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

telfrow · May 28, 2005

El Capitan? <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>

a_lost_packet_ · May 28, 2005

I have finally figured it out. It's taken awhile, I admit. It's something I had thought of before but had ignored. I just didn't think that it was possible. After all, it would take a conscious effort on someone's part that really goes against the same principles that instigate such behavior. So, I discounted it as just a random collection of waves of neuron firings that don't count as a Eureka Moment. But, now it is quite clear to me after all. I am ashamed that I had not brought this to the attention of others much sooner. This applies to the RCH crowd: You guys ask a lot of questions but never stick around for the answers. Time after time you have raised questions. Repeatedly even. Each and every time, several posters or the same poster has responded diligently with an answer. In many cases, the answers are shown with referrences and verified arguments. Almost without deviation or hesitancy, the typical RCH fan will totally ignore the answer to their previous question and do their best to submit another "mysterious" question. How can you learn anything if all you do is ask questions but refuse to listen to answers? This is the reason why these threads go on forever. The same questions are being posed by RCH proponents again and again and again. When an definitive, unalterable, unassailable answer is produced, they run to another "mysterious" question. Pages later, eventually, they will come full circle and while attempting to actively avoid responding directly to an answer, they will pose a "mysterious" question that has already been answered. It appears that, eventually, they run out of such questions and end up posting a "mysterious" question that only a pre-schooler would think significant. ZenOnMars - Why do we have a shuttle named Atlantis? What the heck kind of question is that and what the heck does that have anything <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

JonClarke · May 28, 2005

If I may address the site selection issue.... Site selection for any lander is an immensely complex, long, and sometimes heated process. I know one person who was involved in site selection for the MER rovers, and it took years of discussion, meetings, visits to analogue sites, review of data. There are many criteria in the major headings of engineering, scientfic, public interest. For the Pathfinder landing, this page http://tes.asu.edu/PATHFINDER/p_f_landingsite_letter.html gives a summary. basically the best sites (several were selected) had to meet strict engineering constraints and were "Grab Bag" sites - places "such as the mouth of a large catastrophic outflow channel in which a wide variety of rocks are potentially available and within reach of the rover. Even though the exact provenance of the samples would not be known, the potential for sampling a large diversity of martian rocks in a small area could reveal a lot about Mars overall. Data from subsequent orbital remote sensing missions would then be used to infer the provenance for the "ground truth" samples studied by Pathfinder. More detailed descriptions can be obtained in LPI Technical Report 94-04 or Golombek, M. P., R. A. Cook, H. J. Moore, and T. J. Parker, Selection of the Mars Pathfinder landing site, J. Geophy. Res., 102, 3967-3988, 1997 (try your local university library, probably via interlibrary loan) Strictly speaking, the rovers were sent to look for evidence of past and/or present liquid water, not oceans as such. As to why little has been said about fossils is that nobody on the MER team (and it includes people very familar with terrestrial fossils) has seen anything that looks suficiently like fossils to publish. But if we want to discuss this further I strongly suggest another thread in the science and astronomy forum. 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>

a_lost_packet_ · May 28, 2005

ZenOnMars - THE DATA WE HAVE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO CONFIRM OR DENY. .. Not according to you. Not according to RCH. Not according to a hundred, mindless RCH drones that continually spew spurious ideas based on some sort of unsubstantiated mythology purposefully contrived by their own prophet. So, superficially, only in certain photographs mind you, the FOM in the Cydonia region resembles a face? However, when we look at other photographs, other data, when better images are examined, we find that it does not resemble a face at all! If it was an artificial structure, don't you think that the closer we examined it, the more obvious it's artificial nature would be? However, the converse is true when compared to claims of it's artificiality. We don't see a "face" at all. Yet, instead of saying "Well, when viewed from afar, it looks like a face under certain conditions. But, when we look closer, it doesn't appear to be a face or artificial at all." You say "THE DATA WE HAVE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO CONFIRM OR DENY." Ah.. so now when the data we have no longer corroborates your pet theory, you choose to fall back on "not having enough information." Of course, you assume that others will accept your statement seeing that it certainly would be the "scientifically prudent" statement to make.... Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Explain the logic that would dictate that as we look closer at Cydonia and continue to see it bears no evidence of artificiality, upon even closer examination, we will find that it is, in fact, artificial. Then, explain how, following that logic, that any previous statement concerning artificiality at Cydonia could be inherently valid! Are you changing entire paradigms of reasoning in order to continue the mythology of Cydonia's artificiality? (I hate the word paradigm btw and used it purpose <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · May 28, 2005

An Apology: I apologize for inserting controversial commentary when some posters are obviously trying to maintain a civil discussion. Namely, Jon. Perhaps that is why I have tried to distance myself from such threads. I grow increasingly impatient with RCH followers and their transparent tactics at maintaining the "mysterious" mythology RCH subscribes to. This is, of course, my opinion. However, my assertion of my rights as a member to post my opinion should not be disruptive to others who excersize the same right. If my two posts prove disruptive to some semblence of calm that has been introduced by such stalwart posters, I sincerely apologize. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

mental_avenger · May 28, 2005

zen says: 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. OK, one more time. Denis Waitley, in his Psychology of Winning lecture, points out something that is relevant here. He says, if the person you are trying to communicate doesn’t seem to understand your message, you should “put it in other words”. I will do that. I don’t know the exact figures here so I am going to use my best estimates. If anyone knows more accurate figures, please feel free to post them. I would say that the area of Cydonia in question consists of about .00001 of the total surface of Mars, possibly less. NASA’s mission is to map the entire surface of the planet. So far they have probably covered about 10% of the planet’s surface, maybe less. In any case, they have a long ways to go. Now, there are those who think that the land formations on the Cydonia plain may be artificial constructs. Those people are in the extreme minority. There are about 296,000,000 people in the USA. Of those, there are probably only about 10,000 people who believe that the formations on the Cydonia plain are artificial constructs. I believe I am being very generous here. That is about .00003 of the US population. Now, the real question is: why doesn’t NASA divert their limited resources from their mandated purpose, which is not nearly complete, and respond to the wishes of the .00003 of the population who think there is something there that no one else sees? The answer is that NASA would be guilty of gross negligence and failure to fulfill their mission. As it is, they have already gone out of their way to provide extra images of that area. Before someone posts another disingenuous poll, let me offer this. Tonight at my Karaoke show, I paused to ask the audience a question. I asked if anyone there knew where t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

telfrow · May 28, 2005

No apology necessary, IMHO. <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 28, 2005

From Max’s post, 5/23/05: 5. Hoagland's claims of geometry at Cydonia can only be wrong if Hoagland measured incorrectly. No evidence has ever been produced to the contrary. Well…let’s take a look at that. The attached photo is Cydonia from V02834004-V01024003, which came from Laney’s site (http://www.keithlaney.com/V02834004-V01024003CydoniaMapsmall.jpg) I took the liberty of pasting the 2003 image of the “pyramid” with highlighted lines, the missing “Line 1”and the unused “Line 2” (posted on 5/27/05) into position on the Laney image. The pasting is as close as I could get to the size and orientation of the original, but if you look at the relationship to the surrounding features, it’s pretty darn close. <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 28, 2005

Here’s the same area, with the “straight lines” extended. The yellow lines are overlays of the red lines seen on the “pyramid” in the previous post. The red line represents the supposed “connector” between the “pyramid” and the “face.” <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>

yevaud · May 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Before someone posts another disingenuous poll, let me offer this. Tonight at my Karaoke show, I paused to ask the audience a question. I asked if anyone there knew where the Cydonia Mesa was. Out of 41 people only two thought they knew. One guessed Wyoming, the other guessed Arizona. When I explained that it was on Mars, not a single person had heard of it, what it meant, or that there was a controversy about it. This was a group of grade school, high school, and college students, with a few business people and parents; a good cross section.<hr /></blockquote> This has been my experience out in the RW also. And not the complicated concepts, but simple, basic stuff. *sigh* Got our work cut out for us... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · May 28, 2005

The evidence here, IMHO, is pretty conclusive: 1) the “pyramid” is not a pyramid; and 2) the “straight lines” used to create the pentagon, on which the geometry of Cydonia is based, do not exist. And, to quote Plait (just for you, Max)…”… if his ruler is off by a tiny bit, then his angle might be 119 or 121 degrees. This in turn completely negates all the fancy math he then does before he even turns on his calculator." <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>

yevaud · May 28, 2005

A good violation of the tenents of scence. Theorizing is fine, but just assuming too many things in the absence of data, discarding data, or fudging the results is not proper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · May 28, 2005

...but just assuming too many things in the absence of data, discarding data, or fudging the results is not proper. There you go again, trying to create chaos. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><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>

yevaud · May 28, 2005

Hey, it's in my job description: "...shall cause disruption and chaos when appropriate. Further responsibilities are..." <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · May 28, 2005

I just don't know...there seems to be absolutely nothing significant about those lines. Not the angle, length, or relationship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · May 28, 2005

You've gotten one of the angle lines wrong. I'm sure you can see that and correct it on your own. It's pretty clear. Which one? I'm not sure what you mean...tell me, and if its wrong, I'll change it. I want it to be a reasonable representation we can base our discussion on... Edit: If you're talking about the side that is supposed to go where "Line 1" and the question mark is, I left it out because there is no clear cut indication of a feature to draw the line with. If you're talking about "Line 2," it's included because it a distinct feature that could create a "straight line." <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>

yevaud · May 28, 2005

Perhaps I really don't understand this aspect of the argument about the FOM, but what *is* the significance of those lines? Most of them seem to terminate in a random selection of unremarkable impact craters. Some of them don't even appear to lead to *anything* Or am I missing something? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · May 28, 2005

More like this? The reason I didn't include this line earlier, is because there didn't seem to be a ridge line there to follow like there were in the other areas. But you're right, the other do appear to run to "knobs" at the end of the ridge. BTW, I googled "Mud volcanos"...plenty of interesting stuff there...some of it looks like what we're seeing on the FOM and the 'pyramid." Still haven't found a "starfish" pattern though... <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 28, 2005

Here's one of the photos I found of a mud volcano...is this the type of thing you're suggesting? Again, it's a single flow... <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 28, 2005

Calling the FOM a 'mesa' contributes to the acrimonious debate about a FACE because the FOM in contemporary imaging does NOT look like a mesa, or a butte. Calling it a “mesa” is not as bad as calling it a “face”(or the FOM). Calling it “mud domes” isn’t accurate either because that hasn’t been proven. I call it the “Infamous Cydoina Mesa” because that seems to be the least controversial term while still being recognized by most folks as the “object in question”. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

zenonmars · May 28, 2005

ZEN RESPONDS TO ALL QUESTIONS Telfrow, the reason NASA chose Pathfinder's landing site is not even in question. The ancient "flood plane", where once raging waters ripped a continent's worth of debris into this geologically-rich basin, made this an ideal site to look at rocks. As the water on Mars went away, and the winds began to uncover the hard stuff, century after century, what was left exposed was a cornucopia of treasure for the astro-geoligist. Scientifically prudent, as I already stated. This acknowledgement of "giant catastrophic outflow", back in 1997, shows me that NASA agreed completely with the generally accepted notion that Mars was awash in enough water to decimate the surfaces there. Where I find problems (and why I question NASA continuously) is with the 2001 Spirit and Opportunity missions, with NASA suddenly acting like they needed billions of dollars to look for water-confirming hematite. Does this not bother anyone here? I begin to think, when confronted with these inconsistencies and insulting NASA behavior, that perhaps NASA has a clandestine set of agendas. That perhaps they know very well why they landed where they landed. And in 1997, maybe it wasn't about rocks. Maybe it was about artifacts. Maybe it was about pyramids and sphinx's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rubicondsrv · May 28, 2005

So you respond to questions citing more conspiracy theory garbage. Do you think everything is a conspiricy? If so you are very paranoid. also the larger a conspiricy is the harder it is to keep secret. So as the scope of your alleged conspiricy expands it becomes less likely to remain secret for any significant amount of time.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zenonmars · May 28, 2005

ZEN RESPONDS TO ALL QUESTIONS_2 a_lost_packet: "How can you learn anything if all you do is ask questions" ...SERIOUSLY? And you don't think I am listening to the various answers? "the same questions are being posed by RCH proponents again and again and again." Yep. Like, since we can NOT definitively settle the artificiality argument with all the existing data we now possess, when are we going to get more & better data from NASA? When will we get firm commitments from NASA to penetrate these mysteries once and for all with the arsenal of technology at their disposal? By the way, I have been posting at SDC since January. I have gone nowhere. "Zen...nobody wants to persecute you. What may appear to be persecuting and scathing statements are obvious signs of people's frustration"..with my fair questions? I will step out on a limb here, and guess that the question that frustrates you the most is the question incorporated in the title of this thread. "What do either of those two questions have to do with a Civilization on Mars 1b/200M years ago?" OK, and I will try real hard NOT to get so off topic again in this thread, but here goes: It is apparent to some/many that NASA has been disingenuous about off-earth life (past and present), seemingly avoiding the subject as though the very question itself is poisonous. This may not be apparent to most of the folks here at these SDC boards, but it is to a VAST number of Americans. This disingenuous attitude seems to have begun with NASA's first denials of the Viking FOM data, and all of Stanley McDaniel's criticisms of NASA's responses and/or lack of responses to the bevy of lettered and accredited scientists who were looking intensely at the Viking Cydonia data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zenonmars · May 28, 2005

ZEN RESPONDS TO ALL QUESTIONS_3 Lost, thanks for your thoughts. Apologies not required. You said, " THE DATA WE HAVE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO CONFIRM OR DENY. Not according to you. Not according to RCH. Not according to a hundred, mindless RCH drones that continually spew spurious ideas based on some sort of unsubstantiated mythology purposefully contrived by their own prophet." Ouch. Easy, big guy. All of your opinions about the Face and the "believers" can be applied to the D&M pyramid, and since the D&M is being talked about quite a bit here recently, I ask you to PLEASE do the following. Please click on this link, and download this magnificently HUGE strip pic of the D&M. http://www.keithlaney.com/images/R1102437.jpg Please copy this to your picture files, so you can enlarge and examine the lower-right-hand "corner" of the structure. PLEASE do this, as I cannot seem to section it for proper viewing here. It is a HUGE file, please be patient. Let's, together, see how this process has worked. As humans, we have the best data available on an object. We, together will now simply LOOK at it, and make observations. Remember, the portion I wish you to look at is found about a third the way up from the bottom of the expanded image, all the way to the right. Do this. Everyone will have a differing opinion. Mine is based on the hypothesis of artificiality, given us NOT by Richard Hoagland, but by Vincent DiPietro and Greg Molenarre. IF this is a giant 5 or 7 sided archology, then take a look at what I see: The lower right-hand "corner" of this structure appears to have a theatre-style buttress. And lo and behold, to me at least, there appear to be dark ARCHES, with pathways leading in/out of them (water rivulets? ROADS?). I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · May 28, 2005

That's it, Zen...don't address the requests for outlining the "straight lines" on the pyramid, or how those lines from the "pyramid" relate to other features on Cydonia...raise yet another issue. Let's not stay focused and actually discuss something...let's cloud the issue even more. Avoidance. Deflection. Redirection. Again. BTW...I downloaded the photo and have cropped and enlarged the area in question and compressed the file. I'm ready to post it and discuss it - as soon as you address the issues we've raised concerning the "pentagon shaped pyramid" and its relationship to other features in Cydonia. <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>

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

telfrow

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page