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

telfrow · Jun 2, 2005

Just everyone can put your post in context, Zen, I thought I'd post this side by side by side view of the "upside down squashed chicken." I like the way you chose to just ignore the "claw" at 10:00. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Edit; Actually, more like 11:00. <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>

zenonmars · Jun 2, 2005

stevehw33: "on mars we get Mons Olympus, a shield volcano, at 19.5 degrees. Actually, 20 degrees, but I'll give you that. And even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then. These guys are full of unlimitted numbers of false claims and wild speculations. AS soon as one is shown to be trash, others spew out of the nonsense generators located between their ears. It's just so pathetically predictable and worthless, scientifically. Such blatant pseudoscience. Their only possible incentive is pecuniary and emotional, (We ARE somebodies. We have a website!) What sad cases these are! And what blatant abnormal psychologies are seen at such websites" This new physics is not new at all. It is the injustice of our millenium that Einstein bent hard left from his contemporaries in a dogged "mission" to stay-the-course with Newtonian physics. Why? Doing so prevented him from achieving his "unified theory of everything". What it did do, and what this 'limiting' physics did do, is enable Einstein and the 20th century war machine to split the atom. Boom! But what it didn't do is explain a bunch of stuff. Like why the Schumann Response (amount of time a radio wave takes going around our equator once) is changing. Like why does light wave through "empty" space? (Doesn't everything that 'waves', wave through a medium?) Like why our national Atomic Clock, which wasn't supposed to need an adjustment for over 10,000 years, had to be 'fixed" 3 times already. Like why the weather is not only changing on our planet Earth, but is also changing on every planet in this Solar System! Like why our (voyager?) probes are inexplicably changing speed as they leave our solar system. Notice the proliferation of new physicists, theoretical physicists, who speculate about these things that Newtonian physics seems not to expl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Jun 2, 2005

The SDC Terms of Service states that Users must not "Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue." - while this term was specifically written with chat in mind, I believe that your last post - being irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and containing a number of links to irrelevant sites - violates the spirit of that TOS provision.If you continue with this behaviour you will be subjected to moderator intervention.

telfrow · Jun 2, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I'm working on another, seperate version of the "upside down squashed chicken" with a new lettering system. The one in the side-by-side-by-side is just the "right side up" version flipped over. I just cropped it to have something everyone could compare to Zen and Bob's versions. Edit: You are talking about the "upside down" one in the side-by-side-by-side, right? <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>

chew_on_this · Jun 2, 2005

The SDC Terms of Service states that Users must not "Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue." I have a problem with Zen being singled out on this. steves post had no bearing on what was being discussed and steered the discussion off with his ranting post. Zen was only providing a rebuttal to steves post.

zenonmars · Jun 2, 2005

najaB, You are the boss. Poor colin. I think everything in these last 4 parts of his thread is terribly off-topic. Read back a bit. I apologized to him personally. Did anyone else? The "artificiality" argument about the Cydonia structures changes his thread from "could there have been" to "do we have evidence that there was". The scientific "test" of the artificiality of the Face and the D&M, includes the DiPietro, Molinaare, Carlotto, Hoagland, McDaniel perception of encoded redundant geometrical relationshiops, preserving for future generations, a highest achievement of "their" civilization: the tetrahedral representation of multi-dimensional physics. Enter that nice person named stevehw33. Before page 9, I was trying to explain to the gang here, that the D&M, and it's base, might probably incorporate two or more geometrical alignments, as evidenced by Bob Wonderland's work. This could be incorrect, but I said that his "upside down" diagraming felt more "comfortable" to me, given the newest images. And how in that reasonable progression of speculations, does this become warranted? : steve: "Yes and the RCH crock of 'hyperdimensional physics", another trick. No substantiation and an attempt to again, divert attention from his wild claims by yet another wild speculation, which he presents as fact, rather than the truth, that it's just more of his same old, same old. Pseudoscience at its apotheosis! LOL!" ------------------------------- In a vain attempt to provide "substantiation" to steve, and as to show everyone here that the field of "hyperdimensional physics" is not the fantasy of Mr Hoagland, but a 200 year theoretical extrapolation of a notion in the world of physics: that Einstien's 3 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time, may not be all there is. And then comes steve. My hero. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Jun 2, 2005

Zen: No, you guys have your hands full explaining the already-explained. Keep up the fine work. So why am I working so hard to produce all these damn photos if that's your attitude? "Already explained?" Forget it then. Glad you and Max sucked me into doing all this work to advance the "debate." <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> Waitress? Check please. <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 · Jun 2, 2005

Colin: The photo in the side by side by side is a composite of two MGS and one THEMIS image done by Malin. It can be found here: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/09/15/ Here's a version of it side by side with a "flipped" version. The image you're think of (I think) is the composite I was working on from images I found at Laney's site, here: http://www.keithlaney.com/ Specifically, high res of R0600469, R0700422 and R1102437. I've never been able to get 422 to fit properly with the composite, so it's 2/3rds done. I'll post it again after this so you can compare the two. <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 · Jun 2, 2005

And here's a side by side of the 2/3rds composite from the images I noted earlier. Right side up and rotated about 205 degrees CCW. <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>

chew_on_this · Jun 2, 2005

steve says: Given YOUR website pre-occupations with such FOM sillinesses, I'm not surprised you side with those you do. I'm not "siding" on anything regarding the discussion of the topic of this thread. As usual, you assume way too much. In other words, if you don't have anything to offer to a discussion but your demeaning psychiatric opinions then shut your piehole, so to speak.

zenonmars · Jun 2, 2005

tel... Please don't add Max into this. He and I are not as sympatico as you might think. And by that I mean we certainly do not plot any strategy here, or conspire in any sort of way to attack anyone or any point of view. In fact, we speak more here than we do at the Enterprise boards. No this is between Naja, Steve, and myself. No need for anger. I have been trying very hard to be friendly with most on these threads. I apologised to colin, wished you well with your medical proceedure (twice), complimented you on your photo-shopping, apologized for my psuedo-photo-shopist ignorance, tried to add a smidgeon of humour, mentioned how I would miss these discussions if these threads ever crashed, in other words I've been trying to be a friend, or certainly a good nieghbor. Not sure anyone noticed, but I try <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. No, please keep Maxi out of this. I would not wish to "violate the spirit" of commraderie around here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jun 2, 2005

Max wrote: "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/. " Max, your opinion of me is irrelevant, as is mine of yours. What matters are the facts. It is a fact that the tests for artificiality that Carlotto raised for the "face", based on the Viking image, were not met by any of the THEMIS or MOC images. You have not responded to these facts at all. It is a fact that that there is good evidence the Wonderland image of the "pyramid" (from Carlotto) has been interferred with. You have not shown that it is false. You have not responded to the factual or analytical content presented by many people in this discussion in any way, except to call people "political scientists" or "pseudoscientists" and raise irrelevancies about NASA press releases. The only conclusion is that you can't, preferring Hoagland's paranoid fantasies to truth. That is your choice, and your problem. But don't expect any serious person seriously interested on Mars to take your views on the subject seriously unless you engage the factual and rational aspect of what people say and read much more widely than Hoagland and his henchmen. Nothing you have said indicates that you have. Please do so, it not hard, and you will learn something. 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>

telfrow · Jun 2, 2005

Noted. And I apolgize, in return, for flying off the handle, but it takes a lot of time to do the PhotoShop work, and I really didn't mind doing it (I'm "recovering" - so I've been doing it between chapters of a book) until you made that statement. It hit me very much the wrong way. Seemed all the time had been wasted. I didn't expect - and don't expect - those photos to change anyone's mind, but it would have been nice to think the "other side" was at least considering the content. Your statement defintely made it sound like that was not the case. <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>

JonClarke · Jun 2, 2005

From memory it is generally accepted that the cratering rates on Mars are higher than they were on the Moon. I will check. My fellow ACA member Paul Davies' ideas are always interesting but I would never take them uncritically. Mars may have been a more hospitable environment than the early earth before Ga, but we have one random sample from Mars at that age (ALH84001) and a few dozen microscopic grains from the Yilgarn for earth. It is very dodgy making blanket statements on such limited data. 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>

zenonmars · Jun 2, 2005

Cool, tel. Max said it all: " but you guys have already asked more relevant questions and done more legitmate work in the last several posts than Plait, NASA, Greenberg, et al have done from the beginning. Even if you don't agree w/ the AOC hypothesis after this little exercise is done, you can hold your heads up high as legitimate skeptics who have maintained an open mind about an important question that has reprocussions for all of humanity. If NASA had done what Telfow has done, I wouldn't be here...right now . THAT kind of effort and detailed skepticism commands respect, imho." I couldn't agree more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

maxtheknife · Jun 2, 2005

Thanx, Zenman <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Telfrow,,,, I've been 'awakening' all day. Just when you think you've got it all figured out.... lolol. Maybe you and I ought to collaborate on a book or something <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> CONFESSION. When I traced the D&M back in part 1 or was it 2.... I did feel like I was forcing the issue by trying to make the D&M's axis line pass through the 'Teardrop'. In my defense, all I used was XP Paint and the 'straight line' feature. In other words, I traced the left side of the D&M and pretty much free handed/eyeballed the right side.....Interesting that none of you picked up on that. That said, and after viewing Telfrow's awesome efforts I couldn't escape the fact that the axis of symmetry is in fact, tangent to the FOM. I don't see any other way to get around it. I mean, 5 degrees is a lot...better than MA's imaginary 15-17 degrees though <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (which is why I was pushing for low tolerances at first. I didn't know what to expect from y'all...lol) To be honest w/ you guys, I'm vexed that no corrections have been made.... At least none that I'm aware of. Don't you think Plait or Malin would have been chomping at the bit and looking for RCH mistakes like this? Or is this realignment insignificant? Here's a question I think we should try and answer: Does this realignment of the D&M drastically change the geometric message of Cydonia? Does it erase the redundancies in RCH's tetrahedral model/message, or does it simply create new measurements which still substantiate the model/message? Here's what I've been thinkin' about all day. Tangent line to the FOM, tangent line to the Tholus, and tangent line to something I've always referred to as the FOM2. When the high res images came in, I was disappointed about it.... Now, my curiosity is piqued again! Telfrow.... You are amazing, my man. You

CalliArcale · Jun 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm thinkin' I want to run out this weekend and buy photoshop, Telfrow<hr /></blockquote> It's a fantastic program -- basically the industry standard for photo editing. But it's a bit spendy. Last I checked, it was over $700. Corel Photo-Paint (also available in a suite with Corel Draw and other Corel programs) is probably the #2 program. It can do everything Adobe Photoshop can do, but is considerably cheaper. I find it less user-friendly as well, but I've met people who prefer it to Photoshop. It's a matter of personal preference, really. But for an entry-level user, you might want to check out Paint Shop Pro, which is far more affordable than the two industry leaders but can do basically the same things. Not always as easily, but it can do the same kinds of thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

zenonmars · Jun 2, 2005

Max: "I'm vexed that no corrections have been made.... At least none that I'm aware of...is this realignment insignificant? Here's a question I think we should try and answer: Does this realignment of the D&M drastically change the geometric message of Cydonia? Does it erase the redundancies in RCH's tetrahedral model/message, or does it simply create new measurements which still substantiate the model/message?" MOST excellant question, Max. I, too, am inspired to get PhotoShop or PaintShopPro..... My gut intuition tells me, no, the Cydonian message stays intact. And that's even with the D&M as "upside down", as per Bob Wonderland. The internal geometry of the D&M shape is replicated between the other objects at Cydonia. And If the D&M-to-Face line starts at the APEX of the D&M, it should still work, right? Hard to measure, I know, what with the apex about as visible as Giza's missing capstone. But still, the apex would be the sighting line, wouldn't ya think? So even if the arm/limb is askew, the integrity of the D&M-to-Face line should remain, no? Man, why didn't I take an autoCad course in college? Zen is now seriously thinking of finding someone in his home town with one of those ancient, giant lighted tables, ya know, for blueprints. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

maxtheknife · Jun 2, 2005

Cool.... Thanks for the tip, Calli. Lol, another great tax write off! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Which version do you have Telfrow?

telfrow · Jun 2, 2005

Adobe Creative Suite: includes PhotoShop CS (8.0), ImageReady CS, Illustrator CS, InDesign CS, Adobe Acrobat 6.0, Reader and Distiller. CS2 is available now; according to the Adobe website, it's $599 and includes the "new, improved" versions of the programs I listed. I love it - as you probably noticed, I'm still learning how to use it - but I've got to admit, it's a sweet (pun intended) package. <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>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2005

Regarding my allegation that the “pyramid” on Bob’s Wonderland site has been bodied via Photoshop: Thanks Telfrow, for providing the link to the original. The following is based on Carlotto 2001 http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Papers/v01n03a/v01n03a.pdf In the next few posts I will try and follow the evidence from the original data to the apparently bodgy image. Below is a comparison between the a crop from THEMIS image V20020413a (http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20020413a.html) which forms Figure 1 of Carlotto. On the right is the same image rotated THEMIS, from Carlotto figure 2. 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>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2005

In the following image I have rotated Carlotto’s Figure 1 to the same orientation (left) as the one from his Figure 2 (right). The two images are essentially the same, although by rotating of the image I have degraded it slightly. <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>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2005

In this image I have Carlotto’s Figure 4 (left) with “approximate” angles compared with Carlotto Figure 2 (right). Note: 1) contrast of left image enhanced, causing loss of detail. 2) Top two side axes cuts diagonally across arm to a centre that is actually below where the top three arms meet in the original image. 3) Top vertical axis is to the right of where the ridge actually is on the ground. 4) Bottom two ridges actually join well below where the top three do. 5) This is obscured by choosing an arbitrary centre for his axes between where the upper and lower ridges convert and right of the highest part of the feature. As a result of my research of the original sources I retract by statement that the image has been photo shopped. However I still maintain that the use of approximate angles is very poor and Carlotto has chosen a spuriously regular geometric figure based on his assumption of regularity. I also point out that I discovered and retract my erroneous claim on the basis of my own work using resources in this thread. Zen or Max could just have easily done so, but did not. This is what I mean by the proponents of artificiality not engaging the data or the arguments. You must do so if you want to advance the discussion and your own knowledge. 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>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2005

Zen, quoting Max: “but you guys have already asked more relevant questions and done more legitmate work in the last several posts than Plait, NASA, Greenberg, et al have done from the beginning. Even if you don't agree w/ the AOC hypothesis after this little exercise is done, you can hold your heads up high as legitimate skeptics who have maintained an open mind about an important question that has reprocussions for all of humanity. If NASA had done what Telfow has done, I wouldn't be here...right now . THAT kind of effort and detailed skepticism commands respect, imho” Let’s see: Phil Plait has devoted a page to the “face”, a page to the “city”. Mike Malin has half a dozen or so pages. Ralf Greenberg has three on the supposed geometric relationships. The THEMIS image mentioned earlier has a page on the issue. This is not to belittle Telfrow’s excellent work here but there is ample engagement by both “NASA” (Mike Malin, the THEMIS team) and many others with the whole Cydonia cottage industry. Not to mention the 30 odd papers and abstracts on the region by legitimate researchers Andlauer (1 publication), Carr (1), Chase (1), Farrand (4), Frey (5), Guest (1), McGill (2), Moore (1), Parker (9), Pranzini (1), Scott (1), Underwood (2), Witbeck (1), Wood (1)). The fact is there is lots of stuff out there that shows conclusively that there is nothing artificial at Cydonia. Telfrow’s stuff is just icing on the cake. 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>

sinova · Jun 3, 2005

"The fact is there is lots of stuff out there that shows conclusively that there is nothing artificial at Cydonia." Ah, yes, Jon -- but that begs the question running throughout this loony thread: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

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

telfrow

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

najab

Guest

telfrow

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

sinova

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page