• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Mars Monolith Discovered ---Makes Yahoo Top Story

Forums New posts
Skymon876

Skymon876

Paranormal Adept
Yahoo is one of the most visited websites on the web and a story about Mars Monlith is a Top story featured in the very top section.


I find this story pretty interesting and the explanation by NASA very laughable. As you can see there is a rather large shadow that this object is creating. The thing I find curious is that this looks very simliar to the one on Phobos. I dont know if its the same object

'Monolith' Object on Mars? You Could Call It That - Yahoo! News
 
I hate to be the voice of reason here, but what they say is true. If the resolution is low, the outline will look to have sharper honed edges.

Look at it as a conversation. If there are just a few people describing an event it is less clear because you are getting a limited number of perspectives. As the resolution increases you start to get more pixels involved in the discussion. Each one defining the object to a greater detail. The higher the resolution the more detail and less ambiguity will color the results.
 
I suppose we just won't know because we don't know exactly what the object looks like in real life, we can only go with the resolution of the photo we are given.

Having said that, it really looks out of place and even if the resolution is very low, there undoubtedly is an object sticking out of the ground, where there are no others similar. It's not as stunning as the Phobos monolith but it is still worthy of consideration.

In fact, even forgetting the Cydonia region, Mars is absolutely choc full of anomalous geology etc and I would love to see more fly-by missions with increasing quality. Of course, the cynic in me thinks that would not matter as anything that indicates artificiality would be sat on with a big, fat ass.;)
 
When NASA finds that it's funding is really drying up it might start suggesting some of these anomalies are not "natural" formations. When funds were lagging before there was the, "Oh look, these Mars rocks found on Earth have what appears to be fossilized life forms." Or, the more recent, "There may be life forms on Mars but we may have accidently boiled them alive." The hint being, "We need funding to get back there and find out!'
 
Jabbermocky said:
When NASA finds that it's funding is really drying up it might start suggesting some of these anomalies are not "natural" formations. When funds were lagging before there was the, "Oh look, these Mars rocks found on Earth have what appears to be fossilized life forms." Or, the more recent, "There may be life forms on Mars but we may have accidently boiled them alive." The hint being, "We need funding to get back there and find out!'
Click to expand...

And there you have one of the major arguments against NASA hiding anything mysterious that they may have found to date. To get all money in the world simply find life or the hints of its remains somewhere. Every corporation in the world would throw money at them.
 
I sorta agree there Trained but because NASA seems not to be the publicly owned body it was designed to be and actually seems very military oriented, perhaps the possible reason for overall reticence regarding ET life and UFO's trumps any other concerns?
If the US military or government body does have guilty knowledge of ufo's or ET life visiting earth (big 'if' but run with it) and they are keeping it secret because knowledge of novel energy generation or whatever would upset the global monetary applecart - then I think many things will be 'trumped' by that over-riding concern.

I am often stumped as to why the US seems to be the most reluctant by far of any country regarding admitting the UFO phenomenon is real. The UK has never denied there are UFOs. They just slyly say that 'ufos present no threat to national security'. They never say 'ufos are all mis-identified explainable phenomena' or suchlike.
Either you can take Leslie Kean's take that the US' policy is just a relic and hangover from cold-war paranoia of the 1950's or my own take in that the US has some knowledge that may not be all-encompassing but more than what is public, and that knowledge could seriously damage powerful institutions where it hurts the most: in the pocket.

So my opinion is that for their chosen stance, the US has to take some hits, be it with running a sideshow for public consumption with NASA or not being able to use certain technologies yet publicly etc. I think the overall reason for UFO secrecy is of paramount importance to the people who have any guilty knowledge, even though various things have to suffer for it. Just my opinion of course as I have zero actual knowledge to back it up other than the sense I get from being interested in this field and seeing numerous documentaries and listening to hundreds of hours of radio such as the Paracast - added to that the books I read, and from all those sources, what I have said makes most sense to me. Of course, there is no actual reason why any of the truth to all this should be logical. The truth, as is often said, maybe far, far stranger than any of us can guess.

One last thought: When I hear that due to the Brookings' Report's findings, namely that evidence of ET life may cause societal breakdown etc and basically the public 'cannot handle the truth' - well that really get's me annoyed like nothing else. So what is so special about those few people who may know whatever is being withheld? Did they go mad and shoot their families? Did they stop turning up at work or withdraw all their savings to go on a mad spending spree? Probably not, so I don't see why the rest of us can't handle it.
If polls are to be believed as representative of what the US population think, then the majority of Americans do believe there is ET life and that the US govt. is withholding knowledge. If so many Americans already believe those things then I do not see what the big deal could be? :mad:(angry face for any government who thinks the people cannot handle 'the truth'.:mad: and another one!)
 
I sorta agree there Trained but because NASA seems not to be the publicly owned body it was designed to be and actually seems very military oriented, perhaps the possible reason for overall reticence regarding ET life and UFO's trumps any other concerns?
Click to expand...

That could certainly be true. Like Don Ecker has pointed out several times, the DOD and NASA have been joined at the hip since the get-go. Who actually knows how many DOD missions there have been? They paid to map the moon for a second time! You have to wonder, "How does the DOD utilize that data to perform it's mission?"

If the DOD is footing the bill through some black budgets and some of those missing trillions, then NASA doesn't need public appeals and congress. Yet, NASA seems to be dependent on foreign space agencies more than ever. It's hard to make all the pieces fit without forcing it a bit.
 
I take back what I said in this thread as it may be explainable as something natural like a rock or something.

I need more evidence to be sure its a real monolith etc
 
Precisely - it makes no sense to me that NASA gave up going to the moon as they seemed to be saying that both the public had lost their appetite for all things lunar (like they listen to public opinion) or that they had learned most or all of what they intended to learn with Apollo.

Now, the knowledge that there is a lot of mineral and rare metals wealth on the moon is not new and there has been talk about exploiting that for a long time. Surely the time to have been mapping the moon or taking steps to moon mining would have been straight after Apollo, keeping the momentum of technological know-how current etc? Starting these things again from fresh can only result in unnecessary duplication of effort and extra cost.
Also, there is no denying that in relative terms the US was in a far, far better financial state of affairs in the 60/70's. There is far less money available for moon missions now and certainly against a backdrop of the credit crunch and financial bale-outs, it must be jarring for the average American taxpayer to be paying for missions they don't even know the purpose for.

I am left wondering, as you are, what the impetus is now to pursue any lunar mission agenda, even if it is just surface mapping. The time to do that was during and pre-Apollo surely? You have to wonder is there a current motive driving regenerated interest in the Moon?
I've read that the reason may just be the fact that there are several other players on the scene now and if there are any secrets on the moon, that it is now a free-for-all, whereas in the past it was pretty much the domain of the US?

Also, we know that there have been many payloads carried by the shuttle for the DOD and those payloads were top secret, probably high-def spy satellites or Star-Wars type anti-missile defence stuff but I've often wondered about things such as the Hubble, in terms of spy satellites turned outward away from the Earth. What goes up in all those launches out of Vandenberg AFB? Having been in the military and having held an SCI clearance, I understand the need for military secrecy but at the same time, If I were an American taxpayer I wonder how much patience I would have for untold billions in the black budget, especially when the average citizen is struggling far more financially than his counterpart back in the 1960's?
 
This topic is just fine where it is.

A couple of things ... first .. back in about 1992 or there-abouts, I received a phone call from Dick Hoagland (this was prior to his going completely off the rails) asking me for some help for him and Prof. Stan McDaniel. This was prior to the "Mars Observer" being launched in the next year. The flavor of the day was trying to get NASA to place camera's on the MO to re-photograph the "FACE" on Mars. Believe it or not ... hell I sound like Ripley's, NASA was not going to put camera's on the MO, had no plans to re-photograph Cydonia, as a matter of fact wanted no mention of anything to do with the question of The Face. (Well, no surprise there.) What Hoagland did want was my help in finding a document prepared for NASA (way back when it was new) concerned with questions of outer-space missions, life, etc. I put my detective hat on and located the Brookings report for them. Reading it was interesting because in the report they thought that by about 1982 or so we (NASA etc.) would have proof that ET was "out there" because we would either have met him .. or them .. or it .. or whatever .. or we would find artifacts on either the Moon, Mars or ... out there. They gave it about 20 years. Okay the report came out about 61-62 so that puts it in the early 80's. Now here was the question that Brookings asked. When we discover ET just what do we do with the information? Do we release it or do we keep it covert? Cause if we release it, this information will have adverse effects primarily on two groups of humans. Scientists and Engineers is one group and the other group is Religious fundamentalists. The Scientists and Engineers would be devastated when they realize how "backward" we are and the Fundamentalis would be, according to the "brains" at Brookings, "GALVANIZED". So, what did they decide? I think we all know.

Now, on to NASA and the Moon. This weekend, especially here in the U.S., we are do for a "Super-Moon."
May's full moon coincides with perigee this Saturday – USATODAY.com
And, this weekend, an essay I just wrote titled "The Time to Ask Again; Is Somebody Else On the Moon?" will be published on Gary Bekkum's site Starpod.org. For your information.

STARpod.org | STARstream Research | Spacetime Threat Assessment Reports

Decker
 
trainedobserver said:
This blurry photo proves my theory that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick were alien hybrid cyborgs and that 2001 20XX A Space Odyssey is a prophetic vision of the future. Everyone should send me $5.
Click to expand...
My check's in the mail--and could I get my secret decoder ring, too?
 
Ron Collins said:
I hate to be the voice of reason here, but what they say is true. If the resolution is low, the outline will look to have sharper honed edges.

Look at it as a conversation. If there are just a few people describing an event it is less clear because you are getting a limited number of perspectives. As the resolution increases you start to get more pixels involved in the discussion. Each one defining the object to a greater detail. The higher the resolution the more detail and less ambiguity will color the results.
Click to expand...

Good analogy for us technically less sophisticated, Ron. What still doesn't compute when I apply that consideration while studying the image is: why, if the pixelation could be producing a rectangularish artifact, why isn't that artifactual limitation causing the smaller objects in the image to appear 'squarish'? Please excuse the clumsiness of my wording, Ron . My background is in film and analogue video. The artifact are different. As an example of distortion, I have seen video footage shot at night of supposed ufo's, shaped like a disc with a notch in it. Any cameraman should be able to identify this particular 'craft'- it is created by going full zoom in and fully out of focus. This results in the light taking the shape of the registration plate iris inside the camera-which is a disc shape with a notch in it. That so many shots of this particular 'ufo' are still featured in ufo tv documentaries always makes me chuckle.
 
Some people are saying this is a large boulder that fell off a near cliff. The location of this object is at the bottom of a revine. note my spelling sucks. If I have time I will post into this forum what those people were saying.
 
Back
Top