UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 1

Re: Processed MGS Data - Maybe The 'Face' _Is_

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:17:38 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 03:29:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Processed MGS Data - Maybe The 'Face' _Is_

 >From: Mac Tonnies <Alintelbot@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:49:57 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Processed MGS Data - Maybe The 'Face' _Is_
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >Steven J. Dunn writes:

 >>In April 1998, NASA released imaged of the Cydonia region and
 >>the "face on Mars" that looked to most, including this humble
 >>correspondent, to be a very natural formation.  The "face" was

 >The MGS shot of the "Face" on Mars was handled horribly from the
 >beginning--by the news media, predictably, but also by NASA, who
 >released an unprocessed version of the Face to the media in an
 >arguable attempt to kill the issue before any intelligent
 >discourse could materialize.

 >In a way, NASA was being honest: it released the first halfway
 >intelligible image it had right away, killing the otherwise
 >inevitable attempts to shout "cover-up"!  But for an agency who
 >publicly claimed a "neutral stand," the horrid April image was
 >used as a "straw man" by the very geologists who insisted it was
 >a non-issue and not worthy of discussion.


 >Sadly, NASA has also informally retracted its earlier promise to
 >rephotograph the site "until everyone is satisfied."  It wasted
 >a perfect opportunity to do just this on Aug. 26--a chance to
 >get a clean overhead shot of the Face under good light and
 >weather conditions (even NASA grudgingly conceded that the April
 >'98 image was taken through a layer of atmospheric haze).

 >Our next chance is in November.

 >The Face and its associated landforms represent a legitimate
 >scientific anomaly, and one that can be falsified--but only with
 >good data!  A failure to pursue this mystery, whether out of
 >cowardice or bureaucratic apathy, may well turn out to be the
 >defining intellectual catastrophe of our era.

 >--Mac Tonnies

NASA is supposed to be a "public funded" organization, receiving
it's money from Congress and supported by tax payers.

Since NASA chooses to "exclude" the very people who are funding
their space exploration, why do we continue to support them and
request Congressional funding???

If they feel we are not entitled to "know" what their machines
along with the "sensors and cameras," are detecting, then why
should we "collectively," not demand of Congress a complete
cut off of "public funds?"

I personally feel and have felt for over 25 years that most of
the work done by NASA was for the Military Complex anyway.
When you understand that the majority of astronauts have been
Military Test Pilots in the past, then I think this may support
my contention.

I realize there are more civilians involved with the "shuttle"
missions now, but still, who is reaping the benefits from NASA's

Do we really want to know what they have kept from us over the
years?  If so, then let us demand it now or forever "shut up!"

I am the first to admit I am a "dunce."  The fact that I have
sat idlely by for all these years and said nothing should
prove that.

REgards, Mike

  Download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
  BBS: (270) 683-3026
  Fax: (270) 686-7394
  Home: (270) 683-6811

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com