A CIVILIZATION on MARS? 1B/200M Years Ago? (Pt. 4)

[zenonmars]

<i>Ah, Steve, my dear disinformational artist friend! I KNEW you'ld show up.</i> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Yes and the RCH crock of 'hyperdimensional physics", another trick. No substantiation..."</font><br /><br />Well, let's see what the double circumscribed tetrahedral model (<i>hyper-dimensional</i>) has successfully predicted:<br />An imaginary tetrahedran, tucked perfectly within a sphere, with it's apex touching the north pole, will always have it's other three points touching the sphere at <i>19.5 degrees latitude South</i>. Conversely, if the apex touches the south pole, the remaining points always touch the sphere at 19.5 North.<br /><br />The hyperdimensional model predicts <b>fourth</b> dimesional energy upwellings to the surface of <i>spinning</i> liquid core bodies, with predicted visable signatures of that process in our 'real' <i>third</i> dimensional world. <font color="yellow">"another trick"</font><br /><br />Well, let's see. On nearly every body in the Solar System, we see the signature of this energy upwelling. On the Sun, for example, the sunspots never drift beyond about 19.5 degrees North or South. These also can be seen in a pair of volcanoes on Venus, also at 19.5 degrees. On Mars, we get Olympus Mons, a shield volcano, also at 19.5, and of course, the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, seems now like a continuously churning 'storm' at 19.5 south. There are dark bands of clouds located at 19.5 degrees North and South on Saturn. Neptune has both a Great Dark Spot at 19.5 degrees as well as a cloud band such as Saturn. <i>"a thin band of white clouds continually surrounds the entire circumference of Neptune at the same latitude as the Great Dark Spot. No explanation or guess is ventured for why this would be. Uranus has not been adequately photographed to determine if a similar spot exists there, but given the evidence in all other gas planets, it appears to be nearly certain that</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Well, let's see what the double circumscribed tetrahedral model (hyper-dimensional) has successfully predicted: </i><p>Oooh yes, let's:<p>><i>On the Sun, for example, the sunspots never drift beyond about 19.5 degrees North or South.</i><p>Someone better tell these guys: <blockquote>The overwhelming majority of sunspots occur in two latitude belts stretching from the Sun's equator to about latitudes +/- 35. (Sunspots seldom span the equator.) They are only occasionally seen at 50 or 60 degrees latitude, although sunspot pores have been sighted at latitudes as high as 70o. However, they are generally very short-lived at these extremely high latitudes.</blockquote><p>><i>These also can be seen in a pair of volcanoes on Venus, also at 19.5 degrees.</i><p>There are large volcanoes <b>all over</b> Venus. Look at the attached image, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the location of venusian volcanoes and hyperdimensional physics.<p>><i>On Mars, we get Olympus Mons, a shield volcano, also at 19.5...</i><p>Actually 20 degrees, but I'll give you that.<p>><i>...and of course, the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, seems now like a continuously churning 'storm' at 19.5 south</i><p>Actually it's 22 degrees, but I'll give you that one, since it varies a bit over time.<p>><i>There are dark bands of clouds located at 19.5 degrees North and South on Saturn.</i><p>There are dark bands on Saturn at <b>ALL</b> latitudes, especially if you look at it in in IR and/or UV, note that the darkest bands appear to be around 60 degrees or so.<p>><i>Neptune has both a Great Dark Spot at 19.5 degrees...</i><p>In case you didn't hear, Neptune's Great Dark Spot disappeared between</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p>

 

[zenonmars]

Hi Naja.......I missed you guys during maintainence today!<br /><br />Get well Tel, where ever you are.<br /><br />http://store.spaceimages.com/nefudi.html<br /><br />"This picture of Neptune was produced from the last whole planet images taken through the green and orange filters on the Voyager 2 narrow angle camera. The images were taken at a range of 4.4 million miles from the planet, 4 days and 20 hours before closest approach. The picture shows the Great Dark Spot and its companion bright smudge; on the west limb the fast moving bright feature called Scooter and the little dark spot are visible. These clouds were seen to persist for as long as Voyager's cameras could resolve them. North of these, a bright cloud band similar to the south polar streak may be seen.<br />Date Taken/Released: October 30, 1998 <br />Credit: NASA JPL"<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>....Date Taken/Released: October 30, 1998....</i><p>That's a typo. Voyager 2 passed Neptune in 1989.</p>

 

[maxtheknife]

Don't be upset, Telfrow! You're discovering the anchor points for yourself! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I think the overlay needs to be rotated a few degrees clockwise, also. What do you think? If you can't rotate it slightly, that's cool. We'll just make a note of it. Do you see why I want to slide it left and rotate it?<br /><br />You really shouldn't need my help.<br /><br />Here's the first bit of text I found that refrenced margin of error in Monuments... there may be others, but you should get the idea.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">But note: the errors in Crater's 'mound' measurements (either set) sinificantly overlap those I carried out in 1988. Thus, the actual spread between our separate sets of angle measurements --- taking the largest angle as an example --- could range from a high low of 73.8 degrees to a low of 68 degrees. So why do Crater and McDaniel prefer "their" angles and "their" resulting triangle to mine?<br />Because it's theirs.......(skip to bottom of next page)<br /><br />One problem, critics will immediately point out, is that all of this is critically dependent on problematic photographic measurements carried out on the original unenhanced (but geometrically rectified) NASA Cydonia imagery; as we have previiously noted, both our and the Crater/McDaniel measurements could have erros of up to +/-3 degrees. Within these uncertainties, there is at present no way to decide between our two "related geometric models" - that some of the mounds' placements reflect the "back angles" of the "D&M," or in the later Crater/McDaniel model, that the mounds' placement was intended to communicate the existence of these more complex and redundant "tetrahedral triangles."</font><br /><br />Are there any questions? Serious ones? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[zenonmars]

Of course, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong!! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.solarviews.com/eng/neptune.htm<br /><br />"HST Finds New Dark Spot <br />In June 1994, the Hubble telescope revealed that the Great Dark Spot found by Voyager 2 was missing. This new image taken on November 2, shows that a new spot near the limb of the planet has formed. Like its predecessor, the new spot has high altitude clouds along its edge..."<br /><br />Wonder if this one is near 19.5?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

<font color="yellow">"Are there any questions? Serious ones?"</font><br /><br /><b>Yes</b>, Max!! Did your heart skip a beat when this site went down for 6 hours? MINE did. lol. For all the grief I get here, and for all the grief I <b>give</b>, I surely would hate to see this site crash! <br /><br />This has become some of the best fun I've had on the Net in a long time. <i>And I've learned a thing or two!</i> <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Of course, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong!!</i><p>So what about the sunspots and the volcanoes on Venus? How about the clouds on Saturn?</p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">Maxtheknife (?) - Also, I did find the margin of error reference in Monuments.... It's +/- 3 degrees in either direction. So 33 could measure 30 or 36. Ok? I would expect your experiment to be even more off. If you used the color/ir I would say double it. With your image, I would say more. How much more? I dunno, what do you think? </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Telfrow - I think that’s one heck of a margin of error, Max. ... Let’s let everyone else in on this. Guys: what’s an acceptable margin of error? </font><br /><br />+/- 3 deg is around a 10% margin of error. Multiplied over distance, as is necessary for all the pretty lines drawn on RCH "maps" and you can get a huge error. It's much more than any "fudge factor" could compensate for.<br /><br />+/- 3% would be a common confidence level. I wonder if that is what was originally referred to and mistaken as "degrees"? In any event, with the distances involved, any error would be compounded. Quite literally, you could set up an acceptable margin for error for the original anchors (+/- 3%) so that you could have your "lines" reaching to whatever point you wished even if it ended up being a 20% "error" at the terminus. In short, you could put anchor points where you wished and move them within a few degrees (within the margin) in order to have the auxillary lines from the "tetrahedron" terminate just about wherever you wanted them to at a far distant locale.<br /><br />However, the fact is, assuming a "margin of error" (Confidence level) is presupposing that there is a factual "true" anchor point that you are trying to approximate.<br /><br />I seem to recall, in thread 3, that Max mentioned, in response to a question concerning one of the sides that did not have a "clearly represented" anchor, that particular anchor point was "inferred." "Inferred" was the exact word I believe. I don't see how an "inferred" anchor point can be used when you can't prove that there is <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Maxtheknife - That's IT? That's all you can comment on? </font><br /><br />Yup. Nothing much happened in over 300 posts that I missed over the weekend. At least, from the RCH-follower side. There were several informative posts by Jon, Telfrow, NAJAB et al though. However, they were self-explanatory and didn't seem to mandate a response from me.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Maxtheknife - It isn't important and you won't listen to reason. </font><br /><br />I agree, it isn't important. I disagree that I wouldn't listen to reason. You seem to like to make hasty assumptions regarding other's motivations and attitudes though. Do you think everyone is out to get you?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Maxtheknife - What about your buddy Plait and his pseudoscientific ways?</font><br /><br />You drop the word "pseudoscientific" alot. Be careful, you may break it. Read the instructions on the box it came in before you start labeling people with it. The word certainly wouldn't apply to Plait or many other members you've thrown it at.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Maxtheknife - What about Jon's weak response to my pointed questions? </font><br /><br />You've referred to this many times, but your "questions" seem to have been lost in the miasma that these threads have become. It would be a good idea to repeat your questions in another post. As far as my opinion on Jon's response, I have none because I don't know what questions you're talking about. If he answered them, dig up a link and post it if you want a critique. However, I would be hesitant to pass judgement on his responses because, more than likely, they would include material I might not be familiar with.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Maxtheknife - Go ahead and say it "Cydonia is ANYTHING but artificial". </font><br /><br />You'd probably get a better response if you directed your post to Jon instead of me.<br /><br />These four threads, six if <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Pretty funny if there are actual ET ruins on Mars close to this pathetic pyramid and you've all over looked them.<br /><br /><br />(think about why I would say such a thing)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - The hyperdimensional model predicts fourth dimesional energy upwellings to the surface of spinning liquid core bodies, with predicted visable signatures of that process in our 'real' third dimensional world. "another trick"? </font><br /><br />"Fourth Dimensional" energy? "Real third dimensional world"? Explain.<br /><br />The rest of your post, NajaB responded to nicely.<br /><br />Any more theories that people <i>" ..have been loath to provide alternative hypotheses for why these energy upwellings would show up on these other planets "</i>?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Max wrote:<br /><br />"Jon. I'm leaving my response to you as is. No need to go further. You don't read, you don't care enough to edit your posts, you never once give the AOC an honest chance....you aren't serious in the least. It's become crystal clear that you are a bonafied Pseudoscientist. Go ahead and say it "Cydonia is ANYTHING but artificial"."<br /><br />So I can call myself a pseudoscientists now, as well as a political scientist? By resume is definitely filling out - I should ask for a raise.<br /><br />Seriously Max, what you write is completely untrue and you know it. I do read, I do edit my posts, I give the AOC every chance it deserves, I have discussed the issues seriously and carefully. I have also addressed every coherent, relevant question you have made that i could identify. I have also asked you repeatedly to list the ones that i have missed so that I can deal with them - something you have failed to do. You don't have to agree with me, but please show a higher regard for the truth.<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]

Telfrow asked: "Guys: what’s an acceptable margin of error?"<br /><br />Using a protractor, pen and ruler I would say less than one degree. I measured all five angles by hand on a print out of the "pyramid", total error was 1 degree so average error of quick hand measurements is 0.2 degree. <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]

Telfrow<br /><br />Hope your proceedure went OK.<br /><br />I measured the angles of your paired image (below), and all of the 5 angles in the the one from Bob's Wonderland are wrong. The angles marked "60 degrees" are actually 64 degrees, the ones marked "90 degrees" are actually 87 degrees. The bottom to arms are 58 at degrees, not 60. This is a completely unacceptable degree of error, as I have said before. The "very approximately" sign that Bon uses for these are inexcusable, as the actual divergence is 10-20 times what I can achieve with a cheap protractor. This fudging has to be a deliberate ploy.<br /><br />By contrast, if I use your image, telfrow, and a best fit centre (in the absence of the anchor points you have repeatedly requested from the proponents of artificiality) I can get a close match for three arms of the star-shaped ridges. The top and top left arms are 64 degrees, the top and bottom left are at 90 degrees. However the two right arms are at different angles. Top to top right arms are at 82 degrees, the top and bottom right arms are at 72 degrees. The bottom two arms I measured at 53 degrees, they should be 52, which gives an average cumulative error of 0.2 degrees. The "star" is not in any shape or form symmetical on your image which is the same the original MOC image with respect to angles.<br /><br />The angles in your image, which is true in that it faithfully reflects the MOC original, are completely different to those from Bob's Wonderland, athough the angles between the top and the two left hand angles are relatively close.<br /><br />Bob's Wonderland image is clearly symmetrical, unlike The MOC original. The only way I can explain this is that the author of the image either used an image that had been photoshopped into symmetry or did it themself. It cannot be explain by aspect changes. As the top and left hand arms are close to the position of their correlates on Bob's pentagon (close enough to be explained by a different arbitrary ce <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

What chance praytell, does the AOC hypothesis <i>deserve</i>?<br /><br />Pretend all you like, Jon. I could care less at this point. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[telfrow]

Thanks Jon (and everyone)...everything went fine. I have to wait a couple of days for the results, but the doctor didn't see anything to be concerned about. I'm still a bit washed out (pun intended <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />), but fine.<br /><br />Max, here's the corrected version of the overlay. I anchored the overlay on the two positions that seem obvious (i.e., don't need to be extrapolated). The next photo will illustrate the points and the angles.<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>

 

[telfrow]

And here is a labeled version. Note I anchored points D and E (the obvious anchor points). Also note the 60 degree angle (angle A on Torun's overlay) has been preserved. <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]

If we place that overlay on a map of the area that includes the face, the angle from "A" is shown in red. The yellow line represents the line that has been shown to connect the "pyramid" and the "FOM." The difference between these angles is 7 degrees. <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 the Torun overlay on the IR image you posted. Again, I used the two "obvious" anchor points (F and G/H on Torun). As you can see, it doesn't line up very well. <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 this shows the margin of error: 5 degrees (+/-). <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]

Max mate, if you could not care less, why do you keep posting?<br /><br />What chance does it deserve? Let's see, I have reviewed the prime evidence in 100 posts, several score of which have been mine. I have read much of the extant scientific literature on Cydonia, and much of the basic stuff arguing for artificiality. I have reviewed evidence for symmetry, rectalinearity, unusual surface properties, geometry, carried out linearment and geomorphic analysis. I have also addressed every relevant question you put that I could identify.<br /><br />What have you done in this time? <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]

Jon:<br /><br />The "Wonderland" image is apparently a "flipped" version of THEMIS 20020413a...and came from Carlotto.<br /><br />If you check the .pdf cersion of Carlotto's article (found here: http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n03/index.shtml ) and check the photos on pages 3 and 4, you can tell the image has been skewed for perspective slightly. Carlotto notes the adjustment in the article and says it is the result of a "Marola symmetry measure." <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]

Nice Telf! Can you do the same sort of thing w/ the mosaic on Keith's site? I'm w/ you so far <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Is that mosaic orthorectified?<br /><br />Keep in mind, RCH, Crater, Mcdaniel, et al... did their measurements on a printed photo... Not sure how much that would help correct things... What do you think?

 

[maxtheknife]

What I meant was.... I could care less about your opinion.... Anything but artificial. Anything that lends credence, according to you, doesn't exist or has been tampered w/. Like NASA's press release in '98 wasn't a sham.... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />