The man/woman figure on mars appears to be "paranormal""“ A clever announcement of the coming ET Corn Gods language, now being introduced to the world.

? It looks like a surface feature on the rim of a crater to me. Magnified it takes on a suspiciously humanoid shape and displays color/texture like anomalies compared to what's around it. It doesn't look "paranormal," it looks odd, worthy of a closer look.

Of course, the photo is three years old. We don't know if NASA sent the rover closer to check it out, or if the object moved while the rover was motoring over to check it out. Heck, we don't know that it's not photoshopped. Given that it was released to support Bush's demand for money for a manned mission, who knows? It obviously wasn't important enough to release before.

Besides, no languages I might recognize are spoken in NASA Photo-ese. They're usually spoken in words. I have, however, met Sam Slasher the Corn Monster. He wasn't nearly as bad as the kids made him out to be. Looked a lot like a short-ish, stoutly built Jewish guy with a wicked sense of humor.

911 was caused by, for lack of better words, "paranormal" sources. There was not enough energy in the airplanes to down the buildings and pulverize the concrete and office equipment, the implosions happened at free fall speeds "” only "extraterrestrial technology" could have done it.

This is not a forum for 9-11 conspiracy theories, or alien abduction stories, or "The Queen's a Lizard!" junk, or even Raelian / Scientology / Transhumanist / Rapture-ite fantasies. There are places like that on the internet, it's just that this isn't one of them. Please find a forum more suited to your beliefs and concerns.

The ET/UFO's are a tricky bunch "” we may find out that the little man/woman was put there by some NASA/JPL engineer as a prank "” not unlike engineers to play a stupid prank.

Yes, stupid pranks abound on the internet. You appear to have missed entirely the gist of this thread, and the use of the NASA photos as a way of discussing the usefulness and practicality of the Design Matrix for determining whether something is likely designed or not. In order for it to be pertinent, no "belief-in" aliens or even the reality of the photographs is necessary.

I previously linked the WaPo blog open to the public for comment on these pictures. There are many others, people are having a lovely time with them. I think you stumbled into the wrong one here.

The ET/UFO's are making their first "intellectual" appearance through the knowledge of humans that "they" have been controlling the evolution of the English Language — and everything else. The "messages" from the translations will be very painful to take.

Read my previous posting. Perhaps this "TELIC …" church only listens to themselves — not outsiders. Listening only to insider's is less dangerous. Those outsiders might change your mind.

The ET/UFO's are a tricky bunch — we may find out that the little man/woman was put there by some NASA/JPL engineer as a prank — not unlike engineers to play a stupid prank.

I didn't change my mind. My opinion is they wouldn't tell us. If ET showed up in the manner you specify as the only way you'd believe they exist, nobody in the government has to say anything at all. The point is entirely moot.

So while there is no policy in place for government officials to withhold information about aliens from the public, you still believe that the government as a whole (and each individual) would do so anyway?

Looking at the stuff that individuals in the CIA leaked, even though there is a strong policy against leaking and quite severe punishment when discovered, this does just not seem very likely to me.

LOL!!! If the phenomenon is genuine, they've made their presence known. I enjoy sci-fi but I don't judge my world by sci-fi's terms. Among my faves are anything Godzilla, The Blob and Little Shop of Horrors. Why in the world would I look in real life for giant lizards, giant ecto-jello or man-eating plants before I'd suspect that thousands of people are really seeing something when they report UFOs?

I don't follow.

You have no credulity. You're a born skeptic, believe nothing you don't see and often don't trust that. It's okay to be that. You just shouldn't demand everyone be like that. I choose to reserve judgment on the subject at this time (I've never seen one, but others swear they have). There's nothing wrong with that position. It means that unlike you, I don't demand ET show up for autopsy before I'd suspect he/she/it might exist. If I were to meet him/her/it myself, I'd probably move all the way over into the 'believer' camp.

On the contrary, Joy. I have lots of credulity. I believe that tribes in the remote jungles of Indonesia exist. I believe that the Island of Tonga exists. I believe that the sun is billions of miles away from us and quite huge. I believe that all the stars I see are actually quite often suns like ours. I believe an awful lot of things that I can't see or verify myself. That does not mean that I believe everything that I can't see or verify myself.

And nobody demanded an autopsy. Remember, well supposedly already HAVE an autopsy and it was not very convincing.

And I don't presume to know the intent of aliens either. But I do know that IF the aliens are attempting to come into contact with humans for the past 50 years (or even longer) then they are doing a really really pathetically poor job. Don't you think? And IF the aliens are not attempting to come into contact with humans for the past 50 years (or even longer) than they are doing an even worse job at it.

They fall out of the sky over area 51. They blink in the sky for a little while and then get chased away by air force pilots. They abduct a few people here and there, mainly in rural USA, only to send them back more or less unharmed and unenlightened a little later.

Maybe the aliens are just pranksters.

You know, like that immortal dude from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy who decides to make it his life's mission to insult every single living being in the universe.

Glad you changed your mind.

I didn't change my mind. My opinion is they wouldn't tell us. If ET showed up in the manner you specify as the only way you'd believe they exist, nobody in the government has to say anything at all. The point is entirely moot.

Anyone who suspects design in the phenomena (like, say, ET) probably reached that state of suspicion on less evidence than you demand. It's not like there is NO evidence that something's going on. Still, I am not surprised you must see them yourself and the whole world has to back you up before you'd grant the possibility that something's going on.

Honestly, it boggles my mind to believe that aliens who can span the bridges between planets or solar systems would be so incapable to make their presence known.

LOL!!! If the phenomenon is genuine, they've made their presence known. I enjoy sci-fi but I don't judge my world by sci-fi's terms. Among my faves are anything Godzilla, The Blob and Little Shop of Horrors. Why in the world would I look in real life for giant lizards, giant ecto-jello or man-eating plants before I'd suspect that thousands of people are really seeing something when they report UFOs?

12,618 sightings also don't impress much.

I agree. Until 1960 or so the projects existed to deal with UFO sightings from Air Force pilots, ATCs and radar operators mostly. They'd been coming in regularly since the "Foo Fighters" of WW-II. As I said, the major concerns were Top Secret government projects and whether or not the bogies were coming from our earthly enemies. Don't forget that it was then (as now) Life in Wartime. We went straight from WW-II to the good ol' Cold War. Lots of things were secret.

When they started taking reports from town sheriffs and local police and citizens (up to a dozen a day, sometimes mass sightings with hundreds of witnesses), the applied "explanations" were well-honed. The moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, setting sun or rising moon, a particularly bright and long-lived meteor. That ended up getting so much flack from the witnesses and press that they just disbanded the whole thing. 39 years ago.

It just stretches my credulity to the breaking point.

You have no credulity. You're a born skeptic, believe nothing you don't see and often don't trust that. It's okay to be that. You just shouldn't demand everyone be like that. I choose to reserve judgment on the subject at this time (I've never seen one, but others swear they have). There's nothing wrong with that position. It means that unlike you, I don't demand ET show up for autopsy before I'd suspect he/she/it might exist. If I were to meet him/her/it myself, I'd probably move all the way over into the 'believer' camp.

What would throw my life into turmoil would be if I were to meet ET tomorrow and ET told me they tried to make contact with humankind for a good 50 years, but they were effectively thwarted by the US government for half a century.

I don't presume to know what the intent, purpose or chosen tactics ET must use in contacting humanity. I'm not sure they exist, though something's obviously going on. If you have pre-set criteria ET must perform before you'd believe he exists, I'm not surprised you have pre-set criteria about what he must and must not communicate if he ever does jump through your belief hoops.

I would immediately lose my belief that advancement in science leads to generally smart and capable beings.

Aw, that's a shame. Maybe there's a reason after all that ET doesn't jump through scientist's hoops…

The Corn Circles and Et sightings are also announcements of the hidden language — hidden meanings in every word the English language.

911 was caused by, for lack of better words, "paranormal" sources. There was not enough energy in the airplanes to down the buildings and pulverize the concrete and office equipment, the implosions happened at free fall speeds — only "extraterrestrial technology" could have done it.

The 911 disaster and the hidden language are "stings" against "religion" and lots more — see: http://www.etcorngods.com/reli...
http://www.etcorngods.com/911....

The news is bad if you don't like "Religion" as we know it to disappear.

The good news is the existence of the hidden language proves ID.

hrun:
So how can we know a priori (without testing ALL possible resolution) whether we are in the appropriate resolution to detect or discount design?

Design IS resolution dependent. If I look at a typewriter with my naked eyes, I can see the design elements. If I look at a typewriter with an electron microscope, I will miss them. If I look at a typewriter on Mars with a radio telescope, I may also miss the design elements.

The perception of musical melody is also resolution sensitive. If I slow the melody down too much, I will not detect it. It I speed it up too much I will also not detect it.

There is an optimal resolution for detecting a design, which is dependent upon the granularity design itself. Too fine or too coarse and you'll miss it.

Wait some for Mike.

I don't understand. We have been discussing this for a few hours. Do you not even have an opinion anymore? It seemed to me that you at first agreed that this process is subjective, right? What changed?

Where did you get the idea that design is removed from causality? It's apparent in these messages we are exchanging. Resolution is a problem only if you cannot see the letters. How clearly you see them is irrelevant to the characteristic of them that conveys their design namely, their sequencing within a specified encoding convention.

What do you mean? The whole idea of ID is that one can detect design WITHOUT understand when it was designed, how it was designed and who did the designing! Did I get that wrong?

So you have an objective solution for the problem about resolution?

Wait some for Mike.

And why is the challenge in tracing causality? I thought one of the major issues in ID was to identify or infer design"“ independent of who or what did the designing? So I thought it was actually specifically removed from the causality chain.

Where did you get the idea that design is removed from causality? It's apparent in these messages we are exchanging. Resolution is a problem only if you cannot see the letters. How clearly you see them is irrelevant to the characteristic of them that conveys their design namely, their sequencing within a specified encoding convention.