A CIVILIZATION on MARS? 1B/200M Years Ago? (Pt. 3)

[najab]

Continuation of this thread (which itself was a continuation of this thread) - as hard as that is to believe.<br />

 

[bobw]

For a while I thought I was confused but maybe not.<br /><br />Jon says 'The mesa isn't symmetrical.'<br />Max posts pictures of half the face and it's mirror image and says the face is symmetrical, case closed.<br /><br />Any image will be symmetrical with it's mirror image. Max has done it twice now, it doesn't seem like an answer to me. What am I missing with the kaleidoscope trick? How does that show the mesa to be symmetrical?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Unfortunately, it doesn't. You're exactly right. <br /><br />Edit: Hmm. That's too blunt a statement. To rephrase, there probably are circumstances in which mirror-imaging something is valid. Whether or not it's valid here is still under discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Please read the post carefully.....again.<br /><br />Which part do you consider evasive, Naj?<br /><br />Jon- "From a scientific approach it does not matter whether you start from an assumption of the mesa being natural or artifical." <br /><br />WRONG. Everything that is exposed in the Martian enviornment is subject to geological forces. Hence, you will find plenty of evidence to support a geological model. We can apply the same method, if you'd like, to the (I liked this) Gizamids or Teotihuacan and prove them natural....especially since we lack the means to replicate them. <br /><br />In order to tackle the question of artificiality, you need to start looking for the eyes, headdress, et al.... You need to start looking for relevant archology near by. You need to start looking at ALL the relevant questions. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">I answered your hang up about symmetry. The base platform is OBVIOUSLY symmetric</font>..ask any 5th grader. You'll get an unbiased and objective answer. That the face isn't symmetric is irrelevant. Ask the same 5th grader if it's a face....It's a face. Do you think you may just be a little biased in your approach? <br /><br />In response to Leovinus...Highways??? You don't live on the East Coast, do you? One snow storm and, POOF! They're gone. Want more buildings? Why do you think the scientists in Egypt have to DIG? The stuff has been buried over the years.... It's amazing that the enigmas at Cydonia are exposed to the degree they are. <br /><br />We DID NOT find extant intelligence....we found the remains of extinct or vacated intelligence. Go ahead, Naj....How old might these ruins be? <br /><br />I'm not dodging anything....You are. You're biased in your approach to the question and you refuse to 'stand on the desk' for a fresh perspective. (Dead Poet's refrence) <br /><br />From an unbiased, artistic point of view, the FOM has PASSED every test we've thrown at it. Well, except for the lips....we could use your help w/ that, Jon.

 

[rubicondsrv]

So how long untll this thread is moved to phenomena or is locked? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Remains to be seen. If we can't agree on the artificiality of anything, then that's where it'll go, soon enough.<br /><br />On the other hand, if we can focus on a few points to debate the artificiality of, probably not. Just right now, *everything* is on the table, so it's too early to tell yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"RCH predicted that the face was half lion, half humanoid." -- Maxtheknife</font><br /><br />This is not a prediction. It is a postulate as in "Something assumed without proof as a basis of reasoning or as self-evident." (per Webster) <br /><br />That pretty much sums up every FOM argument: "reasoning" based on assumptions without proof. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Yeah. Hard to have "proof," when it's physically many millions of miles away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Well, I can prove that Saturn has rings from millions of miles away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"So how long untll this thread is moved to phenomena..."</font><br /><br />I was wondering when this question would be raised. I didn't want to do it myself since I raised a stink when the thread started in Space Science and didn't want to appear to be on a vendetta. I figured I would leave it to the SETI forum frequenters to decide if the FOM discussion fit into their forum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Well, yes. But we didn't know for certain what their exact configuration and composition was, until we wnet there and did those flybys.<br /><br />I'm merely pointing out that a few images that are wide open for interpretation is small beer, compared with hard physical evidence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Actually, to have proof that the FOM is half human/half lion, it would take a thorough archaeological study of the ancient martian civilization. A finding and deciphering of their writings and a reconstruction of their history, belief systems, scientific knowlege, etc. to determine if a) they were humanoids or knew of the existence of humanoids or imagined the existence of humanoids and b) the same for lions.<br /><br />So first we need to know of the existence of a martian civilization and then we need to know their relationship to humanoids and lions and why they would make a monument that represents half of each. Then we would have proof that the FOM is half humanoid/half lion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Until we have and can study evidence and artifacts of a martian civilization -- besides those "seen from orbit" -- we are only studying ourselves and our beliefs when we analyse the FOM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Yes, true. In fact, all we're really doing here is trying to determine if an anomoly is even *worth* later followup.<br /><br />I do find it awfully odd that there's this concept of an intelligent, tool-using, monument constructing Martian race (now deceased), and all based on a couple of grainy photos that are so ambiguous.<br /><br />I'm willing to debate it, fine, but it's sure very weak evidence to argue on. Kind of like finding a beer can tab in the desert, and building a hypothetical race that made them out of it... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Well, at least no one's suggested that when we get Oppy out of the sand, we send her to Cydonia... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Kind of like finding a beer can tab in the desert..."</font><br /><br />At least the beer can tab is an unambiguous artificial artifact. Find it's equivalent on Mars (not a rock shaped like a beer can tab) and I'll start seriously considering a martian civilization. After ruling out a hoax that is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

How long would that trip take, I wonder? 25 years or so? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

That's beside the point...<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />We could swing by Viking 1 and Pathfinder after we're done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Well, at least no one's suggested..."</font><br /><br />I am sure that that suggestion HAS been made. Along with the suggestion that Spirit go help Opportunity out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

rubicondsrv: "So how long untll this thread is moved to phenomena or is locked?" <br /><br />Oh, you naughty, naughty boy.......<br /><br />Remember what I said, Yevaud?<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />Some quotes from David Sadler:<br /><br />This is how it works in 2004 A.D. That's not a new pulsar being detected by Arecibo. It's Galileo spinning in his grave. But this time it’s the High Priesthood of Scienticians of the New Church of Official Science refusing to look through their own 'telescope' of the 21st century --- the rover Opportunity's microscopic imager.<br />'Scientician,' is a word combining 'scientist' and 'politician' coined years ago by Dave Powelson to describe the political corruption of a 'scientist.' A scientician is willing to alter and/or ignore observations and research to conform to the political correct thinking or policy of any particular age. No longer an objective scientist, the person becomes a 'political' scientist --- a scientician. <br />I am confidant that time will expose the corruption and co-opting of 20th-21st century science. But every age hides a truth. Every age has its scienticians. And every age has its objective scientists willing to confront conformity and battle to have paradigm-shifting evidence considered for its scientific merit. In our age, this is especially true with regards to life beyond Earth and revolutionary energy sources.<br /><br />DEBUNKING AND DIVERSION TACTICS<br />One tactic being used by...is to persuade the reader to ignore anything they've heard about the Crinoid like fossil found on Mars. The intent is to make the reader believe only the experts at NASA can determine what a fossil is. They do this by convincing the reader that it is nearly impossible to identify fossils in general, let alone one on Mars.<br /><br />Does the intelligent, scientifically oriented reader detect...a stacked deck? --- a packed jury and a show-trial to persuade you, the reader, that "There's nothing to see here. Move alo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Hmm. Well, no offense, but I've been at least as, if not more than, objective in this thread as anyone. I'm still here, aren't I? And I've debunked nothing, except to try to steer things towards some common baseline. Which only a few others seem to be doing.<br /><br />As far as the weight of "evidence" goes, I'll refer back to what was stated as the standard on pornography, many years ago: "I'll know it when I see it."<br /><br />So far, all we're doing is debating a couple of pictures. Interesting, yes. Intriguing, sure. Worth discussing? Absolutely.<br /><br />But please don't try to suggest to me that a landform bearing a resemblance to something, and a couple of lines drawn on a picture, are definitive "proof." Not yet it isn't.<br /><br />We'll see... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Since symmetry is the demand of the day, I submit: </i><p>Ooh, pretty. So now: what is it, where is it and where's the original image? Cause I got one that's even more symmetrical than that:</p>

 

[yevaud]

Ok, if I saw a picture of *that* located on Mars, THEN I'd believe. <br /><br />Edit: of course, knowing the media fairly well, I'm sure the news headline would read "Buckminster Fuller was a Martian!!"<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">what is it, where is it and where's the original image?</font><br /><br />Original image can be found here:<br /><br />http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m15012/m1501228.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[thechemist]

If this is a martian golf-ball, it would fit well with the butt-cheek hypothesis by Silylene in Thread no 2. OMG, they 're giants <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>