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.

On Oct 18, 9:46*am, Gordon wrote:
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.

Oh fine, just interject reality into a perfectly kook-moment.

This is better than reality TV! Fruitbats, wingnuts, fjucktards on
teh Interwebs! Next you'll be telling us that Close Encounters
*wasn't* a documentary!

On Oct 18, 9:55*am, Richard wrote:

Oh fine, just interject reality into a perfectly kook-moment.

This is better than reality TV! *Fruitbats, wingnuts, fjucktards on
teh Interwebs! *Next you'll be telling us that Close Encounters
*wasn't* a documentary!- Hide quoted text -

I kept waiting for LIB to chime in, since we ARE talking about his
home world...

On 19/10/2011 3:46 a.m., Gordon wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:26 pm, 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.

Hoaxland also claimed that he could see remains of structures around the
'face'..
He could see them at a higher resolution than the camera was capable of
The man is a crank

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:

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.

No debunking here, only an opinion. Thanks anyway.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:

Hoaxland also yada yada yada

Deductive image interpreting is a science which you know nothing about
and have absolutely no certified expertise in.

Seems to be a lot of experts whose posting handles start with "G" or
"g". ahem.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:37:55 -0500, Dan wrote:

This is the same guth who "proved" the moon landings were faked
because the lunar surface doesn't reflect sunlight and that 9-11 was an
inside job because you can't see the ground from 36,000 feet.

At best he's good for comic relief. I emailed him hoping I could
**** his children.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired but ever-horny

That's gross you retard.

On Oct 18, 4:36*pm, Sam wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
Hoaxland also yada yada yada

Deductive image interpreting is a science which you know nothing about
and have absolutely no certified expertise in.

Seems to be a lot of experts whose posting handles start with "G" or
"g". ahem.

Build that into a conspiracy why don't you?

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:17:31 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:

On Oct 18, 4:36*pm, Sam wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
Hoaxland also yada yada yada

Deductive image interpreting is a science which you know nothing about
and have absolutely no certified expertise in.

Seems to be a lot of experts whose posting handles start with "G" or
"g". ahem.

Build that into a conspiracy why don't you?

Pass. Feel free to proceed "G".

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:26:11 -0400, Sam
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:43:43 -0400, Painius wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:28:35 -0400, Sam
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:

Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
bought some of those nifty postage stamps...

http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm

that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...

An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
Paine Ellsworth

A closed mind is always closed to any ideas except his own ~ Sam

Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
that surrounds Saturn's North pole...

I would agree. The issue here is a question. Note: "Artificial Moon,
Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?"

Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding

Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows at least Hoagland is
willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.

it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
of science.

That is, when science can be of assistance.

When it comes to astronomy, the scientific method "assists" our
imaginations and keeps our feet on the ground, mostly.

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.

Then you are incurably blind. I used to defend Hoagland as firmly as
do you. Then the new images came in. You're right though. The FoM
was not debunked. Hoagland, however, was most certainly debunked.

And now, he tries to feed his dwindling following. He needs something
spectacular to get us old followers back.

Iapetus, Iapetus, Iapetus.

Not likely.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/