Why is there a squirrel on Mars?

Quote from: RyanTG on June 01, 2013, 01:41:50 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2013, 04:07:00 PM

It is not a sound argument.  It is indeed the very definition of talking out of both sides of your mouth.  REers, take heed.  This is what a circular argument looks like.

It isn't circular reasoning, it is a completely accurate, subjective explanation that summarises this conspiracy. With a tint of satire.

NASA can trick the world into believe X or Y, yet cannot even build a proper set without introducing errors.

Tell me where in there I am going wrong, I've seen this exact line of reasoning used by the likes of Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens etc.

We're told NASA couldn't possibly build such a massive conspiracy without showing cracks.  We show cracks.  We are told that such a powerful and clever organization would never show cracks.  That is the RE argument against the Conspiracy boiled down to its basics.  If you can't see how silly (and, indeed, circular) it is I really don't know how I can help you understand better.

What cracks do you show? How did you determine the size of the "unidentified object" to be that of a squirrel? How can you be so certain that what looks like a squirrel is actually a squirrel?

You don't show any crack, just something that looks like a squirrel, but we have seen this in nature before.

Quote from: RyanTG on June 01, 2013, 01:41:50 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2013, 04:07:00 PM

It is not a sound argument.  It is indeed the very definition of talking out of both sides of your mouth.  REers, take heed.  This is what a circular argument looks like.

It isn't circular reasoning, it is a completely accurate, subjective explanation that summarises this conspiracy. With a tint of satire.

NASA can trick the world into believe X or Y, yet cannot even build a proper set without introducing errors.

Tell me where in there I am going wrong, I've seen this exact line of reasoning used by the likes of Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens etc.

We're told NASA couldn't possibly build such a massive conspiracy without showing cracks.  We show cracks.  We are told that such a powerful and clever organization would never show cracks.  That is the RE argument against the Conspiracy boiled down to its basics.  If you can't see how silly (and, indeed, circular) it is I really don't know how I can help you understand better.

You should consult a qualified and trusted scientist or lawyer even, about what you consider conclusive proof and see if they think you have a leg to stand on.  Someone who does hold conspiracy beliefs, but also has no particular stake in NASA being true.  Because from where I am sitting, the best I have ever seen is inconclusive.  Some photos (wait, you guys don't use those) could be evidence of a conspiracy, but there is also other rational explanations.  To be completely fair I don't give primacy to one over the other, but nothing really yells "NASA are a bunch of liars!".  It does yell, "Most of the people on this site, including myself, are laypeople at the end of the day and unqualified to do more than debate on a stupid forum (here)"

I think the RE argument against the Conspiracy is more of "you can't keep that many people quite for so long" and "if they are in the business of faking, they aren't going to let simple mistakes like that through".  Those are two completely separate areas of evidence.

We're told NASA couldn't possibly build such a massive conspiracy without showing cracks.  We show cracks.  We are told that such a powerful and clever organization would never show cracks.  That is the RE argument against the Conspiracy boiled down to its basics.  If you can't see how silly (and, indeed, circular) it is I really don't know how I can help you understand better.

No, your initial premise is wrong is not what I said.

I said that YOU and others must believe NASA is capable of deceiving the entire planet of the existence of satellites. Something as lucrative, extreme and involving so many people across a multitude of countries is just asking for errors. Yet where are the people speaking out about this? Why do the numbers in costs add up just find? Why aren't those who analyse and research space telescope images for a living noticing anything wrong?


NASA is able to keep quiet what seems to be tens of thousands of people, they are able to orchestrate and execute this perfectly fine.

Yet in yours and others eyes, they leave squirrels in their mars sets, they make imprints in the moon dust with normal trainers, they can't even align shadows correctly on their moon sets. NASA are idiots and they are also masterminds this world has never seen. This is like a plot to a bloody movie.

This is not a circular argument, it isn't even an argument anyways, let alone a tautology. It is a description of what you must be believing in.

apparently NASA is on rock carvings on Earth as well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=face+in+rock+formations&client=firefox-a&hs=QyS&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=IzKrUeuQCoTWyQG-94HADA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1335&bih=563

apparently NASA is on rock carvings on Earth as well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=face+in+rock+formations&client=firefox-a&hs=QyS&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=IzKrUeuQCoTWyQG-94HADA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1335&bih=563

None of that looks real, as this squirrel looks. Let me know when you find a photo-realistic face in nature.

None of that looks real, as this squirrel looks. Let me know when you find a photo-realistic face in nature.

I see Jesus in mah toast.

I see vague blobs which in no way approaches a realistic face. The rodent in the Curiosity mars image actually looks like a rodent.

I see vague blobs which in no way approaches a realistic face. The rodent in the Curiosity mars image actually looks like a rodent.

With legs sticking out of its head? How you determine the size of the rock to be that of a rodent?

This rock actually looks like a ....

None of that looks real, as this squirrel looks. Let me know when you find a photo-realistic face in nature.

Not that a squirrel is remotely the same case as a photo realistic face, but from this very thread...

If I showed this to 99.9% of the worlds population, they would not say it's a rock outside of it's cage.

Excellent work brother Scepi.

I see vague blobs which in no way approaches a realistic face. The rodent in the Curiosity mars image actually looks like a rodent.

real is what you want to believe.
you hate NASA, (even though you cant define what NASA is ) so there is no convincing you. 

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 01, 2013, 01:12:57 PM

Quote from: RyanTG on June 01, 2013, 01:41:50 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2013, 04:07:00 PM

It is not a sound argument.  It is indeed the very definition of talking out of both sides of your mouth.  REers, take heed.  This is what a circular argument looks like.

It isn't circular reasoning, it is a completely accurate, subjective explanation that summarises this conspiracy. With a tint of satire.

NASA can trick the world into believe X or Y, yet cannot even build a proper set without introducing errors.

Tell me where in there I am going wrong, I've seen this exact line of reasoning used by the likes of Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens etc.

We're told NASA couldn't possibly build such a massive conspiracy without showing cracks.  We show cracks.  We are told that such a powerful and clever organization would never show cracks.  That is the RE argument against the Conspiracy boiled down to its basics.  If you can't see how silly (and, indeed, circular) it is I really don't know how I can help you understand better.

What cracks do you show? How did you determine the size of the "unidentified object" to be that of a squirrel? How can you be so certain that what looks like a squirrel is actually a squirrel?

You don't show any crack, just something that looks like a squirrel, but we have seen this in nature before.

That doesn't look like a photo-realistic penis.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rocks+that+look+like+animals&client=firefox-a&hs=1ke&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=E-OrUa_7MqOEygHA9oCYAg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1279&bih=536

None of those look realistic at all.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://asset2.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2008/123marsmanclose550x404.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cnet.com/2300-11397_3-6227262.html&h=404&w=550&sz=62&tbnid=pnZAfrC6h5bQJM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=129&zoom=1&usg=__R0xfRnFa3MAeii_KxbxEfofZ4lI=&docid=HKwLTNoZgtxOJM&sa=X&ei=Ge2rUdqFKqK_yQHRhoGoAw&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAA&dur=299

apparently Mars is full of lifeforms

Who took the picture!!

How did they not notice a squirrel in the shot? It would have been running around.

Who took the picture!!

How did they not notice a squirrel in the shot? It would have been running around.

There are people who scrutinize every square inch of NASA photos and footage. They say NASA has a computer program scanning and scrubbing the photos, every once in a while the program misses something. A good website for seeing those things was recently sanitized of damaging anomolies.

I see vague blobs which in no way approaches a realistic face. The rodent in the Curiosity mars image actually looks like a rodent.

I'm sorry - was the photo I posted up not clear enough?



I really thought there would have been a few comments on this one, but I guess that was naive of me.  If that rock is a hamster then that is definitely the head of a small man peaking over the wall.  It's ten times clearer than the image of the hamster-looking rock you posted.  A look at the back of the squirrel/hamster immediately betrays it as a rock.  The face in the above picture is much more convincing, yet I know it's not really a face. 

I see vague blobs which in no way approaches a realistic face. The rodent in the Curiosity mars image actually looks like a rodent.

None of that looks real, as this squirrel looks. Let me know when you find a photo-realistic face in nature.

I'm sorry - was the photo I posted up not clear enough?



I really thought there would have been a few comments on this one, but I guess that was naive of me.  If that rock is a hamster then that is definitely the head of a small man peaking over the wall.  It's ten times clearer than the image of the hamster-looking rock you posted.  A look at the back of the squirrel/hamster immediately betrays it as a rock.  The face in the above picture is much more convincing, yet I know it's not really a face. 

Tom especially just ignores information that contravenes his discourse.

Tom Bishop ignores certain things because they are a simple side step to what he's showing...which is...a rodent of some description on what we are told is "mars"...

Most of you who are saying it's not a rodent are simply saying it ...not because you see it as a rock...it's because you somehow would rather defend what should be the a clear scam..but there you go. I'm sure Tom knows what and who he's up against, which are deniers of the truth.

If you think that is conclusively a rodent then I have a nice house to sell you in Washington. Just had a fresh coat of white paint put on it.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 03, 2013, 05:29:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 05:24:54 AM

Tom Bishop ignores certain things because they are a simple side step to what he's showing...which is...a rodent of some description on what we are told is "mars"...

Most of you who are saying it's not a rodent are simply saying it ...not because you see it as a rock...it's because you somehow would rather defend what should be the a clear scam..but there you go. I'm sure Tom knows what and who he's up against, which are deniers of the truth.

If you think that is conclusively a rodent then I have a nice house to sell you in Washington. Just had a fresh coat of white paint put on it.

Can I see a picture of it please, before I buy it.

Be careful, you might end up buying a house-shaped rock.

Tom Bishop ignores certain things because they are a simple side step to what he's showing...which is...a rodent of some description on what we are told is "mars"...

Most of you who are saying it's not a rodent are simply saying it ...not because you see it as a rock...it's because you somehow would rather defend what should be the a clear scam..but there you go. I'm sure Tom knows what and who he's up against, which are deniers of the truth.

The only thing Bishop has to show us is a photo. As we know (you relentlessly tell us):
- Photos cannot be trusted
And:
- Coincidences do exist. So what?

Ok, look, guys.

The image looks somewhat like a rodent, so it could be an actual rodent, or just a rock shaped like one, with light falling on it giving this impression. Both of these are possibilities when looking at the photo.

But since the photo was taken on Mars, I'm guessing it's not an actual rodent. It could still be, and in that case, joy to the world, we have first contact with an alien race.

I've never seen a rock naturally form into a realistic shape of an animal.

The rock is most likely not in a realistic shape of a rodent, it's just the angle and lighting conditions creating the coincidence. If it's a rock, it wouldn't look at all akin to a rodent from any different angle or at some other time.

Ok, look, guys.

The image looks somewhat like a rodent, so it could be an actual rodent, or just a rock shaped like one, with light falling on it giving this impression. Both of these are possibilities when looking at the photo.

But since the photo was taken on Mars, I'm guessing it's not an actual rodent. It could still be, and in that case, joy to the world, we have first contact with an alien race.

Well, they are trying to argue that it just proves that the photo was really taken on Earth. At least I think that's what Tom's trying to say. What is the FE perspective on Martian fauna, anyway? Maybe that's better left for a separate topic.

However, although you could say that these are all possibilities:

1) Martian rock that happens to superficially resemble a squirrel when viewed from a certain angle under certain lighting conditions

2) Actual Martian squirrel

3) Earth squirrel photobombing a NASA conspiracy photo taken out in a desert somewhere

I think you can see that the 3 don't necessarily have equal probability.

For #1, pareidolia is a well known psychological phenomenon that probably everyone here has experienced. The photo is a perfect place to experience this, due to the multitude of little shapes in it. So it seems extremely likely that you could see something like a little rodent, which are already evolved to blend in to their surroundings.

#2, well if you believe that we have been to Mars, and you look at the experiments and data collected over the last 30 years or so of Martian probes, rovers, flybys and satellites, it seems unlikely that we'd have missed an example of Martina fauna of this size. Right now it's hard to tell if there were ever even microbes, although the evidence seems to show that it was at least possible at some time in the past.

#3, the vast conspiracy at least to me is way too far fetched to be real. I'd have to seriously doubt my own mind and observations of the world to accept it, so it would be very un-Zetetic of me to give this one more than a slight chance. Also, if you think this is an Earth squirrel, I would like to see somebody identify its species. Although squirrel-like it looks odd to me, I have never seen any squirrel just like it.

Quote from: Fizzy Logic on June 03, 2013, 08:49:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 05:24:54 AM

Tom Bishop ignores certain things because they are a simple side step to what he's showing...which is...a rodent of some description on what we are told is "mars"...

Most of you who are saying it's not a rodent are simply saying it ...not because you see it as a rock...it's because you somehow would rather defend what should be the a clear scam..but there you go. I'm sure Tom knows what and who he's up against, which are deniers of the truth.

The only thing Bishop has to show us is a photo. As we know (you relentlessly tell us):
- Photos cannot be trusted
And:
- Coincidences do exist. So what?

Correct, photo's can't be trusted...but only when N.A.S.A put them out and purport them to be real photos from distant planets as they tell us.
The problem here though, is...this is a genuine photo but the description is anything but genuine, as in, being from mars.
See what I mean?

So the little rodent we see in the rocks, is real, just not on mars but in the desert somewhere.

So what kind of squirrel or rodent is it exactly? It doesn't look like any I have seen. Maybe it's a new species? Identifying it precisely might actually give more credibility to the conspiracy theory. Wow, I just typed that.

So what kind of squirrel or rodent is it exactly? It doesn't look like any I have seen. Maybe it's a new species? Identifying it precisely might actually give more credibility to the conspiracy theory. Wow, I just typed that.

It's actually very weird for any rodent. The forelimb (the only one "visible") is way too small in proportion with its "head" and rest of "body". It would have a hard time dragging itself around with such wimpy feet. This is one of the pointers that it isn't actually an animal, just an inert object resembling one.

Quote from: Fizzy Logic on June 03, 2013, 08:49:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 05:24:54 AM

Tom Bishop ignores certain things because they are a simple side step to what he's showing...which is...a rodent of some description on what we are told is "mars"...

Most of you who are saying it's not a rodent are simply saying it ...not because you see it as a rock...it's because you somehow would rather defend what should be the a clear scam..but there you go. I'm sure Tom knows what and who he's up against, which are deniers of the truth.

.

The only thing Bishop has to show us is a photo. As we know (you relentlessly tell us):
- Photos cannot be trusted
And:
- Coincidences do exist. So what?

Correct, photo's can't be trusted...but only when N.A.S.A put them out and purport them to be real photos from distant planets as they tell us.
The problem here though, is...this is a genuine photo but the description is anything but genuine, as in, being from mars.
See what I mean?

So the little rodent we see in the rocks, is real, just not on mars but in the desert somewhere.

You're jumping to the conclusion. It still can be a coincidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 02, 2013, 11:32:04 AM

I see vague blobs which in no way approaches a realistic face. The rodent in the Curiosity mars image actually looks like a rodent.

I'm sorry - was the photo I posted up not clear enough?

http://scienceofghosts.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/wallghost2.jpg

I really thought there would have been a few comments on this one, but I guess that was naive of me.  If that rock is a hamster then that is definitely the head of a small man peaking over the wall.  It's ten times clearer than the image of the hamster-looking rock you posted.  A look at the back of the squirrel/hamster immediately betrays it as a rock.  The face in the above picture is much more convincing, yet I know it's not really a face.

The face in that picture is not realistic. It's half missing.

Also, your image is hosted on a website called "http://scienceofghosts.files.wordpress.com" My image is hosted on a website called "nasa.gov"