Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

extrasense · 2005-03-19 14:01:30

Scientifically speaking, it is no brainer.
Meaning, so called NASA science team did not show any signes of life for years. Mars data analysis is nonexistent, after more than a year of rover presence on Mars and 80000 pictures taken.
Want to see Martian Civilization signes?
Look here:
http://www.space.afreepress.com/?pnav=8 … /?pnav=895

e s

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-19 19:50:03

[I suspect this belongs in the 'Intelligent Alien Life' Forum and will no doubt be shifted there soon. However ... ]

Here's the picture linked for us by Extrasense:-

It's supposed to be more identifiable as an artificial structure when viewed through 3D glasses, though I didn't notice any improvement when I tried it.
Here's some of the spiel that goes with the picture:-

Not only rover Spirit has photographed a coupe of such objects, they are a part of apparent ruined small pyramid, with image of Sun on top.
.. One might guess that Sun was an object of worshipping by Martians, and the pyramid with its image on top was of religious significance.
The pyramid was apparently destroyed as a result of mudslide, but left on the surface by a fortunate whim of fate.
..This message is obviously from the past, possibly a very remote past. Are the descendants of ancient Sun worshippers still to be met on Mars?

As is so often the case with Mars pictures presented as evidence of artificiality, the resolution is so poor that the pixels have started to play a significant role in the apparent structure of the object! Straight lines are appearing as artifacts of the imaging process.
And the scale of the object is never commented on. It's likely that this 'derelict pyramid' would have stood about 30 cms (12 inches) tall soon after 'completion' .. hardly a fitting tribute to the Martian Sun-God, I fear! And I don't know about you, but I'm having a lot of trouble distinguishing a recognizable image of the Sun anywhere in the picture anyhow.
And even evidence of the unfortunate mudslide, which cruelly deprived us of a glimpse of intact monumental masonry built by an extinct Martian race, is difficult to discern in the image.

In fact, I see nothing which convinces me I'm looking at anything other than just rocks and it's plainly obvious the authors of this nonsense are either mischievous liars or over-imaginative idiots who actually believe their own BS!

By all means, show me evidence of artificiality on Mars; I'd be enthralled if you did.
But please .. spare me any more of this rubbish! :down:

extrasense · 2005-03-19 22:09:28

By all means, show me evidence of artificiality on Mars; I'd be enthralled if you did.

You are just bitchin' , sir.

The size is consistent with what the other objects on Mars show, that they are about one sixth of Earth prototypes.

You must confirm, that blocks are shaped as a
equilateral triangle orthogonal prism.

Such shape never occurs naturally.

Admit you are wrong, when you are wrong

e :realllymad: s

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-20 17:48:48

Extrasense:-

You must confirm, that blocks are shaped as a
equilateral triangle orthogonal prism.

That's just it .. I can't confirm that at all! And I don't see how you honestly can either.
The resolution is poor and any straight lines you think you see are difficult to distinguish from pixel artifacts. Even if the straight lines are there, natural rock cleaving frequently leads to straight edges, without the intervention of intelligent agencies.
The largest 'standing' rock does look vaguely - and I mean vaguely! - like a damaged equilateral triangle, but that means nothing. Especially at this kind of resolution.

The size is consistent with what the other objects on Mars show, that they are about one sixth of Earth prototypes.

O.K., Extrasense, this is your party. It's therefore up to you to provide evidence for your hypothesis. Let's see something that shows us just what dimensions these rocks actually are. My guess, as I've said, is that they're no more than a few centimetres.
Convince me otherwise.

extrasense · 2005-03-21 07:07:34

Convince me otherwise.

The prism: side length is 24 cm.

The resolution is actually good: pixel error is about 3 mm.

And it can be shown, that in the whole Universe there is ZERO prisms of such size and shape, occuring naturally.

e :realllymad: s

dicktice · 2005-03-21 09:00:54

It just might be the proof we've been looking for--that the Universe is curved!

extrasense · 2005-03-21 09:27:11

It just might be the proof we've been looking for--that the Universe is curved!

No doubt about that :band:

Dook · 2005-03-21 11:26:02

You must confirm, that blocks are shaped as a
equilateral triangle orthogonal prism.

Are you insane? It's obvious that it's a rubick's cube made out of sedimentary rock.

extrasense · 2005-03-21 14:48:16

It's obvious that it's a rubick's cube

Do you think Martians are that smart?

e s

extrasense · 2005-03-22 09:09:57

Compare what NASA has to say about Mars Life and Civilization:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/]http://m … .gov/life/

to what is actually out there:
http://www.space.afreepress.com/?pnav=8 … /?pnav=895
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasens … extrasense

Quite a difference!

e s

Dook · 2005-03-22 09:36:44

to what is actually out there:

Well the difference is because NASA and other scientists support theories based upon evidence and rely on facts rather than wishful thinking based upon funny shaped rocks.

extrasense · 2005-03-22 10:19:41

Well the difference is because ...

Because NASA is in persistent vegetative state, my friend

extrasense · 2005-03-22 14:02:54

Here it is, how the equilateral triangular orthogonal prism looks like:

e s

dicktice · 2005-03-22 17:41:11

An ETOP in other words: Amazing!

SpaceNut · 2005-03-22 22:33:01

It looks more like the rock laying down may have come from the one just to the right behind to one side. The one just behind also shows evidence that it has cleaved into parts again.

RobertDyck · 2005-03-23 02:30:27

A lot of rocks appear symmetrical, if you have enough imagination. Mount Everest is a tetrahedron, a triangle base pyramid. Does that mean there's intelligent life on Earth? (Looks at news reports, shakes head.) No, Mount Everest is a stereotypical mountain on a subduction zone: as the tectonic plate carrying India descends under Asia it lifts the entire Himalaya mountain range. Formation of tetrahedron mountains is a known geologic process. That rock you point out looks like it was formed by breaking layered terrain. Dehydration cracks start in a hexagon pattern, but further cracking occurs at 90° to established cracks. This is a chunk with three sides broken out of a layer, creating the triangular orthogonal prism. Notice it's leaning against another rock, same thickness. The rock in front of the triangle is also the same thickness. I'm surprised whoever started this didn't find an image of an entire plane of hexagonal cracks. They do exist. If you want to know how they really form, look for a patch of clay about the size of a back yard right after a rain storm. As the clay dries it will form hexagonal cracks. If the clay is the right consistency it'll flake into hexagonal orthogonal prisms with consistent thickness, although the edges will curl. It happened all the time in my back yard when I grew up. Although Mars does have clay, blocks this thick are rocks. It's either cracked soft rock from an evaporite plane like Meridiani Planum, or a lava flow broken by meteor impact. I don't think there's a sulphate evaporite pan near Spirit so I'm leaning to meteor impact. By the way, the top "point" of the triangle is rough and broken, although detail is obscured by pixelation. It's a rock.

extrasense · 2005-03-23 05:51:57

Dehydration cracks start in a hexagon pattern

Which has nothing to do with triangular orthogonal prism.

Post a picture, or admit you can not. That's all.

:band:
es

RobertDyck · 2005-03-23 09:44:06

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/the … l]Polygons, Periglacial Features by Malin Space Science Systems. I'm saying the rock you're talking about is broken from one of these.

extrasense · 2005-03-23 10:26:09

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/the … l]Polygons, Periglacial Features by Malin Space Science Systems. I'm saying the rock you're talking about is broken from one of these.

Please understand, you MUST to show such an object on Earth, not to supply THEORY of how it could have been formed on Mars

e s

RobertDyck · 2005-03-23 11:00:46

Please understand, you MUST to show such an object on Earth, not to supply THEORY of how it could have been formed on Mars

I don't have to do anything. You're the one trying to claim a rock is artificial. That requires a great deal of proof. If you want more you can read http://www.geol.sc.edu/swhite/WHITE_SEPR_2000.pdf]this paper, "Basaltic lava domes, lava lakes, and volcanic segmentation on the southern East Pacific Rise" from the Journal of Geophysical Research. http://www.ume.maine.edu/iceage/classes … eriglacial Features described by the University of Maine. I tried to search for a picture for you; there's lots of text, but few pictures. Keywords to search for are "patterned ground" and "sorted polygons".

Palomar · 2005-03-23 11:05:35

Robert: A lot of rocks appear symmetrical, if you have enough imagination. Mount Everest is a tetrahedron, a triangle base pyramid. Does that mean there's intelligent life on Earth?

:laugh: Good one, Robert. :up:

I have a feeling you won't convince our friend here of any of your points.

--Cindy

extrasense · 2005-03-24 09:07:55

Prism is not a pyramid.

e s

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-03-19 14:01:30

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#2 2005-03-19 19:50:03

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#3 2005-03-19 22:09:28

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#4 2005-03-20 17:48:48

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#5 2005-03-21 07:07:34

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#6 2005-03-21 09:00:54

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#7 2005-03-21 09:27:11

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#8 2005-03-21 11:26:02

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#9 2005-03-21 14:48:16

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#10 2005-03-22 09:09:57

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#11 2005-03-22 09:36:44

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#12 2005-03-22 10:19:41

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#13 2005-03-22 14:02:54

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#14 2005-03-22 17:41:11

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#15 2005-03-22 22:33:01

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#16 2005-03-23 02:30:27

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#17 2005-03-23 05:51:57

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#18 2005-03-23 09:44:06

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#19 2005-03-23 10:26:09

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#20 2005-03-23 11:00:46

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#21 2005-03-23 11:05:35

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

#22 2005-03-24 09:07:55

Re: Is NASA brain dead? - Martian Civilization vs NASA Ignorance

Board footer