serious science discovers Mars life

[MAP]

+ 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]

[Rue]

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.

[Espritch]

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.

[N C More]

Hey, I think I recognize that guy! Isn't he "Vladimir Lenin" from the BA's shower curtain?

[MAP]

*
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.

[Musashi]

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.

[The Bad Astronomer]

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.

[beck0311]

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.

[Tensor]

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.

---------------

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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)

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?

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.

...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.

[MAP]

* ...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.

[MAP]

* 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.

[The Bad Astronomer]

...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.

[TrAI]

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...

[Amadeus]

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. [-(

[TriangleMan]

I have to agree with Amadeus. I don't really see anything at all, much less lifeforms.

[Kaptain K]

Shades of Piper! :roll:

[Ulster]

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.

[Gmann]

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.

[SciFi Chick]

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.

[Swift]

... 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:

[majic]

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.

[Amadeus]

DNFTT

Do Not Feed The Troll

[Hamlet]

Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum.

[Amadeus]

Calling Doctor Rorschach. Doctor Rorschach please report to this forum.

"Who watches the Watchmen?"

If you get the quote, pat yourself on the back

[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.

[foxd]

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?"

[Amadeus]

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"

[TriangleMan]

Another clue: "Antarctica"

[MAP]

+ 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.

[dummy]

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.