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

[yevaud]

Y'know, you're right. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Gentlemen and Ladies, our task is clear. We must now look for the 200 foot long Mashie... <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]

The same type of structure found in 1501228a can be found in frames (b) and (e) as well. They just don't look like golf balls. <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>

 

[telfrow]

from 228b... <br />Edit: <i>The one on the right should be known as "The Badge."</i> <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 228e...(which I am officially naming "The Seashell" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />)...<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]

Ok, serious mode. *ahem*<br /><br />Ground rules for determing anything useful out of this thread:<br /><br />1. Isolate a portion of the FOM. Scrutinize the hell out of it. Note the terrain, composition, texture. Look for any hint of artificiality. If so, fine. If not, fine.<br /><br />2. Move on to the next section of the FOM. Repeat 1.<br /><br />Keep doing this, tedious as it is, and then at the end you'll have a short list of the most contentious but anomolous features. And then debate the hell out of those. <br /><br />Until that happens, you're all looking at too big a picture, so to speak. It's too large a scale to determine anything, except that it superficially resembles a face. <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]

<i>That</i> was fast... <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">1. Isolate a portion of the FOM. Scrutinize the hell out of it. Note the terrain, composition, texture. Look for any hint of artificiality. If so, fine. If not, fine. </font><br /><br />I tried that with the eye. We didn't get very far.<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>

 

[yevaud]

That's unfortunate then. Because it really is what you have to do to get anywhere. <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]

Agreed. That's the reason I tried to break it down into sections. Max started to talk about it, but then suggested we drop it...enter machine parts and golf balls. <img src="/images/icons/frown.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>

 

[yevaud]

Ah. Then this thread - although some would probably disagree - *is* probably heading for "Phenomena." Because without a detailed, systematic approach, it's not really science. It's a conversation. <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>

 

[zenonmars]

Yevaud said, "Until that happens, you're all looking at too big a picture, so to speak. It's too large a scale to determine anything, except that it superficially resembles a face." <br /><br />Sadly, friend, I am apt to agree with you. And who do I blame? David Sadler echoes my thoughts:<br /><br />"We have not seen structures like these on the other moons and planets in our solar system. Aren't you, and isn't NASA, the least bit curious as to what these structures are? Do not give us the dune remark and then expect us to move on. Show us the multi-angled, high-resolution (1.3 meter) images of these objects. We have the technological capability and we are paying for the missions. As Ronald Reagan said, "Mr. Green, I paid for this microphone!" NOW SHOW US THESE FEATURES. <br /><br />"And rather than attacking people asking tough questions, show us Opportunity rover image 034/1M131201538EFF0500P2933M2M1. <br /><br />"Tell us why you ground this remarkable specimen to dust when, to many educated and certified biologists and paleontologists, it looks like a fossil. And let us hear directly from the MER team's only official 'paleontologist,' Dr. Andrew Knoll, of Harvard. We want to know where he was and what he was doing when the destruction of this fossil candidate was taking place. <br /><br />"Explain to this committee why no discussion of this incident and no image of this fossil candidate appears in the many articles attacking a scientist who is trying to draw attention to it. <br /><br />"Here is a target list of very peculiar features on Mars. We have missions underway that can do real science on these features, IF NASA is still interested in civilian science. We want answers. We want cooperation. We want the full imaging and sensing capability of U.S. taxpayer space assets on and around Mars to zero in on these targets, and we want open data channels on all returned data and telemetry with critics of NASA's data handling in the control rooms at all times. No more data emb <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

Yevaud said:<font color="orange"> "Until that happens, you're all looking at too big a picture, so to speak. It's too large a scale to determine anything, except that it superficially resembles a face."</font><br /><br />Zen said:<font color="yellow">Sadly, friend, I am apt to agree with you. </font><br /><br />Zen then posted an quote about the MER rovers and links a picture of a mug - which has the <b>ENTIRE</b> FOM on it.<br /><br />I think I'm going to sit out the next couple hundred posts in this thread, Leo and Rhodan - you know why!

 

[telfrow]

Zen:<br /><br />Just a clarification. Your most recent post of the Sadler quote might give the impression Mr. Sadler actually delivered this speech before a Congressional Committee. To be clear, he prefaced this section with the following: <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><i>.... I have a simple reply that I had hoped to deliver at appropriations time as a member of the U.S. House committee overseeing NASA appropriations.</i></font><br /><br />This clarifying statement was part of your first post, but was omitted in the second. And, since there was no link to the source article in either post, I thought there was some need of clarification.<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/03-20-2004_Ignoring_Fossils_On_Mars/IgnoringFossilsOnMars.htm<br /><br />Also referenced from his home site: http://www.david-sadler.org/ <br />(Specifically: http://www.david-sadler.org/archiveFP/FP200406.htm ).<br /><br />An interesting site, to say the least.<br /><br />Colin: sorry, for getting off topic again, but I thought this clarification was needed.<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>

 

[telfrow]

It's...too... late....<img src="/images/icons/crazy.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>

 

[telfrow]

Colin98:<br /><br />BTW, and for what it’s worth, IMHO…<br /><br />Hypothesis 1: True.<br /><br />Hypothesis 2: Most probably true.<br /><br />Hypothesis 3: Possibly, but other factors, such as its closer proximity to the asteroid belt, could have increased the numbers of impacts, couldn’t it? Smaller target, yes…but closer to the primary source.<br /><br />Hypothesis 4: Possibly.<br /><br />Hypothesis 5: Possibly, but with no other evolutionary examples, how would we know?<br /><br />Hypothesis 6: Possibly.<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>

 

[mental_avenger]

Centsworth says: <font color="yellow"> 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. </font><br /><br />VERY well said!! Insightful and very appropriate. Well done.<br /><br />Is that your original? Do you mind if I use it?<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>

 

[telfrow]

Honestly, I don't think I'd go that far...but I do believe there was (and quite possibly still is) some form of life there. But I lean toward the concept that those life forms were (and possibly are) relatively simple. <br /><br />And, even if they did evolve into more complex life forms, there's also the question of the evolutionary path itself. We wouldn't have evolved into what we are today if it hadn't been for the mass extinction that eliminated/modified the dinosaur. Troodons may have become the intelligent life form on the planet. Intelligent as they were, and they might have become, would they have developed the intellegence and social skills necessary to form a civilization? I don't know. But I sure would like to talk about it. <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>

 

[thechemist]

To be honest, although at times frustrating, this is a good SETI thread.<br />Let me remind everyone that a couple of months ago SETI was all about Claude, cropcircles and alien abductions.<br />I 'd rather talk about FOM than any of the above <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Max,<br /><br />Your wrote in response to a very old statement of mine that the starting assumptions do not matter when testing hypothesis (assuming of course you are testing the question scientifically):<br /><br />“WRONG. Everything that is exposed in the Martian environment 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 />This is incorrect. Scientists often start out with one assumption about a geological feature and by testing them come to an opposite conclusion. The shell mounds of Weipa for example were thought to be middens (the largest in the world, I believe) and were investigated with this assumption. They proved to be megapode (Mallee fowl) nests. Same with some middens in Victoria, which were thought to be very old (~120 Ka) and therefore very significant. After a series of studies they proved to be natural shell accumulations. Investigations of the Fiery Creek Dome began with the assumption that it was impact related and ended up concluding it was not.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />”I answered your hang up about symmetry. The base platform is OBVIOUSLY symmetric...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.”<br /><br />The base of the feature is not symmetric, I have shown this and I will show it again: a mirror of the left right side departs significantly from the actual position on base on the left. This is fact, not the opinion of a 5th grader.<br /><br />You wrote:<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....”<br /><br />Which tests Max? Rectilinearity? Failed. Symmetry? Failed. Looks like a face? Failed all but <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>

 

[yevaud]

Yeah, damn straight. This *is* quite interesting. As well, discussion of the FOM is on topic, as if true, it would be an artifact proving the topic's assertation.<br /><br />NajaB, I must have missed something as to why you're going to sit this one out. Tough I suspect what you meant was you've been saying the same thing for umpteen million posts and no one paid you the least bit of attention. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> S'ok, if that's what you meant. Trying to get a room full of intellectuals on the same page is like trying to herd cats! *meow* <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>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Let me remind everyone that a couple of months ago SETI was all about Claude, cropcircles and alien abductions. </font><br /><br />And, SETI was never about tracings of butt-cheek imprints.<br /><br />Admit it, after I traced out those imprints, it <i>really</i> did look exactly like what I suggested. So much so, I can no longer see the face anymore. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I just don't know. "The Great Butt-Cheeks of Mars?" <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]

When I look at the night sky, I see an arrangment of stars that looks like a big ladle. It must be artificial. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

najaB..............<br /><br />Yevaud said: "It's too large a scale to determine anything, except that it superficially resembles a face."<br /> <br />Zen said: "I am apt to agree with you."<br /><br />najaB then responded with, "Zen then posted an quote about the MER rovers and links a picture of a mug - which has the ENTIRE FOM on it. I think I'm going to sit out the next couple hundred posts in this thread, Leo and Rhodan - you know why!"<br /><br />-----------------------------------------<br /><br />Say, najaB..........care to clue ME in? Or as one of the great unwashed, is an insult straight to my face beneath your dignity? <br />Yevaud spoke the truth: we do NOT have the data needed to determine the artificiality of the Face, or in fact, any of the curious objects observed in Cydonia and around Mars. And in my unwashed, lay opinion, the Pathfinder, Spirit and Opportunity missions are PERFECT examples of why we do not have this data. I will not play any more games here. Do NOT patronise me, if you could be so kind. <br /><br />If YOU think NASA has been straight with us, say so. Sending Pathfinder to an "ancient flood plane" because of it's "rich geology" in 1997 seemed like a prudently scientific thing to do. Waiting for weeks to take the first "hi-res" photo (which was 90% sky and 10% top of the right "twin peak") seemed bizarre at the time. Bizarre, that is, until one looks at what THEY wanted a good look at: extremely eroded, rectilinear, nested RUINS of a HUGE archology. The fact that you may or may not have even seen that pic does not surprise me. The fact that you can in NO WAY believe your own eyes, or believe that NASA knew very well what it was imaging, also does not surprise me.<br /><br />What shocks me is that they fooled you in 2001. (Or that you PRETENDED to be fooled in 2001). You know. After we went to an "ancient flood plane" in 1997, and then they hypnotised you into believing that the Spirit and Opportunity were sent to look for hematite, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">...we do NOT have the data needed to determine the artificiality of the Face...</font><br /><br />Well, that's very close to what I meant. But I'm one step behind you, basically saying "as yet, there's been no methodical, dull, grinding analysis of the FOM. Just a vast number of issues, all swirling around like a dust-cloud."<br /><br />I think we have the data, but no one's actually spent the time to analyze it that way. Instead, we have a bunch of superficial features debated. Not methodical at all. With respects to everyone, that is. By "not methodical," I mean that you are all still operating from different starting points, so of course this topic is really going nowhere... <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>