Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 93

Thread: serious science discovers Mars life

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22

    serious science discovers Mars life

    + What shall we do when the question, "Is there life on Mars"
    is first affirmed by science ?

    But we need not wonder any longer, and must indeed
    prepare to deal with this certainty. As shown on my
    internet site, Spirit Rover has now provided this same
    proof of Mars life we sought.

    To view my current presentation (updated), please visit
    the following address:
    http://krs4sure.2itb.com/DISCOVERY2

    http://krs4sure.2itb.com/DISCOVERY2

    For the past two weeks, I have presented, at this site,
    images from the Spirit Rover photos showing living people
    near the rover.

    The implications of this discovery are great_ discovery of
    a living civilization on a visited planet would, of necessity,
    mean discontinuance of random explorations thereof...
    an end to plans of exploiting the other planet's resources...
    but, as has been my view for several years, having once
    discovered such advanced life as we apparently find today
    on Mars, the potential for humanity's betterment are
    enormous.
    Indeed, during the three decades of our [mechanical assaults]
    on their planet, [Mars] has remained peaceful... it is our place
    now to advance a peace with our newly discovered neighbors.

    Please take a moment to visit the site listed above... I
    look forward to serious discussion of this issue here and
    elsewhere, and welcome any serious attempt to dis-prove
    this which I consider a first unchallengeable proof to the
    important question of Mars life.

    Feb 12 / 2004

    MAP
    M.A. Perafonte' / perafonte@hotmail.com

    [all serious email inquiries will be answered]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    858
    Welcome.

    Interesting observation. You do realise however that this man would be extremely small. If he were a guest in your house you would have to put the cat in the basement.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    393
    I think the following link adequately explains this.

    http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html

    The image does bear a vague resemblence to a man but that doesn't actually make it a man.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,279
    Hey, I think I recognize that guy! Isn't he "Vladimir Lenin" from the BA's shower curtain?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22

    ...to the initial replies...

    *
    Yes, some good replies already.

    I will remind the readership, any serious reply will be
    considered... I am as anxious to see any PROOF refuting
    my claims in this matter... I simply do not believe any
    such is forthcoming.

    ---------------
    To the first reply - yes, a man, small by our standards
    on Earth... I am guessing 2-to-4 inches ?

    I do not have a house cat... perhaps this man will now
    visit me more readily ? :-)

    -------------
    Regarding the second reply... "adequately explains" ?
    Hardly. This fact of perceptual science ...pareidol... has
    become a too popular excuse... I am sorry, we could also
    turn off our monitor, and say in honesty we saw virtually
    nothing in a picture. In fact, such illusory effects as you
    quote so hastily have, themselves, strict guidelines for
    qualification.

    The [problem] rather, is that followers of the various Mars
    events have become too accustomed to claims of unusual
    objects, and want to automatically answer "NO" to every
    such claim... and what if a valid one is made ? Mine is totally
    valid.
    To quote myself further: "Unfortunately, comments such as,
    "...but it's only rocks and sand", or, "lots of people see
    things in piles of leaves or on potato chips", can't be applied
    when we have solid physical objects visible in a photograph,
    consistent with every characteristic of human form and
    features".
    Anyone willing to look carefully at this image will find this
    clear... the detail of the figure presented is too great to be
    explained by this ink blot / illusion kind of "answer".
    In fact, the figure here -is- somewhat difficult to discern, but
    this is a result of the exteme enlargement needed to show
    such a small figure.
    The more important fact here is: since this figure is of this
    greatly reduced scale... we must also assume a great more
    detail must be present than is first obvious to casual inspection...
    we could not "imagine" his clothing, his shoes... if such intricate
    detail were not present, even though much of it is lost in the
    photographic rendering...
    ...rather than "dissolve" on closer inspection, this figure becomes
    more affirmable, again to the limit of what the photo can show.

    ---------------
    To the third replier: yes it's fun to make fun sometimes...
    but more than to entertain, I have posted to this particular
    forum to reach those with a serious interest in this matter.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,263
    I do not see the researcher, even in the closeup image. Using your standards, I guess I can now say that I have provided uncontestable evidence that the 'researcher' does not actually exist, right?

    We have, again, nearly exhausted any possibility of this NOT being the same real person described...
    Not by a long shot.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    Assuming you are serious:

    The burden is not on us to show you are wrong. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide adequate evidence for your extraordinary claim.

    To be frank, I don't even think it looks much like a man. Proof of life on Mars will have to be iron-clad. All the furor over the Mars rock showed that very well.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    208

    Re: ...to the initial replies...

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    To quote myself further: "Unfortunately, comments such as,
    "...but it's only rocks and sand", or, "lots of people see
    things in piles of leaves or on potato chips", can't be applied
    when we have solid physical objects visible in a photograph,
    consistent with every characteristic of human form and
    features".
    Anyone willing to look carefully at this image will find this
    clear... the detail of the figure presented is too great to be
    explained by this ink blot / illusion kind of "answer".
    In fact, the figure here -is- somewhat difficult to discern, but
    this is a result of the exteme enlargement needed to show
    such a small figure.
    The more important fact here is: since this figure is of this
    greatly reduced scale... we must also assume a great more
    detail must be present than is first obvious to casual inspection...
    we could not "imagine" his clothing, his shoes... if such intricate
    detail were not present, even though much of it is lost in the
    photographic rendering...
    ...rather than "dissolve" on closer inspection, this figure becomes
    more affirmable, again to the limit of what the photo can show.
    Your argument rings hollow with me. First of all, the "solid physical object" doesn't seem to be casting a shadow. When I look at it, his hair looks to me like a shadow being cast into a depression by the lip of the ground that is at the same level as the rest of the ground. The claim that this picture is conclusive proof that a tiny humanoid who breathes CO2 and lives on an extrordinarily cold, waterless (in a pragmatic sense) planet seems to be a bit of a stretch. A blurry photograph, of an "object" that reasonable people could disagree about what they are looking at falls way short of the evidence required to prove that there is life on Mars.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238

    Re: ...to the initial replies...

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    I will remind the readership, any serious reply will be
    considered... I am as anxious to see any PROOF refuting
    my claims in this matter... I simply do not believe any
    such is forthcoming.
    You don't believe or you will simply reject anything we present (because it doesn't support your idea) to refute you.

    ---------------
    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    To the first reply - yes, a man, small by our standards
    on Earth... I am guessing 2-to-4 inches ?
    I don't see it, but I'm thinking you believe that this little "man" is intelligent. If so, I would like to see you explain how any higher intelligence could be packed into about 6cc of volume.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    This fact of perceptual science ...pareidol... has
    become a too popular excuse... I am sorry, we could also
    turn off our monitor, and say in honesty we saw virtually
    nothing in a picture. In fact, such illusory effects as you
    quote so hastily have, themselves, strict guidelines for
    qualification.
    And claims for little men on mars don't?

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    The [problem] rather, is that followers of the various Mars events have become too accustomed to claims of unusual
    objects, and want to automatically answer "NO" to every
    such claim... and what if a valid one is made ? Mine is totally
    valid.
    So you say. You present a fuzzy picture and claim its a little alien. How valid is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    To quote myself further: "Unfortunately, comments such as, "...but it's only rocks and sand", or, "lots of people see
    things in piles of leaves or on potato chips",
    Good, no authorative source except yourself. This makes a valid claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    can't be applied
    when we have solid physical objects visible in a photograph,
    consistent with every characteristic of human form and
    features".
    Actually, to me, it looks more like a hampster than a human.


    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    Anyone willing to look carefully at this image will find this
    clear... the detail of the figure presented is too great to be
    explained by this ink blot / illusion kind of "answer".
    Actually, I look at the thing for 20 minutes and all I can really see is what looks like a fuzzy picture of my daughters hampster in between the Playboy bunny symbol (another bunny, mars must be the bunny planet)

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    The more important fact here is: since this figure is of this greatly reduced scale... we must also assume a great more
    detail must be present than is first obvious to casual inspection...
    we could not "imagine" his clothing, his shoes...
    Sorry, Lowell could imagine canals on mars where none exsited, by assuming what must be there to connect what he thought he saw. You claim appears to me to be of the same thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    if such intricate detail were not present, even though much of it is lost in the photographic rendering...
    So you're assuming other detail must be there just because you think it has to be there to show what you think you see? That's very convoluted and it reminds me of the mars face of a few years ago.


    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    ...rather than "dissolve" on closer inspection, this figure becomes more affirmable, again to the limit of what the photo can show.
    I'll disagree with this as, like I said, I don't see what you claim you see.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22

    next repliers, please :-)

    * ...firstly, let me thank all those who would reply to this post.
    I am not, again, adverse to disagreement... but, would ask
    that you scan the replies first before adding a new complaint.
    We have heard already:
    - its just rocks and sand...
    - its an illusion, give it up...
    - forgive me, but I dont see anything.

    NO NO NO :-)

    ...but, one replier offered: "I do not see the researcher, even
    in the close up".
    I can accept that. I had looked at these photos for over a week
    before this image became crystal clear to me. Obviously, if you
    do not see what I am describing, you cannot agree with anything
    I say about this which you do not see.
    More to the solution of possible viewing difficulties: find the
    image in question... study it casually for a minute... it is so familiar
    to me, and so obvious now, I have no problem describing it from
    the photo very completely, but this does not speak to anyone else's
    initial propensity to recognize the same.
    I can only repeat that my statements are both sincere and based
    entirely in this very obvious and recognizeable form which I
    describe on my internet site, if you will kindly accomodate my
    "claims", until you recognize these images yourself.

    ...a second replier complained: "Assuming you are serious..."...
    but I already say I am... and they continued: "the burden is on
    you to provide adequate evidence for your extraordinary claim".
    Completely inaccurate. I have presented this information
    with the purpose of sharing my discovery... I myself have no
    difficulty seeing or explaining this same image - but please note
    above - no amount of explanation will make this more clear if
    the initial image is at first unrecognizeable to you. I have not
    in fact made any extraordinary claim... I have only remarked
    on a very visible and obvious fact obvious in these pictures.
    My intent indeed is firstmost to display this image... I consider
    it speaks for itself... others seem to enjoy speaking wrongly
    of it instead :-)
    This same replier claims, "I dont even think it looks much like
    a man"... but I never suggest that this figure will be fully visible
    in a few brief glances... it is a matter to be studied... we do not
    glance at a technical diagram to discern what it says - we study
    it to read the data... but I assure anyone with an interest, all
    that I describe is in fact as visible in this photo as I say.
    The replier continued, "proof of life on Mars will have to be
    iron clad", which caused me to laugh... for I have presented
    exactly such iron clad irrefuteable proof already... I see,
    instead, very small efforts at considering what was presented.
    I will insist, however, upon the very most iron clad of rebuttals...
    though, again, do not expect a single one.

    The third new replier suggested certain photographic
    discrepancies which are, however, not present... or, rather, I
    shall refer them back to my presentation for the explanation...
    the replier first says: "the solid physical object doesnt seem to be
    casting a shadow"... true... but, I stated that this figure is a good
    distance off the surface, and any shadow would not be visible in
    this tight frame.
    The replier continued: they saw the hair detail as being, instead,
    a shadow cast in a depression... I didnt follow whatever "lip of the
    ground" meant.
    But the shadow remark is excellent... I could see this hair detail
    as, for instance, a small crater-like depression with shadow...
    except... if you consider carefully, this shadow and crater
    depression would have to have the very exact contour of a
    very regular hair line, including a part in the hair, including a
    curl in front and back... I went to great lengths to provide the
    clearest photo possible, and consider the ones provided
    demonstrate these affirming details sufficiently.
    I have not, however, asked -'what ELSE can you see in this
    image of the man'... that is the the ink blot / tea leaf ploy :-)
    We need to locate this basic likeness first before the explanation
    can have a relevance.
    The remainder of their reply is thus of that same bent... the
    replier does not, first, recognize what is described, and politely
    tries to suggest the evidence is less than sufficient... all expectable...
    but, since this replier made a most conscientious effort, if only
    to explain the facts away, I will state to them now - I am fully
    prepared to describe, in utter detail, every reasonably
    questioned feature I have remarked on, and to the fullest
    agreement of anyone willing to accept such fact.

    Sincerely having trouble with these images ? I offer counselling.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22

    ...ho hum...

    * still no meaningful challenges from those complaining...
    Im going home for the night... I would recommend to
    anyone again that they read the posts, look at the
    material, and refrain from simply disagreeing...
    ...this is to say, the statement, "I dont agree with
    you, and thus what you say is wrong" (or ?!?)... wont
    be considered as a challenge.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516

    Re: next repliers, please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by MAP
    ...a second replier complained: "Assuming you are serious..."...
    but I already say I am... and they continued: "the burden is on
    you to provide adequate evidence for your extraordinary claim".
    Completely inaccurate. I have presented this information
    with the purpose of sharing my discovery...
    That's fine, but this is a board dedicated to pointing out errors.

    What I said is not inaccurate in the least. You have made an extraordinary claim, asked for comments, and have dismissed salient points.

    If you cannot see that your claim is most extraordinary, I'm afraid there is nothing more we can say to you.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,266
    Hmmm... It seems to me that when you claim it is serious science, you have to submit to the scientific method and peer review. Therefore the burden of presenting evidence in support of your claim is on you, its not on us to disprove it.

    I personally think it's a shallow depression in connection with airbag slide mark. It looks flat, not a 3D feature, In fact NASA have a perspective rendered version of that exact airbag slide mark on the rover site:
    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...k_3d-A10R1.jpg
    and a color image:
    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...rpet-A10R1.jpg
    I think that might be enough to support my claim of it being a mark on the ground...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,484
    I'am sorry if this sounds rude but is this a wind up?

    As far as I can tell this is a mark in the ground nothing more. [-(

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,445
    I have to agree with Amadeus. I don't really see anything at all, much less lifeforms.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,816
    Shades of Piper! :roll:

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    61
    Map, it is up to you to validate your claim. For example, if you walk up to a group of people on the street and state that little tiny fairy people live in matchboxes at McDonald's, you must be prepared to prove this statement regardless if you have a picture of the little guys.

    That example may seem extreme, but so does your claim.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    774
    You have got to be kidding! Yes, I agree that the squared in area looks like a fossilized tiny humanoid. The entire rock also looks like a giant seahorse. There is also a face just outside of the square below it. Don't be faked out by the appearance of an object, I once saw the image of Lincoln in a bathtowel. We see all kinds of familiar objects in mundane places, that doesn't mean they are actually there, just that we percieve them. Check the "visitation" article on the Website that hosts this board (this board has a killer website attached to it). Tha BA 8) posted a picture of a visitor in his shower. Did Vladimir Lenin really hang out in the BA 8) 's shower? Probably not, but that is what the picture implies. Don't try to draw too much from a mere image until you get some data that points to what the image area is made of, that will tell the real story.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,732
    Hey, this makes me think of that guy over on James Randi's board, that sees faces on his monitor and wants to get the million dollars.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulster
    ... state that little tiny fairy people live in matchboxes at McDonald's, you must be prepared to prove this statement regardless if you have a picture of the little guys.
    You mean they moved! Then who's been eatting my fries? :roll:
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    198
    The topic starter is either a hidden troll (having great fun seeing people even trying to provide sensible explanations for someone elses illusion), or he is in fact truely seeing things in that muddy depression. I have stared at that image for half an hour, on and off, and the more I look at it, the more it looks like mudd.

    Thats all it is as far as I am concerned, I do not see any clear differences in color OR shape that make it significantly different from the rest of the muddy environment.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,484
    DNFTT

    Do Not Feed The Troll

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,133
    Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet
    Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum.
    "Who watches the Watchmen?"

    If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet
    Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum.
    "Who watches the Watchmen?"

    If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back
    No pat on the back for me I had to look it up. It seems very interesting though.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    360
    This is the same mental mechanism that find "subliminal images" in adverising. Wilson Brian Key wrote a whole series of books on these with examples. Of course he had to tell you what you saw and his description of how to see them matches MAP's approach.

    I do have to ask MAP the following question though: "Do you think that the word "SEX" is subliminally written on RITZ crackers to make you think they taste good?"

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet
    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet
    Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum.
    "Who watches the Watchmen?"

    If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back
    No pat on the back for me I had to look it up. It seems very interesting though.
    Heres a clue "Dr Manhattan"

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,445
    Another clue: "Antarctica"

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22
    + I have again presented my information with the intent of sharing
    this important discovery.

    While I asked, yesterday, that new repliers first read through
    previous replies, so as not to simply repeat, most of the new
    repliers did not observe this request...
    ...I will ask again, if you wish to offer a reply, please refrain
    from misquoting... from replies inobservant of the initial topic -
    see my original post for this, in case you've lost it in the flak.
    If in fact -you simply do not see it yet- this is not grounds
    for a complaint per-se... kindly suggest what you do see
    instead... one replier remarked on the colors in my photo...
    but my presentation was only black and white pictures...
    I do not claim these details are as visible in anyone else's
    pictures or presentation.
    Another replier suggested that they looked at a picture
    for 20 minutes, and could see no more than "bunny ears"...
    this is apparently a comment about the [scrap of insulation]
    picture posted here last week... I too saw something like
    bunny ears in that, but, sorry... thats not my photo either :-)

    Of course, refrain from personal attacks.

    If again you are convinced you can offer ANY substantial
    dis-proof of my claim, please do outline this carefully.

    I show in my presentation that a photograph shows clear
    evidence of a small man, alive on Mars, who has approached
    the Lander at close range, and is looking into it's camera.
    This fact is based on simple observation of what is visible
    in the enlargement of the NASA/JPL photo... I have further
    stated my intent to demonstrate, fully, every detail my
    presentation describes, that any reasonable question
    might be answered.
    That offer remains in full... however, as I remarked last night,
    no reasonable challenges have been made thus far, and I do
    not expect any can or will.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    198
    Is this the man?



    Obviously quick a doodle, but I just wanna make sure we're talking about the same thing before I post the rest of what I've got to say.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Dec-20, 04:00 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Dec-08, 05:40 AM
  3. Citizen Science: Help Find Life on Mars
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-30, 01:50 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2009-Oct-20, 12:10 AM
  5. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-16, 11:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: