• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation vs. Evolution

Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
LOL, you'd think aliens would be a little more artistic. That THING is TERRIBLY ASYMETRICAL!!! *cries* (I'm a perfectionist, can you tell?)
 
I

inca

Active Member
Well, I can show many similar things on Earth but I suppose these couple of experts wouldn't tell the difference between something natural and something artificial, or how to check that with scientific procedures, like MOLA, infrared or thermographic cameras or elevating the image to 3D, etc, etc. When Q or Painted Wolf say something, well is one thing, but if geologist (besides Hoagland winner of medal of Excellence on Science who predicted with a decade anticipation the images would show exactly what they showed) find dozens of annomalies in specific frame shown by Nasa, I let the reader decide whom to trust. And in fact, I didn't just quote Hoagland site but other scientists. You could well overlook the evidence or not, it's your business. I have the benefit of reading both Hoagland and Nasa or Pathfinder information. Hence I can and will decide, but YOU????????? ha-ha-ha-ha!
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
yes... its true some 'experts' cant tell the difference between natural and artificial objects... like Hoagland... its a good thing that real scientists used more than sketchy 70's photos to make thier cases... and then cry foul when better pictures turn up...

wich still doesn't explain if it were true why would NASA cover it up?... it could make them millions..

wa:-do
 
I

inca

Active Member
You see what happens when evolutionists keep on masturbating with homind tools? Semen affects completely their empty brains and they are uncapable to "see" artifacts as they could clearly see on Earth???
www.enterprisemission.com/spirit2.htm
No need to read Hoagland, just look at the "stones". HA-HA-HA! These are real photographs, even Nasa admits it but doesn't reveal to the public worldwide by CNN as they did with the "eroded" mountain all at the same time all over the world since they have the devices (how oportunistic from a government agency, right???).
Now, if a moron Q'rius or Painted Wolfy say something is as irrelevant if I say it. But if someone like Dr. Gil Leven, CHIEF PROJECT SCIENTIST ON THE VIKING LABELED RELEASE EXPERIENCE admits the "bullet-proof evidence about life on Mars was denied for long time" NOW, THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE CONCERNED! Dr. Tom Van Flandern believes the same:
www.metaresearch.org/home/ViewPoint/archive/010313GlassyTubes/Meta-in-news010313.asp
www.enterprisemission.com/article/03-08-2004/crinoid_cover-up.htm
Please, continue with your posts. I really LOVE IT. Keep 'em coming....
 
I

inca

Active Member
Hoagland IS a scientist and since the photographs come from Nasa they indeed check them up and he's not the only one and in fact they have many photographs available. So, there's no point in writing he is an "expert" between inverted commas trying to diminush him. The only incompetent and ignorant here is you. Hoagland is the one who together with Sagan gave the idea to sent Pioneer 10 and was the one who predicted the existence of water in Jupiter's moon and other things with decades of anticipation. You know nothing.
The question of why Nasa doesn't reveal the issue is ANOTHER ISSUE, moron! Open another thread and perhaps someone will be interested in wasting additional tme to take you out of ignorance misery.
 
I

inca

Active Member
Hey Mr Q, if you were honest with yourself, you could let the readers see the photographs from the links I set for them to check again..... yet your mind can't do post those images here. Is following orders from your heart, right?
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
whats realy intresting is that you have to resort to calling us morons and other such silly insults...
are you that insicure?
or do just not know how to play nice?

the viking pictures are grainy and taken with a poor camera...
here is the origional unprocessed picture:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/f035a72_raw.jpg
here it is processed:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/f035a72_processed.jpg
here is the new pictures again:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm
and some more:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mgs_cydonia.html

wa:-do
 
I

inca

Active Member
Mr. you need to READ your own postings! Haven't you read the new photos were taken by Mars Global Surveyor and not only by Viking. Even the ones that you show me indicate different perspective of the face. There were at least 11 photos available. I already posted this, if you wanna ignore the scientific evidence you're in your right as anybody else. But I will still trust in the evidence of science that the eroded mountain is artificial "face" and the other stuff that I posted.
 
I

inca

Active Member
As you can see, people from different science fields do have examine Mars surface, even the time when shadows appear, they have analyzed the image in 3D in every possible angle of shadow and light as it happens with the "erosion" of some places on Earth in a sort of "statue" conception to hide the things for the most people and to make evident some things in the proper time like equinoxes, solstices, eclipses and so on. That place mentioned in the site, Marcahuasi, I know myself and I went with the son of the archeologist and anthropologist man mentioned there, Daniel Ruzo. That has been studied by cryptoarcheologist and they are aware the "face" rock gets old during the day when the Sun "changes" position until sunset, etc. So, it's up to everyone to disregard the idea but even prior to that, you have to examine all the details, many of which people just never read before. Therefore I encourage you to do so, specially if you have Cherokee heritage cos probably the indians in your country did something similar. In Peru, for example, there are shadows of the cougar being ONE with the Inka in specific time of the year in certain mountain and all the legends wrote about that. And in fact the legends mention some creatures were coming or entering the caves or rocks or were converted into rocks. We're messing around with something opposite than Carl Sagan's thought. He expected alien outside, but the hyperdimensional beings are next to us but invisible. Not humanoids into our own image and yet pretty much like religions told us. This is something new. It's not like Däniken or J.J.Benitez thought. I even wrote to Zecharia Sitchin (he responded me 3 letters by his own hand cos he doesn't use computers nor e-mail) in spite of some of his ideas are right, others are wrong regarding this very aspect of humanoids or hyperdimensional entities.
 
I

inca

Active Member
The ancient people used the same technique. Before I mentioned a site talking about egyptologist Anthony West giving the idea the sphinx represents a mixture of Australopithecus and Neanderthal. Not only geologist Schoch believes the sphinx was built prior to what egyptologists think but other geologists agreed with him but this is still controversial. I sent e-mails and personal letters to Anthony West about the place Marcahuasi in Peru and he said to me he was aware of that place too. I sent him color xerox images of my visit there in that plateau 4000 meters upon sea level. It's not erosion as I said, everything was done purposely and it has been investigated. I even sent him other details about Machu Picchu that people don't usually know. I've been there a couple of times as I was in Egypt too. The whole Cuzco city had the shape of the cougar and represented it, this is something already known by orthodox science. What people usually don't know is Huayna Picchu mountain as seen from Machu Picchu mountain represents too the cougar, the crocodile and the condor (all of them "gods") with spread wings next to the cougar.
www.infoperu.com/peru/eng/cusco/machu4.html
www.infoperu.com/peru/eng/cusco/machu5.html
www.infoperu.com/peru/fr/cusco/machu4.html
www.infoperu.com/peru/fr/cusco/machu5.html
www.aamefe.org.ar/puma/puma.htm
 
I

inca

Active Member
Do you remember the film Space Odysee 2001. Arthur Clark was someone who was in contact with Carl Sagan and he knew many things the public probably ignores. It seems the story of our human existence in this planet is not like in the film Mission Mars but more like an hybrid between Space Odysee 2001 and Planet of the Apes plus Mission Mars if you put the pieces together. In the Popul Vuh of the Mayas it also said some men were converted into apes and vice versa. The same is truth about the interpretation we can give to Sumerian account.No evolution no direct creation from God. Genetic engineering done by some entities into some apes. That was the process to "make" or "form" them into the image of the gods. Before that the Adamus were not "humanoids" or intelligent like the gods. They had the same animal degree of intelligence, nothing more. It was needed the intelligence or cogniscitive aspect more astonishing as Carl Sagan described in his "The Dragons of Eden". He didn't have the knowledge his friend Hoagland and other people have now about Mars and planet Earth. O rmaybe he had it and that explained his dubious attitude, one way in public but as an individual always sponsoring and pushing the investigation of alien life on Mars and other parts of our neighborhood.
 
Q

(Q)

Active Member
inca

I didn't just quote Hoagland site but other scientists

Hoagland is a serious nutcase, crank, kook and is the furthest thing from being a scientist.

Dr. Tom Van Flandern believes the same

Oh yes, we mustn’t forget this idiot. He and Hoagland have done more to damage the reputation of science than anyone. These two have been refuted time and again yet they continue to be a scourge of the scientific community.

If you actually believe these guys, then you are as nutty as they.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
sorry, I dont base my world-view on movies...
as for Clark... he's a big force in debunking the paranormal... "Arthur C Clarks mysterious world" and "world of strange powers" were a great shows... He was especally amused by the 'UFO culture' ...

As for the Mayas... they belived that theire were four previous races... monkies, Iguanas, and two that were totaly wiped out. They also think that we are due to be wiped out soon...

of cource they also belived that if you didn't offer up human blood to the gods that the sun wouldn't rise...

wa:-do
 
I

inca

Active Member
Q: accusations have to be proved. If I say Hawkins made an idiotic commentary (which is not the same as saying he's an idiot), I backed up what I said using the same math probabilities and his opposition regarding Thorne's hypothesis to stablish his own particular taste. So, it doesn't surprise me that you say you hate the scientists or specialists and consider everything they write is 100 inaccurate. If I say the same regarding any scientists I would be an idiot. ...like you are.
Painted Wolf:I don't base my views on films, if you can't understand the difference between an EXAMPLE of what I'm trying to post...you're mistake. Yet, you got a good point in saying Mayas gods demanded blood. I tell you the reason:
Mayas never knew what they knew cos of their amazing private knowledge about math or astronomy without having telescopes. They were giving certain knowledge but the gods were not good-doers coming with good will. The reason for giving them specific knowledge was to tease them and deceive them regarding the pleasure the hyperdimensional entities have -until now- in the use of blood, specially teenagers and virgins.
 
I

inca

Active Member
In relation to Clarke's point of view:
www.testermanscifi.org/ClarkeQuotesPart4.html
I know very old Mr. (os is it an "it"?) Q probably thinks he is another idiot. For the readers:
www.testermanscifi.org/ClarkQuotesPart7.html

You'll see he doesn't deny possibilities but he prefers to believe the aliens should be "benevolents". In that sense he is wrong. One thing is having the technology or the power and other thing is morality. His assumption in that sense is as good or bad as anyone else. He's right many UFO sightings are indeed hoaxes. But then again when someone ignores some of these sightings were made by astronauts or experienced pilots and several details known by many people, Clarke chooses to believe UFOs don't need to "park" here. This is because as many science fiction writers he focuses OUTSIDE and in humanoid entities or monsters dwelling in planets. When I talk about "gods" I'm refering to hyperdimensional trapped creatures but I already explained that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top