If the following martian anomaly was NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ARTIFICIAL, why was it airbrushed out?
Topic: Nasa research civilization
June 17, 2019 / By Barrie Question:
the following links show what I believe to be (NOT A CITY) but a dam, that was constructed by a civilization in need of water in the interior of the planet. if this feature (staple shaped at the edge of the ice cap) is merely natural, then why was it tampered with, as to make it look like alluvial flow? i added pics (links) to support this.
the following links reveal an attempt to touch up the staple shaped anomaly on the south pole of Mars:
note: the circled area refers to a square feature in a dry lake bed. the area in question is the staple shaped "smear" next to it.
Best Answers: If the following martian anomaly was NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ARTIFICIAL, why was it airbrushed out?
Yvette | 9 days ago
I don't know ,, and I thank you.
There must have had been something big , to have reverted more than 80% of the "space race" budget in the 1980's with the then Soviet Russia ,, back to Mars.
The space race with Russia , suddenly stopped in the late 1980's ,, and nobody really knows the real reason !!
I am still wondering.
👍 226 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? If the following martian anomaly was NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ARTIFICIAL, why was it airbrushed out?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Nasa research civilization
Originally Answered: Before we significantly increase the number of nuclear power plants shouldn't we solve the following?
Britain is considering a plan to build a fuel processing plant to convert nuclear waste into fuel.
"We can bury our reactor waste or we can treat it and then use it as free fuel for life. It's a no-brainer." - Sir David King, Chief Science Adviser
"To produce fuel, Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant will extract plutonium and uranium from the nuclear waste and convert it into an intermediate form, known as "mox," or mixed oxide fuel. The mox would then be processed in a separate plant to yield the necessary fuel rods and pellets; these would then be burned in what are known as fast breeder reactors to produce usable energy."
I can't get to the last 3 links you posted - something about having to be a member of a group.
I don't see any staple-shaped object in the first 3 images.
If there was a civilization on Mars, then there would be lots and lots of animals and vegitation on Mars. There isn't any evidence of any macroscopic life on Mars at all. There are no martians.
👍 90 | 👎 1
If I were NASA and airbrushed out anything which might appear to the public to be constructed by alien beings then it'd be so people don't jump to conclusions and panic.
If I were NASA and I made photos of Mars redder than they really were, it'd be because I'd be worried that if Mars didn't look red enough, people would think sending a probe there was a hoax.
👍 82 | 👎 -7
Beautiful and typical pictures from Mars. We can't see the links on the yahoo group without joining it.
You should probably stop listening to Richard Hoagland. Check out www.badastronomy.com to see his 'theories' debunked. He's just flat out wrong.
👍 74 | 👎 -15
i do no longer be responsive to if i've got ever heard "Ghost Riders interior the Sky" or no longer, yet this infant easily has a rhythm. That final stanza ought to be the refrain. extraordinary undertaking is: no depend who you're, or once you are going to study this, it ought to so particularly be genuine (sometime) that it fairly works. i'm already enjoying acoustic bass to it. un-under pressure|un-under pressure|under pressure-un|un... up-right here|on-MARS|WE-have|a-existence the-EN|vey-OF|the-EARTH
👍 66 | 👎 -23
Why do conspiracy theorists always try to make naturally occurring shapes and objects into something they aren't???
👍 58 | 👎 -31
Originally Answered: Could God ever be an artificial God?
The question presumes the existence of a god, and that the universe is eternal.
As you posted this in a science section, I must reply that your presumptions are not supported by evidence; both presumptions are speculation.
It is not reasonable that anything and everything will eventually be accomplished, as that would be an infinity of contradictory outcomes.
For example, I may toss a coin tomorrow. Our understanding of the universe tells us that there will be only one outcome from two possibilities. Your statement that everything will be accomplished would mean that both outcomes would result; clearly this is invalid, assuming there is one universe. Not everything can be accomplished.
There is one interpretation of quantum physics called the 'many worlds' hypothesis that states that every such event results in both outcomes, each in a separate universe. However, this is similarly unsupported by evidence - more speculation.
Another way of looking at it is a competition between two people, say a chess game. Each regards their own win as an accomplishment. Only one can win. One person winning means the other person's loss. the whole concept of 'accomplishment' is relative, and is an opinion, not an intrinsic property. If you were to ask each player after the match if there was an accomplishment, you will get two different answers, and each will be correct within their frame of reference.
Similarly 'perfection' is relative. One person's 'perfect' objective will not be so to another. Perfection is not an intrinsic property, it is a value judgement that humans use to describe things. We can talk about a 'perfect' circle to distinguish it from one that is a bit mis-shaped. In any objective sense, they are just two shapes, and there is no intrinsic perfection of any kind. I may describe my chess game as perfect, though another may judge it as abysmal. It's an opinion only. Without humans there would be no such concept as perfection.
The intrinsic properties of the universe do not depend on humans. If we were to become extinct tomorrow, it would have no bearing on the rest of the universe. Stars would still shine, galaxies would still rotate, the universe would still expand. We wouldn't be here to see it, or judge its perfection. There would be nothing intrinsically perfect or imperfect about it.
Thus no god, no completeness of all accomplishments, and no perfection.