On gubmint suppression of high-res photos of the face in Mars, the unreliability of jpl.nasa.gov, and the insanity of trying to be rational in the face of the UFO question.
Saved from Mirabilis buffer.
--------------------------------------
ICQ Chat Save file
Started on Sun Jul 06 23:14:32 1997
--------------------------------------
<woodscrew> Having any luck with wwww.jpl.nasa.gov?
<snookums> With what?
<woodscrew> Live images from Pathfinder on the Net. Real time.
<woodscrew> But I can't get a response out of the site. They're being hammered.
<snookums> Minnie will definitley want to know about that.
<woodscrew> So have you been watching on TV?
<snookums> No, I really watch very little tv
<snookums> I'm grooving to William Orbit right now.
<snookums> Makes the best exercise music too.
<woodscrew> But aren't you excited about this thing? I'm going nuts over here.
<snookums> Oh you bet.
<snookums> I remember hearing about it a year ago.
<woodscrew> That little rover is like "That's my next car. Right there."
<snookums> I had forgoten until recently that it was landing on independence day
<snookums> Ha Ha!
<woodscrew> Yeah, it landed yesterday morning, and now the pictures are flowing. They've already determined that it landed in a dry lake bed.
<woodscrew> That means water.
<woodscrew> Water means life.
<snookums> Are they going to go check out the Face region or are they skirting the issue?
<woodscrew> Ha ha!
<woodscrew> Are you serious?
<snookums> About what?
<woodscrew> About "skirting the issue." Is there an issue?
<snookums> Yes, the face on mars.
<snookums> Nasa is trying to supress it
<woodscrew> But are there people who think of it as a face, rather than just some rocks?
<woodscrew> I mean like intentional?
<woodscrew> What do you mean suppress it?
<snookums> OH, of that I'm sure.
<snookums> Well, what's his name...
<snookums> Let me think...
<snookums> Richard Hoegland did some very good research and he isn't exactly a crackpot.
<woodscrew> Is he the big guy?
<snookums> He has some videos out where he analysizes the geometry involved.
<woodscrew> And decides that since it's improbable it must be intentional?
<snookums> There is more than just the face. There are several other monuments as well which are highly suspicious.
<woodscrew> Suspicious how?
<snookums> Their layout has a geometry that appears to be made by intelligent beings.
<snookums> One of the monuments is a five-sided pyramid.
<snookums> The sides appear to be too perfect to be accident.
<woodscrew> That's very interesting.
<snookums> Also, the geometry of the monuments of Mars appear to correlate with certain crop circles and monuments on Earth.
<woodscrew> Why would NASA suppress something like that?
<snookums> I'm not convinced that crop circles are anything other than human.
<woodscrew> (www.jpl.nasa.gov is back online)
<snookums> Well, because if it gave ividence that there was a previous civilization they would suppress if for the same reasons they supress other UFO-type info.
<woodscrew> You been watching way too much x-files, brother.
<snookums> I hat x-files.
<snookums> Too paranoid.
<snookums> I'm really very level headed about all this.
<woodscrew> C'mon. Suggesting that there's government suppression of evidence is absurd.
<snookums> The last time NASA sent a probe to Mars they were going to investigate the face region.
<woodscrew> It's SO much easier to believe that there are aliens than to believe that a government as large as ours would be capable of suppreessing something like that.
<snookums> They were going to get pictures that were 100 times greater resolution than what we have available from the 70's
<snookums> The pictures were going to be made public like everything else NASA has always done which is in keeping with their charter.
<woodscrew> That doesn't arouse suspicion for me. I'd be curious about that region too. If I landed there, that would be the first place I go.
<woodscrew> I take that back. Hold on.
<snookums> At the last minute they classified all the photos and instituted a 2 week wating period before all photos would be released.
<woodscrew> Then what?
<snookums> Well, NASA has never done anything like that before.
<snookums> It's irregular.
<snookums> And there is no reason for it.
<snookums> They gave no reason.
<woodscrew> But I mean after two weeks they released them, right?
<snookums> You mean you really think the government is upfront with us?
<woodscrew> About aliens? Yes.
<snookums> Well that gives them time to review them and doctor them.
<snookums> I'm not even sure aliens have ever visited this planet, but if they did I think the governement might very well suppress it.
<woodscrew> Or not so much upfront with us as they really don't have anything to hide, and they couldn't hide anything if they tried. Just too many people involved for there not to be leaks all over the place over the years.
<snookums> I do believe that the probability of there being other life in the universe is very very high.
<snookums> Sure, but they can still deny things.
<woodscrew> I'm firmly convinced. My doubt of alien life is about .05%
<snookums> You mean you think that we have been visited?
<woodscrew> But their denial wouldn't last. It would get out.
<woodscrew> I do think we have been visited?
<snookums> Yes or no.
<woodscrew> That was supposed to be a period.
<snookums> Really?
<woodscrew> Yes.
<woodscrew> It's inconceivable that we haven't been.
<snookums> Well, then why is the government still denying that?
<snookums> Hmm...that's interesting. How is it inconceivable?
<woodscrew> I don't think they have the evidence we think they do.
<snookums> So you mean they are just as in the dark as we are?
<woodscrew> Inconceivable in the scope of infinity and the infinity of curiosity.
<snookums> So you think they know as much as the public does?
<woodscrew> Yes exactly! They're just as in the dark as we are. They're curious, they're looking. But soon after they know something, we'll know it too. That secret won't keep for long.
<snookums> But really, they do deny some of the most credible stories even today.
<snookums> They deny deny deny all the time.
<snookums> They have never been known to acknowledge like I say even the most credible stories.
<woodscrew> Well, that's true. It seems that if they were looking as hard as they appear to be, they should know quite a lot. *IF* there's something to know.
<snookums> I myself have no pet theory. I just want to know the truth whatever it is.
<woodscrew> Do you have any shreds of truth?
<snookums> But much government behavior is very suspect to me.
<snookums> Truth about what?
<woodscrew> Do you feel like you have in your mind justified true belief of either a) alien contact or visitation, or b) methodical suppression of evidence by gubmint?
<snookums> I would be just as willing to accept the idea that there had never been any visitation as the theory that abductions are going on daily with 10% of the population.
<snookums> I spent months trying to get to the bottom of it.
<snookums> I finally realized that there was no way of knowing who to trust.
<woodscrew> And what about the suppression side?
<woodscrew> Would you say you're more convinced of the suppression of evidence than of visitation?
<snookums> There do seem to be some glaring inconsistencies in the official government line.
<snookums> On the one hand they deny that UFOs exist, but on the other they make all the relevant documents top secret.
<snookums> If you really want to know, the best source is the book ...
<snookums> forget the title.
<woodscrew> And there are inconsistencies in the public line as well.
<snookums> YES I agree!
<woodscrew> Is there an "official" government line, or just as many lines as there are talking heads?
<snookums> Very few people I know are objective enough to see this.
<snookums> Thank you for helping me to feel sane!
<snookums> Well, within the military there does seem to be a line.
<woodscrew> All of this is a dance with contradiction and paradox. The joy of pursuit is more joyful when you get to go around the tree a few times.
<snookums> Don't exist, but we won't tell you what we know.
<woodscrew> That sums it up very well.
<snookums> There is no security risk, but we investigat it in the manner of a top threat. Go figure.
<snookums> I believe they are hiding many things.
<snookums> The state of environmental degredation is being kept secret.
<woodscrew> Yeah, but we also investigate and plan for multiple futures where the earth has frozen, been burned up, all computer networks down, etc. Point being that I'm not surprised we're investigating and planning for it. Science Fiction maybe, but somebody's got to do it.
<snookums> You're right though. There are UFO and conspirecy buffs who really are not objective.
<woodscrew> e.g. "I WANT TO BELIEVE!!!"
<snookums> The most powerful people on the planet always cover their asses in lies.
<snookums> Yes, I want to believe.
<woodscrew> Then how can you be objective?
<snookums> Much of the myth is taken as forgon conclusion.
<snookums> ?
<snookums> I do my best. Do I seem unobjective somehow?
<woodscrew> How can you be objective but also want to believe, i.e. land on one side of the equation rather than the other.
<snookums> I don't want to believe anything. I just want to know the truth.
<woodscrew> No, you don't seem unobjective. But you said you want to believe, which seems contrary to scientific pursuit.
<snookums> My only conclusion is that the goverment behaves like an entity that is trying to hide something.
<woodscrew> You've done a lot of research there and I haven't.
<snookums> Oh , I was quoting the thoghts of others. Misunderstanding.
<woodscrew> Ah.
<snookums> Should have used " marks.
<snookums> No voice tone you know.
<woodscrew> (*(*$&*(&#@_$(*&#)*($UIHDKJCHO*&@_)#@$)_@(#_)@*$
<snookums> For me it's a balance.
<woodscrew> Between what and what?
<snookums> between determining the facts and being somewhat suspicious of what you are told
<woodscrew> Ah yes. Very Libra of us, huh?
<snookums> One must never make the mistake of assuming that "because the government said it it must be true.
<snookums> Nor the opposit.
<snookums> Everything the government says = a lie
<snookums> Neither is balanced.
<woodscrew> Right. But the doorway to paranoia is always open as well.
<snookums> Yes. You do have to keep that in mind.
<snookums> I know about that because for while I got that way.
<woodscrew> It becomes a dance with sanity at a point because you don't have enough consensus reality to go on.
<snookums> And then I snapped myself out of it.
<snookums> I know.
<woodscrew> Yikes. What period of your life would you say that was?
<snookums> That was what I found so maddening about trying to get to the bottom of the UFO question.
<snookums> What are you refering to ?
<snookums> You mean when I slipped into mild paranoia?
<woodscrew> Yes. What year was that and what were you reading at the time?
<snookums> Jaque Vallay (sp?) seems to be one of the most objective.
<snookums> And open minded.
<woodscrew> But the really crazy videos have a value all their own -- as objects of pleasure.
<snookums> In the UFO world it's almost a fogon conculsion that there are undergroudn bases everywhere....
<snookums> Vallay asks, wouldn;'t they give off enough heat to be seen from satalite?
<snookums> Many people claim the bases are as large as NYC
<woodscrew> Good point. And the response?
<snookums> The true believers find a way to rationalize.
<woodscrew> In the background I'm downloading a VRML viewer so I can look around mars.
<snookums> I do believe that NASA's behavior was suspect though.
<woodscrew> To rationalize: to justify one's dance with a lack of consens reality.
<woodscrew> In the mars case you described, yes.
<snookums> And there does seem to be some truth to the face on Mars theory despite the tabloids.
<woodscrew> I'd like to read more about that.
<snookums> Afterall, NASA is a civilian organization.
<snookums> It's charter requrires it to be very very open.
<snookums> In the case of the face on Mars it did not do that. There is NO reason to hold photos.
<woodscrew> NASA is civilian?
<snookums> YES!!!
<snookums> It contracts out to defense agencies. But it itself is civilian.
<snookums> It
<woodscrew> why are their servers at nasa.gov? You can't get a .gov address as a civ organization!
<snookums> It's charter is very specific about it being free and open etc.
<snookums> Well, it's supposed to be civilian i.e. non-defense. related.
<snookums> Military uses .mil
<snookums> try www.navy.mil
<snookums> it's not .gov to the best of my knowledge.
<snookums> Where do I go to get the VRML viewer. I lost my copy in the crash.
<woodscrew> Yes it is -- that's what I was talking about at the beginning of the message, and it's where I'm downloading mars images in the background from.
<woodscrew> I suggest WorldView from www.intervista.com
<snookums> I meant that the Navy is not .gov, it's .mil
<woodscrew> So?
<snookums> Well, civilian organizations get a .gov designation. NASA is still civilian even though it's got a .gov designation.
<woodscrew> But our tax dollars to there!
<woodscrew> (go there)
<snookums> You were saying something about not being able to use .gov
<snookums> Well, nonetheless there is not suppose to be anyting classified about the work of NASA.
<snookums> And then with the photos of the face which would end the contoversy, they never released them.
<woodscrew> Right. Agreed. Although they must certainly work closely with some top-secret gubmint projects. You know they are. Or do you?
<woodscrew> Do I?
<snookums> Officially they said they didn't take any after the seep had been planned for years.
<snookums> Yes, they contract out, but a pobe sent to photograph a planet does not fall into that catagory.
<woodscrew> Now what Mars mission was this? The current one is the first with a rover, right? How did they get over to the face rocks?
<snookums> probe.
<woodscrew> Lube first.
<snookums> The mission was the Clemantine mission in the late 80's I believe.
<snookums> It got photos many many many times greater resolution,.
<woodscrew> So they sent down a probe that landed or just came close and took a lot of pitchers?
<snookums> It would have ended much of the controversy.
<snookums> Just got very close. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word probe. It was a satalite.
<snookums> I can't get throug to intervista.
<snookums> Nor to NASA
<woodscrew> It seems like they got even more controversy by concealing the pictures. When asked point blank, what's their claim? What does NASA say? "We don't feel like releasing them?"\
<snookums> Have you gotten throuugh to NASA yet?
<woodscrew> NASA was down at the beginning of our chat, then came back up and I d/l'd two vrml worlds. Let me ping it. Hang on.
<snookums> I don't know about that. Richard Hogland would have that info somewher. His videos really are very good. He's arrogant, but his work is good.
<woodscrew> Nope. jpl.nasa.gov is down again.
