Martian UFO?

www.coasttocoastam.com ^ | Sol 033 | JPL Spirit Navigation Camera

[Quix]

Those considerations are historical efforts at this point in my life. They were exhaustive and in terms of any given puzzle piece, still a consideration.

But in terms of whether there is anything to the UFO claims or whether there really are any sort of real ET's, I've MORE OR LESS settled in my own mind that saying there is

at this point

is in no way a TYPE I error.

But I can understand that you would have different mileage not having experienced my relative and a list of other evidence.

[Quix]

Please see post #44.

Thanks.

I don't consider you a peon at all.

We are all looking through the glass darkly as Scripture says.

[Quix]

AGREED!

THANKS.

[Magnum44]

I really don't know. I could look it up, but just off the cuff, the Martian moons are very small in comparison with our own Earth-Moon system, so much smaller that they are really satellites of Mars, where the moon and the Earth both revolve about an offset center (the Barycenter) which is the center of mass for both bodies.

Also, IIRC at least one of the martian moons is not spherical, but more elongated.

[Quix]

i THINK, BELIEVE

that MOST of the well known ET races are EITHER, as some claim, demons in genetically engineered bodies OR other genuine races of ET's from other galaxies working in cahoots with satan to bring about his great end time deception.

Then there's just a bunch of NEW AGE hogwash, deception, demonic junk that gets involved with various aspects of the UFO/ET phenomena.

But, hey, Ezekiel seems to have had some involvement with a UFO. Seems like a classic description in a lot of respects.

LIFE IS COMPLEX. REALITY IS COMPLEX.

I don't know how it will all prove out. God alone does.

But I collect puzzle pieces. I do so believing that God has infected me with such a motivation and has REPEATEDLY DOZENS OF TIMES arranged various 'happenstance' meetings to add yet more data to my puzzle piece collection.

HOWEVER, IT DO NOT encourage young or weak Christians to have any contact with the subject area. There are hazards aplenty.

My God is a big God. He is well able to be as He promised the authori and finisher of my faith and of me. He is my high tower. He is my all in all.

I do encourage people to avoid willingly getting on a UFO. I can conceive and may have read of some cases which seem to involve truly angelic beings. But most seem to involve angels of light preaching another satanic gospel.

[thoughtomator]

Mate, I am as big a sci-fi fan as anyone. But there is a huge difference between the kind of scientific imagination that leads to discovery, and a blind leap into any wonderful theory no matter how specious.

Just take a look at what you have done on this thread alone. You have taken a speck from a photograph that could be explained in many ways, and advanced an explanation that 1) is the most improbable of all explanations; and 2) is not supported by any evidence that does not also support much simpler explanations.

There's a heuristic called Occam's Razor, which states that given a multitude of explanations for any particular observation, the simplest one is most likely to be correct. And indeed, a logical mind must assume the simplest answer is correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary. You would do well to apply this method routinely.

So, here we have a number of possible explanations:

1) Speck of dust in the air
2) Data error or transmission error
3) Phobos, Deimos, or another trapped asteroid
4) Alien vehicle

Now you tell me, which of these theories is likely to make others suggest a change in your medication?

This and your end-times theory have a strong element in common: You have first chosen what you wish to believe, and then sought evidence to support it. This is the opposite of scientific inquiry, which observes evidence first, then seeks to assemble those observations into a coherent whole.

What we have here is a large-scope failure of inductive logic, because it is based on faulty and preconceived assumptions. The link below can provide you with a detailed analysis of the logical errors that are commonly made in inductive reasoning.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Inductivelogic.shtml

The truth of the matter is that deductively, there is nothing among your assertions that can even remotely be proven, or even escape the realm of infinitesimal probability.

[Quix]

Though Phobos seems to be hollow and may be an ET construct, neither moon fits the shape of a typical UFO nor this bit in this photo, IMHO.

[NeoCaveman]

You've seen a UFO, cool.

[Quix]

What an

ENORMOUSLY UNSCIENTIFIC PONTIFICATION.

You don't have a clue about the process of my arriving at which or how much of my assertions. Not a clue beyond what I've stated in this thread--which you seem to have little comprehension of

DUE TO YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS.

I have NOT said that much at all about this speck in this photo.

I HAVE used it as a spring board to talk about the broader issues involved from my parituclar biases, experience, observations, extensive study.

One would have thought that

SOMEONE SO GIFTED IN LOGICAL, CLEAR, SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION AND ANALSYSIS

would have picked the above up.

I guess your biases and emotions--or perhaps your medication got in the way.

[Quix]

The truth of the matter is that deductively, there is nothing among your assertions that can even remotely be proven, or even escape the realm of infinitesimal probability.

CLEARLY, YOUR

. . . collection of puzzle pieces is anemic to nonexistent. And, your perspective is also suspect. Alas, nothing will likely conince you of this.

It should be interesting when your construction on reality comes crashing down.

I wonder what explanation, construction, ?fantasy? you will cling to then.

The Lord has declared IN HIS WRITTEN WORD--and increasingly the last year or so . . .

ALL
THAT CAN BE
SHAKEN
WILL BE
SHAKEN
!!!!!!!

One had best hold tightly to THE ROCK well before then.

[thoughtomator]

Please do enlighten me. What exactly leads you to believe that a speck of precisely 7 pixels has a "saucer shape", that the single dark pixel on top of 2 rows of 3 dark pixels is a "proportioned bulge", and that such a "bulge" is "standard"? (And should we also conclude that the checkerboard-pixeled areas are force fields or the exhaust from this purported alien vehicle?)

To: thoughtomator
It is a bit interesting that 

YOUR dust mote 

has the right saucer shape with a standard proportioned bulge on top.

[Quix]

The number and arrangement of the pixels may be boggling your perceptive skills . . .

isn't mine.

Neither do I have a lot of investment in this particular photo or blip in it.

NEVERTHELESS, IT APPEARS TO ME to fit in it's fuzzy way a typical UFO shape with typical proportions between the upper bump and the lower saucer shape. Given that it's a fuzzy sillouette . . . God knows the reality. But I can talk about what it appears to me as much as I wish--whether it suits your sensibilities or not.

[Quix]

Most welcome.

Just the facts as I see em.

[Quix]

PING

[quantim]

I would doubt that, as I would think they wouldn't appear black in a daylight shot.

It depends.  There is no real atmosphere on Mars to speak of that would filter out colors.  Just as you can see the dark side of the moon here on Earth, so too on Mars.  My money is on Deimos as it is much farther away.

[ChefKeith]

Well IMO since the electronic fire control systems on Fighter's tend to suddenly "stop working" in close proximity of a UFO and the push for global gun control/ the push in the U.S. for "electronic guns" (for saftey of course) I kinda makes Me think they have been in power for a long time. The shooting of one "ET" at the Roswell crash proves to Me that they may be able to jam electronics but they can't stop a primer and hot lead projectiles.

(flame proof suit hanging nearby on a hook)

[TomB]

The mystery is solved thanks to a poster at BadAstronomy.com:

UFO on Mars

It is a bad pixel in the CCD. You can find it on other pictures taken by that camera.

Sorry, no UFO.

[Quix]

Actually,

there are reports of bullets hitting a force field and falling harmlessly to the ground when fired at ET's walking in the open.

Certainly the craft seem immune to various kinds of kinetic assaults.

However, supposedly in the last 10 or so years, we have developed the ability to shoot down some of the craft out in space.

Supposedly the Roswell crash was due to our growing RADAR capacities and the ET's not realizing they needed to adjust some things in their craft etc. to avoid the hazard our radars were becoming to them.

Then there's the contention that the UFO's essentially surf a gravity wave in an inherently less than stable manner. Therefore, in a variety of contexts, it can supposely get tricky for them. Others insist they have little problem now that they realize to a very thorough degree where our technological expertise level is--and make adjustments accordingly.

Some of the protectiveness appears to be through some sort of technological based mind control neutralizing efforts, intents to respond to them aggressively. Other protections are clearly their technology out stripping ours.