J'Dona Posted May 9, 2004 Posted May 9, 2004 God could have told them' date=' if you would consider this possibility.Or they could have visited Earth and collected some data. Or they could be the authors of the script, that we use as bible. Martians did have to know about Christianity, to make a statue of their extinct animal, did they?[/quote']Bear in mind that we are only talking about one of the photos there. I'm not changing the subject (even though this is off-topic from the original thread), but you've got images of "moving kittens" and "spaceship parking lots" on your site, or crude crocodile statues with a "water bottle left behind by students" by it (even though I can't see it). Can you come up with a theory that adequately explains the following? a) possibly Christianity related goat/lamb statue, b) moving Earth creatures on Mars today, c) a space faring civilisation on Mars today, d) plastics (from the bottle) on a planet with no complex organic molecules, e) pure liquid water Those points were taken from THREE of your pictures...
ExtraSense Posted May 9, 2004 Author Posted May 9, 2004 Dona, 1.the bottle appears to be made of glass, not plastic. 2.even one statue on Mars enough to prove that there was a civilization on Mars. 3.I do not claim that all my guesses on the http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense website are 100 pct correct. I claim that there is proponderence of evidence on that website - for the conclusion, that there is life on Mars now and that there was a Civilization on Mars at some point of time. ES
J'Dona Posted May 9, 2004 Posted May 9, 2004 Very well, I'll correct my list: a) possibly Christianity related goat/lamb statue, b) moving Earth creatures on Mars today, c) a space faring civilisation on Mars today, d) glass (from the bottle) which would have had to be produced with SiO2 and CaO in the crust in a blast furnace, requiring oxygen, of which there is none on Mars and cannot be refined from oxides in the crust because of, again, a lack of oxygen for the reactions e) pure liquid water As for your other points, you obviously believe at least one to be true, and yet every single one brings up one or more of the points I've mentioned above. You cannot prove that a single one is true, however, and to do so would involve going against the entire scientific community and billions of dollars worth of research into Mars, all based on pseudoscientific conclusions of yours drawn from blurry photos. You say that "even one statue on Mars enough to prove that there was a civilization on Mars", and yet you haven't provided even one that can be confirmed true, or even unexplained by natural phenomena. Every name or interpretation you provide on your site is highly subjective and/or false or demonstrates a lack of scientific knowledge. For example, on http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/more3.html, as you give "The Final, Absolute Proof of Animal Life on Mars", you say that the "heads" have moved. But they haven't; the colors in the area have partially inverted for some reason, so that the previously dark area below them is now light and the light area is now dark. This can be seen simply by checking the positions of the heads from the rocks below the rim, instead of the just rim. They haven't moved. And even if they had, the rover could have been moving. That's what rovers do, see? I claim that there is proponderence of evidence on that website - for the conclusion, that there is life on Mars now and that there was a Civilization on Mars at some point of time.I've already explained why, if there was life on Mars now, how it couldn't be anything even remotely like on Earth. In that case, then almost every picture you show can't possibly be true. Kittens can't evolve on Mars, nor survive there if they were taken from Earth and put there. Quite tragically, the kitten's lungs would implode and every cell in its body would explode. It's a good thing, then, that all kittens are safe on Earth. The same goes for every other plant or animal you show in those pictures. They can't be Martian equivalents to those Earth creatures either, because as I said things wouldn't eveolve like that on Mars. However, all this doesn't dispute that there may be Martian life now (rather, it only removes your entire basis of comparison). There may indeed be microbial life on Mars now, but as for a civilisation... Finally, I'd like to repost this, which you never answered despite Sayonara pointing that out twice : How could an animal that you say is so similar to a lamb on Earth that it IS a lamb, possibly evolve on a planet with an atmosphere which has 1% the pressure of that on Earth, and is 95% CO2, without any organic food sources or water and less than half the gravity? If there was a "lamb" on Mars adapted to survive on it, it wouldn't look anything even remotely like any animal found on Earth. Thus this statue would have been the result of Martians visiting Earth, and so there would be traces of civilisation left on Mars, but there are none. How do you explain all this? P.S. Please don't call me "Dona", that's like referring to me by my last name. :/ P.P.S. Sorry about the very long post. I just get going and forget to stop. It's past midnight here and I've got college tomorrow, so I'd better go now... P.P.P.S. Oh, just asking the forum regulars as I haven't posted much here... are there some etiquette rules I'm breaking by posting nasty responses like this? (I read through it and I consider it nasty; I don't talk like this in real life but on the Internet everything is a bit more of a free for all, since we can't actually see the people we're abusing )
ExtraSense Posted May 9, 2004 Author Posted May 9, 2004 J'Dona, When you bring up more and more compaund issues, without resolving the elemntary ones, you go against the scientific approach of analysis and sythesis. If we to get anywhere, let us discuss one thing at a time. Since you brought an old question, lets deal with it first. <<How could an animal that you say is so similar to a lamb on Earth that it IS a lamb, possibly evolve on a planet with an atmosphere which has 1% the pressure of that on Earth, and is 95% CO2, without any organic food sources or water and less than half the gravity? If there was a "lamb" on Mars adapted to survive on it, it wouldn't look anything even remotely like any animal found on Earth. Thus this statue would have been the result of Martians visiting Earth, and so there would be traces of civilisation left on Mars, but there are none. How do you explain all this?>> The lambs do not live on Mars anymore. The statue of lamb was created much later, than epoch when lambs were roaming Mars which had at the time an atmosphere similar to one we have now on Earth. The half gravity is not an issue, unless you have some related specific considerations to discuss. Like we can and do create statues of Dinosauruses that are extinct, the Martians could and did created statues of lambs that were extinct. Do you agree with this explanation? ES
J'Dona Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 I'm sorry, I don't agree with that explanation. You have assumed that Mars once had an atmosphere just like that on Earth, without any reasonable evidence, and are now drawing your explanations off of that assumption, which goes "against the scientific approach of analysis and sythesis". I think I wrote this before, but I'll do it again anyway. Let's assume that Mars even had the same atmosphere and temperature as the Earth (though its lower gravity and further distance from the sun maks this highly unlikely, but let us assume it is possible). The gravity will still be lower, and thus plants will be able to grow very tall to monopolize more sunlight, which will be necessary as it is scarcer on Mars than on Earth. If plants are taller, animals will grow taller (also de to lower gravity and less weight). Thus these lambs would be quite tall, with longer necks and legs, and so the statue could not be an accurate represantation because lambs on Mars would not look like that. However, this is assuming that the atmosphere on Mars was once like that on Earth. Let's say that this is also the case. There would have been oxygen in the air at least up until the point that the rock was carved. But we can tell by the way light changes as it passed through the atmosphere of Mars (from a star, for example) what elements and compounds are in its atmosphere. That is how people have determined that Mars has lower atmospheric pressure and different elements in its atmosphere (if it wasn't very close to what they had determined in real life, then the rovers they sent to Mars would have crashed to to unexpected variances in the atmosphere). So some time very recently - if artifacts from this Civilization still exist on Mars - there would have been some cataclysmic event wiping out 99% of the atmosphere and all the oxygen and virtually all other elements. Something this devastating would leave at least one trace of its occurence, don't you think? I don't even know what could cause something like this. After that, the biology of the planet would have absolutely no chance of surviving afterward, every species having grown dependant on that atmosphere. Microbial life might survive, but certainly not living kittens, Brontosauruses or mushrooms. EDIT: Back, but I don't know what to add to this anyway, so I'll end it here.
ExtraSense Posted May 10, 2004 Author Posted May 10, 2004 J'Dona, assumptions, assumptions, assumprions. Never get ugly reality step in front of your assumptions ES
J'Dona Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 Never let human psychology step in front of your assumptions. I have made assumptions, based on the best information currently available to science. You haven't. In fact, your assumptions directly contradict them. Do you know what a hypocrite is?
ExtraSense Posted May 10, 2004 Author Posted May 10, 2004 J'Dona, How you are going to explain this picture from Mars, of a scull with all teeth in the upper and lover jaws intact?
Sayonara Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 He doesn't have to explain anything. It's your crackpot theory that the image is "from Mars, of a scull with all teeth in the upper and lover jaws intact", so it's up to you to provide evidence of that. As you would well know if - as you claim - you have any kind of qualifications in a scientific discipline. I'd also be interested to know why the image was originally called "dead bat 5".
ExtraSense Posted May 10, 2004 Author Posted May 10, 2004 #3, What do you mean, don't you SEE the upper and lower jaws with teeth? The picture is the EVIDENCE. Go to my website, over there there is a link to NASA original, if you need it. By the way, the upper jaw is at the top, the lowers jaw is below ES
Sayonara Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 Yes, I have seen your website. Verbum sapienta sat est, *cough*.
atinymonkey Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 #3' date=' What do you mean, don't you SEE the upper and lower jaws with teeth? The picture is the EVIDENCE. Go to my website, over there there is a link to NASA original, if you need it. By the way, the upper jaw is at the top, the lowers jaw is below ES[/quote'] IT'S A CHICKEN!
J'Dona Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 Considering the file name is 1p063-1P133786177-dead-bat-5.jpg, I guess you don't know what it is either. EDIT: Just noticed that Sayonara also pointed this out, and that you ignored it. Can you prove that it came from Mars? Or is a medical scan of a human (with obvious editing along the edges... look at the lines, man, along the edge of the jaw) supposed to be evidence enough? How did they take an x-ray picture of a Martian with a rover that is 20 light minutes away from Earth? It's not like they could just quickly press the instant-medical-x-ray-camera-on-a-rover-on-a-barren-planet button and get the photo. So it can't be from Mars, in which case it's fake. I would have thought someone with an alleged Masters degree in Physics would know about something called the speed of light...
atinymonkey Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 Chicken with this sort of teeth? Try again IT'S A PIGGY!
ExtraSense Posted May 10, 2004 Author Posted May 10, 2004 J'Dona, should already know that I do not need to fake anything. Go to my website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense and check the link to NASA original, by clicking on the title of a picture. It is not X-ray, it is a picture of a scull without flesh. ES
ExtraSense Posted May 10, 2004 Author Posted May 10, 2004 Piggy? do you have a picture of a real piggy scull to compare? ES
J'Dona Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 I can't actually find that picture anywhere on your site, nor on Google, which is suspicious if it is supposed to be a public NASA image, (an idea which contradicts what you blatantly suggest as a cover-up by your pictures). I don't believe that you're faking anything (aside from your credentials), but I do believe that every picture you have shown so far or on your site has been grossly misinterpreted, though most are certainly real. There is not a single picture which is not subject to personal interpretation, which means that they do not constitute evidence. If that is a real skull in your image, why is it fuzzy around the edges? Why is the image not perfectly clear? It's not as if there's much air in the way on Mars. Also, you still have not explain the editing underneath the jaw.
atinymonkey Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 Piggy?do you have a picture of a real piggy scull to compare? ES No IT'S A DRAGON! Grrrrrr, chomp chomp.
Sayonara Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 Also, you still have not explain the editing underneath the jaw. The editing under the jaw was to remove the rest of the white formations, of which the 'skull' is a small part. The image is on the front page of his site, and the original is here: http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/063/1P133786177ESF08AMP2571R5M1.JPG
J'Dona Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 So that's why I didn't notice it... it didn't look like a skull at all.
fafalone Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 Instructions for being able to interpret the pictures from Mars the "correct" way like ExtraSense: 1) Repeatedly run head first into brick walls until all real education is gone. 2) Smoke lots and lots of crack 3) Attend Zarkov's True Seeker program 4) Inject a cocktail of copius amounts of LSD, DMT, DPT, THC, and AMT. 5) View images.
ExtraSense Posted May 11, 2004 Author Posted May 11, 2004 All, Since my scientific method has been exposed, I wonder how much competition I will have now. Be forwarned, that (2) and (4) could be quite expensive. Do not kill, do not steal, you always can get the picture from me!
Lance Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 I’m sorry; I may seem stupid for saying this but.... I don’t see anything remotely resembling anything you mention in any picture any more than the cloud above my house resembles anything other than a cloud. I especially don’t understand the lamb.... It doesn’t even look like a lamb (maybe I need to go have my vision checked).
Recommended Posts