Deep Impact reveals 'Secrets they dont want you to know abou

[zenonmars]

No answers about why this 2-year-old thread was dredged up? And why no chat about Deep Impact?<br /><br />qso1: <font color="yellow">"He began his career of finding alleged anomalies by claiming the face on Mars was part of a system of artificial constructs and of course, claiming NASA was covering up."</font><br /><br />OK, qso1, some minor corrections. <br />First, Hoagland <b>began his career</b> at the age of 19 as the Curator for the Boston Museum of Space Science, and then "<i>created his first elaborate commemorative event -- around NASA's first historic unmanned fly-by of the planet Mars, Mariner 4</i>" (a simultaneous all-night, transcontinental radio program, linking the museum in Springfield, Mass., and NASA's JPL control center, in Pasadena, Ca.). This event was "<i>co-produced by Hoagland and WTIC-Radio, in Hartford, Ct., was subsequently nominated for a Peabody Award, one of journalism's most prestigious.</i>" <br /> <br />He progressed to space science consultant for NASA and CBS, and co-created the Pioneer 10 "Greetings Plaque". It was in the Viking data center that he and numerous colleagues were first <b>LIED TO</b> about the Viking mission frame called "Head". <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If he'd stopped right then and there, his credibility could be intact today.</font><br /><br />Sorry qso1. <font color="yellow">Credibility</font> especially in science, <b>DEMANDS</b> the constant and vigilant search for the truth. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"he went on to claim there were obolisks on the moons farside..."</font><br /><br />Nope. It was striking, patterned, light-refracting data on the various Apollo photos, which lead him to suggest the remains of ruined glass domes on the LIGHT side of the moon. Perhaps you are thinking of the enormous glass-like "tower" seen silhouetted on the lunar horizon in the Soviet "Zond" mission archive. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"He has no way to provide evidence</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thanks for the detailed info on Hoaglands career.<br /><br />I considered him to have impeccable credentials years ago and it seems I was right based on your detailed research into his career. The tragedy IMO is that he is ready to see alien constructs in virtually every image returned from space.<br /><br />ZenOnMars:<br />Sorry qso1. Credibility, especially in science, DEMANDS the constant and vigilant search for the truth.<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree, but Hoagland IMO has built a career upon finding questionable imagery that when subject to scientific scrutiny, do not prove alien construction anywhere. There are anomalous images to be sure. I've said here many times the only way to be sure what they are is to mount a human expedition to settle the question once and for all.<br /><br />At this point, were dealing with images that cannot provide conclusive proof on their own. The credibility problem stems from the appearance of someone who has never seen an image of any planet or moon that didn't have some kind of alien artifact. That was the reason his credibility became questionable to me. My point being that if he had searched for the truth and publically stated that there are many places that have not seen alien construction. But every few years it seems he sees yet another artificial constructs and in places where such things seem less likely.<br /><br />ZenOnMars:<br />Nope. It was striking, patterned, light-refracting data on the various Apollo photos, which lead him to suggest the remains of ruined glass domes on the LIGHT side of the moon. Perhaps you are thinking of the enormous glass-like "tower" seen silhouetted on the lunar horizon in the Soviet "Zond" mission archive. <br /><br />Me:<br />I agree with your assessment of what he said about the remains of glass domes. I have not ever seen any original NASA archival imagery that show this in such detail that glass domes would be the only explanation. The Zond image, I recall seeing an image of an obolisk that was barely <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

ZenOnMars:<br />He progressed to space science consultant for NASA and CBS, and co-created the Pioneer 10 "Greetings Plaque". It was in the Viking data center that he and numerous colleagues were first LIED TO about the Viking mission frame called "Head". <br /><br />Me:<br />I saved this one for last because of the charge that Hoagland and company were lied to.<br /><br />1.<br />Who lied to them? That is, what individual or individuals?<br /><br />2.<br />What in their statement made their comments oughtright lies? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

ZenOnMars:<br />No answers about why this 2-year-old thread was dredged up? And why no chat about Deep Impact?<br /><br />Me:<br /><br />1.<br />I didn't know this was a two year old thread.<br /><br />2.<br />Nor was I aware that there was any controversy of this nature surrounding the Deep Impact mission and will have to research further. I did look at the link posted to EM but didn't run across the Deep Impact stuff but will continue looking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

ZenOnMars: <br />"That is why I, too, am dumbfounded that NASA remains: "<b>CURIOUSLY UN-CURIOUS</b>"<br /><br />Clearer now?<br /><br />qso1: <font color="yellow">"Today we do have one tool available that could at least settle the question of artificiality, and thats Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter (MRO). With the ability to image surface objects as small as a meter. This probe should be able to see features such as the FOM in enough detail to establish artificiality and if that can be done, a human expedition would probably be made a much higher priority...the NASA funding barrier broken in order for NASA to mount a human expedition, establish a base from which to conduct long term investigation of anything thought to be artificial."</font><br /><br />Hey, we keep agreeing on stuff!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Dubbed the "Peoples' Camera", this should prove very revealing!<br /><br />Submitted for your approval:<br />From the <b>VERY FIRST</b> MRO images, (not even in the <i>very</i> close permanent orbital altitude:<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/barsoom/Comparisons_of_Ruins--IRAN-and-MARS.jpg<br /><br />Click on that and have a look.<br /><br />This one is good, too: <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

<font color="yellow">"I saved this one for last because of the charge that Hoagland and company were lied to."</font><br /><br />I will get you the exact pages in "Monuments" so that you do not have to rely on <i>my</i> failing memory!<br /><br />The day the first Viking images were downloaded (I believe either at JPL or Johnson Space Center) all the heavyweights were present, including Carl Sagan himself, if I recall properly. When the Viking frame of the "Face" (was it Vik 35A72?) uploaded, there was a communal gasp. That is when NASA officials appeared, chuckling, saying something akin to: "Isn't it funny what a trick of light and shadow can do? An hour later, that all blew away." They said no further images of this mesa had been taken.<br /><br />It was, I believe, Vince DePietro who, months later, thought "Geez, an hour later and that entire mesa would have been in total darkness". He then culled through over 65,000 frames of Viking archive only to find a <b>SECOND</b> picture of the Face, taken 2 weeks later. Someone had written, in pen, the word "HEAD" on it. They <b>had</b> taken a second picture. It had <b>NOT</b> blown away. It was at a much higher sun angle, and it looked even more "bilaterally symmetrical". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

ZenOnMars claims: <font color="yellow"> It was in the Viking data center that he and numerous colleagues were first LIED TO about the Viking mission frame called "Head". </font><br /><br />Can’t let that false statement get by unanswered. The opinion of one person, hastily and incompletely related to another, and put before the press almost immediately, and you call it a lie? Sorry, but it simply ain’t so. To the boys in the back room working furiously to produce those images, it looked like a trick of light and shadow. I have no doubt that Gerald thought so too when he relayed the information to the press. When someone says something they believe to be true, they are not lying. They may be mistaken, but they are not lying. It is getting tiresome to here that same false claim against Gerald Soffen repeated again and again.<br /><br />ZenOnMars claims: <font color="yellow"> Sorry qso1. Credibility, especially in science, DEMANDS the constant and vigilant search for the truth. </font><br /><br />Then why has Hoagland stopped searching for the truth and concentrated on attempting to justify his unsupported and unsupportable claims about Mars? Why does he continue to this day to make utterly ridiculous claims that are not supported by any credible science?<br /><br />ZenOnMars claims: <font color="yellow"> Because simply testing the hypothesis with unaltered, better, real-time data is the essence of good science. </font><br /><br />Great. Then why has Hoagland so over-processed many of the NASA images that any hint of data has been totally obscured by processing artifacts? His “streets of downtown Cydonia” are a joke.<br /><br />ZenOnMars claims: <font color="yellow"> Carl Sagan once said that intelligent life would first be recognized by "the regularity of their constructions". </font><br /><br />Regularity of constructions is one thing. Regularity of processing artifacts is another, just as imagined ad hoc mathematical relat <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>Regularity of constructions is one thing. Regularity of processing artifacts is another, just as imagined ad hoc mathematical relationships between formations on Mars are meaningless.</i><br /><br />(A generic post, not directed to you, Shadow)<br /><br />Once upon a time here, one user kept on and on about "Georectification," of which he'd known nothing before it was mentioned to him (by me, FYI).<br /><br />"Georectification" (a coined phrase, not a technically accurate one - "Orthorectification" is closer) is taking Remotely-Sensed benchmarks of multiple and prominent geographic features with accurate altitudes, so that you can then use these benchmarks as references for placing all other terrain features into their correct altitudes as well.<br /><br />From that, of course, one gains an actual and correct view of an object imaged from altitude with great accuracy, sans artifact, skew, or atmospheric effects.<br /><br />Here's the rub: said poster also was later shown an image of an "artifact" on Mars using precise and professionally applied benchmarking and altitude corrections.<br /><br />The terrain didn't look anything like he'd been claiming it did. Using "Georectification."<br /><br />Needless to say, he rejected the image as false or incorrect or deliberately skewed. Anything but that what he'd now seen clearly was not what he'd thought it was. <br /><br />He blindly marched on regardless. Does this illustrate a certain theme I detect in this debate? IMO, yes it does.<br /><br />As to Mister Hoagland:<br /><br />While a Science Writer must know a smattering of good science, this does not in any way make them a functioning scientist. It just plain does not, anymore than Katie Couric receiving a 20 minute briefing on a serious scientific subject. More like topical and superficial. Mister Hoagland is a Science Writer. Period.<br /><br />Know what a year 1999 "Boot Camp" was? It was where a person could pay a fee and be taught all of the answers to the MCSE or CNE or <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>

 

[bonzelite]

i think that was MaxTheKnife ^^^<br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

"Doin okay, how bout yourself?"<br /><br />pretty good. i'm working on a short film. my first one. right now i'm working on the music track demo. a neighbor is a music producer/composer and i'll hand off my demo to him and work to develop it. i wrote the entire film by drawing it in storyboard form. film is probably about a 6 minute piece. but damn is it hard to create 6 minutes!

 

[bonzelite]

the biggest thing against hoagland, again, is that he seems to not regulate or distill his "evidence." he takes <i>everything</i> -----> let's say it again <---- <i>everything</i> to mean ET is visiting, has vistited, will visit....<br /><br />look at his site. it reads like the national enquirer. it's just too much. his stuff --it's like "baby found in devil's stomach to be revealed at the vatican" or something like that. were his site more professional looking and straight-up, and a bit discriminatory about "evidence," he'd be somewhat credible. there are other sites such as i am describing, ie, understated, balanced, believeable.

 

[qso1]

bonzelite:<br />pretty good. i'm working on a short film. my first one.<br /><br />Me;<br />Excellent! I spent most of last year working on an indie film with another guy whos juast a regular working stiff like me. I put in 3D animations and composited some stuff over video.<br /><br />For ZenOnMars:<br />The FOM as imaged by Viking while intriguing, was one that couldn't possibly be used to prove the FOM was what Hoagland believed it to be. Resolution is problem number one. The MGS imaged the FOM at much higher resolution in 1998 and revealed data not possible to see in the original and the result was that the FOM appeared more mesa like.<br /><br />The image pair you uploaded here was one that first appeared months ago and while I'm also not convinced of artificiality in that one. Another one caught my attention because it basically looked like an eroded square. That feature and a few others bear closer scrutiny by MRO IMO. I'm not a fan of Hoagland because IMO, hes simply a huckster. However, I do consider the possibility that just because he clung to the notion of artificial constructs...he could one day be proven right, even if coincidentally.<br /><br />As for seeking out the truth, we still have to consider the question open unless or until proven otherwise. And MRO might take us a giant step closer but ultimately, I think only a human expedition will answer the question once and for all provided we pick the right feature to land near. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Finally found the EM link to the subject of this thread.<br /><br />I don't see the big deal myself. It sounds like a p*****g contest over whos theory about water deposition on Earth is correct. Nibiru and 12 planet stuff appears once again.<br /><br />Bottom line is these water deposition theories are just that for now...theories. In fact, I'm not really a big fan of comets depositing water on Earth. OTOH, I'm not sure which theory is convincing enough for me.<br /><br />I thought I was going to find something like Deep Impacts with the comet unleashed fragments of an alien spacebase on the comet or something like that.<br /><br />But, then, I'm still reviewing this link, maybe I missed it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

good going on the film involvement, qso. <br /><br />

 

[zenonmars]

<i>Oh, gentlemen.............(and ladies?).........</i><br /><br />I still get no answers. Let's review:<br /><br />1) lacotta: Please answer. Why did you dredge up a short <b>TWO YEAR OLD THREAD</b> which is essentially a thread about bashing Richard Hoagland?<br /><br />2) If character assassination and just plain nastiness somehow does not violate the SDC T.O.S., where Richard C. Hoagland is concerned, then why not create a separate thread area just for this sillyness? Call it "RCH is the Anti-Christ", or anything else you care to.<br /><br />3) Yevaud: <font color="yellow">"People have a perfect right to debate these topics (yes, using Hoagland), most certainly, but this is now more than two years in which I see this same topic being raised...by the same people. It is growing hugely tiresome. *This will be my only post to this thread*"</font><br /><br />Well, friend Yevaud, then I guess <b>YOU</b> wont be responding to my questions. But, I'll ask them anyway, just for the readers here. They deserve that much. <font color="yellow"><i>Hugely tiresome?</i></font> Of that I have no arguement.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"this same topic being raised...by the same people"</font> No, <b>NOT</b> the same people. GR88 isn't even on board anymore, is he? Show me one other Deep Impact thread opened in the last, say, year. What <b>IS</b> being raised is the topic of Richard Hoagland as <i>(fill in the blank - snakeoil salesman, charlatan, huckster, ya know, the usual suspects).</i> <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"People have a perfect right to debate these topics"</font> And yet i see no debate here at all about Deep Impact and it's startling data and conclusions. I see more Hoagland bashing.<br /><br />Mental: <font color="yellow">"Regularity of constructions is one thing. Regularity of processing artifacts is another"</font><br />Well, then answer my final question: Do you or do you NOT see regularity (akin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

ok, i'm reading the captain's blog thing about Deep Impact. it's basically about the bunk and hoo-ha always stated as "fact"that coma are, essentially, "dirty snowballs." i haven't read it all yet, but so far that's what it seems to be about. <br /><br />and -----i agree. comets are NOT --NOT-- full of this water and gushing H20 all day. it's the dirty snowball versus the snowy dirtball debate all over again, and NASA somehow likes to perpetuate the former --which is false, if not a gross exaggeration of fact; they must somehow keep the "comets are the lap of life and water for all the cosmos" idea going. and it's not true. <br /><br />comets are mostly dust and dirt more than likely formed in extremely hostile and hot conditions -- not gushing with water like the media mythically perpetuates. so, yes, in this case, i agree w/Hoagland, but his claim is not unique to himself. many, many others claim the same. <br /><br />so even those opposed to Hoagland ought to read his blog topic about this because it presents very compelling and incriminating information about NASA and that whole gamut of crap parroted as fact about comets.

 

[yevaud]

Very well, I <i>will</i> respond then. Since you decided to answer a generic post intended for all by responding to me directly by name.<br /><br />You find it all hugely tiresome as well? Good. It is. In lieu of further accurate and timely data, this entire topic is an intellectual dry heave.<br /><br />So what if GRR8 didn't bump this thread? Irrelevant and immaterial. But I do note that you still return here from time to time, and Lo! Right after this thread was bumped, you reappear. How...interesting. Been keeping an eye on things, as it were? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />By the "Same people" I meant "fellow travelers" of Hoagland now re-raising this, not a handful of individuals who previously posted here. Sorry if I was unclear.<br /><br />So what if it has turned into a Hoagland bashing fest? That is permissable here, and a certain crew of people (you have always been pretty consistant, so I do not include you in this group) bashed countless other scientists; this is not uncommon here. Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander, I'm afraid. If it turns nasty, we Moderators of course intervene, but a blunt critique of Mr. Hoagland and his professional abilities is certainly acceptable.<br /><br />Yes, I do wish further investigations, but my motivations are vastly different than Mr. Hoagland's. <br /><br />I do not design an end result, and then try to fit all physical data into my desired form. I take the evidence as it comes in regardless, and assess it, and then reach a conclusion based on that. Nothing is discarded.<br /><br />And frankly, issues such as the total discounting of Orthorectification and Benchmarking was (and is) beyond dismaying to me, particularly as the event (given past history of this debate here) had the same people all for it when they thought it "proved" their conjectures; all dead-set against it when it did not. If this is an acceptable research standard used, it is unscientific and inaccurate.<br /><br />As to the i <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>

 

[bonzelite]

i think what Zen is saying, though, is that some of the apparent geometric-like formations do not fit any classification or observed precedent or analogue to earthly structures created by nature. so this leaves the door ajar and the jury out on how or why some features on mars exist as they do. <br /><br />this is as much due to lack of knowledge of martian geology and weather as it is to the chance that some remaining features are eroded cities or monuments or dwellings. or art pieces left behind by alien graffiti artists.

 

[yevaud]

Yeah, but Bonz, they do fit known Earth analogues, plus all those easily explained by such forces as explained above. There are truly few actual "mysterious" terrain features found, really. Intriguing, perhaps.<br /><br />Intriguing has led to further investigations forthcoming, I suppose, and that's a good thing. Prove this one way or another. <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>

 

[bonzelite]

granted. <br /><br />but we can't prove anything and probably will not for centuries beyond our lifetimes. a human crew must be up there permanently to really get gnarly up there.

 

[qso1]

bonzelite:<br />comets are mostly dust and dirt more than likely formed in extremely hostile and hot conditions -- not gushing with water like the media mythically perpetuates.<br /><br />Me:<br />I tend to agree with this assessment of comets.<br /><br />bonzelite:<br />it presents very compelling and incriminating information about NASA and that whole gamut of crap parroted as fact about comets. <br /><br />Me:<br />Heres where I think the problem may occur. I have read numerous scientific theories about many things including comets and the dirty snowball theory. I have never seen any of them presented as fact unless it has been shown to be so. Scientists and scientific journals speak in legalese if you will. Always a disclaimer when talking of theories. Some scientists, particularly evolutionists, will spout a theory as fact and in those cases, they are no better than Hoagland. The problem lies in how media presents it. Media reports which are written by untrained (In science) journalists, will sometimes portray scientific theory as damn near fact just to make the story sellable to people who otherwise wouldn't give a rats tail.<br /><br />Heres a hypothetical scenario:<br /><br />Science Journal report:<br />Scientists have remeasured the cosmic background radiation with a new spacecraft and found variability in some of the data. This could lead to new theories about how the cosmos formed, perhaps even leading to a new theory to replace the big bang.<br /><br />News media report headlines:<br />BIG BANG THEORY REPLACEMENT IMMENINT!<br />Scientists had cosmic background radiation wrong.<br /><br />Then comes the media reports fine print:<br />It was reported by the journal of science that scientists have remeasured the cosmic background radiation with a new spacecraft and found variability in some of the data. This could lead to new theories about how the cosmos formed, perhaps even leading to a new theory to replace the big bang.<br /><br />Me:<br />So in the media report, they are not <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

bonzelite:<br />but we can't prove anything and probably will not for centuries beyond our lifetimes. a human crew must be up there permanently to really get gnarly up there.<br /><br />Me:<br />Exactly. This is also why its pretty hard to believe NASA managers, scientists, whoever would be covering up a discovery that would enable major budget increases.<br /><br />The discovery of microbiological life or remains would be an extraordinary event, to say nothing of alien artifacts. Budget increase here we come!<br /><br />The public imagination as its called, will finally be captured, and captured in a way that pure science just can't seem to do...the day, if it ever comes, that we are able to say we have proof of ETs in our solar system.<br /><br />Human spaceflight will forever be transformed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

granted, as well. i will add:<br /><br />hoagland's blog about the lack of water on comets as evidenced from data, as said data is contradicted by leading scientists among themselves --some of it witheld or misrepresented by NASA-- is viable. "evidence' is misrepresented with regularity across all fields of study, as much of it is either too preliminary, or too presumed to be evidence for something that it may not be evidence of whatsoever. <br /><br />so far, he has a good case --but then goes the extra step to introduce the "Planet V" exploded planet explanation for the comet's origin --equally as unfounded and reaching. i read that part but began to lose interest. <br /><br />whereas i can sit well with "well, the comet impactor blew out mostly bone dry dust thus contradicting --yet again-- the reaching theory that comets are ice balls that are populating the cosmos with water and life..." that's fine with me. let's get back to the drawing board.<br /><br />but i cannot be okay with hoagland then assuming that the coma is of this extinct world called Planet V. but he goes on at length about Planet V. why? why doesn't he just go with the evidence that supports a bone dry coma and leave it at that? but he assumes the coma is from some exploded planet hypothesis. ok. maybe, maybe not. but let's explore other ideas.<br /><br />sure, it's okay to explore "Planet V," but he seems to offer no other alternative explanation. he goes far and away with "Planet V." <br /><br />see? <br /><br />maybe the damn thing came from an extrasolar origin. i tend to think many comets are not even of our own solar system. but he doesn't explore that IIRC, in light of semi-recent evidence from the Stardust return samples that heavily imply that comet may have not even come from this solar system. <br /><br />

 

[qso1]

Will probably eventually learn that some comets may be from within our system, some are of extrasolar origin. A combination as it were. The exploding planet thing, I'm not sure if planets would explode or why they would explode. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

Zen asks: <font color="yellow"> Well, then answer my final question: Do you or do you NOT see regularity (akin to archeological ruins on Earth) in those first MRO images linked above? </font><br /><br />I don’t see any more regularity there than most other formations, and certainly a lot less regularity than I have seen in many formations on Earth that can be definitively confirmed to be natural. The very nature of the natural processes which create land formations virtually guarantees some regularity. <br /><br />Zen asks: <font color="yellow"> Are you accusing the MRO team of over-processing these images? </font><br /><br />No, just Hoagland et al.<br /><br />Zen asks: <font color="yellow"> Do you think these facinating "annomalies" deserve further data aquisition by the MRO "People's Camera" in the near future? </font><br /><br />Since I don’t consider them to be anomalies, fascinating or otherwise, your question is moot.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>