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

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Pseudoscientists.... the lot of ya.</font><br /><br />http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/science/pseudoscientist.html<br /><br />Who fits the definition, Max?<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>

 

[maxtheknife]

It fits you all and NASA much better... demonstrable Pseudoscientists.... or maybe....Political Scientists. Take your pick... each is as bad as the other.<br /><br />The link doesn't work.

 

[telfrow]

Try it now. <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>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">It fits you all and NASA much better... demonstrable Pseudoscientists.... or maybe....Political Scientists. Take your pick... each is as bad as the other.</font><br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Let’s see (It's an oldie, but....):<br /><br />Top 10 Traits of the Pseudoscientist<br /><br /><i>Society is developing a new breed of "intellect": the pseudoscientist. Too lazy to do real work to research a topic, the pseudoscientist is armed with a strong curiousity, an enlarged ego, and a dose of authoritian paranoia. Combined with his patchwork access to media-filtered science "facts" (if they can be called such after the media is done processing them) and his desire for profit, the pseudoscientist is likely to be tomorrow's new danger to the preservation of knowledge. </i><br /><br />1. You believe your subscription to Analog provides the necessary background to argue with PhD scientists. <br /><br />2. You think "real" science is mostly developed in garages or hobby rooms. <br /><br />3. You think scientists are inflexible to changing paradigms (using one of pseudoscientists' favorite terms). See definition of "Science." <br /><br />4. You think the government, big business, or traditional scientists are in a conspiracy to prevent the pseudoscientists from showing the "truth" to the rest of the world, motivated by such movies as "Chain Reaction." <br /><br />5. You think science is purely to start a business and make money. <br /><br />6. You think it's cool to announce impossible-sounding claims to the media without a peer review process (see #4 above), expository discussion, or other legitimizing process. You may believe the US Patent Office is a legitimizing process, if they aren't in conspiracy with #4 above. <br /><br />7. You're aiming for the Einsteinian turn-science-upside-down revolution of thought and universal understanding, based on your two years of high school physics and a copy of Omni magazine. <br /><br />8. You think highly suspicious behavior is <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>

 

[zenonmars]

<b>ZEN RESPONDS TO ALL QUESTIONS_5</b><br /><br />Hi, tel.....<font color="yellow">"Carlotto, et. al., estimated it's age at 25,000 years. And I thought RCH estimated 200,000"</font><br /><br />My own memory tells me only what I recall <i>Richard</i> speculating: No younger than 65 million years ago. Now my apologies to all, especially Richard, if I got this wrong.<br /><br />telfrow: <font color="yellow">" You really want our opinion on that one Zen?"</font>concerning Hoagland quote)<br /><br />heheh........................no. It can only be either/or. No in-between on this one.<br /><br />telfrow: <font color="yellow">"Well, thanks for the photo Zen. Now, explain where the heck the feature that is used to create the line at 1:00 is...and why the ridge line at 4:00 isn't used... the figure isn't a pentagon? And that it doesn't relate to the surrounding features? Sure, you say you can't argue the math, but you can use your eyes and draw straight lines. Why not try doing something on your own?"</font><br /><br />Who do you think drew the <b>black</b> lines? I told you I suck at this. The original analysis is here: (I could not use the pic...too large a file)<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep13.jpg<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep14.jpg<br /><br />"This new perspective on the D&M now allows us to see that is most likely a two-dimensional seven-sided platform (or base) upon which the massive three-dimensional five-side "Rosetta Stone" structure was constructed. One, which like the structure itself, was designed to convey a very specific mathematical model to those that found it. A model that was (you guessed it) quintessentially tetrahedral -- because it geometrically embodied the unique seven-spin symmetry of the tetrahedron! <br /><br />"I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Telfrow, the first guy you refrenced when I brought up the FOM in Iapetus part 1, was Phil Plait.<br /><br />My refutation of Plait has gone uncontested since, i dunno, like February. Even in the 'Pseudoskeptic' thread, uncontested.<br /><br />Since you guys align yourself w/ him and his conclusions, you are all pseudoscientists. Plait, imo, could also be correctly labeled a political scientist. I'm sure most of you are not political scientists. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[maxtheknife]

<font color="yellow">Ya know, when you own a business, you can work HALF days... (and you can choose the half!) </font><br /><br />You know I do! Hey, how 'bout that.... It IS good to be da king! LMAO! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow"> I'm sure most of you are not political scientists.</font><br /><br />Actually, Max, one of my degrees <i>is</i> in political science. <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>

 

[mental_avenger]

Mental Avenger: <i>It is hard to imagine how further imaging with the same limited equipment can produce any results that will change anything.</i><br /><br />Zen replies: <font color="yellow"> And that is what I've been saying all along. We need MUCH more and better data: </font><br /><br />You lost me there. I thought that the argument was that NASA has the “good” data but is “dumbing it down”, “hiding” it, or deliberately “degrading it. I can’t follow when you change the rules so fast and so often.<br /><br />BTW, your cost of war link is irrelevant to this discussion. It is yet another diversionary tactic and does not belong here. However, to put that to rest: It goes without saying that any money we spend abroad is money we no longer have. But keep in mind, if we spend money on the war, then most of it is returned to the people of the USA as wages, sales, and yes, more taxes. Not the same people to be sure, but it is returned to our country. Yes, some of it stays over in Iraq as buildings, water systems, sewage treatment plants, and other infrastructure, but I don’t begrudge that part of it at all.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

What's your point?

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow"><i>”Either these features on Mars are natural and this investigation is a complete waste of time, or they are artificial and this is one of the most important discoveries of our entire existence on Earth.”</i> </font><br /><br />That one is so obvious that I feel foolish having to explain it. Virtually without exception, those people who propose extreme fringe ideas, technology, or knowledge are in the same category. That includes those who claim to have invented perpetual motion, anti-gravity, and endless energy, those who claim psychic abilities, astral travel, and alien abduction, and those who make other unproven claims such as ET Alien spacecraft and ET Alien structures on other planets. That category is this: It is always a big risk to make such claims, but <font size="+2"> IF </font> (and that’s a big if) they somehow manage to be right (or nearly right) (or somewhere in the general vicinity at least), then they will be credited with the biggest discovery of all time and will be famous for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It would be a form of immorality. If they are proven wrong few people notice, and they usually go on to make another fantastic claim, hoping that they will eventually get it right. The probability may be orders of magnitude worse than winning the lotto, but the payoff is a LOT bigger. Hoagland’s statement says it all.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

BTW, you <i>again</i> posted an overly wide image (735 pixels). Is it <i>too</i> much to ask that you keep your images less than 650 pixels wide? I strongly dislike having to scroll sideways because one poster doesn’t take that one small step to keep the images within bounds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Actually, you and gene had been bringing up Plait and Bad Astronomy for quite a while.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=175609&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=11&vc=1<br /><br />On page 12, I posted a link to Plait's Bad Astronomy site...to an article entitled "Just Another Face in the Crowd" and three other links. All concerned pareidolia. We then went into a discussion of craters and lines on Iapetus.<br /><br />As for Plait, the attempts here to discuss the geometry of Cydonia are designed to see who has the straighter ruler...and if the geometry works. <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>

 

[telfrow]

You said: <font color="yellow">I'm sure most of you are not political scientists.</font><br /><br />I pointed out I could be considered one. What was your point in bringing it up in the first place? <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

I used the term 'political scientist' to designate a scientist who conforms to applied political pressures and as a result, at least in appearance, becomes a practitioner of pseudoscience.

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">My own memory tells me only what I recall Richard speculating: No younger than 65 million years ago. Now my apologies to all, especially Richard, if I got this wrong.</font><br /><br /><i>"Through archeoastronomy (positions of monuments in relationship with stars), also considering Mars' geological changes, Hoagland tried to determine the age of the structures, and found the age of 300'000 years ago."</i><br /><br />http://www.ufopsi.com/ufodc/faceonmars.html<br /><br /><i>Hoagland thinks that 200,000 years ago, whatever was going on at Cydonia, the Moon and maybe even Earth came to an abrupt end, and the Moon began to drift away very slowly from the position it was being kept in!</i>[TEM]<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><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>

 

[maxtheknife]

From the bottom of your link, Telfrow... <font color="yellow">Conclusion? Hoagland and his friends spreaded the idea. Which means that this time scientists spreaded the idea, not ufologists. </font><br /><br />Spreaded? lolol<br /><br />"Me fail English? That's UMPOSSIBLE!"<br />

 

[mental_avenger]

I suspect that Richard Hoagland is a pretty nice guy. I suspect that Zen and Max are probably nice guys also. It is even possible that Mental Avenger is a nice guy. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> If any of us ever met, and did not know of the others’ beliefs regarding UFOs, formations on Mars etc, we might like each other. It is also possible that any one of us may have ended up on the other side of the “fence” if only a few earlier circumstances had been different. That makes these discussions even stranger, doesn’t it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Zen mate, I am sure I can sleep better tonight because of your reassurance that my profession is safe.<br /><br /> you appear to be somewhat deliberately disengenuous when you say that you never wrote that features are worth investigation only if they are artificial. Your original statement (05/29/05 04:16) was a quote (with evident approval) from Hoagland:<br /><br />"Either these features on Mars are natural and this investigation is a complete waste of time, or they are artificial and this is one of the most important discoveries of our entire existence on Earth. "<br /><br />Which to me means that you believe that investigation of these is a complete waste of time unless they are artificial. However, it is only by investigation that we can determine whether a feature is natural or artificial. And if natural it is still interesting and worth looking at. However, if you wish todisagree with Hoagland's assessment, why did you quote it?<br /><br />Start another thread as to why the utter reasonable search for for past water action, testing hypotheses on the origin of haematite raise red flags to you. Start another thread why you think fossils have been ignored. Do this in space science and astronomy and I willd ebate you to the bitter end. But stick to the point in this thread as to why you think the so called "face" is artifical. Anything else is a diversion and a smoke screen from the absence of valid evidence presented to date.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"I used the term 'political scientist' to designate a scientist who conforms to applied political pressures and as a result, at least in appearance, becomes a practitioner of pseudoscience."<br /><br />Good one max, that's the funniest thing I have heard all week. Nobody has ever applied "political pressure" to my views on Mars.<br /><br />You know what? I think "politicial scientist" is just a term you apply to those who disagree with you who happen to know and do real science which you use as a diversion from your lack of evidence.<br /><br />Get back to the point Max. What evidence has you got? We have dealt with the "face", the" pyramid", the "tholus", the supposed significant surface properties and geometry. We are waiting for your Blitzkrieg in response to my "evasive and "defamatory" post. So far you have have lit a few damp squibs in the wrong direction.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

So now Hoagland is an expert on dating planetary surfaces? Well, well, well. He is at least authorative on that as on anything else I guess. And wrong. The materials that make mesas are Early Hesperian, about 2 billion years old. The landforms themselves might be a bit younger.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Okay Zen. Here's a crop of TEM's outline of the "pentagon" on the "pyramid, " compressed and labeled A through E for each of the anchor points. <br /><br />Please tell us what criteria RCH, et. al., used to determine where the anchor points go.<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>

 

[yevaud]

Interesting. Lines A, B, C, and E seem intuitive (visually, anyways). However. Line D seems blatantly arbitrary. <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]

And here's a crop of the "new" geometry from the TEM link you posted, cpmpressed and labeled F through H for each of the anchor points. <br /><br />Please tell us what criteria RCH, et. al., used to determine where these anchor points go. <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>

 

[telfrow]

And here's a better image of the area to pinpoint where the anchor points are and point out the features that determined their locations. <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>