Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?

On Oct 17, 11:26*pm, Sam wrote:

Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
confirmations. *Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
Mars.

I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
puff out their chests and claim so.

Well, try to be more aware then

Twenty five years after the original, fuzzy long distance overflight,
NASA provided crystal clear images of the area that show it is not a
face. If your computer has a search engine (cof), you can put "Face
on Mars" into your browser and instead of reading articles that insist
on using the oldest images, you can select [IMAGES] and our mutual
friend Google will provide you will hundreds of photos - some the
fuzzy, low-res 1976 "face", while others show the actual rock features
(not a face). BTW, this isn't puffing out my chest, this is me
telling you how to find out if the "face" even needs to be debunked.
It doesn't, unless you are one of those people who prefer to believe
the doctor took a photo of an actual plesiasaur in Loch Ness, or the
guy in the suit was actually a bigfoot.

Look, there are plenty of rock formations right here on earth that
anthro into vaguely human faces. A single, distorted batch-processed
images (43m resolution on each pixel) from a distant fly-by in 1976
can be toyed with, manipulated, whatever, but the high-res 2001 (1.5m
resolution on each pixel) shots are not only generations newer and
sharper, they complement the 1998 image, allowing us to see this
geological formation for what it really is. Rocks that, if you
squint, vaguely look like a face.

If my kids look up at the clouds and see an Indian Chief, it isn't
really proof of a race of sky indians. Its a natural human tendency
to see faces in natural objects.


I would love to find traces of a lost civilization on Mars. Or
Iapetus for that matter. The face on Mars ain't it. I am willing to
wait for actual evidence and pass on this particular bandwagon.