Faces from the Chasmas

In deference to Tom, I thought I'd qualify my above post by reprinting a comment he made on the subject. If he's right, then I'm wrong. Having said that though, I still find it hard to believe that they're all in on it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">JPL has no "official" position, but ridicules the very idea of artificiality and anyone who favors it. Their interest is obvious. They have tentative approval for missions to Mars from now through 2016, all justified on the basis of incremental explorations to find evidence of ancient water, organics, and (if they exist) fossils that will definitively answer the question of whether microbial life could have ever existed on Mars billions of years ago. Anything that disrupts that schedule (such as finding a genuine artifact on Mars now) threatens the future of JPL and the employment of its staff and contractors. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In this case, my being "wrong" would mean that they are not going to image Nefertiti dead on with the HiRise any time soon IF it is in fact an obvious artwork.

rd

Neilderosa,

Re your comparison of image sections posted August 2 06:

My section was lightened so there is a lot more detail showing than with your processing. There are other differences as well that imo can't be explained by processing variations.

I have occasionally noted that some of the Mars images currently available on the Moc gallery are not exactly the same as the images I downloaded right after these same images were first posted online.

I didn't do anything extraordinary with the processing of this image, certainly nothing that would cause shapes to mysteriously appear in the image.

<b>Researching Artificial Structures on Mars Hypothesis</b>
Since there are many readers of these threads it can be assumed that there are those interested in finding out about the subject. And since a mainstream/government entity controls access to virtually all of the experimental data, researchers are entirely dependent on that entity for what they are trying to prove.

Still, there is a growing body of knowledge on the subject that the student or researcher should be aware of but may not be.

1- SPSR. "The Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) is an organization of scientists and scholars from a variety of disciplines formed around their common interest in anomalies on planets and their satellites whose origins may be the result of intelligent activity. The focus of SPSR research is primarily the surfaces of Mars and the Moon as revealed by orbiter and lander investigation." spsr.utsi.edu/

Although the organization is not presently active, many SPSR members have credible writings and discoveries on the subject.

2- SSE. Society for Scientific Exploration which publishes the Journal for Scientific Exploration; www.scientificexploration.org/publications.html ; has published some excellent papers on the subject.

3 - Richard Hoagland. Although I disagree with some of his scientific theories, that by no means disqualifies his credentials, which are excellent for understanding and documenting the long term official antagonism and obstructionism against the possibility of artificial structures on Mars. His latest book, Dark Mission, documents this. www.amazon.com/Dark-Mission-Secret-Histo...id=1243693781&sr=1-1

4- The McDaniel Report - is the classical academic/philosophical document on this government obstructionism. www.amazon.com/McDaniel-Report-Congressi...gating/dp/1556430884

5- Tom Van Flandern - several great papers on the subject and chapters in his book, Dark Matter, as well as press conferences and long-term advocacy of open-mindedness on the ASH, and proper scientific method; can be found at this website.

6- This message board - much valuable information can be gleaned. Unfortunately this is not a research record and may someday disappear. Meanwhile the researcher has to use his or her own good judgment to sift through it to find what's valuable and useful. [Neil DeRosa]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />In deference to Tom, I thought I'd qualify my above post by reprinting a comment he made on the subject. If he's right, then I'm wrong. Having said that though, I still find it hard to believe that they're all in on it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">JPL has no "official" position, but ridicules the very idea of artificiality and anyone who favors it. Their interest is obvious. They have tentative approval for missions to Mars from now through 2016, all justified on the basis of incremental explorations to find evidence of ancient water, organics, and (if they exist) fossils that will definitively answer the question of whether microbial life could have ever existed on Mars billions of years ago. Anything that disrupts that schedule (such as finding a genuine artifact on Mars now) threatens the future of JPL and the employment of its staff and contractors. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In this case, my being "wrong" would mean that they are not going to image Nefertiti dead on with the HiRise any time soon IF it is in fact an obvious artwork.

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Would it be possible to give the thread and date where this quote is found? --if you don't mind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Would it be possible to give the thread and date where this quote is found? --if you don't mind.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That was from Page 1 of thread "New Image of Cydonia Face 4-13-06" Posted - 24 Apr 2006 : 16:17:25

I'm not quite sure why I was there, but I tend towards "stream of consciousness" activities. The other day, I was on Youtube looking for a video of Melanie at Woodstock, and one thing led to another and an hour later I ended with a Buddy Rich solo.

By the way, while we're on this subject, I want to point out that HiRise will be starting a new Image Suggestion campaign that will be open to the public generally (the one I'm in is restricted to students and teachers-although who's to say whether or not your a student or teacher).

If you look on this page, you will see at the bottom of the center grey box: <b>Submit your HiRISE observation suggestions! </b><i>(Coming Soon) </i>

marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/HiRISE/

I was reminded of this in an email that I think said, "sometime later this year or early next year."

I would suggest that anyone who is a proponent of the AOH as it pertains to Mars get very active and inventive in trying to get some of the smoking gun sites imaged. But don't necessarily tell them why you want a site imaged. For instance, request something like the "Wrecked Ship" site, and tell them the reason is because you're investigating a certain type of landform. Don't necessarily "lie", just come up with a logical alternative reason why you want that site imaged (hey if Nancy Pelosi can do it in front of the whole world, I'd say we're on solid ground here). The choices of reasons are endless. And remember to choose 1x1 binning. Request the highest resolution possible and come up with a good reason why.

Pick 10 or so of the high value targets, and come up with ten good reasons, that don't include artworks. I think the odds are good that a number of them will get imaged.

If a few people take this approach, one of two (or more) things will likely happen.

<ul><li>You'll get some proof. </li><li>We'll see a bunch of "rockpiles" </li><li>They will obfuscate, avoid the good sites and/or produce bad pictures </li></ul>

One way or another, information will be gleaned.

rd

"For instance, request something like the "Wrecked Ship" (rd)


In past postings of this object I made a mistake, having only the original MOC narrow angle image. It was hard to pin point its exact location and I thought it was imbedded in the upper part of the Chasma wall. I was wrong; it is located at the base of the ~10 km deep wall where are also located several other interesting objects we have noted in the past. Here is the correction along with a context image from the ESA color image of that region. [Neil DeRosa]

Wrecked Ship
This object has several features which suggest that it is the ancient ruins of a large machine, perhaps an ocean ship, airship or spaceship: In center-left of the cropping there appears to be a cavity in the form of a semi-circle. This is modeled as the wrecked nose of the ship. One of two nose cones is still attached; the other is in the foreground at the bottom of the image. The cylindrical hull of the ship is seen in perspective with the tail end to the upper right of the image. The hull seems to have a large tear on its right side (our view); a rectangular opening further toward the rear, (also on the right); a raised bridge on top of the cylindrical hull; two possible short wings, or fins one on each side; and a tail wing or fin just above the rectangular opening. The shading of the feature indicates an object with machined (as opposed to irregular or random) surfaces and lines. The front and center parts of the ship have two defined circular lines, which parallel each other and correspond to the cylindrical shape and circular opening or cavity, in shape and shading; while the rear end of the ship appears more rectangular or box shaped, with several lines and gradients of shades that run parallel and perpendicular to each other suggesting that shape. This object is located at the base of the West Candor Chasma wall that may be as much as 10 km deep; it is reasonable to assume that the object may have been covered and then uncovered by erosion and may be a very ancient artifact.

Weighing against all of these very suggestive features is the mediocre resolution of the raw data image. With one pixel of light being nearly six meters in length, we cant be that sure of our facts, although they are very suggestive. This feature cries out for further imaging at a resolution at which the detail will be unambiguous.

Data for M0202913, Wrecked Ship: 2006; 74.02W, 6.11S, ~337 m wide, 5.71 m/p, base of West Candor Chasma wall
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0202913.html

ESA context image indicated 144-161204-0360-4


M0202913 colorized


CTX image highlighted P15-006955-1746 global-data.mars.asu.edu/ctx/img/P15_006955_1746_XI_05S073W