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

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Oh yes, the RUNWAY is the MASONIC number.......33!</font><br /><br />Wow, so the number itself is Masonic, eh? <br /><br />That has staggering implications. The Indy 500 has traditionally started 33 cars. I always thought is was to create eleven rows of three cars each, but.... why not 30? Why not 36? It must be Masonic.<br /><br />And the there's the M33 Galaxy.....and the 33 on the Rolling Rock beer label...Star Trek, The Original Series, Volume 33...the Lockheed T33A....the X33....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />And yes, najaB, I see the irony. <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]

Do you ever ask a question that doesn't come directly out of one of RCH's articles Zen? <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]

Come on, it was an honest mistake. We can make fun of it, but I have made the same “type” of error in terminology. It is understandable that he made the mistake in terminology, but it is not understandable why he would actually believe a “Masonic conspiracy” in NASA and JPL.<br /><br />Please note that this type of tactic is a diversionary tactic, trying to divert attention away from the actual <u>facts</u> regarding the Cydonia Mesa, and attempting to question the credibility of NASA and JPL. It is an ad hominem attack against NASA and JPL, plain and simple. Evade the issue, attack the source. The fact is, though, the credibility of NASA and JPL are NOT the issue when addressing the relevance of the images of Cydonia. Resolution, symmetry, features, and relevance are intrinsic to the images, not to the organization that produced them. IOW, when faced with overwhelming evidence that contradicts their belief system, the “believers” usually resort to diversionary tactics, as is the case here.<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>

 

[yevaud]

Ummm, dude, sometimes acronyms are just acronyms.<br /><br />For example, what am I to make of the acronym for "Florida University?" Someone wasn't paying attention...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.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>

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">Why do we have a shuttle named Atlantis?</font><br /><br /><i>"Atlantis, the fourth orbiter to become operational at Kennedy Space Center, was named after the primary research vessel for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts from 1930 to 1966. The two-masted, 460-ton ketch was the first U.S. vessel to be used for oceanographic research...."</i><br /><br />http://flagspot.net/flags/us-shut.html#name<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Why do we have a Space Station (ISiS) named after the most important of Egyptian Goddesses?</font><br /><br />You must have missed this page ...<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/isis.htm <br /><br />

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow"> Why do we have a shuttle named Atlantis? </font><br /><br />It was probably submitted and voted on, as usual.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Why do we have a Space Station (ISiS) named after the most important of Egyptian Goddesses? </font><br /><br />We don’t. The initials for the “international” space station are ISS, not ISIS.<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>

 

[zenonmars]

Avenger, I agree with what you said, mostly. You said, "it is not understandable why he would actually believe a “Masonic conspiracy” in NASA and JPL." And that's ok. I know how bizarre such claims seem. These claims seem even MORE bizarre, (and from former insiders!): http://www.gaiaguys.net/DP.NASA.HOAX.htm<br /><br />But bizarre or not, it all pales in comparison with not understanding why NASA has not delivered more and better data of the enigmatic annomalies of Mars. And so back I go to the thread topic. The existing data of the annomalies around Mars, especially those at Cydonia, are not detailed enough or close enough or plentiful enough to confirm completely, or deny completely, the artificiality arguement. More and better data is needed, and you know it, and I know it, and NASA knows it. Even Yevaud knows it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> 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." And as I responded to Yevaud:<br />Sadly, friend, I am apt to agree with you. And who do I blame? David Sadler echoes my thoughts: <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...NOW SHOW US THESE FEATURES. <br />"And rather than attacking people asking tough questions, show us Opportunity rover image 034/1M131201538EFF0500P2933M2M1. <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 tea <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

Do you ever even try to back up your claims?<br />If not I would suggest that you use mutiple sources including primary sources.<br /> also anyone can create a website so they are not always accurate. <br />.gov and .edu sites tend to be more credible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Hi Tefrow<br /><br />I nearly missed this - posts are added to this thread an at extraordinary rate and it is easy to overlook something a few pages back. Some thoughts.<br /><br />First, thanks for posting that image. As you show in your own post a bit later, no two angles of the "pyramid" are the same. The "vertices" are not straight, but irregular, some of them bifurcate, the do not meet at a common point (visible in the full resolution image), there are other partial ridges (as you also show). The "faces" are not flat, some are convex, some concave. The roughly circulat feature at the centre to me looks like a flattened top. <br /><br />In short, there is nothing here that looks artifical. Of course one could argue that it is a work of art and there does not need to be regular, or that it is so eroded that any regularity is lost. But in the absence of any reason to suspect artificiality Occam's razor requires the simplest solution - it is a roughly pyramidal hill.<br /><br />Hope this helps<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]

Thanks Mental, Packet and others for the kind words. I do my best.<br /><br />Cheers<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]

Max<br /><br />Evasive? How so? Every relevant question I have addressed as factually as possible. <br /><br />Defamatory? How so? However if I have defamed you (or anyone) I am more than happy to retract and apologise, if you show me where.<br /><br />Blitzkrieg? Sitzkrieg might be a better word.....<br /><br />I hope you have a great weekend too. Take care.<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]

mental, you wrote:<br /><br />" Please note that this type of tactic is a diversionary tactic, trying to divert attention away from the actual facts regarding the Cydonia Mesa, and attempting to question the credibility of NASA and JPL. "<br /><br />I agree, but it may not be deliberate. It is human nature to change the subject when our positions are challenged. But,whether this is accidental or deliberate, the effect is the same, it diverts attention away from the utterly baselessness of arguments for artificiality in the Cydonia Mensae. Masonitic numbers, the Brookings report, ancient Egypt are all examples of trying to divert attention from the central point. They work too - how many posts have been devoted to masonitic numbers, etc.?<br /><br />So let's stick to the point - what evidence is there for artificiality in the area? Apart from non existant symmetry, faces that don't really look like faces when you look at them closely, surface composition that are not unusual, fanciful geometric relationships, no true rectilinearity, that is!<br /><br />BTW, I agree that we should give Zen a break for a honest typo. I am the last person to criticise for that. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><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>

 

[telfrow]

Zen:<br /><br />Re: “The Fossil”<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I [Jim Calhoun] have been a collector of marine fossils for 34 years, an amateur to be sure, but with years of field experience.”</font><br /><br />So have I – actually, I started when I was 18, so it’s more like 36 years. And I’m an amateur, “to be sure.” But I have years of field experience – mostly here in Indiana (predominantly Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian) and have collected literally thousands of crinoid specimens. Also, I’ve collected in other locations across the country. So I guess I’m just as qualified as Mr. Calhoun – a fellow amateur - to address the issue.<br /><br />Let’s <b>assume</b> (bold just to make sure you don’t pull a Max on me) the object in question was, indeed, a crinoid fossil. And let’s discuss its “wanton and inexplicable destruction.[RCH]” and why it was "…ground…to dust when, to many educated and certified biologists and paleontologists, it looks like a fossil.”<br /><br />Let’s be honest about this. Even Mr. Calhoun would admit that if he were in the field, and thought he had found that specimen, he would have taken out his rock hammer, chipped it out of the rock and stuffed it in his backpack for further reference and research. Does that qualify as “wanton destruction”? A professional paleontologist would have followed the same procedure, but would have photographed or recorded the object <i>in situ</i> before its removal (unfortunately, most amateurs rarely do this unless the object appears unique). In either case, it would have been removed from the rock and the underlying strata would have been investigated.<br /><br />So what did Oppy do? It photographed the object <i>in situ</i> three times (on Sol 34, BTW, not Sol 33 as noted in RCH’s original article; see http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m034.html ) and the did the only other thing 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]

<font color="yellow">Hope this helps</font><br /><br />It does, Jon. Thanks.<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>

 

[JonClarke]

I agree Telfrow, the MER team gave the "crinoid" all the attention it was worth - context photos, microscopic images, and then a RAT. How else are we supposed to have determined whether it was real or just an accidential surface appearence? The MER team may have got a Mossbauer and APX reading as well. What more could they have done to determine what it was? If it really was fossil there will be more of them. So far there haven't been. Of course if they had left it alone there would be howls of "Why wasn't it RATTED?" and "Why did NASA ignore it?"<br /><br />Jon (Who found his first fossil 35 years ago and has been collecting them ever since) <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>

 

[zenonmars]

Jon: "BTW, I agree that we should give Zen a break for a honest typo. I am the last person to criticise for that."<br /><br />Thanks buddy!!<br /><br />Now, Tel, and Jon, here is a sincere request:<br /><br />Please link me to the JPL R.A.T. analysis of the "crinoid" looking object. I would like to read the specs. I remember reading about the range of identifying capabilities with which the rover/RAT is equipped. I just do not recall any comments or chemical/mineralogical analysis of this one particular curious object.<br /><br />Please link me to this data. Thanks. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

Telfrow, "If you want to debate anything, debate whether or not the object photographed, was, indeed, a crinoid or blastoid fossil"<br /><br />No, sir. What I want to debate is why NASA told us it set Pathfinder down in a geologically-rich "ancient flood plane" in 1997.<br />And in 2001, NASA sent Spirit and Opportunity to look for hematite, to see if Mars ever had oceans. And why, along the way, they barely mentioned things that at least LOOK like fossils. That is what I want to debate.<br /><br />Just keep thinking: "1997.....ancient flood plane"<br /><br />And remember, I do love and repect you guys. Have a fun and safe Memorial Day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">No, sir. What I want to debate is why NASA told us it set Pathfinder down in a geologically-rich "ancient flood plane" in 1997. </font><br /><br />Zen, have a happy and safe holiday weekend yourself.<br /><br />But take a few minutes during your down time to decide exactly what it is you want to talk about. <img src="/images/icons/wink.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>

 

[telfrow]

Okay, back to the issue we were discussing (I think): the "pyramid" and its relationship to the geometry of Cydonia. So, Max, et, al., do we use this tracing.... <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]

Or this one? <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]

This? <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]

Or this? <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>

 

[zavvy]

Nevermind...

 

[telfrow]

Zen: <i>What I want to debate is why NASA told us it set Pathfinder down in a geologically-rich "ancient flood plane" in 1997.</i><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Landing downstream from the mouth of a giant catastrophic outflow channel (Ares Vallis) offers the potential for identifying and analyzing a wide variety of crustal materials, from the ancient heavily cratered terrains to intermediate-aged ridged plains to reworked channel deposits. Examination of the different surface materials will allow first-order scientific investigations of the early differentiation and evolution of the crust, the development of weathering products and the early environments and conditions that have existed on Mars.</font><br /><br />http://mars7.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/science_obj.html<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The Pathfinder landing site passed a series of rigorous engineering constraints related to landing safely: sufficient sunlight, acceptable slopes, surface roughness, dust low elevation for sufficient atmospheric density, low dust storm potential, etc. This site also provides the opportunity for rich science data return. It is located near the mouth of a catastrophic flood channel debouching into Chryse Planitia, and is called a "grab bag" site for its potential for sampling a wide variety of different martian crustal materials, such as Noachian plateau material (a.k.a., ancient crust) as well as Hesperian Ridged Plains and a variety of reworked channel materials. Even though the exact provenance of the samples would not be known, data from subsequent orbital remote sensing missions could then be used to infer the provenance for the "ground truth" samples studied by Pathfinder. Available data suggest the site is about as rocky as the Viking sites, but perhaps a bit less dusty. This site has streamlined islands nearby and a very smooth depositional surface at Viking resolution (on the order of</font> <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Hi Zen<br /><br />Like i said, am not sure if it was analysed, although RATTED targets often are. As I remember it was seen fairly early in the piece, in Eagle crater. Does anyone know what name the target was given? The Eagle results have been published, if I know a traget name I may be able to find a composition.<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>