Robin Bobcat - 05 December 2008 08:40 AM

Sure there’s plenty of carpenters on Mars! I think one of them is named ‘John’?

*ducks thrown tomatos*

Seriously, though… gotta love the lengths Hoagland and fellow-minded tinfoil-hatters will go to to convince themselves that there is evidence where none exists.

The one I still get a giggle about was the moon photo artifacts that showed a ‘robot head’.

Hey Robin, any link to said photo? Never heard about that one and would be interested in laughing about it… Thx.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/datashead.htm

There ya go.

I point out that Hoagland was also of the opinion that the head had been taken back to Earth, persuaded to talk, and that the information it gave, once decoded, would lead humanity to a new golden age, yadda yadda.

very odd all the attention this ‘plank’ is getting considering the most interesting thing about the original image is it appears to show a large body of surface liquid and a rather more artificial looking anomaly behind the ‘plank’. the original post only includes tightly cropped images, but you can see the full panorama direct from NASA here:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040524a/site_B115_navcam_180_cyl_L-B118R1.jpg

note the perfectly flat horizon, the textures, and the shiny(?) anomaly upper left.
debating whether or not the foreground object is a ‘plank of wood’ truly seems like a case of misplaced attention.
unless someone cares to explain?

forestranger - 16 December 2008 10:03 AM

very odd all the attention this ‘plank’ is getting considering the most interesting thing about the original image is it appears to show a large body of surface liquid and a rather more artificial looking anomaly behind the ‘plank’. the original post only includes tightly cropped images, but you can see the full panorama direct from NASA here:

note the perfectly flat horizon, the textures, and the shiny(?) anomaly upper left.
debating whether or not the foreground object is a ‘plank of wood’ truly seems like a case of misplaced attention.
unless someone cares to explain?

The flat horizon is because NASA landed the rover on a flat area, the Meridiani Planum, to keep from crashing into mountains or boulders or such.  The horizon in that photo isn’t actually perfectly flat; it has some irregular ups and downs on it.  Such a flattish horizon doesn’t necessarily mean water.  Here on our very own planet we have plenty of land that has flat horizons (isn’t that right, LaMa?  ).  And keep in mind that on a flattish area the horizon to those rovers would only be about 3 km away, so it won’t take all that large of a plain to give a flat view out to the horizon.

The shiny thing is part of the lander that the rover came down on.

Here are the 2004 Opportunity rover press releases.

These are of the rover approaching Endurance Crater (includes the “wooden plank” photos).  If you look here, you can see a satellite view of the area that the rover was roving over as well as a line marking its path with dates included; the “plank” photos were taken on day Sol 115.  That puts the rover just to the southeast of Endurance Crater on the map when that photo was taken (it doesn’t have day 115 marked, but does have 114).  If you look at the photo taken by the rover, you can see the crater, the heat shield, and much of the surrounding area.  The view in the “plank” photo, then, was a 180

Incidentally, the first picture given on this page show some more “planks” and similar rocks, in colour.  You can especially see the detail of them on the large version of the photo, though it might take a longish while to open and could freeze up your computer (it’s a 38.5 Mb photo).  And here is another photograph that is a close-up of some of that woodlike rock.

It’s odd that the conspiracy people are only focusing on that one black-and-white relatively low-resolution press release photo that shows that one particular plank-like stone, and are ignoring the other full-colour highly detailed press release photos that also show such stones. . .that wouldn’t happen to be because the other photos clearly show that they are stones and not wood, would it?  Naaaaaah. . .

Maybe they are ADD and can only focus on one thing successfully at a time.

Obviously NASA is part of the government conspiracy to suppress information about the interplanetary ark technology.

After they accidentally released one photo of a timber from the Ark, they had to quickly scurry into their studio and recreate the image in (false) colors to try to discredit what is obviously a picture of a plank.

Just a bit of trivia: they used the same studio where they faked the moon landings.

thanks Accipiter, that was a very thorough and informative rebuttal.
obviously my knowledge of this mission’s history was insufficient for me to properly interpret the image.

certainly there are a lot of unfounded rumors and creative interpretations going around in the “conspiracy theory” community, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t also legitimate instances of systematic deception and cover-ups by NASA. with our government increasingly characterized by secrecy and the pursuit of misrepresented agendas, and the fact that NASA exists at the nexus of experimental science, military industry, and politics is it any wonder not everyone feels immediately inclined to accept the official line on our space program, it’s full agenda, and the information it discloses? in an era of widespread media manipulation and blatant propaganda some degree of healthy skepticism about the official version of things is surely a benefit to the cause of greater truth and transparency in government dealings, is it not? one might even consider the possibility that some of the more ridiculous conspiracy theories floating around are elements of an organized disinformation campaign to discredit and paint as ridiculous by association anyone in any way questioning NASA’s intentions or the truthfulness of it’s disclosures.

Yes, there have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There have been material and bodies recovered. People in high level government have very little, if any, valid information about this. It has been the subject of disinformation in order to deflect attention and create confusion so the truth doesn

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

What you have is fanciful speculation and nothing else about any “systematic deception and cover-ups by NASA”.

Now, my Interplanetary Ark theory is a different story altogether.  It’s widely known that most NASA scientists reject the Noachian flood story.  Coincidence??  I think not!  It’s clearly a cover-up!!

Just because most conspiracy theories are just silly nonsense, doesn’t mean that mine is.  You certainly have no proof that it’s not true!  I can explain away any of these other photos and anything else you can come up with to debunk the Interplanetary Ark theory.

forestranger - 17 December 2008 03:44 AM

thanks for the schooling.

ehm…

Have some more!

forestranger - 17 December 2008 03:44 AM

obviously my knowledge of this mission’s history was insufficient for me to properly interpret the image.

Which is how a lot of these sorts of things start and are spread.  People will look at just one little piece of the whole and base their ideas on that, without bothering to look at any of the rest of the evidence that is right there in front of them.  Just like these people with their plank conspiracy:  they look at one isolated photograph gained from a certain source and build up a whole theory on that, while totally ignoring all the other relevant information that is sitting right there in front of them at that same source.

Ignorance is one thing and is perfectly understandable; it is the people who intentionally don’t look who are the problem.  They can’t even plead lack of time or laziness, since they take the time and effort to write up all their speculations and publish them all over the place.  At least you’re willing to not only ask questions, but to listen when people give answers.

certainly there are a lot of unfounded rumors and creative interpretations going around in the “conspiracy theory” community, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t also legitimate instances of systematic deception and cover-ups by NASA.

While there are without doubt plenty of instances of cover-ups and deception in the government overall (after all, some government agencies are pretty much based on that sort of thing), NASA is one of the organisations that wouldn’t be able to do that sort of thing very much or very well.  For one thing, they’re not really organised with security being a priority; they have too many tie-ins with private enterprises and organisations, too much involvement with foreign agencies, and so forth, they’re too dispersed.  They aren’t organised to do things such as go out, gather up crashes alien spacecraft, transport them, suppress the information, police the area. . .they’d need to work with other agencies for much of that, which would really weaken their ability to keep such things concealed.

Besides which, much of what NASA is involved with can’t be covered up.  How do you cover up something such as, say, a secret military base on the Moon when dozens of other countries are sending out space probes of their own?  NASA may be able to keep some small stuff such as bits of technological designs or the nature of certain satellites a secret, but they’d have serious problems with any large-scale stuff.

“Yes, there have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There have been material and bodies recovered. People in high level government have very little, if any, valid information about this. It has been the subject of disinformation in order to deflect attention and create confusion so the truth doesn’t come out.”
- Edgar Mitchell, astronaut, sixth man to walk on the moon, founder of IONS

“One more thing:  this [conspiracy] stuff. . .it doesn’t have anything to do with NASA.”
-  Edgar Mitchell, astronaut, sixth man to walk on the moon, founder of IONS