Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Connection Between Disappearing Bees and Saturn? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22116
Online
#15 : May 13, 2007, 07:22:50 PM

I use to love his site but it hasn't been the same for several years now and they once had a pretty decent forum as well but then started charging $3.33 a month for membership. 




Guest
#16 : May 13, 2007, 08:03:57 PM

LOL? Why would I even bother responding if that's what you're going to write?
If you disagree with what I wrote, then write that and give your reasons.

What kind of response did you expect for some doctored up photos? LOL is all they were worth. As for erosion, it would still leave a symmetrical, although degraded, form. From the actual photos, one can clearly see that the form is not even close to symmetrical and never has been. Life on Mars? Possibly, maybe even probably at one time. Intelligent life? That's a whole different ballgame. It's extremely unlikely on a planet that lacks the gravity to retain a sufficient atmosphere and the magnetic field to deflect the solar wind and keep it from stripping that atmosphere away. It's also too cold to support anything but extremophiles and has been for a long time. That's where the time line problem comes in.

An intelligent life form isn't the first thing that pops up, the stage has to be set. First, you need an atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide. This can support an abundant supply of cyanobacteria that use photosynthesis and emit oxygen as a waste product. On Earth, this took billions of years. Mars didn't have that kind of time, it cooled much faster because it lacks the large iron core of Earth and is farther from the sun. Evolution stopped in it's tracks. Meanwhile on Earth, the cyanobacteria finally built up enough oxygen in the atmosphere that it was no longer suitable for them. Radiation from the sun acted on that oxygen to create ozone and initialized a radiation barrier that allowed 'the Cambrian explosion.' It was at this point that the true evolution of life on Earth began. By that point, Mars was already out of the running.

As you can see, it is highly unlikely that anything more advanced than bacterial lifeforms ever evolved on Mars. If there was intelligent life there at one time, it did not begin on that planet. To prove something like that, you're going to need some real blockbuster evidence. And a small, grainy, blurred photo of an object that might be mistaken in the right lighting conditions for a face by a species that has evolved to instinctively see human faces ain't it.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28675
Offline
#17 : May 13, 2007, 08:36:08 PM

Quote
As you can see, it is highly unlikely that anything more advanced than bacterial lifeforms ever evolved on Mars. If there was intelligent life there at one time, it did not begin on that planet. To prove something like that, you're going to need some real blockbuster evidence. And a small, grainy, blurred photo of an object that might be mistaken in the right lighting conditions for a face by a species that has evolved to instinctively see human faces ain't it.

Maybe life came from another planet and use Mars as a way station? But that's speculation of course.

I agree that what I present is not proof. Never said it was now did I? And it's more than the photos
and more than The Face.

As far as the history of Mars?

Sorry but there are a number of scientists who see other explanations for Mars' past...

Just is just one alternative theory...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_fizz_040922.html

A new theory about ancient Mars puts some fizz back in the idea that the red planet was once warm, wet and potentially habitable.

Many studies have suggested that early Mars was covered by large oceans and blanketed by a thick atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide -- the stuff that puts the bubbly zing in soda. But if that's all true, then when the oceans evaporated a lot of the carbon dioxide should have turned into what scientists call carbonates, which should be strewn all over the place.

Problem is, the carbonates aren't there. One recent study found trace amounts in Martian dust, just enough to conclude that Mars probably didn't have vast oceans.

The new model provides a way around this problem. It suggests the chemistry of Martian seas was different than has been assumed, so the clues have been missed.

If the seas of Mars were moderately acidic -- in scientific terms, a pH under 6 instead of the pH of 8 common to terrestrial oceans -- then carbonates could not have formed, says Alberto Fairen of the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, in Spain.

* * *

Fairen thinks Mars was covered by "really alien" oceans 4.5 billion years ago, shortly after the planet formed.

"These ancient oceans probably lasted for near a billion years, totally covering the northern plains of the planet," he told SPACE.com. "Their chemistry was very different from those on Earth, and this is the reason why their existence has been so disputed: they left no Earth-like sediments, such as carbonate minerals."

* * * * * * * * * *

Joe here again...

What if they lasted for three billion years? There are a lot of assumptions here and we still don't
have all the answers. IMO, evidence will be uncovered that Mars could have been Earth-like
for a long enough period for intelligent life to have evolved.



Guest
#18 : May 13, 2007, 08:41:45 PM

While we're on the topic of erosion, let's take a close look at the large photo:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/face_E03-00824_proc.gif

The first thing that is apparent is that there is no water erosion visible. Water takes the path of least resistance and carries sediment with it then deposits it at the bottom of the outflow channels where it loses it's energy. The amount of sediment carried by water is determined by the amount of energy in that water, so deposition plateaus would be obvious. There are none visible. Instead the material that has sloughed off is fairly evenly distributed around the form with no visible channels, implying that there has been no precipitation in a very long time. The erosion visible is from radiation decay breaking down the rock and wind erosion.

As far as this formation ever being a symmetrical form, the lower right corner would have to have been severely eroded. This would have left a much larger outflow of sloughed off material in that area. Again, none is visible. In fact, if you examine it closely, you can see a ridge in that area that would have prevented material from reaching the plain.

In the area that is supposed to represent the mouth, we can see that the valley is bisected by a ridge. On the right side of the ridge there are large sediment deposits, on the left side there are none. This indicates that the prevailing wind acting on the formation came from the left. This means that the left side would erode at a higher rate than the right side. This also argues against the formation ever being symmetrical. It is not a face, never has been, and can only be construed as one when barely visible in certain low angle lighting conditions and with the aid of pareidolia.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28675
Offline
#19 : May 13, 2007, 08:46:53 PM


Shall I post responses from others who disagree with that? And a few papers from peer reviewed
journals that take a look at the other evidence besides the face? What do you think about the
mound geometry?

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28675
Offline
#20 : May 13, 2007, 09:28:01 PM

http://spsr.utsi.edu

That's a good site for Mars info.

Some of the papers show argue for the bilateral symmetry of the face. But like I said,
it's about so much more than the face. And that is addressed on the above site.



Guest
#21 : May 13, 2007, 09:53:37 PM

Here's a Google satellite image of the Medicine Hat region in Alberta, Canada. Google also has a satellite map feature of Mars:
http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=-50.972264&lon=-31.772460&zoom=6




ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28675
Offline
#22 : May 13, 2007, 10:06:33 PM

I linked you to many papers and articles on all of the anomalies on Mars. If you choose to
ignore it, so be it. The evidence is there. But like I said twice already, needs ground truth
to know what is really there.

You you actually think you're the first one who has pointed to the happy face on Mars?
I've heard it all and seen it all on this subject. I am not convinced either way. But some
of the evidence I have seen intrigues me. Even if you ignore the Face at Cydonia.

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#23 : May 14, 2007, 12:17:48 AM

I, for one, welcome our new bee overlords.

kapmorg

*
Starter
****
Posts : 295
Offline
#24 : May 14, 2007, 12:32:15 AM

I, for one, welcome our new bee overlords.

To bee or not to bee....that is the question.



karen anderson

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#25 : May 14, 2007, 12:34:29 AM


Boid Fink

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 53204
Offline
#26 : May 14, 2007, 01:42:27 AM

Mars sucks.

I like Almond Joy better.


kapmorg

*
Starter
****
Posts : 295
Offline
#27 : May 14, 2007, 01:47:38 AM

Mars sucks.

I like Almond Joy better.

lol






Guest
#28 : May 14, 2007, 05:57:04 AM

The evidence is there.

No, actually, it's not. Calling it evidence does not make it such.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28675
Offline
#29 : May 14, 2007, 11:58:49 AM


Guess you didn't read the mound geometry paper.

Lots of intelligent people/scientists at that site have done some excellent work on Mars
and the possibility of artificiality. Yes, the evidence is there. Is some of it weak? Yes.
And some of it is very intriguing, like I said.

Is it enough to prove the case? Not in my mind.
Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Connection Between Disappearing Bees and Saturn? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools