Cover up of evidence of ancient intelligent life on Mars.
georgedean
a mesa of resistant rock located in the Cydonia region of Mars. It has a
strikingly resemblance to a human face, especially in older images taken by
the Viking Orbiters
Based upon the low resolution Viking images (which was the best the Viking
spacecraft could do), several people claimed that the "Face" was artificial
and not a natural geological structure. They also put forth the proposition
that other features in the area proved that an intelligent civilization once
lived on Mars and created the formations. This became fuel for a small
number of conspiracy theorists that asserted that NASA was trying to cover
up evidence of ancient intelligent life on other worlds. Including Art Bell
and Hogan. This argument is preposterous, especially when one considers that
NASA has always been faced with budget cuts. The best thing that could
happen to NASA would be the discovery of ancient life or technology on
another world. This would give them an overwhelming argument in convincing
Congress for a large budget increase dedicated to further space exploration.
I am not aware of any planetary scientist who believes that these features
are anything more than natural formations.One problem with using the Viking
images as proof of something is that they are low resolution. At such a
resolution the images do not reveal crisp surface features. But a number of
laywriters seem to be able to interpret quite a bit from these low
resolution images, and some have published books and "supermarket tabloid"
reports about their impressions, flawed as they may be. At maximum
resolution, the face measures 46 pixels wide and 56 pixels high. The next
highest resolution image was approximately 40 pixels wide by 48 pixels high.
Face on Mars From Mars Global Surveyor
Fortunately, on April 6th, 1998 NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft
imaged the Face from a distance of 444 kilometers (276 miles). The image had
a resolution of 4.3 meters (15 feet) per pixel, which is ten times sharper
than the best Viking image of the region. The face is about a mile across
and a few hundred feet high. What some imagined to be eyes, a nose, and
lips, now appear to be nothing more than peaks and ridges. Even though the
Face has now lost much of its facial appearance, it is still fun to identify
features that resemble things that we know. Here are the pictures at
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/face.htm
enewsr
look at the new Cydonia photo when it came out, and even played with
it myself in PhotoShop.
First of all, there was no doubt that NASA purposely released an
unprocessed photo that didn't look like anything to try to dispell the
notion that the "face" on Mars was not real. All anyone at NASA had
to do is click on "Auto Levels" in PhotoShop -- no other processing
was needed -- and the details of the picture came through. But I
still hear people on the radio and TV saying how NASA had proved that
the "face" was nothing more than a pile of stones (the cat litterbox
as Art Bell referred to it), rather than the assemblage of peaks on
what seems to be a rather interesting "square" plateau.
Additionally, the geological structures around the "face" still seem
to be very interesting, even if they don't represent other pyramids
and a ruined city, and Richard Hoagland believes. It's very strange
that NASA is purposely avoiding taking pictures of the area,
especially with all the features there and particularly since the
probe is going right over the area! You would think that if NASA took
more pictures of the area they could dispell the wild theories they
don't want any part of. Instead they seem to go out of the way to
feeding the flames.
Also, the whole Cydonia thing reveals some very strange things about
NASA. For example, the Cydonia pictures were extremely low
resolution. What NASA released were a mere 1024 x 768 pixels. You can
buy a digital camera for $300 with a higher resolution than the camera
NASA has on the Mars probe! Even taking into account the fact that it
takes years to put together a space probe, professional digital
cameras have existed for more than 10 years. They could have used an
off-the-shelf $10,000 pro camera and gotten better pictures than from
the multi-million dollar camera they have in the probe. It's wierd.
You would think that NASA would go out of their way to build up
excitement about there possibly being life on Mars or having been life
on Mars, but you never know what inner pressures there may be. Most
of NASA's budget comes out of doing Pentagon missions. The Pentagon
may not like the idea that some of their missions might be placed on a
back-burner if public opinion forced NASA had to put all their
attention to going to Mars.
Also, believe it or not, scientists seem less open-minded than
religious zealots. Some scientists spend their entire lives
developing their pet theories, and when new theories arise or new
evidence disproving their theories are found, they fight against them
with every ounce of their energy and with all of the power of their
reputations.
I think you're seeing some of this pig-headedness in NASA. If
something doesn't fit nicely within their theories, they dismiss it.
The same scientists that designed an experiment to find life on Mars
on a previous probe turned around and dismissed their own experiment
when the results came back positive! It was almost as if the
experiment was designed to disprove there was ever life on Mars, not
to prove there was life on Mars.
I think Hoagland is at least correct in his theory that there are
different factions within NASA, some of whom vigorously trying to
defend their own theories and reputations rather than honestly
analyzing the data that's sent back. Ironically, there seems to be a
faction inside NASA who believe life can not exist anywhere in the
Universe but on Earth. You would have thought they joined NASA to
look for life rather than disprove it exists.
Dan
Bjoernar
>One of the most widely recognized features on a world other than our own, is
>a mesa of resistant rock located in the Cydonia region of Mars. It has a
>strikingly resemblance to a human face, especially in older images taken by
>the Viking Orbiters
Those people seeing ancient cities in the Cydonia region must be taking a lot
of pills which makes them hallucinate.
On the pictures I am only able to see martian landscapes.
Though I'll give credit to one web site which is able to point to martian images
on www.nasa.gov which shows that Nasa has been "censoring" details on
some of the images.
Why should Nasa have to do that? And what do they need to hide?
Bjoernar
------- This news article is sponsored by ------
Check out
Flying Colours - Jethro Tull information resource
http://www.flying-colours.net
Make money surfing and receiving e-mail:
http://www.flying-colours.net/earnmoney.html
http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/337426
------------------------------------------------
georgedean
making club taking your money. They will say just about anything to keep you
tuned to there radio station. The name of the game is money in there pockets
and you people are the cash cow.
Matt Kriebel
ene...@ix.netcom.com (enewsr) wrote:
> I think you made some good points. It may not be a face, but I took a
> look at the new Cydonia photo when it came out, and even played with
> it myself in PhotoShop.
Wow. Perhaps you have failed to realize that Photoshop is one of those
tools that is very handy for making one thing look like another. In
other words, if you wanna make it into a face, you can make it into a
face.
> First of all, there was no doubt that NASA purposely released an
> unprocessed photo that didn't look like anything to try to dispell the
> notion that the "face" on Mars was not real.
> All anyone at NASA had
> to do is click on "Auto Levels" in PhotoShop -- no other processing
> was needed -- and the details of the picture came through. But I
> still hear people on the radio and TV saying how NASA had proved that
> the "face" was nothing more than a pile of stones (the cat litterbox
> as Art Bell referred to it), rather than the assemblage of peaks on
> what seems to be a rather interesting "square" plateau.
Again, playing with photoshop until you get what you want. Even if you
get something that reseblmes a face, big deal.
> Additionally, the geological structures around the "face" still seem
> to be very interesting, even if they don't represent other pyramids
> and a ruined city, and Richard Hoagland believes.
> It's very strange
> that NASA is purposely avoiding taking pictures of the area,
> especially with all the features there and particularly since the
> probe is going right over the area! You would think that if NASA took
> more pictures of the area they could dispell the wild theories they
> don't want any part of. Instead they seem to go out of the way to
> feeding the flames.
*yawn* They didn't photogrpah everything the kooks wanted so its a
coverup. How dare they concentrate of more important geological features
instead of catering to the woo-woo crowd.
> Also, the whole Cydonia thing reveals some very strange things about
> NASA. For example, the Cydonia pictures were extremely low
> resolution. What NASA released were a mere 1024 x 768 pixels. You can
> buy a digital camera for $300 with a higher resolution than the camera
> NASA has on the Mars probe!
tell you what, lets see you take that camera, fly up to Mars, and shoot
all of the surface, maybe you can get one of those sony's that you
canput floppies into and hurl them back at earth.
> Even taking into account the fact that it
> takes years to put together a space probe, professional digital
> cameras have existed for more than 10 years. They could have used an
> off-the-shelf $10,000 pro camera and gotten better pictures than from
> the multi-million dollar camera they have in the probe. It's wierd.
Its not weird, its called reliability. The Mars Soujourner used a very
old computer chip in it because they want reliability, not the hottest
thing. any new camera would have to put up with a lot of shit
> You would think that NASA would go out of their way to build up
> excitement about there possibly being life on Mars \
Yes!
>or having been life
> on Mars, but you never know what inner pressures there may be.
This gets really weak.
> Most
> of NASA's budget comes out of doing Pentagon missions. The Pentagon
> may not like the idea that some of their missions might be placed on a
> back-burner if public opinion forced NASA had to put all their
> attention to going to Mars.
If there was a serious hope for life on Mars, NASA would get a shitload
of funding. The Pentagon would be a moot point. This logic does not
follow.
> Also, believe it or not, scientists seem less open-minded than
> religious zealots.
Insert standard scientist attack here. Because he's already clueless.
> Some scientists spend their entire lives
> developing their pet theories, and when new theories arise or new
> evidence disproving their theories are found, they fight against them
> with every ounce of their energy and with all of the power of their
> reputations.
And yet the evidence wins out and rarely do scientist fudge or hide data
that contradicts their opinions. Furthermore, I really doubt anyone s
that zealous about Mars being a dead planet.
> I think you're seeing some of this pig-headedness in NASA. If
> something doesn't fit nicely within their theories, they dismiss it.
Nonsense.
> The same scientists that designed an experiment to find life on Mars
> on a previous probe turned around and dismissed their own experiment
> when the results came back positive!
Which probe was this? Are you referring to the moon probe that was blown
because of earht based contamination? That was not merely dismissed.
>It was almost as if the
> experiment was designed to disprove there was ever life on Mars, not
> to prove there was life on Mars.
Sorry, but I think the recent work on Martian Asteroids kneecaps your
conspriacy theory.
> I think Hoagland is at least correct in his theory that there are
> different factions within NASA, some of whom vigorously trying to
> defend their own theories and reputations rather than honestly
> analyzing the data that's sent back.
Hoagland is a scam artist who has accused NASA of murder. He invents
convenient conspiracies for fools.
> Ironically, there seems to be a
> faction inside NASA who believe life can not exist anywhere in the
> Universe but on Earth. You would have thought they joined NASA to
> look for life rather than disprove it exists.
The allegation of such a faction is laughable. as is most of the basis
of your pet conspiracy.
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Page
got...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
Big Brother doesn't think you are worth watching
Matt Kriebel
(enewsr) wrote:
> If you're not an Art Bell fan, why are you spending time reading posts
> on the Art Bell Fan site? There are 50,000 other newsgroups. Why not
> read the ones you're interested in. Life is too short.
<Glen>
you're new here aren't you?
</Glen>
> I love the posts from people insulting "fans," while these folks
> listen to every episode and read every Web site. They're really fans,
> even if they don't know it.
I think I've listened to Art Bell for about a total of 15 minutes.
I love these slef-proclaimed fans who seem to think they know exactly
what goes on here and what everyone does.
> Dan
--
The Commentator
>
> If you're not an Art Bell fan, why are you spending time reading posts
> on the Art Bell Fan site? There are 50,000 other newsgroups. Why not
> read the ones you're interested in. Life is too short.
>
> listen to every episode and read every Web site. They're really fans,
> even if they don't know it.
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:50:09 -0600, "georgedean"
> <georg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I dont see any cover up. All I see is Art Bell and the rest of his money
> >making club taking your money. They will say just about anything to keep you
> >tuned to there radio station. The name of the game is money in there pockets
> >and you people are the cash cow.
> >
You are REALLY new around here. It is generally thought to be wise to
lurk awhile before inserting your feet into your mouth, but apparently
you never got that particular bit of wisdom.
Glen Quarnstrom
>In article <38e2b3e5...@NEWS.MINDSPRING.COM>, ene...@ix.netcom.com
>(enewsr) wrote:
>
>> If you're not an Art Bell fan, why are you spending time reading posts
>> on the Art Bell Fan site? There are 50,000 other newsgroups. Why not
>> read the ones you're interested in. Life is too short.
>
><Glen>
>
>you're new here aren't you?
>
></Glen>
Heh. Thanks for handling this one while I was otherwise occupied. Well
done.
--
"rk: Ad hominem attacks are a sign of ignorance. Why use them?"
---bRay gives the Irony Meter a field test.
DrPostman
>If you're not an Art Bell fan, why are you spending time reading posts
>on the Art Bell Fan site? There are 50,000 other newsgroups. Why not
>read the ones you're interested in. Life is too short.
You idiot, we are here to discuss the "fan"atics who worship Bell
and the wacky ideas on his show.
>I love the posts from people insulting "fans," while these folks
>listen to every episode and read every Web site. They're really fans,
>even if they don't know it.
I haven't listened in well over 2 years and won't waste time
on that silly web site of his. But I do know that Bell's little
trained net nazi has set up a discussion board, and that if
you lick Bell's ass you won't have a problem posting there.
Here, that's another story. If you don't like it you are obviously
not used to an even playing field. If any of us are wrong when
we criticize Bell and/or his guests try to refute it, instead of
bitching about it.
I frankly don't expect you to, because even Art himself couldn't
stand the evenness and lack of control here.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Knight of the Potato Cannon, minion of the afa-b Army of Darkness
High Counselor of the New Usenet Order, Unpaid Disinformation Agent
Addicted to Art Bell? http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/1282
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamiemps(at)mindspring.com
"If you ever feel like you're on the verge of a nervous breakdown, just
follow these simple rules: First, calm down; second, come over and wash
my car; third, shine all my shoes. There, isn't that better?"
-- Jack Handy
enewsr
on the Art Bell Fan site? There are 50,000 other newsgroups. Why not
read the ones you're interested in. Life is too short.
I love the posts from people insulting "fans," while these folks
listen to every episode and read every Web site. They're really fans,
even if they don't know it.
Dan
enewsr
wrote:
>Wow. Perhaps you have failed to realize that Photoshop is one of those
>tools that is very handy for making one thing look like another. In
>other words, if you wanna make it into a face, you can make it into a
>face.
I think you're thinking of KPT Goo that allows you to manipulate
images. When you're just adjusting contrast, brightness and sharpness
pictures don't don't morph into a face.
And actually, when the new pictures were taken of the area, it's
pretty clear that there is a series of peaks there rather than a face.
The interesting part is the peaks look like they are on a home-plate
shaped plateau. It's unusual, and you would think NASA would be
interested in taking a closer look at it.
>*yawn* They didn't photogrpah everything the kooks wanted so its a
>coverup. How dare they concentrate of more important geological features
>instead of catering to the woo-woo crowd.
Well, after spending $160 million to send a camera to Mars, it seems
silly that they're not taking pictures every second and beaming them
back to Earth.
Now, I understand that they probably have to use steering rockets to
move the probe around, and NASA may be trying to save fuel, but you've
got this probe orbiting Mars to map the planet, but the only picture
of the Cydonia area was taken before they had calibrated the camera.
It's not a very complete photo map of Mars if they're going out of
their way not to photograph the area.
>tell you what, lets see you take that camera, fly up to Mars, and shoot
>all of the surface, maybe you can get one of those sony's that you
>canput floppies into and hurl them back at earth.
You're not really making a rational statement here. It's just ironic
that a $300 camera takes higher resolution pictures than the one they
sent to Mars.
>Its not weird, its called reliability. The Mars Soujourner used a very
>old computer chip in it because they want reliability, not the hottest
>thing. any new camera would have to put up with a lot of shit
You're correct about using old CPUs. I just read in NASA Briefs that
contractors have been buying up as many 486s they can lay their hands
on. Pentiums are not radiation hardened. The tiny circuitry can be
easily disturbed by atomic particles while the larger circuitry in the
486s are less sensitive to it. These probes don't need a lot of
processing power. 486s are pretty good work horses.
But digital cameras use a different kind of chip. I don't think they
used an "old" CCD chip for reliability. The recent spate of failures
have sort of made the term "reliability" and NASA non-synonomous.
>If there was a serious hope for life on Mars, NASA would get a shitload
>of funding. The Pentagon would be a moot point. This logic does not
>follow.
I think some people in NASA are afraid of the 2001 syndrome, that the
real discovery of life outside of earth would just shake people's
personal beliefs to the very core. There was a Rand study in the
1960s that suggested this, the idea of which Clarke use as the basis
for 2001.
As you probably know from hearing some of the callers on Art Bell,
there are a lot of people who believe God only created human beings
and there could be no other sentient life anywhere else in the
Universe, based on their reading of the Bible.
When Star Trek was on TV in the 1960s, the idea of aliens and
starships was considered pretty fanciful. It's only now, 40 years
later, that people are entertaining the notion that there might be
other life out there.
Look at the hostility that was created when the simple notion that
there might be some amino acid inside some meteorites was offered.
>Insert standard scientist attack here. Because he's already clueless.
I don't think this is the "standard scientist attack." If you spent
your life devoted to building a theory, you will not accept the fact
that you are wrong when people offer contrary evidence. It's human
nature.
Look at what happened with Galileo and the Catholic Church. Despite
the fact there was indisputable evidence that the Earth orbited the
Sun, the Pope at the time couldn't accept this. Again, it's human
nature.
>And yet the evidence wins out and rarely do scientist fudge or hide data
>that contradicts their opinions. Furthermore, I really doubt anyone s
>that zealous about Mars being a dead planet.
I'm afraid the news is full of scientists who have lied about the
results of their experiments and who have fudged data just to make
sure their theories aren't disproven.
As for scientific pig-headedness, the history books are full of it.
Geologists for a hundred years dismissed the notion of continental
drift, ignoring the very evidence of their eyes such as the simple
evidence that any schoolboy could see, such as the fact that the
continents can easily fit into each other's profiles from when they
were all joined together 150 million years. Geologists stated quite
simply that the continents could not possibly move and anyone who said
otherwise was thrown out of Geology groups and lost their positions at
colleges.
A similar thing happened in the 1940s when Immanuel Velinkovsky
suggested that our solar system bore the evidence of prehistoric
collisions and catastrophies, and even the simple fact that the Earth
had been struck recently by sizable meteors, and could be struck again
soon. The idea so rocked the scientists of the time that they could
not accept that this could happen. Now when we look back at it, it's
hard to believe that people could accept such obvious theories.
>Which probe was this? Are you referring to the moon probe that was blown
>because of earht based contamination? That was not merely dismissed.
No, in the 1980s there was a probe which was sent to Mars which had an
experiment to determine if there were any organics in the Martian
soil. If Mars never had life, there would be no organics in the soil.
The test was quite simple. The probe scooped up a soil sample, poured
a liquid reactant on the sample and determined if it gave off CO2 or
some such gas. The results came back positive that it did, and the
same scientists who designed the test suddenly turned around and said
that this must have been an anomoly of the Martian soil rather than
accepting that the test had a positive result. It seemed that the
scientists who designed the test were looking for a negative result,
not a positive result, and they couldn't accept anything else but a
negative. It has taken 20 years for NASA scientists to even accept
the possibility that life could have existed on Mars.
>Sorry, but I think the recent work on Martian Asteroids kneecaps your
>conspriacy theory.
No, because the scientists who first proposed it were lambasted in the
press and in the scientific journals.
>Hoagland is a scam artist who has accused NASA of murder. He invents
>convenient conspiracies for fools.
I can't argue with this. At first I was intrigued by his theories,
but he over-analyzes everything and finds connections in things where
there may be no connection and he talks about things without checking.
For example, he built a huge conspiracy theory about the Mission to
Mars movie that's playing in theaters. One of his theories was based
on the fact that theaters were informed that they could program the
movie to play every 2 hours and 45 minutes. He instantly assumed that
the movie was suppose to be 2 hours and 45 minutes and that NASA must
have forced the director to cut 50 minutes out of the movie. But the
real explanation was that the movie was 1 hour 53 minutes and theaters
need about 20 minutes to clean out the auditorium after the movie
ends, and 30 minutes to allow people into the theater to get their
seats. No conspiracy there at all, just a fact he didn't check into.
Most people need fact A and fact B to get to answer C. Hoagland takes
fact A, adds his own fact B to get to his answer C. He needs to check
his facts more. But a few of his better developed theories are
interesting and with all the attention he gets, I would have thought
that NASA would have made Cydonia the most photographed area on Mars,
just to put these theories at rest, rather than one of the least
photographed areas on Mars.
>The allegation of such a faction is laughable. as is most of the basis
>of your pet conspiracy.
I don't accept the idea that there's a secret society or anything, but
it seems that only the younger scientists who were raised on Star Trek
will entertain the notion that life could be or has been on Mars. The
older scientists brought up in earlier times will not accept the
notion that life could evolve so close to Earth. They're willing to
believe there might be another race on the other side of the Galaxy or
in another part of the Universe, but they don't seem to like the idea
that life could be anywhere else in the solar system. The faction is
one based on age and reputation rather than one of Masonic secret
societies.
Dan
kristine campbell
(enewsr) wrote:
mercy snip...
> But a few of his (meaning hoagie) better developed theories are
> interesting and with all the attention he gets, I would have thought
> that NASA would have made Cydonia the most photographed area on Mars,
> just to put these theories at rest, rather than one of the least
> photographed areas on Mars.
"all the attention hoagland gets"?
bwahahahahahaha
the only people who pay attention to this yahoo is artie and his woo woo
fans. i seriously doubt hoagie set nasa policy.
he is officially listed as a "nasa photographer", and has been on artie's
show in the past ranting about how gus grissim was murdered. for
chrissakes, hoagie thinks his heart-attack was orchestrated by the cia!
it is an hallmark of the delusionally paranoid to think they are being
silenced because their knowledge is so powerful...and the more they are
ignored because they are nuttier than a fruitcake, the more it reinforces
their paranoid conspiracy theory.
hoagie has no credibility.
nasa has no responsibility to photograph anything a complete imbecile and
a handful of moronic followers think is a human face and then scream
conspirarcy theory when proven it is nothing more that random landscape.
sheesh.
--
kristine
queen of the undead afab army
* * * * * * * *
satan is alive and well and playing for the ottowa senators
DrPostman
>And actually, when the new pictures were taken of the area, it's
>pretty clear that there is a series of peaks there rather than a face.
>The interesting part is the peaks look like they are on a home-plate
>shaped plateau. It's unusual, and you would think NASA would be
>interested in taking a closer look at it.
Why? To find a long lost martian baseball field? The polar regions
hold far more chances for life.
>Look at what happened with Galileo and the Catholic Church. Despite
>the fact there was indisputable evidence that the Earth orbited the
>Sun, the Pope at the time couldn't accept this. Again, it's human
>nature.
Then explain why they didn't go after Copernicus, who preceded Galileo
with a sun centered model.
Galileo wanted to stir up shit with the church.
BlueAce69
"enewsr" <ene...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38e2b3e5...@NEWS.MINDSPRING.COM...
> If you're not an Art Bell fan, why are you spending time reading posts
> on the Art Bell Fan site? There are 50,000 other newsgroups. Why not
> read the ones you're interested in. Life is too short.
We're largely former fans that have bonded over the years. This is actually
a fun group, stick around you may be assimilated.
> I love the posts from people insulting "fans," while these folks
> listen to every episode and read every Web site. They're really fans,
> even if they don't know it.
I haven't listened to a live show in years, but I do check the archives to
for new schtick from my favorite kooks. I actually did like Art's show at
one time, but after he wrote "The Quickening" and loaded his guest list with
paranoid kooks I quit listening. I hit Art's page maybe once a week and if
it looks like something funny is going on I'll browse around and check
things out. But after the Y2K flop and the DJO thing it's all become pretty
pathetic.
Matt Kriebel
(enewsr) wrote:
> >I think I've listened to Art Bell for about a total of 15 minutes.
>
> I don't see how you can comment then. It's a free country, and of
> course you can say anything you like, but if you've only heard him for
> 15 minutes, I don't think you know enough to comment intelligently.
Easy:
1) I look at the actions of his fans. That alone spoke volumes.
2) I have seen how he treats those who were fans, yet had two brain
cells to rub together. It was contemptible. He let some fans hang out to
dry when he spouts lies.
3) I've seen his attmepts to censor people.
4) I've seen his attempts to remove this group.
5) Many other things that I did not need to listen to realise he's a
sleazy person.
Furthermore, if you had lurked instead of shooting off your mouth you
would have seen that I rarely comment about Art Bell since he is merely
the woo-woo's mouthpice. I need not hear his show to realise that
reverse speech was a farce, that hoagland is a dangerous fraud, and that
his online fans whine a whole lot.
So excuse me if I say "Fuck you" in regards to your lame-ass assertion
that I need to hear the man's every word to comment. I know plentyand I
know that you were too goddamn stupid and arrogant to lurk before
commenting a newsgroup.
Next time, don't do that combined message shit either,you might as well
put the word "clueless newbie" in your .sig.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
>
>Galileo wanted to stir up shit with the church.
He was darn good at it, too!!!
--
V.G.
"Whimsy is my bidness, an' bidness is GOOD."
(Banana Pimp Extraordinaire.)
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy - but that could change." --Vice President Al Gore, 5/22/98
enewsr
a collection of responses to recent posts in this thread.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 22:01:02 -0500, Matt Kriebel <got...@netaxs.com>
wrote:
>I think I've listened to Art Bell for about a total of 15 minutes.
I don't see how you can comment then. It's a free country, and of
course you can say anything you like, but if you've only heard him for
15 minutes, I don't think you know enough to comment intelligently.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:41:44 -0800, The Commentator
<74473...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>You are REALLY new around here. It is generally thought to be wise to
>lurk awhile before inserting your feet into your mouth, but apparently
>you never got that particular bit of wisdom.
Well, how long do you have to lurk before you can comment on
something? I understand the newsgroup is home to a bunch of cynics and
critics. And some of the people posting have some interesting things
to say, and some only seem to be teenagers who think it's fun to type
four letter words. If nobody posted, it wouldn't be much fun.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:45:37 -0600, DrPostman <It...@mysig.emailthere>
wrote:
>You idiot, we are here to discuss the "fan"atics who worship Bell
>and the wacky ideas on his show.
Well, I would like to see more of this "discussion" as you call it and
less of the name-calling and swearing.
>I haven't listened in well over 2 years and won't waste time
>on that silly web site of his. But I do know that Bell's little
>trained net nazi has set up a discussion board, and that if
>you lick Bell's ass you won't have a problem posting there.
Well, I was looking for a more balanced discussion.
>Here, that's another story. If you don't like it you are obviously
>not used to an even playing field. If any of us are wrong when
>we criticize Bell and/or his guests try to refute it, instead of
>bitching about it.
Exactly, but name-calling just drives people away rather than
inspiring intelligent discussion.
>I frankly don't expect you to, because even Art himself couldn't
>stand the evenness and lack of control here.
Lack of control, yes, evennes -- well, we'll see.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:57:04 GMT, qu...@thecastle.com (kristine
campbell) wrote:
>the only people who pay attention to this yahoo is artie and his woo woo
>fans. i seriously doubt hoagie set nasa policy.
Actually, during this recent "Mission to Mars" conspiracy theory
thing, I think Hoagland was starting to get on Art's nerves by
carrying things out too far. Hoagland was able to put together a
conspiracy theory before he had even seen the movie based on far too
few real facts and way too much imagination.
>hoagie has no credibility.
You may be correct. He is entertaining to a point, But this Mission
to Mars thing went off the deep end.
>nasa has no responsibility to photograph anything a complete imbecile and
>a handful of moronic followers think is a human face and then scream
>conspirarcy theory when proven it is nothing more that random landscape.
Well, it does seem as if NASA is going out of its way not to
photograph it.
The supposed face is about the only thing on Mars that the general
public even has some dim knowledge of, thanks to all of those National
Equirer issues that proposed the face was everything from E.T. to
Elvis. If NASA indeed wants to try to get the public excited about
space travel, you would think they would want to photograph the one
thing the general public was interested in.
In a way, Hoagland's attention to the area (and those of other authors
who have written Mars books) seems to have caused NASA to go out of
its way not to give these folks any more evidence for their theories.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:18:37 -0600, in alt.fan.art-bell you wrote:
>Why? To find a long lost martian baseball field? The polar regions
>hold far more chances for life.
This may or may not be true. The prevailing theory leans towards
there being life beneath the surface where the temperatures may be
more moderate, rather than frozen at the poles. In any event, any
kind of life is probably microscopic and I can't imagine that NASA has
spent a year only taking pictures of the poles.
>Then explain why they didn't go after Copernicus, who preceded Galileo
>with a sun centered model.
>
>Galileo wanted to stir up shit with the church.
You make a good point. Copernicus was loved by his students and the
Church and the Church rubber stamped their approval of his book
Actually, from what I remember, the Church actually allowed Galileo's
work to be published, but Galileo was a lot less humble and a lot more
in-your-face about his discovery, and the Church went out of its way
to put Galileo back in his place. It also coincided with probably the
peak of the Church's power in politics. The Inquisition had pretty
much worn out its welcome and the Church was not having much luck
stemming the flow of people breaking away to join the Protestant
Reformation.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:09:03 -0800, in alt.fan.art-bell you wrote:
>We're largely former fans that have bonded over the years. This is actually
>a fun group, stick around you may be assimilated.
Thanks. Despite what some folks in the group are taking as my defense
of Art and the show, I've sort of gotten bored with the same guests
over and over again. I've been listening pretty intensely to the show
via the archives (of course, it's not as easy now that Premiere
Networks killed their deal with Broadcast.com and had three years
worth of shows removed from its Website). But I can pretty much guess
in advance what some of the regular guests are going to say. Some of
the guest appearances lately have been 10% new stuff and 90% the same
old stuff. A couple of shows gave me such deja vu I had to check to
make sure they weren't repeats.
I guess if you only hear Art every once in a while, you don't get that
familiar with what the regular guests have to say. But if you get to
listen to entire shows every day, the information is repetitious.
>I haven't listened to a live show in years, but I do check the archives to
>for new schtick from my favorite kooks. I actually did like Art's show at
>one time, but after he wrote "The Quickening" and loaded his guest list with
>paranoid kooks I quit listening. I hit Art's page maybe once a week and if
>it looks like something funny is going on I'll browse around and check
>things out. But after the Y2K flop and the DJO thing it's all become pretty
>pathetic.
I have to agree. I was listening to the archives at Broadcast.com
before the plug was puilled, and I was listening to predictions Ed
Dames and Gary North were making months earlier about Y2K and solar
killshots that were suppose to kill us all last summer and NONE of
them came true. Yet, after Y2K came and went without a hitch, those
same folks were all bragging about how their predictions actually came
true because they had qualified their statements that something else
had to happen before any of this would come to pass.
So Art Bell did hit a major credibility problem by backing these
folks. Also, I've got to say that this whole thing with his son has
taken some of the bite out of him. Seems like he's just going through
the motions. He's got to find new guests. The current crop of
regulars are letting him down.
However, based on a few things I've heard and read, I believe a lot of
people will not appear on his show. I know I personally forwarded
some guest information to Art about a climatologist who would be a
great guest and who might debate Art on some of his climate theories.
I have no way of knowing if the information got to him, but last week
Art did say that he was having a heck of a time getting any
climatologist to come on the show to dispute his views. I'm guessing
getting new guests may be a problem. It may be one of the reasons
Hoagland has been on so much lately. The guy has enough material to
easily talk for five hours.
>
kristine campbell
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 22:01:02 -0500, Matt Kriebel <got...@netaxs.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think I've listened to Art Bell for about a total of 15 minutes.
>
> I don't see how you can comment then. It's a free country, and of
> course you can say anything you like, but if you've only heard him for
> 15 minutes, I don't think you know enough to comment intelligently.
i don't have to sit through a two hour movie if i think its crap in the
first fifteen minutes.
i don't have to read a three hundred page book to cover to cover to
determine if it is boring. i can put it down after a couple of chapters.
i don't have to eat a whole steak to figure out it tastes bad, or
undercooked. i can stop eating and say it's bad after one or two bites.
i'm sure you get the picture. your argument is ridiculous.
i think absurd of you to say that one can not comment on something because
they haven't listened to it for a prescribed (read enewsr's opinion)
amount of time. i have listened to limbaugh for about thirty seconds and
know he is full of shit and i don't have to listen to him anymore to
reinforce that opinion.
> >You idiot, we are here to discuss the "fan"atics who worship Bell
> >and the wacky ideas on his show.
>
> Well, I would like to see more of this "discussion" as you call it and
> less of the name-calling and swearing.
gee, we'll get right to work on that, dickhead.
> >I haven't listened in well over 2 years and won't waste time
> >on that silly web site of his. But I do know that Bell's little
> >trained net nazi has set up a discussion board, and that if
> >you lick Bell's ass you won't have a problem posting there.
>
> Well, I was looking for a more balanced discussion.
well then, sorry to disappoint. sorry we don't meet with your high
expectations, dickhead. fuck off.
>
> >Here, that's another story. If you don't like it you are obviously
> >not used to an even playing field. If any of us are wrong when
> >we criticize Bell and/or his guests try to refute it, instead of
> >bitching about it.
>
> Exactly, but name-calling just drives people away rather than
> inspiring intelligent discussion.
oh, like we fucking care, dickhead. fuck off.
> >nasa has no responsibility to photograph anything a complete imbecile and
> >a handful of moronic followers think is a human face and then scream
> >conspirarcy theory when proven it is nothing more that random landscape.
>
> Well, it does seem as if NASA is going out of its way not to
> photograph it.
bullshit. because they are not going out of their way TO photograph it,
doesn't mean they are going out of their way NOT to photograph it. there
is a distinction, but the woo woo's seem totally unable to grasp it. as do
you, dickhead.
>
> The supposed face is about the only thing on Mars that the general
> public even has some dim knowledge of, thanks to all of those National
> Equirer issues that proposed the face was everything from E.T. to
> Elvis. If NASA indeed wants to try to get the public excited about
> space travel, you would think they would want to photograph the one
> thing the general public was interested in.
yeah, i want nasa to decided how to run a mission based on the national
enquirer crowd.
bwhahahahaha.
>
> In a way, Hoagland's attention to the area (and those of other authors
> who have written Mars books) seems to have caused NASA to go out of
> its way not to give these folks any more evidence for their theories.
like i said, hoagie doesn't set policy, either positively, or negatively.
you think nasa even knows (or cares) what hoagie is chattering about on
the art bell show? sheesh. you think nasa determines what they are going
to do based on hoagie and the twelve morons who listen to his claptrap?
> So Art Bell did hit a major credibility problem by backing these
> folks.
you are just figuring this shit out now???? where were you during the
backward talking years, or the courtney brown thing? art never had any
credibility ever...so it would be pretty tough to lose what he never
possessed in the first place.
the first time i ever heard bell (1995) was when he asserted that the
poles were shifting and that compasses were going all whacky. he had
jokers from all over claiming that they were standing due north and their
compasses were pointing south.
then he talked about a "deadly" outbreak of a "unknown virus" that hit a
town and was killing lots of teenagers. i happen to live in that town at
the time and it was a rare meningitis that killed one teenage girl...no
one else even got sick. did he come on, as a responsible human, and make
the appropriate corrections? naw. he just wanted to stir up a frenzy and
"make" some news. thankfully, he didn't.
then he had some yahoo on who was building a time travel machine and a
young woman, who gushed that she listened to bell every night, called in
and suggested that the inventor of the machine dig up a dead body and put
it through first, that way if the machine was dangerous, no one would get
hurt. art thought it was a good idea, and talked about it for months
afterward.
and let's not forget that art had a guy on the show that claimed he could
cure cancer with electrical current. art was an enthusiatic supporter. as
a oncology nurse, i find this unbelievably abhorrent and irresponsible.
Also, I've got to say that this whole thing with his son has
> taken some of the bite out of him. Seems like he's just going through
> the motions. He's got to find new guests. The current crop of
> regulars are letting him down.
yeah, like maybe he feels guilty?
too fucking bad.
and it was disgusting that he broadcast the whole fucking thing over his
show. i am sure his teenage son was thrilled with that.
i think its hysterical that you think anyone can have a reasonable,
logical, intelligent discussion about art's show. the whole thing is one
giant oxymoron.
now fuck off.
DrPostman
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:45:37 -0600, DrPostman <It...@mysig.emailthere>
>wrote:
>
>>You idiot, we are here to discuss the "fan"atics who worship Bell
>>and the wacky ideas on his show.
>
>Well, I would like to see more of this "discussion" as you call it and
>less of the name-calling and swearing.
Fucken eh, bubba!
>>I haven't listened in well over 2 years and won't waste time
>>on that silly web site of his. But I do know that Bell's little
>>trained net nazi has set up a discussion board, and that if
>>you lick Bell's ass you won't have a problem posting there.
>
>Well, I was looking for a more balanced discussion.
And who do you expect to do that balancing? You do it on your own.
>>Here, that's another story. If you don't like it you are obviously
>>not used to an even playing field. If any of us are wrong when
>>we criticize Bell and/or his guests try to refute it, instead of
>>bitching about it.
>
>Exactly, but name-calling just drives people away rather than
>inspiring intelligent discussion.
There is more inspiring and intelligent discussion in one day here
than all the years of crap on Bell's web board.
>>I frankly don't expect you to, because even Art himself couldn't
>>stand the evenness and lack of control here.
>
>Lack of control, yes, evennes -- well, we'll see.
The field is even, if you are up to the exercise.
DrPostman
>On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:18:37 -0600, DrPostman <It...@mysig.emailthere> wrote:
>
>>
>>Galileo wanted to stir up shit with the church.
>
>He was darn good at it, too!!!
Yep - but he was right, so they didn't kill him.