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

a_lost_packet_ · Jun 3, 2005

a_lost_packet_ - 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. 5stone10 - I think I'm going to throw up !! Pseudo-Skeptics + Believers = 4-Ever ! ? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Let me rephrase it for you: This subject has continued for 6 threads. It has been derailed many times. RCH-followers continue to attempt to discuss matters with people who have already shown that the ideas are less than credible. However, the naysayers are detail oriented people used to providing specific analyses. RCH-followers refer to specific details regarding the ideas surrounding Cydonia's "artificiality" and the embedded "message." In an effort to show that RCH's ideas have not been discounted out of hand, some members are offering much more detailed analysis. For all intensive purposes, I feel this is being done out of courtesy in regards to the RCH-followers in order to show a objective analysis of their ideas and why they may not be credible based on substantiated rebuttal. Does that clear things up for you or are you still going to throw up? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

zenonmars · Jun 3, 2005

Hi, Lost... What you posted is a fairly objective take on what has been happening here. Your clarity on this is appreciated. You posted: "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." My college education focused on writing, not the sciences. And I have dumped the "hyperdimensional" physics model on a good number of friends over the years, educated and not. So I do appreciate the perception that it takes "an intimate knowledge" of the RCH "mythology" to comprehend his Cydonia point of view. I submit that this is only due to the fact that the concepts of HD physics are so completely new to most folks. When I first heard Richard on a Chicago-based radio show, way back in the early 80s, I rushed to order his video, the United Nations presentaion. In less than two hours, perhaps because of his artful ability as a public speaker, I was completely up to speed on this "mythology". And remember, I am not a math wiz, nor a space science academic. To be brought "up to speed" on the entire history of the Cydonia/artificiality saga, one does need to read "Monuments" I suppose. But the rather simplistic concepts of HD physics can be easily absorbed by the average person, simply by watching a television screen for less time than it takes to watch Star Wars Episode III. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I bring this up, because you mentioned Phil Plaitt. He, also, uses the notion that "it takes an intimate knowledge of (Hoagland's) mythology in order to even begin to approach a critical analysis of it" as the main reason he has refused all requests to debate Richard on-the-air on a public venue such as the radio. I find that od <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

5stone10 · Jun 3, 2005

Does that clear things up for you or are you still going to throw up? Too Late ! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

a_lost_packet_ · Jun 3, 2005

ZenOnMars - I bring this up, because you mentioned Phil Plaitt. I didn't bring him up. Maxtheknife did. I just responded to his post. ZenOnMars - So I do appreciate the perception that it takes "an intimate knowledge" of the RCH "mythology" to comprehend his Cydonia point of view. Firstly, I'd like to define what I mean about RCH's "mythology." RCH connects everything. I mean everything. Mars is connected to ETI's which are connected to ancient Man which are connected to a burgeoning hi-tech ancient human civ which are connected to the Pyramids which are connected to... You get my meaning I think. So, in order to "debate" someone who constantly answers to questions with "Well, what about "XXX" How do you explain that?!!" (Where "XXX" is a referrence to something that has been connected to the subject only by the originators' "mythology.") you have to be familiar with that person's mythology. Of course, in my opinion, this isn't completely necessary. However, all it takes is your opponent to say "So, what do you think about my "Cats built the toilets used in the Pyramids by Aliens" theory? If you answer "I am not aware of this aspect of your theory." your opponent can easily say "Then you're not qualified to discuss my ideas if you haven't researched them..." Such a simple statement clouds the whole discussion from then on and renders the dialogue moot as the opponent can unjustly refer to their nemesis as being "unqualified." ZenOnMars - Also, and I am not directing this to you, Lost, but I think it needs to be said: For a man who is primarily known to the public-at-large by his penchant for his attempts to destroy other people's lives and reputations (even if under the guise of exposing "bad" science), he sure seems lax to do even the most cursory research into the history, motives, and particulars of his "adversaries". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

maxtheknife · Jun 3, 2005

Lost: 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. That my friends, is the problem. That stupid/childish attitude puts them firmly into the category of 'pseudoscientist'. You guys cannot rationally defend this accusation, you have not since I made it way back in Iapetus part 1. You can only elevate yourselves above it as Telfrow has done by actually doing the work. Extraordinary implications require extraordinary efforts. Plain and simple. Back to the subject... Telfrow.... sadly I do agree w/ you about FOM2... not a very good candidate and I don't think the line is actually tangent to it.... or is it? I need to spend some more time w/ this. Zen, I just happen to have a couple of drafting tables set up here... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I'm tired right now.... busy, busy day.

telfrow · Jun 3, 2005

"Data Weasel": Yet another useful phrase referring to data 'massage', AKA in politics, viz., 'spin'. Colloquially, AKA 'lying'. And all this time Jon and I thought it was a compliment. <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>

telfrow · Jun 3, 2005

Packet: However, the naysayers are detail oriented people used to providing specific analyses. i.e., "Data Weasels." <img src="/images/icons/smile.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>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2005

Max wrote "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 work. If the angle is off then the whole house of cards collapses, it does not matter whether it is 5 or 1. Also: "Just admit your bias, Jon and say it... "Anything BUT artifical". " If accepting the fact that there is no evidence yet presented for artificiality at Cydonia, then I am biased. Let's review them. The face looks like a face: FALSE (except in a vague sense) Strong facial rectinlinearity: FALSE Facial symmetry: FALSE Unusual surface properties: FALSE Pyramid regularity: FALSE Geometric alignment: FALSE If accepting where the evidence is takes us in bias, what is refusing to accept evidence? What is not engaging the issues? What is deliberately misrepresenting what people say? What is substituting feeble insults for rational, evidence based debate? Jon BTW if you wish to attack Phil Plait, start your own thread. Better yet, go to his forum. I have found him the fairest moderator on any board I have been to. But don't expect him or anyone to be convinced (although they will treat you courteously, anyone who doesn't will be banned) unless you lift your game with respect to actually engaging the issues. <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

Bob Ventefacts are pebble to boulder sized, larger wind shaded features are yardangs. Hoqwever, win sculpture is one possibility, especially when only the Viking imagery was available. I recall Sagan mentioning this somewhere in one of his popular books. However while wind erosion may be important on this feature, I don't think that is the case. To me it looks like the hardening of where a series of joint planes have met and ermoval of softer material. Especially when you look at the full resultion MOC 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>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2005

Colin, your wrote: "In my casual study of the Moon and Mars, it seems odd someone would conclude cratering is greater on Mars." The southern highlands of Mars are saturated with craters larger than 40-odd km. This highland crust is older than 3.5 Ga, and some of it goes back to 4.5. At this scale the highlands are as intensely cratered as the moon. "But you are beginning to say, "Mars may have been a more hospitable environment than the early earth before Ga..." I am not saying this at all. "You must look beyond the your dear meteorites. The data is not limited - the data is expanding daily." What do you mean by this? When it comes to hard samples from the 4-4.5 Ga period the data is limited, and it is growing very slowly. For earth we have a handful of microscopic or near microscopic zircon grains from the Jack Hills and now Southern Cross, both on the Yilgarn. For Mars we have one old meteorite ALH84001. There are lots of other meteorites and some lunar samples of this age, but they are not particular relevant to comparing earth and Mars. "In this, it is very important NOT to think of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter - which is a source of asteroids in the 'second half' of the solar system age." I would like to see some sources for this statement Colin. From my reading of Hartmann, one of the major researchers into cratering on Mars, the cratering rate has been more or less steady state since 3.5 Ga, with Mars crossing asteriods from the fringes of the main belt would be a major source of impactors. And there are more mars crosses than there are earth crossers. there is no reason to suspect otherswise back to 3.5 Ga Non-main belt impactors would be important before 3.5 Ga, when the highland crust was saturated with large craters, but that is a different story. May remind you, don't take Paul Davies uncritically. He is primarily a cosmologist, not someone who has <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

Colin wrote: "I guess the intuitive question here is: "If Mars froze up shortly after Ga 3.5, with the loss of its magnetosphere, atmosphere, liquid water, etc., why are there remnants, or evidence, of massive complex historical water flows observed on the planet"?" Fairly obviously from that evidence Mars was not always frozen up after 3.5 GA. How long the episodes of relatively warm, high atmospheric pressure conditions lasted and what caused them is a matter for research. But they were common in the Hesperian and continued episodically through the Amazonian. the most recent mya have been only at 20 of so Ma, from Athabasca Vallis. 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>

Leovinus · Jun 3, 2005

We are the knights who say..... "Nay!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Jun 3, 2005

We are no longer the knights who say nay, we are now the knights who say Ekke ekke ekke ptang zoo boing! <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 · Jun 3, 2005

The pressure's gotten to them. Sad. Say, anyone for some Prozac?! <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>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2005

Zen wrote with respect to Phill Plait: "For a man who is primarily known to the public-at-large by his penchant for his attempts to destroy other people's lives and reputations (even if under the guise of exposing "bad" science), he sure seems lax to do even the most cursory research into the history, motives, and particulars of his "adversaries"... This is false. Phill Plait does not attempt to destroy people's lives. Reputations? Well, if their reputation is based on passing off falsehoods as truth then they deserve to be exposed. "Even if all that is required is watching a 2 hour video and reading a single book." Phill Plait has carefully researched Hoagland. But all this is a diversion isn't? The issue is not Phil Plait, it is the fact that you have not been able to present any substantial evidence for artificiality at Cydonia. Attacking Phill, just like you calling me a data weasel or Max calling me a pseudoscientist, is called shooting the messenger. If you want to discuss Phill, then start another thread. Better, go and cdiscuss it on his fora. He is the fairest moderator and host I know. You will get courtesty and respect as a person, but your ideas will be citically reviewed by those present. On this discussion, stop bringing up red herrings. rexamine why you think that the geometry of Cydonia is indicative of artificality when telfrow and I have shown that the angles are wrong and the alignments don't point anywhere. Give us facts and reasoned arguments. 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 3, 2005

The pressure's gotten to them. Sad. I think you're right. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/smile.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>

maxtheknife · Jun 3, 2005

Jon, I don't know how to talk to you..... I can be harsh. I'm sorry. I'm hoping you'll meet me halfway here.... Will you at least give me some odds on artificial vs natural? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> RCH, Monuments: The solution to this problem is quite simple: new, much higher resolution Cydonia imagery, which could easily be achieved from the nowimminent (1996-1998) NASA successors to the ill-fated Mars Observer mission - new NASA missions called Mars Pathfinder and Globall Surveyor.Whether this obvious solution is politically achievable (see below)is another matter altogether. . . . These current measurement uncertainties notwithstanding, the richness of this new "Cydonia tetrahedral model" (only part of which we have been able to present here) is compelling evidence at this point favoring a profound, incredibly redundant "tetrahedral message of Cydonia," as Torun and I previously proposed. It is also elegant confirmation (throughthe work of two eminently recognized academic scholars) of the epistemological power of our original Cydonia "relationship model" to ultimately determine the "AOC reality" of Cydonia itself. One of the other key papers delivered at the Cody conference was presented by a young architectural designer, Robert Fiertek, who had been studying Cydonia since 1989. In the waning days of McDaniel's research for his Report (in 1993), Fiertek's work came to the attention of McDaniel, who then asked the award-winning architectural designer to supply a critical independent analysis of our own Cydonia geometric measurements. Fiertek's architectural review of the Cydonia Complex resulted in several critical new insights for our investigation, of "the City." Noted Fiertek in his Cydonia Review, included in The McDanie/1 Report: On any random geologic formation one finds connections, visual coincidences, bits of symmetry, beautiful geometries; but the order fails wh

telfrow · Jun 3, 2005

Re: The Geometry of Cydonia 1 The following image (Sheep 15) was taken from “Do Geologists Dream of Wind-Blown Sheep?” at the TEM site. Note that the alignment in this illustration uses the anchor point we discussed earlier (blue line) – which takes the line from the “pyramid” to the “tear” on the “FOM.” The yellow lines I’ve included represent the 5 degree shift we discussed earlier. Making this adjustment, the 19.5 degree angle indicated becomes an angle of 24.5 degrees. <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 3, 2005

Re: The Geometry of Cydonia 2 The following image (Sheep 6) was taken from “Do Geologists Dream of Wind-Blown Sheep?” at the TEM site. This illustration deals with the “ruin” which is indicated 19.5 degrees off the line from the anchor point on the “pyramid” to the “tear” on the “FOM.” RCH measurements are in white. The yellow line indicates the projected line with the five degree error. The red line indicates the projected line with the seven degree error. That means the angle between the connector line (“pyramid-FOM”) is between 24.5 and 26.5 degrees call it 24 to 26 degrees.) <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

This is a more general reflection, it is not intended as a red herring, or even for discussion, although it may be worth its own thread somewhere. The whole exchange for the past thousand posts or so is very similar to excahnges I have had with young earthers. Let us call them the pro (young earth, artificiality) and anti On the anti side side you have people, not all scientists, who have a strong grasp of the technical issues and the institutions responsible, on the pro side people who mostly do not do not. On the anti side you have people who are familiar with both the pro and anti literature. On the pro side people who only read the pro literature. Both sides are convinced of the rightness of their position, and no little shifting of positions occurs. From a philosophical point of view this is usually an indicator of a different world view. In the case of the anti's certainly this is primarily a committment to evidenced based reasoning. However there can be other influences. Steve, for example, knows that there is no life in the solar system therefore any suggestion of artificiality is, ergo wrong (apologies Steve if I misrepresented your position). For some anti-young earthers in addition to the weakeness of the young earth arguments there may be a complete hostility to the Christian religion (Dawkins is a case in point. Similarly, just about every young earther I have ever encountered thinks we way they do not because the evidence points that (many admit when pressed it does not) but because their committment to one particular understanding of the Bible (a deeply flawed one IHMO) pushed by people with few scientific and theological credentials means they have to be young earthers. In the case of the Cydonia people, in the end the authority seems to Hoagland and a few others like Carlotto. So this raises the question, why to the pro people, in this case regard Hoagland (person with no technical t <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 3, 2005

Re: The Geometry of Cydonia 3 The following image is an enlargement of the map of Cydonia posted earlier today that shows the changes in lines radiating from the “pyramid” with a rotation of 5 degrees of the original axis. The line passes above “Tholus” and intersects “north.” The original angle shown is 19.5 degrees. The “adjusted” angle, allowing for the adjusted line, is between 16 and 17 degrees. <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 3, 2005

The points involved in the last three posts are these: 1) the angles shown as 19.5 degrees are not 19.5 degrees with the “adjustment;” and 2) when asserting such a precise angle exists (nineteen and one half degrees), how is any margin of error allowable? <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

Hi Max That's OK, we can all be hardsh sometimes. If I seem harsh at times, it is because I want to find out the truth nd I want the people I exchange with the engage the data, not neccessarily how I see it, to to think about it analyse it. It's the teacher in me I guess. It certainly is not intended to attack you as a person. If it comes across that way, my apologies. Odds? On what I know at present I am 99% confident that there is nothing artificial at Cydonia. If new evidence comes to light, that might change. The 1% covers the possibility I may have missed something. Best wishes 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>

maxtheknife · Jun 3, 2005

Telfrow... like I said.... More relevant angles. Just because we moved the axis to tangent, does not mean the angle from the Teardrop, to the apex of the D&M, to the little ruined tetrahedron has disappeared. If you're using the pic I think you're using, RCH does not indicate the D&M's axis of symmetry. Unfortunately, the D&M's axis of symmetry is busy playing tangent to the curved head of the FOM. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If you're trying to suggest that the angle of 19.5 disappears, I respectfully object. It does not. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Edit...same for the measurements from the apex of the tholus to whatever.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

maxtheknife · Jun 3, 2005

Jon: On what I know at present I am 99% confident that there is nothing artificial at Cydonia. Perfect! I'm 99% sure it's all artificial! Let's call it 50/50, shake eachother's hand and motivate everyone to go there and find out! Here, Jon.... What do you think? None are more fair to the question of AOC than these guys. I can post the body, but it's pretty long. Hopefully, you've read it. A GEOLOGIC/GEOMORPHIC INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH TO SOME OF THE ENIGMATIC LANDFORMS IN CYDONIA James L. Erjavec and Ronald R. Nicks Abstract An area of the Cydonia region of Mars that contains landforms of enigmatic nature has been analyzed in the context of Martian geomorphologic and geologic evolution. Results indicate that previous studies of the area have not satisfactorily explained these features and that claims of differential erosion playing a major role in the evolution of the Cydonia region lack substantive geologic and geomorphic evidence. This study shows that from the evidence, the current landscape is more likely the result of a series of complex, interrelated geologic processes. These include fluvial and lacustrine activity, wind erosion, volcanism, faulting(?), rotation(?), slumping, venting(?), liquefaction(?), collapse(?), impact cratering, and possibly other indeterminate, enigmatic Martian geologic processes. The expression of the geomorphic features and impact cratering record strongly implies that much of the Cydonia region is underlain by a subsurface strata that contains considerable quantities of water or other volatiles that are locked up in the crust in the form ofice or an icesediment mix. Introduction Unlike many serious studies of the day, that which follows seeks to use only basic geologic principles and reason without employing complex high-tech processing so prevalent in much of today's technical literature. Conc

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

a_lost_packet_

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

5stone10

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page