Strangely enough, I found one (a government plant perhaps) on another forum and I will post the kind of reply here so that you can all comment or see what I am talking about.
It was posted in the science forum and was titled something like "Was there llife on Mars". I replied and said that there was and poined towards the concrete block with re-infocing bars in it, as I feel this is one of the most unusual pieces of evidence, difficult to explain, and clearly visible too.
Here is the reply: The big problem with images like these is the lack of clarity. When a section of a photo is enlarged enough, the result often ends up as a blurred image. Another reason that can cause blurred images is from multiple copies of an image. Each time an image is copied, it loses resolution. So when you have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.), the quality is lost.
However, I can see how it does indeed resemble a chunk of concrete with rebars sticking out. BTW, there are four arrows pointing to the rebars, but it looks like there's another bar, bent slightly upward, located between the bottom two. Or maybe there wasn't enough room for another arrow.
I don't think we can point fingers at NASA as lying about things. I think it helps to keep in mind that even though Mars is more earth-like than other planets and moons, it's still very different, and we are still just learning about these places. Frankly, I think if even something like bacteria can be conclusively determined to be on Mars, or anywhere else, that alone would be a major discovery to confirm the existence, or past existence of life outside of the Earth.
Again, it's not that NASA or any other space agency are lying to us. Rather, it's that a lot of things can be found in the abundance of images from the Rovers and orbiting probes that resemble shapes that are familiar to us. A couple of classic examples are the so-called 'Martian Mermaid' image, the 'forest of giant trees', and the 'glass tubes' (also called 'giant Martian worms'). The problem is that these space agencies can't exactly go around examining in detail every object that someone claims looks like evidence of intelligent life. We'd need thousands of rovers and probes to do that.
Mars is still a long ways away from the Earth. Decisions on what to examine is up to the agencies and the specific teams involved. To wander looking at every object people point out in the distance would not only be a waste of time and expense, but would stray from the primary objectives of the missions. Currently, the objectives are to try to examine some of the geology on Mars, as well as search for evidence of water past or present. That said, I'd be absolutely thrilled beyond words if some form of life (past or present) can be discovered on Mars or anywhere else. The hunt continues on.
A lot was said but nothing that could be deemed anti-establishment. So, my reply to this was: Your comments are interesting to me, partly because you say that the image of this concrete block is blurry (which it is not in the original) and partly because you continue to deny that NASA is lying to us.
The original is only blurry as you call it because we do not have the same quality of photograph as NASA have. I can prove this if necessary, but I think you know this.
The purpose of the missions are to search for life(water, oxygen, plant life, etc) to study the terrain and to report back what they find. Are you telling me that the study of the geology is more important than finding life and evidence for life? I dont think so.
I also find it interesting that you you are not really interested in finding life on Mars, in spite of your post. If you were interested in finding life, this and other evidence would cause you to investigate further.
Oh, and I wonder if my famously corrupt Government would be willing to stop their infamous 'gravy train' for me to hop aboard so someone can finance the time I spend on this site with an inflated salary, reduced working hours, an excellent Medical Aid and a generous Pension...LOLOLOL....
What would my profile be? I would have good credentials. I would know my 'stuff', so that I could command respect as someone who 'knows' what he or she is talking about.
I would probably be highly qualified in some engineering discipline, and I would have published scientific papers, be a member of Institutes or Governing bodies in my field of expertise. Possibly written a book or two on the subject so I could be 'an authority' on one of the subjects of the forum.
I want to appear friendly and helpful yet professional with a no-nonsense attitude. Maybe I would even show I was a little proud of my achievements too. I could have a 'fault' which would mark me as an 'ordinary person' and 'one-of-us'. Something fairly common and relatively harmless which would throw anyone who suspected I was a government agent, off the trail. If anyone complained about my 'fault' that is even better because then everyone would know about it and it would serve to mark me as 'perfectly normal'. Everyone has 'faults' - right?
What would I be here for? I would want to gain acceptance quickly from as many members as possible, to show that I am interested and involved in the subject of the forum.
I would want to make a friend of the forum owner or administrator or an influential moderator. That way I would be more likely to become a moderator myself because I was on the 'good guys' list and a 'useful resource' for the forum. It is a way of 'locking in' to the forum the expertise and knowledge which the forum needs.Once I had become a moderator, with more control and power on the forum, I could then discipline members who I wanted to control more directly.
I would want to disclose my credentials fairly early on, so that everyone KNOWS I am an authority and so now in the future there is no doubt. If there are members who question my authority, I can refer them to this previous post which lists my credentials.
I would want to have a bit of an attitude as scientists often do, when they think they know through their training and experience a lot of what other people dont know. If there are members who argue with me, I could be dismissive of their ideas and theories, I could play a victim and get defensive and accuse them of things they did not acually say. This would appear to get others on my side and alienate the members who question my authority.
What would I be aiming to do? Keep an eye on the forum, find out who is there and what, if any, official positions they hold. Do they already work for the government? Are they a Threat to National Security? I am a good little agent, so I would want to keep notes and pass on information about these people so they could be investigated further if necessary.
I would be aiming to contribute often to discussions and to rise to a position of authority quickly. I would want to discredit any members who were good at discovering things which were against the governments objectives. I would want to provide subtle disinformation by repetatively asserting what the people are supposed to believe, however this would have to be interspersed with useful and truthful scientific facts.
I would post new threads, but nothing of a controversial nature, such as anomalies. Only posts which are within the prescibed limits of science - maybe something which science does not have an opinion on, and which can be discussed safely. This would allow me to show, once again, my expertise in the subject and consolidate my authority status.
But the question I would find really difficult to answer is - Why am I here when I know so much? Why not frequent forums where there are other like-minded scientists, where I could discuss scientific minutae and argue over accepted scientific theories?
