• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Mars Anomalies

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

fitzbew88 said:
Does the stereoscopic analysis change your mind?
Click to expand...

Nope. The image that he stereoscoped is completely different from the one featuring "the tubes". The one he has there is pretty much obviously recessed, but if you magnify this one just right (save it to your computer and open it with the Windows image viewing software), then look it up and down real good along the "tubes", you may change your mind... there are a couple of spots that (to me) definitely show it to be protruding outward, and membranish.
 
You know, I was going to include this stereoscopic image in my last post, but I really couldn't tell what it was. I mean where is the picture taken from and WHAT is it? I mean is it a "stretched" image or what? I was confused by this image so much that I didn't post it. If it is to debunk the worms, then where is the comparitive photo it is debunking?

Clearly this photo is recessed. And I wanted to show the skeptical rationale for such strangeness in the "worms" photos. I can't really find a whole lot about it. This certainly doesn't back Hoagland or anything silly like that, but these photos still leave me a bit perplexed.

Anyone know if there are new photos of this area? From the MRO? Apparently not.
 
Frozen E.T. Burrito said:
fitzbew88 said:
Does the stereoscopic analysis change your mind?
Click to expand...

Nope. The image that he stereoscoped is completely different from the one featuring "the tubes". The one he has there is pretty much obviously recessed, but if you magnify this one just right (save it to your computer and open it with the Windows image viewing software), then look it up and down real good along the "tubes", you may change your mind... there are a couple of spots that (to me) definitely show it to be protruding outward, and membranish.
Click to expand...

It's just lovely trying to sort this out via an internet forum. I would like to just lay these out on a table and talk about them face-to-face with you guys. But that would mean getting out of my chair, and that doesn't seem very profitable either. :D

Still, when I look at this image (even enlarged) the "scalloped" features that have been described as ribs of a tunnel seem to me to be ridges of a wall or a canyon floor. They seem to be recessed, down away from the surface of the planet.

When I look at the craters and identify the direction of the source light, the shadows seem to support that they are recessed.

But do we mean the same thing when we both say "recessed"? All I mean by it is that the scalloped/ridged feature is down inside a canyon.
 
1828838708_0fe3d1ef06.jpg


Rohn
 

I see no reason that this can't be a chunk of sedimentary rock, ejected by a meteor impact, etc..

Your other picture is just a repeat of one you've already posted.

You should at least add some comments with each photo instead of dumping them on the forum.

At least tell us why you think it justifies raising the Paranormal Flag.
 
fitzbew88 said:
You should at least add some comments with each photo instead of dumping them on the forum.

At least tell us why you think it justifies raising the Paranormal Flag.
Click to expand...
For what reason? In almost all photos I have highlighted the anomalies.
I am not going to dragged into debate that will side line the main topic. The main topic on this thread is looking anomalies on the Mars.

Rohn
 
rohnds said:
fitzbew88 said:
You should at least add some comments with each photo instead of dumping them on the forum.

At least tell us why you think it justifies raising the Paranormal Flag.
Click to expand...
For what reason? In almost all photos I have highlighted the anomalies.
I am not going to dragged into debate that will side line the main topic. The main topic on this thread is looking anomalies on the Mars.
Click to expand...

Really. Then why exactly are you doing this, if you don't want to discuss the images?
 
Whats the point then??

No clarification, no scale, cropped photos, no explanation of what you might think. If you do research, you probably have some opinions, yet you don't want to share those?

Anomalies are just that. Weird things. Big deal. What purpose on the Paracast forums do these sometimes blown up, pixelated, flashing, outlined photos have other than looking at them? Maybe and likely nothing. Without proper context and explanation we don't get anywhere.

Then again maybe that is the point.
 
Purpose of this topic is as same as in many different aspect of this field (UFO phenomenon). Informing the public and let the them decide and interpret for themselves what in those photo. This is not rocket science where I have to explain what is one the photo. A skull should be just what it is. If there is disagreement in that interpretation, debating it useless unless everyone has the ability to examine the object.

1-102-skull-context-view.jpg


Closeup,
1-102-skull-context-view.jpg

Courtesy of JP Skipper
Source:http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/513/2P171912249EFFAAL4P2425R1M1.HTML

Rohn
 
RonCollins said:
Listen, I am not trying to get into a flame war here. I realize I came off a bit strong and I apologize for that. It is just that when I see things like this it boils me a bit. Yes it is my, researched and educated opinion, that there is no foliage on Mars. I would even go as far as to say it is a demonstrated scientific fact. To me that is not making an assumption. It is applying science, observation, and reason to the question.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the environment and composition of mars is not even remotely a demonstrated scientific fact. I think we may have differing ideas of what constitutes a demonstrated fact.

As for the photo... I don't think it's foliage, I only think it looks a heck of a lot like foliage, so it may be. But I couldn't honestly say that it's clearly foliage - it's just a photo after all.

RonCollins said:
I’ll concede that. But knowing the location allows us to draw on other sources of information to better make a determination as to what we are seeing. Selecting the exact “evidence” to prove your point but denying the broad spectrum of data available is just a bad idea. Or at least it is if you want your point to withstand a cursory examination. The site you got this image from played into my response tone. I apologize for that again. Hoagland just irritates the shit out of me. I tried to find the article this went with, but his site is a navigation nightmare, so I gave up.
Click to expand...

You clearly have alot of faith in your sources of information. I generally don't put that degree of faith in any particular source. Especially when one considers that skewing information to serve ourselves is one of our favorite pastimes. Even our "blameless" scientific establishment has its hands filthy on that one.

RonCollins said:
As I understand it, geology is geology. We actually do have a fairly good understanding of geological forces. If that planet is made of rocks, then it is subject to those same forces. This is to say that if we were suddenly able to visit another star system, we could be certain that the planets there would obey the same physics we have here. Likewise they would be subject to the same sorts of forces that have shaped our world. I would say that you need a geologist to look at the images and give their opinion. I believe that SETH has a geology degree. Perhaps we could have him chime in.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, what we actually have is a fairly good ability to make associations between certain phenomena and others, while remaining ignorant of what is actually taking place between them. I wouldn't consider that a valid substitute for a thorough understanding.

I agree that another planet would most likely obey the same physics that take place here. So now all we're missing is an actual understanding of physics, and then maybe we'll know exactly what to expect.

I'm gathering that you seem to have a much greater faith in our cultural intelligentsia than I do. They are clock-punching self-serving biased suggestible and thoroughly ordinary human beings just as we are. They are not "objective-breathless-seekers-after-the-truth" and should not be viewed as such.

You were under the impression that I was trying to convince you of mars plants and things like that. So just to clarify, my point in this post is not to try and convince you of weird things on mars, but only that we really don't know NEARLY as much as we imagine we do.

So when it comes to an object that's literally millions of miles away from us, and (for the most part) all information about this object comes from ONE source with strong ties to our government, it's probably not wise to make broad generalizing statements of fact about this object.
 
rohnds said:
Purpose of this topic is as same as in many different aspect of this field (UFO phenomenon). Informing the public and let the them decide and interpret for themselves what in those photo. This is not rocket science where I have to explain what is one the photo. A skull should be just what it is. If there is disagreement in that interpretation, debating it useless unless everyone has the ability to examine the object.

Rohn
Click to expand...

What if you do this instead: set up your own web site and then just post links to it from here? Then, if we wish to download the images we can. Right now, we can't visit the thread without looking at these Bunnies in the Clouds.

It doesn't even look like a skull.

You have implied that debating the topic is useful, but also bragged that you won't be drawn into a debate. I think you are a True Believer, determined to see Bunnies in the Clouds. So far, you've presented nothing that justifies raising the Paranormal Flag while hogging a huge amount of bandwidth downloading unimpressive imagery.
 
rohnds said:
Please hold my hand. I don't know what it is.

Could it be a crab claw? Maybe it's the ruins of an ancient seafood buffet.
Click to expand...

Here's a modest enlargement from the original:
claw_artifact.jpg


I've pointed out some things:

The "divider" in the "claw" (1), is just a shadow, similar in nature to the shadows in items (3) and (4).

The "arm" on the claw is just a rock (2). On the other pictures it looks rather slender, but really it's quite thick.

I see nothing worth raising the Paranormal Flag here.

Interesting to note, while studying the main image: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440L7M1.JPG, I noticed several other items that are shaped similarly to items you might find on Earth.

But they're not: it's just my mind trying to make the unfamiliar familiar.
 
fitzbew88 said:
rohnds said:
Please hold my hand. I don't know what it is.

Could it be a crab claw? Maybe it's the ruins of an ancient seafood buffet.
Click to expand...

Here's a modest enlargement from the original:
claw_artifact.jpg


I've pointed out some things:

The "divider" in the "claw" (1), is just a shadow, similar in nature to the shadows in items (3) and (4).

The "arm" on the claw is just a rock (2). On the other pictures it looks rather slender, but really it's quite thick.

I see nothing worth raising the Paranormal Flag here.

Interesting to note, while studying the main image: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440L7M1.JPG, I noticed several other items that are shaped similarly to items you might find on Earth.

But they're not: it's just my mind trying to make the unfamiliar familiar.
Click to expand...

Dude, I totally missed the drumstick and chicken wing you pointed out!

I stand corrected. It's an ancient surf and turf buffet. :D
 
Back
Top