A CIVILIZATION on MARS? 1B/200M Years Ago? (Pt. 2)

yevaud · May 23, 2005

"Thanks, G'nffzz. I'll have a half latte, half mocha decaf with a splash, and a little moo. Froth it, and sprinkle on cocoa. Thanks" Bzz'Nff'K'ff'krr! ("F'ing Tourist!") <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mental_avenger · May 24, 2005

Max quotes out of context: Such as.... a tool imaged by a rover The actual sentence was: Bottom line, short of a clearly identifiable artifact, such as a tool imaged by a rover, it is unlikely that we will ever have enough data from the current array of instrumentation. IOW, as I pointed out, the current limited rovers cannot do the extensive digging and testing required to determine if there was life on Mars. As such, only a clear image of a tool or other undeniably artificial object would suffice. MA wants artifacts.... NASA drives by artifacts.... In your highly biased opinion only. What you don’t understand, and possibly never will, is that I would like to see proof of ET Alien life as much as you do, possibly more. The difference is that I am not willing to believe that every fuzzy image is something artificial. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 24, 2005

Well, how about a componant [sic] that was machined by a tool? Would that suffice? When they imaged this possible artifact, NASA decided to simply drive on by.... I see a rock, not unlike a lot of rocks I can find in my driveway or up on the hillside. BTW, if you would limit your image size to a maximum of 650 pixels wide (instead of the 872 in that image) it wouldn’t push the screen margins out and make the entire page difficult to read for everyone. Why don't you resubmit it in a more appropriate size. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

JonClarke · May 24, 2005

Dating the Cydonia Mensae by impact cratering is difficult because of the complex landscape history. As I recall the plains are of Early Hesperian age (~3 Ga) the mensae material itself, from under which the plains are being exhumed, is Early Amazonian, about 2 Ga. The actual landforms would be somewhat younger than this. the title of this thread 200 Ma to 1 Ga might be about right, in this aspect at least. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · May 24, 2005

Zen mate, Please explain what you mean by "redunant geometry"? Please explain what you mean by THEMIS "penetrating dust" Why don't you link to the original data as well as to Bara and Laney's art work? That way people can judge for themselves whether his processing actually enhances them or is an algorithm too far. As it is their images look suspicously like what you get when you over enhance any image and save each interation as a new jpeg file. But we can't tell whether this is case because not only haven't you provided any link to the original data, but by not giving the image number they themselves make it almost impossible for anyone to check. Rather odd behaviour for people supposedly wanting to uncover the truth about Mars, don't you think? As far as the Phobos Thermoskan image goes, the provenance of the image is very obscure. As far as I can tell it is a videocapture from a TV documentary that showed a photo. It has now been processed until it is completely unrecognisable. I have seen a few Thermoscan images in my time and they are much higher quality than that. Again, without the original data, the versions illustrated are worthless. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

thechemist · May 24, 2005

Hi Jon. <looking at the FOM arificiality side /> What's the matter with you people ? Nobody found the face in the beans ? Do I have to "trace" it for you ? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I feel better than James Brown. </div>

JonClarke · May 24, 2005

Bean there done that... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I get it - it's a portrait of Rowan Atkinson! Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

telfrow · May 24, 2005

Max: NASA drives by artifacts.... This is the point, I assume, where Extrasense enters the thread... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

JonClarke · May 24, 2005

Darned Martian litterbugs....... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

maxtheknife · May 24, 2005

MA, please define "clear image of a tool or other undeniably artificial object" Every fuzzy image? There are lots of them, aren't there? Do you not think that the 'slot rock' merited a closer look by NASA? Why not get a closer look to clear up the image and eliminate possible accusations of a cover up? MA: I would like to see proof of ET Alien life as much as you do, possibly more. Then why doesn't it bother you that NASA drove by this potential artifact?

maxtheknife · May 24, 2005

Thanx for the links, Telfrow <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> It was late, and I was tired..... I need more time to think about your earlier post....thanks in advance for your patience <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

maxtheknife · May 24, 2005

Just wanted to note that there are still no comments about this..... edit....click on 'maxtheknife'.... I'm commenting on the post I was replying to.

telfrow · May 24, 2005

What? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

Leovinus · May 24, 2005

Here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

maxtheknife · May 24, 2005

Leo, and Chemist.... We all agree that humans have a tendancy to see faces in nature. Is it really necessary to keep proving it over and over and over and over? We get it, already..... what's your next argument? How about some moderating here....

bobw · May 24, 2005

Regarding the question of the optimum viewing height to see the face on mars; I think that really high up with a blurry little camera works best. When they use the good stuff it just looks like a hill. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

thechemist · May 24, 2005

It 's a good thing to aquire knowledge, but it is not enough. You must also apply it to actual situations/problems. I don't understand what exactly you want when you imply inadequate moderation of this thread. Care to elaborate ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I feel better than James Brown. </div>

maxtheknife · May 24, 2005

Telfrow, I've been thinking about you and this post. The first thing that hit me was that your answers are just plain wrong. Carlotto estimated the age of the FOM @ approx. 25k, 30k yo.....RCH, 500k yo. I'll give you that much.... Second, they didn't use erosion models at all. Do you want to try again? Hint.... MesoAmerican....Solstical..... On the last point..... good, but honestly I wouldn't know where to begin to come up w/ an accurate range of numbers. My guess is from a considerably greater distance considering the approximat size of the FOM is ~1.5km x ~3km. I think it's fair to say that zooming in on the human eye is not the best vantage point. At least a few miles above (with good resolution, Bob!) would probably be better. Can we agree on that?

yevaud · May 24, 2005

If you don't mind me interrupting. What with current multispectral imaging techniques and hardware available, we *should* be able to obtain quite good imagery from about 200 miles (fairly standard altitude for this sort of thing, at least here on Earth). I really suspect that the image of the FOM is about as good as we're going to get, until the day we can get "boots on the ground." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

maxtheknife · May 24, 2005

Chemist.... You all have presented more than enough examples to prove your point about seeing faces in nature....We conceed that. It doesn't diminish our argument in the least. In fact none of your examples hold up under different lighting or viewing angles. The FOM does. This is clearly shown by the greatly disadvantaged view point and lighting of the '98 Catbox image. It just feels like you guys are distracting from the conversation by posting examples of pareidolia after pareidolia. I'm beginning to feel embarassed for you. We get the point. The examples are becoming distracting...... move on.

maxtheknife · May 24, 2005

Right, Yevaud....That's my point. I traced the FOM from a good and reasonable vantage point. I didn't trace it while zoomed in on just the human eye.

thechemist · May 24, 2005

Max said: "It just feels like you guys are distracting from the conversation by posting examples of pareidolia after pareidolia. I'm beginning to feel embarassed for you. We get the point. The examples are becoming distracting...... move on." I couldn't have said it better myself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I feel better than James Brown. </div>

yevaud · May 24, 2005

Absolutely. Look, there's no argument on the quality of the available imagery. And the ample images provided are fine. But, where is this debate going? Perhaps a step-by-step apporoach would be good, at this point. Say focus (joke not intended) on one aspect of the FOM, and try to hash out the basics, such as what material it's comprised on, is it weathered or artificially sculpted, are it's lines consistant with naturally occurring features or are they too straight to be naturally occurring, and so on. Then you'd all have some sort of common baseline to continue on from. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

zenonmars · May 24, 2005

Yevaud: "as good as we're going to get, until the day we can get "boots on the ground." Yevaud: "where is this debate going? Perhaps a step-by-step apporoach would be good, at this point." <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I LOVE common ground!!! Let's face it folks. We (the American taxpayers who pay for the missions) want to know about Cydonia. It is evidenced here, by this rag tag group of SDC enthusiasts, that this is IMMENSLY fascinating to US. ALL of us! We have generated HUNDREDS of pages, THOUSANDS of posts on the subject of verification or dismissal of the Artificiality Hypotheses. We are a PERFECT slice of space-conscious citizens. We are amatuers and professionals, men and women, voters and students and mothers and uncles and writers and internet geeks. WHEN? When are we going to get our hearing by the NASA we have bought and paid for? The US Navy didn't have to wait. They suddenly wanted images of the Moon, and VOILA! , Clementine takes 10,000 new pics. Why should we have to wait? By the time this issue is seriously slipped into the NASA mars-timeline, WE WILL ALL BE DEAD!!! These words will vanish. The discs we save these posts on will be cast into landfills, or overwritten with computer games by our great grandchildren. 1) We OWN Nasa. Does anyone here disagree with that? 2) We obviously CARE about Cydonia. Does anyone here disagree with that? 3) We have the right to COMMUNICATE with our government. Does anyone here disagree with that? I want everyone to answer those 3 questions: cs_ and Max and Jon and Yevaud and Telfrow and Naja... EVERYONE...... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE......no need for editorial comment (of course it will be heard), but all I BEG is a simple yes or no to these 3 questions. Thanks in advance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · May 24, 2005

Yes. Yes. Yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

A CIVILIZATION on MARS? 1B/200M Years Ago? (Pt. 2)

yevaud

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

thechemist

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

bobw

Guest

thechemist

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

yevaud

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

thechemist

Guest

yevaud

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page