NEW Discovery near Spirit Rover... MUST SEE !

=
INSTALLMENT #2: "The Researcher"

... regardless of it's title, this new page is not
primarilly a "document"... rather, it describes,
photographically, the incredible discovery of a living
person - possibly a Mars scientist - near the Spirit Rover !

If you never visit another web site, VISIT this one !
Especially to the research community, this second installment
in my "Discovery on Mars" series will be of special interest...
this discovery will literally CHANGE YOUR WORLD.

As before, I will remind all who see this message...
everything discussed here is FACT... this is not hype...
not fakery... the scientific community, and the world alike,
will find something of significant and lasting value in
this information... it will be of great import to the NASA
program generally.

Following is the address to my NEW page...

http://krs4sure.2itb.com/DISCOVERY2

I hope to update this new site through the week.

Thank you for your interest.


February 4, 2004
Michael A. Perafonte'


(All responsible email inquiries will be answered).

"M.A.Perafonte'" wrote in message
om...

Michael A. Perafonte'


Hey, I went to Hotmail University too!

--
Michael Anthony
"I Want To Be A Mars Explorer"
- my new song @ http://ma.fihs.net

"M.A.Perafonte'" wrote in message
om...

Michael A. Perafonte'


Hey, I went to Hotmail University too!

--
Michael Anthony
"I Want To Be A Mars Explorer"
- my new song @ http://ma.fihs.net

On 4 Feb 2004 10:03:07 -0800, (M.A.Perafonte')
wrote, in part:

... regardless of it's title, this new page is not
primarilly a "document"... rather, it describes,
photographically, the incredible discovery of a living
person - possibly a Mars scientist - near the Spirit Rover !

What you should do is take a digital camera, and take a few hundred
pictures of areas where there are rocks and gravel strewn on sand, and
look at those pictures, and see if you don't find on one of them
something that looks a bit like a face.

It's obvious the "lab coat" is just a fold in the lava on a large
igneous rock that has several similar folds elsewhere. The "head" is
interesting, as it is a rounded shiny rock, unlike the other rocks in
the picture, but that's about it.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

jsavard wrote

What you should do is take a digital camera, and take a few hundred
pictures of areas where there are rocks and gravel strewn on sand, and
look at those pictures, and see if you don't find on one of them
something that looks a bit like a face.
*** "...a bit like a face" ?
*** Yes yes... thats fine... but, when we can see something
*** a bit like a face... and something very much like spectacles...
*** and something a bit like a trunk... and something a bit
*** like legs, and a bit like feet... mind you, I dont claim
*** this tiny detail is sharp, only that it is all present...
*** then, what do we have ?
*** Something that looks a bit like a person standing there,
*** looking at us !
*** Im more sure you havent looked carefully.

It's obvious the "lab coat" is just a fold in the lava on a large
igneous rock that has several similar folds elsewhere.
*** you see a lab coat ? Can you read the label ?
*** I saw more a dark jacket... this researcher was obviously
*** going home after a long day in the lab when the Lander
*** set down

The "head" is interesting, as it is a rounded shiny rock,
unlike the other rocks in the picture, but that's about it.
*** its too easy to poo pah without really looking... I wish
*** it was just an igneous rock, but this simply isnt what I
*** find there.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

(M.A.Perafonte') wrote in
om:

jsavard wrote


*** Yes yes... thats fine... but, when we can see something
*** a bit like a face... and something very much like spectacles...
*** and something a bit like a trunk... and something a bit
*** like legs, and a bit like feet... mind you, I dont claim
*** this tiny detail is sharp, only that it is all present...

Sorry to jump at the bait but this is utter rubbish. Take the image and
your descriptions of them to a psychiatrist -- they understand about
inkblots and so on. If you get some support there for your theory, write
a peer-reviewed journal article and get it published -- Nature, Science
or something like that. I suggest part of your research be to write to
JPL to obtain ranging information for all the structures you think you
see in these images so that you can develop 3-D models of them (JPL does
have such data). Until you are at that stage, what is the point in
trying so hard to see something where there is really nothing special?

Your best bet is not to go public with speculations like this. If you
are right, you might get greater recognition for advancing our knowledge.
If you are wrong the embarrassment is slightly reduced.

Mark

PS Best of luck to you with this project. I look forward to hearing the
results.

mlm wrote

Sorry to jump at the bait but this is utter rubbish.
*** lets start at the beginning... what is your comment ?
*** why are you littering my post ?

Take the image and your descriptions of them to a psychiatrist -- they
understand about inkblots and so on.
*** inkblots ? So, NASA spilled ink on the photo, and that
*** is what I see ?! Why didnt someone just tell me :-)
*** NOTE: somebody actually asked me once, what exactly
*** "colon dash parenthesis" meant... people often see
*** one thing differently.

If you get some support there for your theory, write
a peer-reviewed journal article and get it published -- Nature, Science
or something like that.
*** But I do not have a theory... I simply presented the facts
*** I consider to be visible in this photo.

I suggest part of your research be to write to JPL to obtain
ranging information for all the structures you think you
see in these images so that you can develop 3-D models of them
(JPL does have such data).
*** firstly, this would require, after reading your spewage, that
*** anything you said could be accepted as a meaningful suggestion.
*** But, to anyone wondering, yes, there is sufficient 3-D
*** information in the photograph.

Until you are at that stage, what is the point in
trying so hard to see something where there is really nothing
special?
*** I must apologize... I had not considered the possibility
*** of anyone not seeing immediately what I did. Either you
*** do not, or do not wish to admit to this publically...
*** back to point one - why all this litter ? My presentation
*** is sincere... what is your sincere reply ?

Your best bet is not to go public with speculations like this.
*** speculation... that is the most polite thing youve said.
*** but, again, the fact is - I cannot be more sure of what
*** I see there.


If you are right, you might get greater recognition for
advancing our knowledge. If you are wrong the embarrassment
is slightly reduced.
*** please stop. Im not embarrassed by what Ive presented...
*** there simply is not a single reasonable proof available
*** showing what I have reported not to be what it appears, and
*** as I have stated.
*** Your remarks might quickly win the "support" of a street gang
*** or group of drunks, but unfortunately your many lines of
*** insults, innuendos, and allusions to professionalism have
*** not moved me to any but disgust.
*** I cannot lose with my presentation... if not the fact it
*** seems, I have at least discovered the famous "floating
*** man" illusion on Mars... thats worth something isnt it ? ;-)

Mark

PS Best of luck to you with this project. I look forward to hearing the
results.
*** this work is essentially done. I may only look forward to
*** more constructive replies than yours has been.

In article ,
says...

snip

*** I must apologize... I had not considered the possibility
*** of anyone not seeing immediately what I did.

And that's the problem, don't you see? NO ONE sees the same thing in
the "ink blot" type patterns of a magnified, somewhat chaotic pattern of
light and dark as you're seeing. All any of the rest of us are seeing,
in reality, is fine-grained soil, rocks and rock shards. Because that's
really all that's there.

When you see something that no one else is seeing -- you have to start
asking yourself hard questions. Like, maybe, are you seeiing something
you WANT to see, as opposed to seeing what's actually there?

I'll remind you (and since I don't recognize your name from that
newsgroup, you may be unaware of this) that on sci.space.shuttle a year
ago, there was a guy who INSISTED that he could see a breach in
Columbia's wing in a shot taken from orbit, during the mission, and sent
down electronically before the destruction of the vehicle. No amount of
discussion and pointing-out that the place where he thought he saw this
breach was quite far away from the place where the breach actually
occurred could dissuade him from his insistence. He was wrong, everyone
knew he was wrong, and the facts as determined by the CAIB proved he was
wrong. But he's still sitting at home, bitterly upset that somehow,
some conspiracy has robbed him of the glory of discovering the cause of
the Shuttle's demise. In other words, he has acted, and continues to
act, very, very irrational.

He said the same kinds of things as you're saying -- that it was
impossible for anyone who saw the images to NOT see what he was seeing.
And he was wrong, because he WANTED to see what he was seeing. It made
him irrationally certain that he was seeing what he wanted to see.

I'm afraid you're coming off the same way, here. Perhaps, if you are as
morally certain as you seem to be that you're seeing tiny little people
in the fine sand, your best bet isn't to try and convince people posting
on Usenet (since none of us have anything to do with the MER project,
anyway). Maybe you need to get into direct contact with the people at
JPL who are in charge of the rovers. If your evidence is as obvious to
the professionals who are in charge of the mission as it is to you, then
you'll convince them, right? And if not, maybe they'll be able to
convince you?

At any rate, having this discussion here on Usenet isn't doing you any
good and certainly isn't going to get the people at JPL to study what
you think you're seeing...

Doug

In article , Doug . . wrote:

I'll remind you (and since I don't recognize your name from that
newsgroup, you may be unaware of this) that on sci.space.shuttle a year
ago, there was a guy who INSISTED that he could see a breach in
Columbia's wing in a shot taken from orbit, during the mission, and sent
down electronically before the destruction of the vehicle. No amount of
discussion and pointing-out that the place where he thought he saw this
breach was quite far away from the place where the breach actually
occurred could dissuade him from his insistence. He was wrong, everyone
knew he was wrong, and the facts as determined by the CAIB proved he was
wrong.

Indeed, the CAIB coincidentally used that picture in the report to
demonstrate how little you could see from inside the payload bay...

He did see something, incidentally; there was a small pitch-black latch
on the edge of the door, which happened to be directly in line to the
edge of the wing... meaning that it looked like there was a small chink.
Quite an astute observation, but sadly just coincidence. The problem lay
in not accepting it wasn't in the right place...

--
-Andrew Gray

Doug wrote

And that's the problem, don't you see?
*** There is no problem. But go ahead, Im listening.
***
*** ...I simply pointed out this possibility of differences
*** in observation, in politeness to the newsgroup.
*** If of course, you arent seeing what I am, you wont
*** be expected to follow what Im saying about it... and,
*** while this discrepancy would begin to explain any of the
*** irate seeming remarks here - however few of these may in
*** fact contain the smallest amount of sincerity - virtually
*** none of these remarks have directly addressed the
*** issue yet ! There is a problem of sorts, but it
*** doesnt relate to my statements.
***
*** I have already welcomed anyone capable of proving
*** my discovery is false to present such information here
*** or elsewhere...
*** ...babbling "no no no"... reverting to insults... or to
*** the "its just an inkblot dont you see" kind of
*** argument isnt any kind of proof, its just very
*** annoying.
***
*** I'll go one step further... I'll accept, in this, that
*** neither you nor anyone else any-where can see what I
*** do. By this, we would also then accept there is nothing
*** in the picture, such as I claim -to- see... or, rather,
*** we would need to prove that everything visible in these
*** pictures, as you comment, is sand rock mud whatever else
*** you wish to include.
***
*** Although your comments are not, in my opinion, well meant...
*** I will say, my requirements above are surely to be
*** considered fair for all... again, far more so than your
*** remarks have allowed my position.
*** I have however presented my material in earnest.

All any of the rest of us are seeing, in reality, is
fine-grained soil, rocks and rock shards. Because that's
really all that's there.
*** you know this, because... you've been there and seen it ?
*** We both have the same photograph to look at, and we
*** both see it differently.
*** But, really, this reminds me a lot of the movie
*** "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind"... remember the man
*** who carved the mountain out of mashed potatoes, and then
*** out of dirt ?
*** Everybody thought he was cracked, didnt they ? Yes.
*** But what happened ? He got to go to space with the
*** musical alien visitors, didnt he ?!!! Yes. :-)
*** ummm... lessee... where was I going with this... oh well.

I'll remind you (and since I don't recognize your name from that
newsgroup, you may be unaware of this) that on sci.space.shuttle a year
ago, there was a guy who INSISTED that he could see a breach in
Columbia's wing in a shot taken from orbit, during the mission, and sent
down electronically before the destruction of the vehicle.
*** and, as we found later, there may indeed have been such a
*** defect... which indeed this person pointed out before the
*** accident occurred.

No amount of discussion and pointing-out that the place where he
thought he saw this breach was quite far away from the place
where the breach actually occurred could dissuade him from his
insistence.
*** well... as, again, I have replied several times... I am
*** entirely willing to accept any PROOF showing my discovery
*** is false. I simply do not expect any such proof will be
*** forthcoming.

He was wrong, everyone knew he was wrong, and the facts as
determined by the CAIB proved he was wrong. But he's still
sitting at home, bitterly upset that somehow, some conspiracy
has robbed him of the glory of discovering the cause of
the Shuttle's demise. In other words, he has acted, and
continues to act, very, very irrational.
*** I think at most we could agree he may have simply been
*** mistaken... really, only half mistaken wasn't he ? But
*** you consider berating, slandering, this other person
*** more proves some fatal error in his judgement ? Or was
*** your point - since this other person was very very wrong
*** then I must also be very very wrong ? I unlike him want
*** to proven wrong... show me the proof.

He said the same kinds of things as you're saying --
*** Ive looked... nobody else has said what I have.

that it was impossible for anyone who saw the images to NOT
see what he was seeing.
*** well, thats a misquote, or at very least out of context.
*** My point was simply - that the pictures presented were,
*** to me, so obvious in their content that I did not forsee
*** anyone at all objecting to my description thereof.

And he was wrong, because he WANTED to see what he was seeing.
It made him irrationally certain that he was seeing what he
wanted to see.
*** the poor irrationally certain guy :-)
*** However, again, you have suggested that my statements
*** mean [I have only wanted to see] these things which nobody
*** else can see.

I'm afraid you're coming off the same way, here.
*** It seems obvious you have not replied in order to
*** add anything supportive... not even in the least...
*** this makes you just another detractor... OK, I'll say
*** it differently... to me, it seems as if you are just
*** another detractor. Or, I could say, Im afraid you're
*** just another detractor, thats how it is coming off
*** here.

Perhaps, if you are as morally certain as you seem to be
that you're seeing tiny little people in the fine sand,
*** nope... not in the sand... floating above the sand.
*** As far as morally certain - yes, Im certain... and,
*** Im a pretty nice guy... does that qualify me ? Great.

your best bet isn't to try and convince people posting
on Usenet
*** A. I dont gamble... B. I cant repeat it enough - Im
*** not trying to convince anyone, merely presenting my
*** findings... but, also, C. - usenet is actually meant
*** for sharing ideas.
*** Why can't I find the least bit of logic in any of
*** your "reply" ?

(since none of us have anything to do with the
MER project, anyway).
*** I got a kick out of this line
*** yea... none of these "usenet repliers" work for NASA...
*** that is certainly a relief

Maybe you need to get into direct contact with the people at
JPL who are in charge of the rovers. If your evidence is as
obvious to the professionals who are in charge of the mission
as it is to you, then you'll convince them, right? And if not,
maybe they'll be able to convince you?
*** excellent. What problem might we forsee here, however ?
*** "the people at JPL in charge of the rovers" have seen these
*** pictures already... but "the people at JPL in charge of the
*** rovers" did not put a banner on their page saying - "OH
*** GEE... Look everybody... we finally found life on Mars !".
*** Did they ? Wait... let me check for updates. BACK...
*** nope, no banner there yet :-)

At any rate, having this discussion here on Usenet isn't doing you any
good
*** It does however suit me, having presented what I found.
*** That is all I sought, so I have succeeded.

and certainly isn't going to get the people at JPL to study what
you think you're seeing...
*** none of the "people at JPL" have replied to my article...
*** mostly just boasters, hecklers, and ink blot experts, so far :-)

Doug