-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
BOMBSHELL IMAGES FROM NASA MUST SEE!!
- Thread starter Lavarat
- Start date
Free episodes:
Chuckleberryfinn
Paranormal Maven
OH MY GOD, THE NEW FACE IS WEARING A CHEF'S HAT! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE CATERING INDUSTRY!
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Lavarat said:
Yes - if you want it to be.
No - if you want it to be.
Personally, I think it's a mistake to focus so much attention on the 'faces' - look at the sky on a cloudy day; you can see all sorts of 'unnatural' shapes. Or more correctly, your brain is designed to make some sort of sense out of a 'chaotic' image. It will resolve random lines and shadows into faces, animals and anything else that 'fits'. It's no surprise to me that, after scanning images covering thousands of square miles of rocks, that they find one or two formations that look like 'something'.
I think they should pursue the triangular shapes/shadows and the tree-like structures. NASA are saying that even the existence of fossilized microbes is uncertain and yet here we have images of something that looks like vegetation.
Graphimancer
Skilled Investigator
I forget--don't they call recognizing faces in random things "matrixing." That element just doesn't impress me as much as the other stuff.
I think it would be cool if they did find archeological ruins and monuments on Mars, but I think true believers don't let facts get in the way of them.
I think the odds they cooked up for that main face to be there are a little off--you can make numbers do whatever you want, based on how you figure them.
Actually, I'm surprised this forum doesn't have any subforums on archeology on other planets, or magic traditions, or ancient astronaut theory. It seems all pulled from the same tradition and source, yet this particular forum focuses for the most part on modern ufology.
I think it would be cool if they did find archeological ruins and monuments on Mars, but I think true believers don't let facts get in the way of them.
I think the odds they cooked up for that main face to be there are a little off--you can make numbers do whatever you want, based on how you figure them.
Actually, I'm surprised this forum doesn't have any subforums on archeology on other planets, or magic traditions, or ancient astronaut theory. It seems all pulled from the same tradition and source, yet this particular forum focuses for the most part on modern ufology.
Do you like money!? Scratch a picture of Christ's face on a grilled cheese sandwich and sell it on ebay (or was it the Virgin Mary?).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pareidolia
Describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- — beside, with or alongside — and eidolon — image.
I wish/hope these objects on Mars were “real,” but it is folly to use probability as proof of something greater. The probability argument is ridiculous. You can't argue that the structures are "alien-made" based on probability. However, you can argue that these things are rare through probability…Rare enough to occur naturally. There are many surface patterns on earth that have the illusion of looking human-made but are not (examples below).
The dendritic “tree” pictures are very interesting…more so than the glass tubes or monoliths. Has anyone got a good explanation for the “trees”?
Here are some cool photoshoped versions: http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp?contest_id=3129
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pareidolia
Describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- — beside, with or alongside — and eidolon — image.
I wish/hope these objects on Mars were “real,” but it is folly to use probability as proof of something greater. The probability argument is ridiculous. You can't argue that the structures are "alien-made" based on probability. However, you can argue that these things are rare through probability…Rare enough to occur naturally. There are many surface patterns on earth that have the illusion of looking human-made but are not (examples below).
The dendritic “tree” pictures are very interesting…more so than the glass tubes or monoliths. Has anyone got a good explanation for the “trees”?
Here are some cool photoshoped versions: http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp?contest_id=3129
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
I am seriously intrigued! These really look like trees from above. The picture below looks like the edge of a "forest". They do appear to have shadows indicating relief or 3D-ness. Maybe I am applying Pareidolia, but damn.
Scale would be nice. If you have ever used google earth you know that you have to be preety close to the surface to see individual tree limbs...these photos were taken at 370km from the surface (so they say). That means these structures are relatively huge compared to real trees. Of course I know nothing about photography and if they "zoomed in" or not. I dunno.
Here’s a pic from the site Deckard linked.
Scale would be nice. If you have ever used google earth you know that you have to be preety close to the surface to see individual tree limbs...these photos were taken at 370km from the surface (so they say). That means these structures are relatively huge compared to real trees. Of course I know nothing about photography and if they "zoomed in" or not. I dunno.
Here’s a pic from the site Deckard linked.
Seth said:
I haven't completely sifted through all of this yet, but it gives a lot of information concerning this particular topic. Check it out and get your science goggles on. Seems to be a pretty reasonable breakdown of the "trees" and spider images seen from Mars.
http://spsr.utsi.edu/articles/ness.pdf
S
schticknz
Guest
TClaeys said:
Hasn't all this been discussed in another thread already ... or am I hallucinating again?? Next I'll be seeing those giant wormy cavey trail things ...
schtick ... wondering whether people do or do not actually read the forums ???
schticknz said:
Yeah you're right. What seems to happen sometimes is that an old thread falls off the first page listing and lo and behold we end up having the same kind of information being re-hashed. Not sure how to handle that type of stuff except to provide the link to the old thread. And sometimes this old thread may show up as a related thread at the bottom, and sometimes not.
Imagine how much time it may take for a person to read through all the old stuff before starting a new topic. I mean how much stuff is there?? Anyway, a big shoulder shrug there. Don't know how to alleviate it.
S
schticknz
Guest
TClaeys said:
There is a 'search' facility. Maybe people aren't clued up enough to use it??? I dunno ... anyway it is a bit irritating seeing the same or similar thread being started over and over again ... and interesting threads having no real life time at all, are ignored or just fall by the wayside never to be continued in any real or meaningful sense
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
Common sense must prevail here. If these were trees, they would be unimaginably huge. Some would have a diameter of 1/4 of a mile. Structurally, that would mean the trunk would have to be 300 or 400 feet in diameter.
Oh and for those of you poised to pounce with the "different planet so we don’t know what to expect" crap... I might remind you that proponents of this are suggesting that it is remarkably tree like. Thus, if it's good for the goose it’s good for the gander. Trees are not going to grow that large. It is just not possible. The stresses are just too great.
Oh and for those of you poised to pounce with the "different planet so we don’t know what to expect" crap... I might remind you that proponents of this are suggesting that it is remarkably tree like. Thus, if it's good for the goose it’s good for the gander. Trees are not going to grow that large. It is just not possible. The stresses are just too great.