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

[JonClarke]

The modern equivalent is surely "How many posts can fit in Cydonia?"<br /><br /><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]

Max:<br /><br />Here's what changes (I think) with everything "shifted" by 5 degrees. Please understand that is only an approximation. We're trying to overlay the higher res "pentagon" over the lower res Cydonia image. I tried to line it up 5 degrees off the line from the "pyramid" to the "FOM." But it should be good for discussion purposes. <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]

Re: Photo in last post<br /><br />IMHO, here are some of the changes I see: the "Relative Intervals" (specifically 0 to 1, 1 to 2 and 2 to 4 and 4 to 8); the location of anchor point B (in the "city"; the line to the "FOM"; and the intersection of the line at point G - which effects the angle from North...it looks to be off the 19.5 by a few degrees (this shows it at approximately 17-18 degrees). Again, we'd need to map all this on a higher res mosaic of the area to go much further. But this is a start. <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]

No,,,,, NO serious engagement. Unsubstantiated pseudoscience and quick dismissals. I went over Plait's assertions and conclusions in detail which is what prompted this little experiment from Telfrow. Had Plait done the work, he would have discovered what Telfrow and I have just figured out. Not once does Plait, et al, put forth the effort Telfrow has.<br /><br />RCH, it seems, wasn't off by 1 degree, he was off by ~5 degrees.... And he's still sittin' pretty. Why the silence among the critics about this? I'll tell you why..... They haven't done the <i>work</i>.<br /><br />Just admit your bias, Jon and say it... "Anything BUT artifical".

 

[najab]

><i>RCH, it seems, wasn't off by 1 degree, he was off by ~5 degrees.... And he's still sittin' pretty.</i><p>I wouldn't say that: the line from the "D&M" now just <i>barely</i> touches the edge of the "Face", and the other one completely misses the "Tholus".</p>

 

[maxtheknife]

Awesome, Telfrow.... simply awesome! Doesn't the geometric model look even better now? <br /><br />Just saying so, doesn't necessarily make you a believer.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I gotta run.....<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Barely touching IS tangent, Naj. The other line does not miss the Tholus.... look again.<br /><br />You can admit this w/o being a believer.... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[najab]

><i>Barely touching IS tangent, Naj. The other line does not miss the Tholus....</i><p>But one of the central argguments of the artificiality theory is that the lines go straight from the centre of one feature to another. As is, the line from the D&M to the "Face" is <b>barely</b> tangental (if you squint). This significantly reduces the power of the argument.<p>The "Tholus" is the point labled "G", right? telfrow's red line doesn't run through it.</p></p>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Had Plait done the work, he would have discovered what Telfrow and I have just figured out.</font><br /><br />That's all well and good, Max, but keep in mind you and I are going two different directions with this - I think it <b>disproves</b> the theory...and you believe it somehow enhances it. I don't think being off by 5 degrees leaves RCH "sittin' pretty."<br /><br />And I appreciate the kudos for the work, but remember, I had the week off and have been laying on my back. I did this stuff between chapters of a few books and (bad) TV programs. Honestly, if this had been a normal week, I wouldn't have had time to do it. (And it's back to the grind next week...on the road again.<img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />.)<br /><br />As for Plait, you're assuming he didn't do what we're doing before he wrote the article. As I've noted before, Phil posts here once in a while. Maybe he'll feel motivated to address that issue. Until then, let's not assume what he did do or didn't do to reach his conclusions. He may not have included the type of thing we're doing here because he thought it was obvious. I don't know. And neither do you. Besides, he's no longer an issue. We're investigating his conclusions and RCH's theory. <br /><br />However, if you'd like to address the issue with him directly, you can post your questions about his research, methods and conclusions at:<br /><br />http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/index.php<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]

<font color="yellow">Doesn't the geometric model look even better now?</font><br /><br />I think we have a <b>very</b> different point of view on that issue, Max. <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]

Zen:<br /><br />Re: The Bob's Wonderland drawings.<br /><br />First: the angles shown in the drawings are off by 3 degrees, which I assume "Bob" felt free to incorporate because of the stated "margin of error." The angles are not 60 and 30 degrees - rather, they're 63 and 27. <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]

Here's what the drawing would look like if the anchor points were actually at 30 and 60 degrees (yellow lines indicate the angle/green lines the shape of the "pentagon" using those angles. <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 are "Bob's" lines extended on a map of the region. Blue lines indicate RCH's original path, the red lines are the paths of "Bob's" lines. <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]

BTW, all images posted here should carry the following logo: <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Opinion noted and respected.... I hope we can continue <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I think tangency is much harder to achieve than simply passing through a rather large feature on the FOM. Tangency requires much greater precision and decreases the odds even further that these land forms are naturally occuring.<br /><br />There are a few things I've noticed that I want to bring out as soon as I get a chance. I'm happily backed up w/ orders at work right now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />To be clear about what I'm referring to as the FOM2....

 

[Leovinus]

You missed "Snowman On Mars" circled here in yellow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Max:<br /><br />Here's an crop of that features from the source image V02834004-V01024003. I put it through the high pass filter to kill the contrast and bring out a little more detail. Judging from this, it's not a very good candidate. <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]

Side question:<br /><br />Could one of you indicate where North (with respect to the object) is on one of those images? I'm doing some serious thinking on weathering effects, and I must know this.<br /><br />Thanks. <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]

North is shown on the RCH map with lines extended I posted about 8 am this morning. You can see the arrow on the far right side, next to the 19.5. Does that help? <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]

It does at that. Thanks.<br /><br />I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but throughout the debate, I have never quite picked up on orientation. <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>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"</font><br /><br />Did you mean to say "How many angles..?"<br /><br />This thread has become a virtual ballet of angles, dancing over hill and dale of the martian landscape. It's a real nutcracker. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Maxtheknife... Don't you think Plait or Malin would have been chomping at the bit and looking for RCH mistakes like this?</font><br /><br />To be quite honest, I don't think either would have wished to put this much work into discussing one particular of RCH's idea. For good reason, I might add. It has taken 6 threads worth of discussion to get this far, gain interest and open dialogue. For the "debunking" done by Plait et. al., they have avoided becoming embroiled in a discussion of the "mythology" surrounding RCH's ideas because it takes an intimate knowledge of that mythology in order to even begin to approach a critical analysis of it. Lastly, it has been relatively simple to offer critical reviews of some of RCH's ideas. <br /><br />However, the discussions in these threads have been "two way" streets with posts and rebuttals taking place at a hectic rate. The conversation changes on a daily basis. Plait's unraveling of RCH's ideas is very specific and does not require intimate knowledge of the mythology. The discussion on these boards is even more specific but does require an intimate knowledge of RCH's ideas. The exchange of information on the board has forced analysis in detail in order to present a case that is considerate of the positions of both sides involved. ie: In return for RCH-followers constant input, consideration is being given for more detailed critical review.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Maxtheknife... Or is this realignment insignificant? ..</font><br /><br />It is significant. RCH's ideas on the subject are very, very specific regarding the angles, placement and terminals of all "lines." Any realignment significantly alters his idea. Any proof that the shape is/is not appropriate where it is being shown significantly undermines his idea regarding the "complex." It's a clear case of a "house of cards." Move one, and the rest come tumbling down. His idea is just too specific to survive such <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[bobw]

I remember, when the rovers first landed, that a lot of the general rocks lying around were ventifacts. I'm wondering is there a size limit for them? I know they are characterized by faceted surfaces. Well I found a picture of one from earth at this website. It really looks a lot like that Mars "pyramid". <br /><br />http://www.dickinson.edu/departments/geol/rennie/ventifacts.html<br /><br />I have never had a geology class so I don't know, what do you think? I vote for big ventifact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Calli - 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. </font><br /><br />Adobe Photoshop is the industry standard for the most part. At least in basic image editing. Paint Shop Pro would be a very good home-user program. Corel Draw is akin to Photoshop but is more centered on putting together illustrations. Corel's purpose is similar to Quark Express (Mac) that is used in many print/imaging businesses.<br /><br />Personally, I prefer Corel Draw's suite of utilities. But that's only because I've used them for years. I'm not a pro, just like to doodle around with images. Although, I have used it extensively at work to put together presentation graphics etc.<br /><br />If cash is a consideration, I'd recommend Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. It's a stripped down version of Photoshop meant for the home user. After that, I'd recommend Photoshop because of it's position in the market. If Photoshop is too pricey, you can pickup Corel Draw which is just as powerful if not moreso in certain areas, than Photoshop. For the severely budget conscious, Paintshop Pro would be recommended. Btw, Paint Shop Pro used to have a free download/trial version available. They may still have one. If so, I'd recommend it for download/test-drive.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow"> The exchange of information on the board has forced analysis in detail in order to present a case that is considerate of the positions of both sides involved. ie: In return for RCH-followers constant input, consideration is being given for more detailed critical review.</font><br /><br /><br />I think I'm going to throw up !!<br /><br />Pseudo-Skeptics + Believers = 4-Ever !