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

vogon13 · May 30, 2005

Isn't this thread getting close to the 'recycle' point again ? And what is the post crash record for thread recycles ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

mental_avenger · May 30, 2005

Excuse me, MA. I have a business and I've participated in many trade shows. So have I, including COMDEX and SDCER. Since we don’t know the layout of the show, the number of spots, how they are assigned, or when each of these people selected their spots (Malin may have selected first), this is all speculation. Considering Dipietro’s obvious agenda, and the tenor of his comments, I am highly suspect of the veracity of his claims. (for now) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

najab · May 30, 2005

>Isn't this thread getting close to the 'recycle' point again ?Sadly, yes it is...

vogon13 · May 30, 2005

..........sadly.............. LOL ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

telfrow · May 30, 2005

"We're on a road to nowhere...." <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>

mental_avenger · May 30, 2005

Also, remember scale - the two pyramids in your images are probably no more than a few hundred feet across, the "DM Pyramid" is several kilometres wide. I have noticed that virtually every claim that an object is artificial, either on Mars or on the Moon, involves a “structure” that is several kilometers across (and are supposed to be comparable to structures on Earth that are hundreds of feet across). Remember Hoagland’s “streets of Cydonia” that included, IIRC, buildings that were a mile square. I guess the Martians looked like us, but were 50 feet tall. BTW, did you know that Enterprise Mission has a special section devoted to us? Its called Special References for Visitors From Space. COM <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

yevaud · May 30, 2005

I already read that, at his site. I was very entertained. <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 30, 2005

Right, so what's your point? Compare and contrast what you see at here. I say the D&M looks like a far better candidate than the ones in Zen's pics. This doesn't show more symmetry than Zen's pics? Who are you guys trying to fool?

najab · May 31, 2005

Why do you use that colourized image? Is it perhaps because the random colouration hides the fact that the "pyramid" isn't a pyramid? Compare that image to telfrow's posted earlier in the thread.

JonClarke · May 31, 2005

Nah, doesn't hide the fact it still isn't a regular pyramid. Might pass for a deformed giant starfish though. maybe it lives on giant glass worms..... 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>

maxtheknife · May 31, 2005

Why WOULDN'T you use all the available data? Anything but artificial, right Naj? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

maxtheknife · May 31, 2005

Now there's a mature, scientific response.... Anything but artificial, Right Jon? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

najab · May 31, 2005

>Why WOULDN'T you use all the available data? But it's not additional data, it's the same source image with random colours added to it. Edit: Okay, maybe the colours aren't random, but they certainly don't seem to correspond with any visible features.

maxtheknife · May 31, 2005

A hint of what I'm going to talk about in my response to Jon's pre weekend post.... 1. He NEVER directly answered the question about fractal analysis lending credence to the AOC Hypothesis. He's free to substantiate his answer, but we all know that the correct answer, no matter how insignificant, is YES, it lends credence to the AOC model. Somewhere in there you needed to say 'yes' or 'no'. You politician, you..... 2. He tried to confuse everyone about my interpretations of the FOM, when in fact every post states my position just as clear as the last. 3. SEVERAL times I've posted and pointed out the feature that Colin refers to as the "Pimple". How apparent and annoying it is that you don't read everything, Jon. 4. Jon implied that RCH changes his website to accomodate new facts w/o substantiating the claim. Defamatory may be a strong word, but whatever you want to call it, it's a false insinuation. If you want to accuse someone of dishonesty, you'd better be prepared to back it up. We have pages and pages of you, Jon, making stupid typos, ignoring relevant posts such as the ones which clearly point out the "pimple" feature..... I'm starting to wonder if you really are who you say you are. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> 5. No enigmatic features nearby? Even MA thinks the geometry is real.... He may contend it's random chance (which he, you, Plait, et al have FAILED to prove), but he admits that it's there.... There's more.... I'll work on it some more when I get the chance.

telfrow · May 31, 2005

Jon, making stupid typos, ignoring relevant posts such as the ones which clearly point out the "pimple" feature..... I'm starting to wonder if you really are who you say you are. Once again, Max, classy. Very classy. the geometry is real...He [MA] may contend it's random chance (which he, you, Plait, et al have FAILED to prove) Love to start Max. Ready to go. All you have to do is provide the precise anchor points for the "pyramid" so we can check to see if the geometry of the "pentagon(s)" are as exact as RCH, et. al., contend they are. Personally, I'm not going to start work on it and then have you wiggle out of the arguement by contending we're using the wrong locations for the anchor points. It's pretty simple really. There are any number of high resolution photos of the site posted here...just use Paint and put a dot where the locations are. Then we can start checking the geometry. <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>

telfrow · May 31, 2005

One more time.... <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>

maxtheknife · May 31, 2005

Telf, are you prepared to offer a reasonable margin of error before YOU begin your analysis? 1%? 3%? 5%? 7%? Don't think for a minute that I'm going to do the work for you.... I can help guide you..... YOU pick the points. Use my above image of the DM if that helps. Sorry, if that pic was too big MA.... Once again I was tired when I posted it and thought I cropped it to within 650 pixels....

telfrow · May 31, 2005

Telf, are you prepared to offer a reasonable margin of error before YOU begin your analysis? 1%? 3%? 5%? 7%? Torun didn't. He have the angles values of exactly 60, 120, 85.3, 69.4, 34.7, 49.6, 45.1 and 55.3 degrees. And any "margin of error" throws off the delicate geometry, doesn't it? Don't think for a minute that I'm going to do the work for you.... I can help guide you..... YOU pick the points. Well, of course. That was predictable. All I'm asking for is five points we can agree on before we begin. "Guide me?" What am I supposed to do here, Max, PhotoShop a photo, post it, wait for your approval and suggestions, go back and make modifcations, and the repost...and repeat until you're satisfied? We'll be in Part 14 of this thread before we reach any kind of agreement. You can get it started in five minutes. It's a pretty reasonable request to jump start the process. Use my above image of the DM if that helps. Nope, we'll use the photo posted above. More detail. <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>

maxtheknife · May 31, 2005

I see,,,, so we can't use all the available data to do the work? Good scientific methodology... BTW... RCH did mention margin of error in his book

telfrow · May 31, 2005

I see,,,, so we can't use all the available data to do the work? Good scientific methodology... You're right. We'll use the best available data. Here's two thirds of the most recent most image (thanks to Zen's link to Laney's site). Let's start there. With the pyramid itself, not the "platform." BTW: And, pray tell, what was that margin of error? Anything like 59 is almost 60? <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>

najab · May 31, 2005

>And, pray tell, what was that margin of error? Anything like 59 is almost 60?Don't forget: 3600 represents 360.

telfrow · May 31, 2005

Thanks, I forgot that one...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

maxtheknife · May 31, 2005

Re: Margin of error.... You tell me.... It's your experiment. You've a Polysci degree among others, right? I'm sure you can determine a percentage that we can both agree on. I think the image I posted is the best and easiest to work with..... Is there too much detail there for you? What's the problem? Either images will do, imo, but I think the one I posted has more data in it, no? Why throw out good data for no good reason? I don't care, it's your experiment..... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

najab · May 31, 2005

>I think the one I posted has more data in it, no?In that it's larger and is multi-coloured, yes. Does it have any more information? That's a harder one to answer, but offhand I'd say it does not.

najab · May 31, 2005

Actually, it definitely has less information. Look at the West-facing slope (assuming that the top of the image is North). telfrow's image shows much more detail than yours does, probably because the brightness of your image has been dialed up way too high - that area appears washed out in your image, where you can make out streaks in telfrow's.

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

vogon13

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

najab

Guest

vogon13

Guest

telfrow

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

yevaud

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

najab

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page