-
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!
Something Hanging out From A Cave On Mars
- Thread starter ISS Ufo Watch
- Start date
Free episodes:
Han
piscator ψ
Clicks (youtube views) can earn you £$
https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-Y...ir-videos-get-50k-100k-500k-1m-and-1-5m-views
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
Rocks
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
We are setting up a new YouTube area so hold that thought.
Azz7092
Paranormal Maven
First just to try to transfer the format from our former associate, Global Explorers.
ISS Ufo Watch
Skilled Investigator
thank you!
Thank you.
While I agree that some people/youtube channels/websites endlessly attribute significance to so many admittedly weird-looking geological/rock features on Mars, I must say that every now and then, some images do seem to show objects that are at the very least, very unlikely looking natural features. Some of the Mars orbital pictures also seem to have captured some large-scale features that almost suggest plant life!
Call me a sucker, but when NASA supposedly finally and triumphantly 'debunked' the 'face' feature in the Cydonia region of Mars - the one that Richard Hoagland has made so much of over the years - with a higher resolution photo that (they explained) showed how the original photo from the 1970's was mostly a trick of perspective, shadow and pareidolia.
But in my mind anyway, the most important feature/argument about the 'face' is the bilateral symmetry of the outline of the face. Such near-perfect symmetry on such a scale on a geological feature is pretty hard to swallow. I can at least understand why someone can convince themselves what we are looking at is the very weather-worn visage of a giant artificial humanoid face. I wouldn't bet the house on it but I'm at least 60/40 in favour of artificiality.
I've no problem either if it is proven conclusively that it is 100% natural. With so many interesting features already captured from the surface of Mars, I'm always at a bit of a loss with the choice of landing site for the rover missions. I get that the mission engineers have many competing factors when choosing a possible touchdown site. For example, feasibility of a successful landing, type of surface soil (will it be easy to drill and sample etc) and of course, is the surface flat enough for a rover with small wheels to even traverse? So while it is easy to shout, 'Hey Nasa, why not put a rover in Cydonia and settle this face argument?' But there could be many reasons why it might be too difficult or have too low a chance of success - especially when we figure in how many failed Mars missions have been already launched.
They really need some of the missions to actually be a success!
Call me a sucker, but when NASA supposedly finally and triumphantly 'debunked' the 'face' feature in the Cydonia region of Mars - the one that Richard Hoagland has made so much of over the years - with a higher resolution photo that (they explained) showed how the original photo from the 1970's was mostly a trick of perspective, shadow and pareidolia.
But in my mind anyway, the most important feature/argument about the 'face' is the bilateral symmetry of the outline of the face. Such near-perfect symmetry on such a scale on a geological feature is pretty hard to swallow. I can at least understand why someone can convince themselves what we are looking at is the very weather-worn visage of a giant artificial humanoid face. I wouldn't bet the house on it but I'm at least 60/40 in favour of artificiality.
I've no problem either if it is proven conclusively that it is 100% natural. With so many interesting features already captured from the surface of Mars, I'm always at a bit of a loss with the choice of landing site for the rover missions. I get that the mission engineers have many competing factors when choosing a possible touchdown site. For example, feasibility of a successful landing, type of surface soil (will it be easy to drill and sample etc) and of course, is the surface flat enough for a rover with small wheels to even traverse? So while it is easy to shout, 'Hey Nasa, why not put a rover in Cydonia and settle this face argument?' But there could be many reasons why it might be too difficult or have too low a chance of success - especially when we figure in how many failed Mars missions have been already launched.
They really need some of the missions to actually be a success!
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
I Suggest strongly that any vid going to a paracast youtube be vetted by Gene and Chris and not posted by anyone but them.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Double Nought Spy
May I please go back to the zoo now?
Well put. A pound of prevention is worth a ton of cure in this field!
Azz7092
Paranormal Maven
I agree about having them vetted, but it might be a lot to lay on Gene and Chris as they are very busy individuals.
I volunteer mrs services even tho there quite limited.
Azz7092
Paranormal Maven
Gene, mate I'm really sorry my friend cannot help at the min, he's snowed under himself,