lying, but I don't understand why anyone would want to do such a thing. Is it personal prestige, the craving for fame, or is it just money ... again?!!

Anyway, all I do know is that the magnified and enhanced IR images of Cydonia, as released by TEM, seem to show detailed, complex, right-angled structures under the dusty regolith. To me, these 'structures' don't look like they could be simple artifacts of the imaging technique. They must therefore be either intelligently constructed objects, or they are the result of an intricate and deliberate falsification of the data, an unscrupulous hoax. I hope we get to find out which.

At the risk of sounding less than generous to Tripp, who is in all likelihood an honest and straightforward person, I'm intrigued by his behaviour in all this.
He seems proud to be a professional geologist, which, by necessity, implies that he is a scientist. I freely confess that I'm not a scientist, but I understand that a scientist is duty-bound to calmly and dispassionately evaluate data in the formulation of hypotheses. I also understand that jumping to conclusions on the basis of incomplete or unclear information is something a scientist goes to great lengths to avoid, always questioning his/her own objectivity at every turn. That's the reason a science is described as a discipline.
It strikes me as odd, then, that Tripp has declared his absolute and unshakable conviction that intelligent beings are currently engaged in industrial activity in the Mariner Valley on Mars, on the basis of clearly ambiguous photographic evidence. I don't mean that in a facetious manner, either. No irony is intended. It is simply an indisputable fact that the photographs are subject to personal interpretation. Both Cindy and I have been unable to agree with Tripp that the pictures show artificial constructions.
It seems strange that a professional scientist would publicly endanger his credibility by making unequivocal statements about something so obviously contentious. On the basis of that evidence, if I were in Tripp's shoes, I would be far more circumspect about it than he is.
To compound the situation, Tripp is vehement (not to say vitriolic) in his criticism of the admittedly very debatable TEM findings.
I have no quarrel with him on that score, per se. Anyone throwing anything into the scientific arena must expect it to be subjected to harsh criticism - that's how science works. But it looks to me like Tripp doesn't seem to apply the same rigorous standards of evidence to his own investigations.
To me, it looks like a double standard at work. But I suppose I could be mistaken.

Tripp · 2002-10-02 21:22:29

Mariner,

Why would I need to contact the Russian scientists involved 12 years ago to have an equal or more qualified resolve of this morphology?

What are you basing your belief on that this might be at all artificial and even a "City"?

Tripp · 2002-10-02 23:30:57

Shaun

Your evaluaiton or review of these two things is lacking somethiing crucial:

....... a focused and deliberate attention to and understanding of .. the evidence. This is the only variant in each condition.

Its not "sad" that people have to take sides on things like this. It is crucial that those who know what is going do interject and DO take sides and do counter Hoagland, for what Hoagland has been promoting for a long, long time about Cydonia is no science and is untenable.This and other conduct directly related to the IR imagery has led Hoagland to lose his Internet Service Provider, his chat Forum and a great many long term supporters.

The reason for this is these persons DID seek and did find answers.

Shaun began with his own declaration of the processed multispectral color image produced by Laney, saying:

Anyway, all I do know is that the magnified and enhanced IR images of Cydonia, as released by TEM, seem to show detailed, complex, right-angled structures under the dusty regolith. To me, these 'structures' don't look like they could be simple artifacts of the imaging technique. They must therefore be either intelligently constructed objects, or they are the result of an intricate and deliberate falsification of the data, an unscrupulous hoax.

Shaun, you make this declaration and resolve yet you write this judgement and flawed resolve with your own admission that, you have no skills in "computer imaging techniques", do not know what a "jpg" is nor do you have any idea what "guassian blur" does. Yet some of these items mentioned are crucial to the understanding of the issues involved and the resolve of the validadity of the contrived work. (If it helps, even Laney himself does not truly understand the detrimental effect of gaussian blur on visual range images, much less the application of this process to DATA that is to be further processed into a color composite) Similarly, Shaun, you demonstrate an inability to discriminate between a valid IR signature from one that is in no way resembles a real IR signature, so obviously recognizing the limitations of IR imaging in the extreme claims of Hoagland that this technology could image 100's of feet below the ground is not even considered by you here either.

One cannot make valid judgemenmt calls based on superficial impressions ... yet the entire case of the "artificiality of Cydonia" proponents is founded solely in such a superficial impression: the vague resemblance of a morphology to a "face" and nothing more.

Shaun, you say you hope we find out which is the Truth? The Truth is already resolved and definate and has been so since the first data results were seen as provided by ASU. Similarly the gross mistakes and thoroughly unfounded conclusions made in the Laney/Hoagland presentation were known and resolved within an hour of the release. You are only not experienced enough to recognize why this is in fact the case. I do not say this simply to prejudicially dismiss you. It is merely the Truth and I provide the rationale for this in numerous posts on the anomalies.net as do others.

I do not even believe this is about deliberate "Hoaxing" of an image. I believe this is about extreme incompetence promited by overwhelming arrogance and incomparable ignorance.. a dangerous combination.

Shaun Wrote
"It strikes me as odd, then, that Tripp has declared his absolute and unshakable conviction that intelligent beings are currently engaged in industrial activity in the Mariner Valley on Mars, on the basis of clearly ambiguous photographic evidence."

No Shaun, the evidence is not at all ambiquous. The evidence is only ambiguous ... to YOU. Actually the evidence is compelling and and extremely startling; compelling to one who is skilled with analyzing all sorts of imagery of terrain and morphologies, including aerial and satellite imagery across decades.' Again I do not state this to diminish you nor offer only this statement in lieu of promoting a positive argument, evidence and rationale for artificiality: these I have done at length elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is that image interpretive ability or translation of a 2D image into a 3D mental appreciation is both an art and a skill. As reported by psychologists (even once on the TEM site) fully 1/3 of the populace has no real ability to interpret 2D imagery, another 1/3 has marginal ability and the top 1/3 has strong ability. These divisions also demonstrate a gender preference with males more likely to have these skills then females. Beyond that interpretation of geomorphology is obviously something that can be trained. This is the specific recognition of finite details and interpretaton of these with regard to the natural morphogenesis of these features. This skill is taught initially and truly becomes inherent in one with application in varied settings. I apply this skill on a weekly and at times daily basis. I test this skill in regularly in my extrapolation and interpretation of surface and subsurface lithologies being tested with further exploratory procedures. The "devil is truly in the detail" and recognitin of htis takes discipline and focus, not flippant response and arrogance self-direction as Laney demonstrates vociferously.

Shaun, you are making the mistake of presuming in both cases that your own superficial examinations are able to discern the relevant details requisite to resolve both the details .. and the issues. You also presume that your own abilities are equal to my own. which arguably is possible but may well not be so and there is sufficient reason for this not to be so, again without any detraction to you personally.

Shaun you speak of my being vehement and even vitriolic. I plead guilty to both.

I am vehement in asserting my case and providing my rationale because i have zero doubt, none whatsoever, particularly in the matter you're referencing, the Cydonia daytime IR presentation by Laney and Hoagland.

I am indeed vitriolic because the entire episode and each and every claim of Hoagland and Laney are so thoroughly objectionable, dishonest, inapplicable, improper, incorrect, technologically impossible as well as this issue does involve such vile tactics and knowingly dishonest claims as well as ongoing furtherance of their case in employ of personal attacks from both persons. The cumulative weight of these improper, unethical and personally and scientifically dishonest methods results in me becoming ever more incensed and offended by these undignified and unintelligent proceedings. Would not you yourself be equally incensed if the arena in which these occured were your not only your own career but also you passion?

You wont learn anything from Laney at all about scientifically valid image processing from his imaging results nor "research" from his discussion thereof. Meanwhile I spent the night talking to "Bamf" a.k.a Noel Gorelick of ASU about the ongoing concerns and applied procedures employed in the ASU/THEMIS proprietary infrared imaging. Laney has long since stopped learning, declaring himself infallible and all others dishonest in an ever growing and ever more intricate conspiracy promoted in lieu of proper analysis and occuring as a result of the non-objective apriori conviciton that CYdonia is artificial

The result of this disregard for science and proper procedure in concert with the prejudiced certainty of artificiality in Cydonia is the ignorant pronoucement that induced image artifacts are artificial structures. The only thing that has been demonstrated in these Cydonia IR presentations is overwhelming incompetence and this having no "intelligent design."

Incidentally, Shaun, You may want to question yourself as to why you focus on the individual (me) rather than my claims or deliberately referencing the data and detail yourself. The answers are there and soem are quite simple to discern: For example it is quite easy to establish that the official ASU image has far more detail than does the Laney fabrication. Given this, the official ASU image cannot be a derivative of Laney's so-called "REAL" image, as he claims. Additionaly the lack of noise in the Laney image, which he repeatedly asserts himself, is a byproduct of repeated application of "blur & sharpen" processes, as is the lack of data detail. It is no conicidence that Laney cannot supply the unaltered RAW TIF that he claimed to have uniquely and solely downloaded from the ASU site.

Incidentally, for the "record", I did not ever make a personal choice to involve myself in the Mars Imagery from a predisposition nor did i ever anticipate finding artificiality on Mars. My own professional expectation was to see only natural morphologic structure. However, in furtherance, I was asked to inquire into what was evident in the anticipated web repease of the MSSS Mars Global Surveyor imagery more than two months before this release. I was asked to look into this Mars imagery by a professional contact working for a subsidiary of NASA then known as "USA" (United Space Alliance), responsible for scheduling shuttle operations. I was asked because of my recognized expertise in satellite image eval. I was asked because there were mildly specific reportings of extraordinary evidences on Mars. I examined the Mars Global Surveyor image release no more than 4 consecutive hours before I encountered the first of these 'extraordinary evidences" ... and my life and founding paradigms were forever changed.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-03 01:19:26

Hi again Tripp!

I knew when I made my last post here that my thoughts were potentially inflammatory, though I didn't mean them to be.
It was, and is, apparent to me that you are passionate in your assertions. And there's nothing wrong in that, by the way. Or at least I hope there isn't, because I can get pretty hot under the collar about things myself! (Ask Phobos if you don't believe me. He's put up with more than his fair share of my soapbox antics, I'm sure! )
In view of the strength of your convictions, I just wanted to say I found your response to be both restrained and measured. I wasn't sure what to expect, but was relieved to find that you haven't taken offence at my comments and have made some interesting points I mean to mull over.
One of your themes quite rightly emphasises my lack of skills and training in this area. I hope I have been quite transparent in admitting to this from the start. I merely put forward what I perceived to be a deviation by you away from the scientific method. Your reply was to question my perception by indirectly casting doubt on my ability to extract 3-D information from a 2-D image, and to underline the yawning gap between my experience in interpreting satellite images and yours.
These are all fair responses.
I hope to come back to you and respond more fully to some of these points when time allows.

Thanks for the courtesy of a lengthy and interesting answer to my criticisms.
Whatever our small differences, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we're all basically on the same side.

Nirgal82 · 2002-10-04 23:59:17

Tripp,

I viewed your Anomolies on your site and found it interesting (especially your "ship," I would indeed like to se this spot reimaged, and also interesting is that when the image is viewed at the MSSS site, the image is significantly degraded to where you pretty much know what to look for to see the ship. I'd like to know if you or anyone else has experienced this)
Anywho, I was mulling over the possibility that there may be something to your claims. And assuming that these things you have pointed out are indeed artificial, and currently active, I asked myself, "what could the beings that operate these things be doing?"
Knowing that the surface isn't exactly chock full of these sort of objects, their presence seems very limited. In addition, the most compelling of your claims, the ship and the smokestack tower seem to indicated the mobile and industrious nature of these beings.
The smokestack in particular seems to be pumping out an extreme amount of material (any ideas from you on what this stuff is; incidentally, I think there is indeed a shadow discrepency, as the shaded side of the exhaust cloud is on the side that the sun is shining from)
If this material is some sort of greenhouse gas, then perhaps the beings there are not native but from elsewhere and are attempting terraforming. Evidence is around that can support this, however flimsily, according to MOC observations, the south polar residual cap is shrinking at a measurable rate of I think a couple of meters a year, I'll have to double check this value of course.

So playing devil's advocate with myself (as I don't think that there is a currently active industrial civilization on Mars, I just need more evidence; however a new image of the "ship" may sway me greatly if the results favor the artificiality of the "ship") I have come to the conclusion that these beings are not native to Mars, or if they are, they retreated underground when surface conditions became unfavorable, and have since attempted to engineer the planet back to suitable conditions.
Have you had similar conjectures? Either way, I'd like to hear any ideas you have that could explain what they are doing if they are indeed there...

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-07 06:21:07

Hi again, Tripp!
Just cruising through with a little time to spare and thought I'd make a few comments.
Your quote:-

Incidentally, Shaun, you may want to question yourself as to why you focus on the individual (me) rather than my claims or deliberately referencing the data and detail yourself. The answers are there and some are quite simple to discern: For example it is quite easy to establish that the official ASU image has far more detail than does the Laney fabrication.

As far as your claims about intelligent activity in the Mariner Valley are concerned, I reiterate that I very deliberately spent a significant amount of time looking at the images you provided. I have nothing to gain by mischievously decrying your claims and I'm quite sure Cindy doesn't either.
The point is simply that neither of us could say we saw unequivocal evidence of intelligent design. This was not an attack "on the individual (me)", as you put it, it was an honest appraisal of the images, up to the limits of our ability.
Now, as I've said, you are within your rights to call into question my perceptual skills and abilities (and possibly Cindy's too, for all I know), but I assure you of my absolute sincerity in all I've said. (And I have no reason whatsoever to doubt Cindy's sincerity either, though I'm loath to speak on her behalf since she hasn't given me permission to do so.)
Since my competence in interpreting satellite images has been justifiably questioned, and since you are a professional geologist while I'm not, I feel unable to continue this discussion on equal terms. Perhaps you could tell us of any of your professional colleagues, whom I'm quite certain you must have approached for corroboration of your findings, who are prepared to declare themselves equally excited about these images? There must be a number of similarly (if not equally) qualified geologists who are able to discern clearly the artificial objects and buildings I'm having such trouble seeing. Perhaps they have websites or have contributed to websites and we can hear what they have to say(? ).

With regard to your comment that "the official ASU image has far more detail than does the Laney 'fabrication' ", the TEM reply at this site seems plausible. In a nutshell, it states that an IR image, though rich in IR information, may be obviously inferior in terms of optical resolution because of the longer wavelength of infra-red light. It goes on to show an infra-red picture of a man, which shows no useful information about his facial features, but which clearly shows which parts of his body surface are warmer due to the underlying circulation.

At the same site the TEM people have finally released the RAW TIF (whatever that means! ) which a number of people have been waiting for ... including JOSH CRYER !! Now's your chance, Josh!
I believe you, Tripp, have been waiting for this raw data too.
From what I can gather, the world can now apply stretching, gaussian blurring, enhancing, sharpening, and whatever else takes their fancy, to this data, in an attempt to duplicate the detail purportedly discovered by Laney and Hoagland.
This is the moment of truth. The moment when Tripp and Josh can show us, the uninitiated, the extent of the fraud committed by the TEM team, or at least the extent of their incompetence.

All I want is the simple truth! (And when I say 'simple', I ain't kiddin'!! No jargon and abstruse acronyms if you please, gentlemen! )

Palomar · 2002-10-07 11:00:00

Shaun: As far as your claims about intelligent activity in the Mariner Valley are concerned, I reiterate that I very deliberately spent a significant amount of time looking at the images you provided. I have nothing to gain by mischievously decrying your claims and I'm quite sure Cindy doesn't either.

*True.

Shaun: The point is simply that neither of us could say we saw unequivocal evidence of intelligent design. This was not an attack "on the individual (me)", as you put it, it was an honest appraisal of the images, up to the limits of our ability.

*Agreed.

Shaun: Now, as I've said, you are within your rights to call into question my perceptual skills and abilities (and possibly Cindy's too, for all I know), but I assure you of my absolute sincerity in all I've said. (And I have no reason whatsoever to doubt Cindy's sincerity either, though I'm loath to speak on her behalf since she hasn't given me permission to do so.)

*You've echoed my own thoughts right along, Shaun, and have expressed those sentiments more eloquently than I could have.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-11 00:31:43

Hi again, Josh and Tripp!

Just to remind you that The Enterprise Mission has finally released the unaltered, supposedly 'real' IR image of Cydonia, which they downloaded on July 25th.

Isn't this what you were waiting for in order to prove Hoagland and Laney are liars and crooks?

...... Hold the phone!

I've just realised the TEM website seems to be uncontactable. I guess that's why you guys haven't been analysing the IR image data for the tell-tale signs of tampering.
:0

Tripp · 2002-10-12 01:46:50

Shaun Wrote:

With regard to your comment that "the official ASU image has far more detail than does the Laney 'fabrication' ", the TEM reply at this site seems plausible. In a nutshell, it states that an IR image, though rich in IR information, may be obviously inferior in terms of optical resolution because of the longer wavelength of infra-red light. It goes on to show an infra-red picture of a man, which shows no useful information about his facial features, but which clearly shows which parts of his body surface are warmer due to the underlying circulation.

The most recent Hoagland persentation which you reference is only a laudable example of poor (non-existent) science, false assertions, irrelevant assertions and overall is truly intended only as a personal assault and character assasination of Mark Carlotto with intention of slandering and poisoning Carlotto in the eye's of the TEM readers. This attack on Carlotto stems from an utter *FAILURE* to address and refute Carolotts claims.

There is nothing stated in that presentation that is remotely "plausible". The entire presentation is a disgrace on both technical and ethical levels.

Your synopsis of the Hoagland's assertions in this presentaion are that an (Hoagland's) "IR image, though rich in IR information, may be obviously inferior in terms of optical resolution because of the longer wavelength of infra-red light." Shaun, while your assertion is an accurate expression of TEM's case in this presentaiton, the words are inaccurate in describing the "data' and imagery being examined.

These Images avalable on ASU or Hoaglands site, no matter which is being examined, are not strictly "Infrared DATA". These images are TIF files and are representations of the IR data in grayscale tones, with this grayscale having 256 differnet shades to represent the data. Nonetheless no FURTHER "secret" nor "invisible" data is recorded in these grayscale tones simply *BECAUSE* we are considering "IR DATA". The relatively much GREATER DETAIL readily witnessed in teh ASU image in comparison with the Laney/TEM image represents the IR DATA and IR DETAIL. This is all there is. In the ASU image one can witness small crater rims and small scarps in the ASU image becuase these features are more directly facing solar raditive heat and do thereby absorb this more so than more oblique features. These same specific details are absent in in the Laney image

Given this greater detail in the ASU IR image, the claim that Laney's so called "REAL" image is the source and the ASU image a lesser derivative thereof is false and impossible. The reverse of this is far more likely and the only possibility here: that the Laney image is a derivate of the REAL ASU Image and this Laney image was derived form an grossly improper handling of the ASU image including failed data handling and source image controls to improper initial processing steps which do so adversely effect this IR DATA (representation) that any and all resulting processing stemming from these steps can only yeild invalid results.

I do have the "Original" Laney image in hand from the Hoagland presentation. Incidentally both the TEM web site and the "anomalies" forum are down due to a memory leak from a program which currupted the linux kernel, as personally relayed to me by the sites owner, Olav, earlier today. This lates so called "RAW" image that Bullitte began with is nothing of the sort. This image has alread had gaussian blur and sharpen processes applied to it. Even superficial examination of each individual filter range image's margins shows that the jaggy steps that are present in untouched images released by ASU have been blurred and shaprened to make them somewhat more linear and no longer crisp and sharp. This is the tell-tale sign of what is not only Laney's habitual processing (be it IR or visual imagery) but also en extremely sloppy technique which would have limited these process to the image alone and not distorting the image's margins.

The inclusion of the human IR image and reference thereto is a "red herring". This human IR image is entirely irrelevant to the TEM Cydonia IR presentation and does not serve any purpose in relaying an FACT about IR data nor imaging that is relevant to promoting TEM's case.

The Human IR image (obviously) represents an *ACTIVE* thermal source, given it is a live human being. Beyond the temerature differentials of the nose and fingers you do not really see ANY detail as a result of the thermal temperatures on the range scale being differentiated by the image being limited. There is no slope of the nose side in evidence; no cheekbones in evidence. One predominant factor in the passive IR emitted by the topography in Cydonia is how the terrain's exposure to the raditive heat source (sun) permits a representation of the terrain. This does not in any way relate to being "More" information in the human IR image; this is misrepresentative, misleading and, I believe, offered with the intention of being so.

The only relevance of the human IR image offered in the presentaiton is to detract from the claims of the Cydonia "City". Note that the head hair on the human IR tremendously lowers the radiated thermal energies. This hair is hundreds of very thin strands with indivudual strands loosely touching other strands but not tightly so. This hair head is only perhaps a 1/2 inch thick on the human head, yet it suitably blocks IR radiative energies. Given this notable detail, it should be obvious that even a an active, heated City beneath 100's of meters of "poof dust" would in no way relay thermal energies to the surface.

Here is more addressing the Enterprise Mission's claims:

MOLA
Incidentally the MOLA profile done by Hoagland is improper too. The RCH profile is half real, half false. Real profile. Bad scale. The profile only has a relief of about 200m over about 900km of ground. There's one high blip (the face? +200m) and one low trough (a crater -300m) . They were just unable to use the marsoweb tool properly. They used a "local" profile, but a "regional" scale.The claim of "cydonia is a canyon deeper than the grand canyon" is completely and utterly false.

MOLA Profile: http://tes.asu.edu/~gorelick/mola_profile.gif

Additionally the mapping of the profile line across the visible image is incorrect. ... despite what Hoagland states in his last presentation. Mola and odyssey grid coordinates line up well. Mola/Odyssey and Viking are off. Marsoweb uses a viking background, so the profiles don't line up with the background. MOLA vs Viking is usually about 1/4 degree shift left-to-right and a little up or down, depending on location on the planet..

Regarding Cydonia Daytime IR Processing
Here Laney admits to doing much more than is needed and *BEFORE* Data processing in ENVI - "Like I said it's not a big deal, as blur, sharpen equalization and stretch, and more can all be used in multispectral processing of IR band images. " Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cydonia/message/18536

We know he did more than one step of blur and sharpen, again by his own admission. The net result of these is ACROSS different filter ranges with different details.. so the sharpen and bulur creates different MORE DEFINED lineations. Furthermore Laney's above mentioned "equalization" of these (again prior to ENVI processing) will make any lineations stand out (and that is his reason to for doing so again PRIOR to processing and AGAIN working toward a preconceived goal of finding "anomalous structure" that is hidden to him) . Depending on which equalization process he chose, this will create a linear shift of gray tones or. a non linear shift and also heighten already fabricated linear features. No matter what these processes are which Laney himself admits to applying, these are grossly improper to employ when dealing with DATA or data representations.

When you take *ONE* of these images or filter ranges and use it as a denominator to divide all the others by, (this *ONE* chosen by LANEY for no reason other than "MORE" was made apparent) this chosen filter divisor creates interference patterns

... hence all the lineations seen .. with these lineations derived from the *ONE* filter range in the demonator. These linear patterns ONLY appear in wide open expansive areas where there would be NO visible image details because the persence of real coherent detail would overwhelm these induced fabrications.

The fact IS that all linear features parallel the matrix grid of the image margins and this is no mere chance. This is improper pre-processing which induced image processing artifacts. It should be obvious but I will point out anyway that filters and applied processes such as "Gaussian blur" and "sharpen" as well as equalization are applied in a grid pattern within the image. Remember too that the IR data is overlain onto a visual range image, strecthing the IR detail, in a methodoogy Hoagland has presented as "Luminance Layering", thereby expanding these induced lineations to a larger scale.

You've questioned this image being "faked" by others. What you avoid asking is whether or not this is gross imcompetence. We know there has been been gross incompetence with even the RAW "Real" image, but only now from recent admissions with previously provided "rationale" being that others should attempt the same results as Laney (without his processing steps being listed) and also as a "search for who might have the "REAL" image beyond laney" which is yet another red herring. The TRUTH is Laney himself no longer had the RAW, untouched "real" image. This remains true even with the latest image provided by TEM. These results are due to wide ranging incompetent processing done by Laney using his long established methodolgies applied to visual range images.. with these image 'enhancements' done with the APRIORI prejudice that Cydonia is artificial and there *MUST* be something to be found in the IR image.

There is no stunning secret image. There is only a currupted ASU image which was currepted by Laney.

This is no vast conspiracy. This is no clandestine passing of a super-secret "REAL" image to one with a big mouth and arrogance precluding his learning proper methodology. There is no chance of Laney him being goaded to download the image as originally relayed. That is proven false by chronology. There is no chance that he was goaded into processing of a "super secret" image as he claimse to have done and achieved stunning results in earliest exchanges. This too is proven false and impossible by chronology.

This is about .. an appalling failure in scientific method with only preconceptions and prejudice and ignorance directing results that are induced both in physically in processing through the analysis thereof.

At best the only "insider" ("Deep Space") you can hope to find is one with blind beliefs in concert with Hoagland and TEM. Last I looked, political insiders do not have distinquishing qualifications on their resumes in the areans of geology, remote sensing technologies and aerial image morphologic interpretation.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-12 03:53:56

Thankyou, Tripp!
This is just the sort of thing I've been looking forward to hearing .... opinions by people skilled in image processing.
In view of the obvious frustration (and what I perceive to be almost righteous anger! ) in your tone, no doubt in large part caused by the admitted ignorance of your audience (me), I'm reluctant to confess I didn't understand all of what you said.
But I did get the general idea and I understand you are trying to tell me that I, and thousands like me, have been misled. As I have always been careful to make clear, someone in my position is easily fooled and is obliged to rely on those with a proper understanding of what is undeniably a specialised field.

I'm now looking forward to hearing from Josh Cryer, who is also, I believe, skilled in this kind of thing. No doubt he will corroborate what you have said, namely that the apparent structures below the surface of Cydonia are artifacts of totally inappropriate processing of the ASU image, performed by an incompetent Laney and exacerbated and endorsed by an unscrupulous Hoagland.

If this is found to be the case by everyone with the training to analyse such images, it must surely be a fatal blow to the reputation of The Enterprise Mission in general, and Richard Hoagland in particular.
It should prove fascinating to see how the TEM team tries to wriggle out of it, if it comes down to that!!

Incidentally, if you have time, I am still interested to hear of any other geologists who agree with your assessment that some of the Mariner Valley surface features constitute indisputable proof of intelligent activity there.
And also a question: You have remarked that you were approached by an employee of United Space Alliances (a subsidiary of NASA), because of your expertise in these matters, to analyse the Mariner Valley images. The point being, I think, to emphasise that you didn't set out on your own initiative to find evidence of artificiality on Mars, though the reason for the request apparently related to what you described as "mildly specific reportings of extraordinary evidences on Mars". Have you reported your findings to the appropriate NASA personnel and, if so, what was their reaction?

Nirgal82 · 2002-10-12 12:34:37

Here Here!

I would definately like to hear your opinions on the matter.

As well as I would like to hear how come you see a rain cloud in one of the images presented on the Link you provide ragarding Martian water bodies.
This is an MOC wide-angle image of Hebes Chasma north of Valles Marineris, I checked the image on the MSSS gallery with the help of the image number you provided...
I think perhaps you will think twice before critizing people for their ability to interpret these images, obviously anyone is capable of drastic error.

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

Mark S · 2002-10-12 14:37:45

As an interesting tidbit, I found this on the Enterpris Mission website.

Due to the incredible interest in The Enterprise Mission of late, we have outgrown our
website provider and we are in the process of moving the website and discussion forums
to a new home. Keep checking back here for updates and news.

IF Enterprise Mission is faking this, it's paid off in spades (although Hoaglund and co. could be using it to make a lot more money than they currently do through the website and publications.) Of course, it's not fair to accuse TEM of such a perverse hoax, especially in the absence of any evidence.

Tripp · 2002-10-12 15:43:25

NIRGAL wrote:
As well as I would like to hear how come you see a rain cloud in one of the images presented on the Link you provide ragarding Martian water bodies.
This is an MOC wide-angle image of Hebes Chasma north of Valles Marineris, I checked the image on the MSSS gallery with the help of the image number you provided...
I think perhaps you will think twice before critizing people for their ability to interpret these images, obviously anyone is capable of drastic error.

Nirgal

You seem to be "stuck" on this. I wouldn't be so hasty to award yourself so much wisdom in this matter. The "rain cloud" was only a small part of a much larger presentation - thabe being the presence of fluid "water" bodies on Mars surface; the presence of these fluid bodies are the subject of the presentation which you reference. The "cumulus cloud" was only a hook and a tenuous conclusion to the matter.

The date of that water presentation was August 9, 2000, this date pretty much putting me on the cutting edge of not only revelations of "fluid water" bodies in the MGS imagery, but also documenting detailed evidences and a rationale in support of these being aqueous forms and not alluviial or aeolian misperceptions. Additionally, beyond doubt, there is tremendous support for a limited atmospheric water cycle, the dynamics of which have been outlined by others including Dr. Gilbert Levin and these are detailed on my own forum.

Nirgal, this is the second thread you have interjected this into, both times these assertions being of a singular mind being extremelly off topic to ongoing discussions. I myself find this extremely.. *CURIOUS* indeed. IT SEEMS you have your own agenda here, which might be characterized as being unbridled, blind support for Enterprisemission and their grossly flawed Cydonia IR presentation, and exercising this support in a manner that I can only compare to Laney's own negativity and personal assualts on unrelated issues.. which is also typified by TEM and Hoagland as seen in the "Carlotto hit piece". There is one difference between Laney and myself beyond qualifications, intellect, ability and experience: my own presentations and theses are not static nor mired in the concrete of arrogance and ignorance and I am more than willing to admit when I have been mistaken.

Nirgal, any time you've got any contribution within topic of the discussion, perhaps even to defend this Enterprise Mission presentation, I would be glad to address this... and you may rely on me doing so... in spades.

Regards,
Thomas James McCann, III
a.k.a. "Tripp"

Mark S wrote:

IF Enterprise Mission is faking this, it's paid off in spades (although Hoaglund and co. could be using it to make a lot more money than they currently do through the website and publications.) Of course, it's not fair to accuse TEM of such a perverse hoax, especially in the absence of any evidence.

I'm assuming you are referring to the overwhelming LACK of "evidence" in Hoagland's Cydonia presentation. The only real question here is can such overwhelming ineptitude and tremendous abundance of irresponsible and even thorooughly impossible assertions be qenuince and sincere ignorance... or it it done as a result of the attraction of personal gain and the allure of media attention. Beyond doubt a long established, well publicized and pre-existing problematic condition of unfounded beliefs has facilitated not only the conclusions but the deliberate priori intention of "revealing evidences of artificialiity" leading to a singular and errant focus in data processing methodologies which induced the results anticipated....

....A sort of "Chicken-egg" scenario.

~T

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-09-17 09:15:33

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#52 2002-09-18 03:41:50

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#53 2002-09-19 06:24:09

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#54 2002-09-19 10:55:39

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#55 2002-10-01 08:43:31

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#56 2002-10-01 18:17:06

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#57 2002-10-02 09:38:42

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#58 2002-10-02 11:30:19

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#59 2002-10-02 14:54:04

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#60 2002-10-02 15:52:11

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#61 2002-10-02 17:21:57

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#62 2002-10-02 18:32:06

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#63 2002-10-02 20:49:32

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#64 2002-10-02 21:22:29

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#65 2002-10-02 23:30:57

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#66 2002-10-03 01:19:26

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#67 2002-10-04 23:59:17

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#68 2002-10-07 06:21:07

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#69 2002-10-07 11:00:00

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#70 2002-10-11 00:31:43

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#71 2002-10-12 01:46:50

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#72 2002-10-12 03:53:56

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#73 2002-10-12 12:34:37

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#74 2002-10-12 14:37:45

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#75 2002-10-12 15:43:25

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

Board footer