The "catbox" Face?

[A.DIM]

Recently in conversation, "The Face" was brought up.
Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall the "catbox" fiasco ever being discussed around here.

And so...
NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars (http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html).

To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.

Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?


"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."

[kucharek]

How did NASA acted dogmatic and bizarre with regards to The Face?
There is no evidence for artificiallity.
NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

[R.A.F.]

From the link A.Dim posted...


However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public.

But of course!! It must be a government conspiracy...there is no other possible explanation...

Sorry for the "outburst", but when I read this Hoagland, Van flandern etc. crap (sorry, but there's no other word for it), I tend to get really MAD.

Kucharek is correct...there is no evidence for artificiality. Hoagland's (and others) attempts to show that the "face" is artificial are laughable.

[Swift]

http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/assets/images/nh_images/old_man.jpg
Here is another rock formation that looks like a human face. Why isn't there a big investigation to prove that this wasn't created by some ancient or alien civilization?

For those not familiar, this is the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire Link (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/assets/images/nh_images/old_man.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/wheretogo/nh/white_mts/franconia_notch/&h=258&w=196&sz=14&tbnid=oWXr2RnVA7IJ:&tbnh=107&tb nw=81&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNew%2BHampshire%2Bold%2Bman%2Bmountai n%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff). It collapsed several years ago. That must have been part of the NASA/CIA/Lizardman conspiracy to cover up the aliens on Earth. :roll:

[Fram]

To answer the original question: yes, it is wrong to agree, on both accounts.

[NEOWatcher]

I was only able to get about half way through the article, but there's one glaring point.
A NASA rep stated something as matter-of-fact without supporting evidence. One mis-step, and the entire organization is discredited, even thought further evidence has been brought forward.
Then turn around and state as matter-of-fact the opposite without supporting evidence of thier case.

By the way, the 2001 picture looks to me like a life-casting of a pregnent woman. So it must be a celebration of reproduction.

[A.DIM]

How did NASA acted dogmatic and bizarre with regards to The Face?

Did you not read the article then? The author lists 5 points reflecting NASA's apparent behavior?

Spokesperson Soffen lied when the first image was released.
Termed an "unfortunate misstatement" by Sagan, it was nonetheless a LIE. Are you willing to believe that NASA spokespersons are merely inept and publicly make such "misstatements?"

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public? And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.


There is no evidence for artificiallity.

So in your mind the symmetry and parallel straight lines is readily found in nature, right? Can you show me something on a similar scale that displays such characteristics?

And what about an engineering Geologists remarks that, "The so-called "Face on Mars" is unlike any natural feature I have ever seen or heard about it. To ascribe this feature of such symmetry and uniqueness to 'wind erosion' is to plead a special case for a geologic process with no supporting evidence."


NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?




edited: to change "before" to "apparent behavior" and fix quotes

[A.DIM]

http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/assets/images/nh_images/old_man.jpg
Here is another rock formation that looks like a human face. Why isn't there a big investigation to prove that this wasn't created by some ancient or alien civilization?

For those not familiar, this is the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire Link (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/assets/images/nh_images/old_man.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/wheretogo/nh/white_mts/franconia_notch/&h=258&w=196&sz=14&tbnid=oWXr2RnVA7IJ:&tbnh=107&tb nw=81&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNew%2BHampshire%2Bold%2Bman%2Bmountai n%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff). It collapsed several years ago. That must have been part of the NASA/CIA/Lizardman conspiracy to cover up the aliens on Earth. :roll:

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?

[R.A.F.]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?

What I find most interesting is Hoagland's behavior through all of this...

Before the 2001 images were taken, Hoagland cried, and cried that NASA was covering up the "fact" that the face was artificial. If only NASA would take higher resolution images, he would be "satisfied". But no, NASA would never do that because they were involved in a "cover-up".

So, NASA does take higher resolution images and Hoaglands response? He cries, and cries that NASA is covering-up evidence of the face's artificiality.

Hoagland will NEVER be satisified. It makes no difference if we actually sent a manned mission to Cydonia...because why would Hoagland believe NASA Astronauts???

Out of curiousity, A.DIM, have you read the BA's page concerning this?

[R.A.F.]

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

Well, I can see that this is going to be a "fun" thread. :lol:

[Bozola]

http://www.suppressedscience.net/2002themis.jpg

Mon dieu! The scale of the coverup is unbelievable! The "face" on Mars is just a distraction from the real mystery. If you look to the lower right you will clearly see the, albeit highly eroded, head of Mickey Mouse!

Walt Disney was an alien and his "amusement parks" are naught but vicious medical laboratories wherein obscene and inhuman experiments are performed on unsuspecting humans!

[ToSeek]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

You have no evidence that Cydonia was ignored. For all we know, the Viking orbiters took plenty of images of Cydonia - the Face was just one small target in a very large area.

And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public?

You're ignoring the fact that the ETHers demanded that MGS take a photo of the Face at the earliest possible opportunity and release it as quickly as possible. Then when, in perfect response to their request, a raw image from an uncalibrated instrument was released and looked like crap, they started complaining and haven't stopped yet.

And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

As documented here (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/), a much better image was made available only seven hours after the raw image was posted.

Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

MGS takes photos of the Cydonia region on a regular basis. You can find dozens of such images in the archive (http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/), including ones of just about every object of interest to ETHers taken at the best resolution available.

Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than woo-woos pay attention to the Brookings Report? I have searched for any mention of it on any NASA website without success.


NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?

Because if they'd gone to Congress saying, "Look, there's something on Mars that looks vaguely like a face - we need a hundred billion dollar mission to investigate it further" they would have been laughed back to Pasadena.

[ToSeek]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?


Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, but this notion was abandoned when early photos showed the planned site to be much more rocky than expected. This may help explain why the orbiters took photos of Cydonia early but then went on to other areas.

[R.A.F.]

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, but this notion was abandoned when early photos showed the planned site to be much more rocky than expected.

I did not know this...thanks.

[A.DIM]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?

On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet. '58 - '78 (http://www.solarviews.com/history/SP-4212/ch9-5.html).

After much discussion and debate, Cydonia was chosen as the Viking II site. If I read the article correctly, the idea that it was decided as "too rocky" would've precluded it from even making the final cut.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical of such an argument for why it was changed, primarily because it was after "the face" pictured was made public.

[Archer17]

A.DIM - Tell me, have you actually thought this through? I detect some desperation here. If there's no Annuaki "footprints" on Mars, Sitchin and you by affiliation, "lose face." What's telling is that of all the information available on the net, including the web site attached to this board, you pick a site called suppressedscience.net

Some brief points:

* You imply that NASA intentionally lied to suppress artificially on Mars .. but then, without a devious agenda, your Martian innuendos don't work. I guess it never occurred to you that NASA didn't have to release any Cydonia pics, period - especially the '76 ones. After all, why imply a half-hazard "agenda?" You will also have to expand your conspiracy to include foreign space agencies, or is the ESA "in on it" too?

* Show an biased acceptance of what a geological formation should or shouldn't look like. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Iaepetus.

* Cite a think-tank report that you try to shoehorn into supporting evidence for Martian artificiality and cover-ups. That's like me peddling chicken-little nonsense and citing that a think-tank believes that a hypothetical imminent planet-killing impactor should be "withheld from the public" so therefore "it's going to happen any second now."

By all means keep trying A.DIM.

[R.A.F.]

By all means keep trying A.DIM.

I agree...like I said...this is going to be a fun thread.

[Nowhere Man]

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, ...
Emphasis mine. Perhaps you meant "one of the rovers?" Or Viking?

Fred

[ToSeek]

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, ...
Emphasis mine. Perhaps you meant "one of the rovers?" Or Viking?

Fred

My bad. I meant one of the Viking landers.

[ToSeek]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?

On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet. '58 - '78 (http://www.solarviews.com/history/SP-4212/ch9-5.html).

After much discussion and debate, Cydonia was chosen as the Viking II site. If I read the article correctly, the idea that it was decided as "too rocky" would've precluded it from even making the final cut.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical of such an argument for why it was changed, primarily because it was after "the face" pictured was made public.

The final decision that it was "too rocky" was made based on Viking orbiter imagery, which was of much better quality than Mariner 9 images or Earth-based radar, which were the best sources of information until Viking arrived. Note that, according to the very same source you reference, there were the same problems (http://www.solarviews.com/history/SP-4212/ch10-6.html) with the Viking I landing site.

[A.DIM]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

You have no evidence that Cydonia was ignored. For all we know, the Viking orbiters took plenty of images of Cydonia - the Face was just one small target in a very large area.

OK, so, "for all we know" there are plenty of images that were taken by Viking. Were they, too, "filed away?" Why wouldn't there at least be some follow-up photogeological studies since it was deemed so interesting at first?


And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public?

You're ignoring the fact that the ETHers demanded that MGS take a photo of the Face at the earliest possible opportunity and release it as quickly as possible. Then when, in perfect response to their request, a raw image from an uncalibrated instrument was released and looked like crap, they started complaining and haven't stopped yet.

"In perfect response," ToSeek? I disagree.

Consider The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm) by Lan Fleming, an engineer with Johnson Space Systems.

And his NASA Report (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/nasa-report/NASA.htm).


And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

As documented here (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/), a much better image was made available only seven hours after the raw image was posted.

Thanks, I didn't know.


Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

MGS takes photos of the Cydonia region on a regular basis. You can find dozens of such images in the archive (http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/), including ones of just about every object of interest to ETHers taken at the best resolution available.

Indeed and there still remain countless very interesting structures that should warrant up-close scientific investigation, whether they are naturally occurring or artificial.


Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than woo-woos pay attention to the Brookings Report? I have searched for any mention of it on any NASA website without success.

I found it listed on a NASA bibliography page under its actual title, but I have no evidence that anyone other than woos pay attention to it.

But what else should I expect to find regarding the "Brookings Report" in ,say, "scientific" circles?




NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?

Because if they'd gone to Congress saying, "Look, there's something on Mars that looks vaguely like a face - we need a hundred billion dollar mission to investigate it further" they would have been laughed back to Pasadena.

OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later. And then what did they get? A premature "unmasked" face and the "incompetence" explanation.

Harrumph!

[A.DIM]

A.DIM - Tell me, have you actually thought this through? I detect some desperation here. If there's no Annuaki "footprints" on Mars, Sitchin and you by affiliation, "lose face." What's telling is that of all the information available on the net, including the web site attached to this board, you pick a site called suppressedscience.net

Some brief points:

* You imply that NASA intentionally lied to suppress artificially on Mars .. but then, without a devious agenda, your Martian innuendos don't work. I guess it never occurred to you that NASA didn't have to release any Cydonia pics, period - especially the '76 ones. After all, why imply a half-hazard "agenda?" You will also have to expand your conspiracy to include foreign space agencies, or is the ESA "in on it" too?

* Show an biased acceptance of what a geological formation should or shouldn't look like. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Iaepetus.

* Cite a think-tank report that you try to shoehorn into supporting evidence for Martian artificiality and cover-ups. That's like me peddling chicken-little nonsense and citing that a think-tank believes that a hypothetical imminent planet-killing impactor should be "withheld from the public" so therefore "it's going to happen any second now."

By all means keep trying A.DIM.


Heh, you know I will.


As if posts like this are objective enough to convince me otherwise. :roll:

[ToSeek]

"In perfect response," ToSeek? I disagree.

Consider The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm) by Lan Fleming, an engineer with Johnson Space Systems.

And his NASA Report (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/nasa-report/NASA.htm).

Like you, Fleming ignores any NASA-enhanced images other than the original one. All the NASA image he refers to does is remove the vertical stripes and enhance the contrast. The broad, bright stripe at the center he claims is an artifact of processing is in fact clearly visible in the raw image and is only enhanced by histogram stretching.

His link is also not to where the image first appeared - as indicated on the page itself, the PPJ version didn't go up until the day after the image was released. The link I supplied was where it appeared originally. I know this because I was waiting for it on the day, and that's where I found it.

Another source of better-processed versions of the image is here. (http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/)


OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later.

Unfortunately, thanks in large part to shuttle development, there was no money for another Mars mission until Mars Observer in the early 90's. I think also the negative results of the Viking life science experiments greatly diminished any interest in further exploration.

And then what did they get? A premature "unmasked" face and the "incompetence" explanation.

It's only the ETHers who complain "incompetence," to which I reiterate: They wanted quick-and-dirty, they got quick-and-dirty, they have no right to complain.

[R.A.F.]

Uhhh, A.DIM, Lan Fleming (in the link you posted) references Mark Carlotto "as if" he were some kind of photographic expert. And to be "kind", Mark Carlotto is hardly what I would consider an objective observer. Or to put it bluntly, he's out to sell books.

What's always amazed me about this "face stuff" is the fact that if NASA hadn't taken the 76 Viking images There would be no face controversy. But what has happened is this...

Analogy time!...

It's exactly as if I went to the DMV, and tried to read the eye chart without my glasses. I look at the chart and "see" a "T". I then put on my glasses and realize that it is actually an "F". Do I then INSIST that it in reality is a "T"? I'd never get my license that way. :lol:

That (IMO) is exactly what Hoagland and the rest are saying. That even though it's PAINFULLY obvious from the HIRES images that there simply is no "face", they would rather "leave their glasses OFF".

That's NOT how you "do" science.

[Swift]

<snip>It's exactly as if I went to the DMV, and tried to read the eye chart without my glasses. I look at the chart and "see" a "T". I then put on my glasses and realize that it is actually an "F". Do I then INSIST that it in reality is a "T"? I'd never get my license that way. :lol:

:lol: =D>
I'll have to try that at the DMV next time - "It's a conspiracy to make me wear my glasses when I drive!"

[R.A.F.]

A.DIM, I suggest that you read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face.html) before continuing...

Not as an appeal to authority, it's just that the BA explains it so much better than I can.

[Archer17]

A.DIM - Tell me, have you actually thought this through? I detect some desperation here. If there's no Annuaki "footprints" on Mars, Sitchin and you by affiliation, "lose face." What's telling is that of all the information available on the net, including the web site attached to this board, you pick a site called suppressedscience.net

Some brief points:

* You imply that NASA intentionally lied to suppress artificially on Mars .. but then, without a devious agenda, your Martian innuendos don't work. I guess it never occurred to you that NASA didn't have to release any Cydonia pics, period - especially the '76 ones. After all, why imply a half-hazard "agenda?" You will also have to expand your conspiracy to include foreign space agencies, or is the ESA "in on it" too?

* Show an biased acceptance of what a geological formation should or shouldn't look like. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Iaepetus.

* Cite a think-tank report that you try to shoehorn into supporting evidence for Martian artificiality and cover-ups. That's like me peddling chicken-little nonsense and citing that a think-tank believes that a hypothetical imminent planet-killing impactor should be "withheld from the public" so therefore "it's going to happen any second now."

By all means keep trying A.DIM.


Heh, you know I will.


As if posts like this are objective enough to convince me otherwise. :roll:Not much of a rebuttal A.DIM, but then not much of a "case" from you either. Seems that the irony of implying that NASA "lies" yet waving the '76 Viking pics around as "the truth" escapes you. You should've read the prior discussions on The Face so as not to repeat the same mistakes in logic/critical thinking or using the recycled m/o of looking for Hoaglandesque snippets that provide words alleging hanky-panky instead of irrefutable evidence of artificial structures. Oh, that's right .. you can't provide irrefutable evidence because "NASA lies."

Since you are the one here trying to prop up a dead myth and are the one making these extraordinary claims, it's not sufficient to simply dismiss the mainstream version. You do that all the time. Nor is it sufficient to simply imply that NASA "lies" since it seems NASA only "suppresses" the things that don't help your cause. No, what you have to do is come up with something original. Something that would convince me, other members, the BA, heck - the whole astronomical community. No one has managed to do that yet ..simply recycling their arguments is just a recipe for similar rejection and a waste of your time.

Keep trying.

[A.DIM]

"In perfect response," ToSeek? I disagree.

Consider The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm) by Lan Fleming, an engineer with Johnson Space Systems.

And his NASA Report (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/nasa-report/NASA.htm).

Like you, Fleming ignores any NASA-enhanced images other than the original one. All the NASA image he refers to does is remove the vertical stripes and enhance the contrast. The broad, bright stripe at the center he claims is an artifact of processing is in fact clearly visible in the raw image and is only enhanced by histogram stretching.

His link is also not to where the image first appeared - as indicated on the page itself, the PPJ version didn't go up until the day after the image was released. The link I supplied was where it appeared originally. I know this because I was waiting for it on the day, and that's where I found it.

Interesting, but I can't find the raw image that shows the broad bright stripe? And what would you suppose are Fleming's motives for ignoring the enhanced images?


Another source of better-processed versions of the image is here. (http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/)

Thanks, I nearly posted this link to point out the weather conditions that were actually not so good when the MGS pics were taken.


OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later.

Unfortunately, thanks in large part to shuttle development, there was no money for another Mars mission until Mars Observer in the early 90's. I think also the negative results of the Viking life science experiments greatly diminished any interest in further exploration.

I'll agree, but I must point out that 1 of the 3 experiments on board actually did suggest life while the "negative" proclamation was made public. But you're right, something obviously diminished any interest in further exploration.


And then what did they get? A premature "unmasked" face and the "incompetence" explanation.

It's only the ETHers who complain "incompetence," to which I reiterate: They wanted quick-and-dirty, they got quick-and-dirty, they have no right to complain.

That's really no excuse for poorly executed science, though, is it?

It seems more reasonable to suppose that after all these years of ignoring "the face," when NASA went to "unmask" it, they would have been far more certain of the information they were releasing.

Besides, NASA effectively negated any public interest in "the face" with the "catbox" image release.

[Archer17]

The Face not being a face is what negated public interest in it A.DIM. It's that simple. No subterfuge required.

[V-GER]

Oh look! it's a worm and a dome (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA07272_modest.jpg) and near Cydonia no less, clearly this can't be a coincidence!?!

[R.A.F.]

A.DIM...The "cat box image" is NOT the best image available.

So what is your point? Why do you keep bring it up??

[A.DIM]

A.DIM, I suggest that you read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face.html) before continuing...

Not as an appeal to authority, it's just that the BA explains it so much better than I can.

Thanks, I have.

[A.DIM]

The Face not being a face is what negated public interest in it A.DIM. It's that simple. No subterfuge required.

OK, I'll go along with this.

Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?

[A.DIM]

A.DIM...The "cat box image" is NOT the best image available.

So what is your point? Why do you keep bring it up??

Apparently, you refused to read the articles dealing with it.

RAF, the shoddy "catbox" image was released for public consumption rapidly with the tagline "unmasked."
Had the "better processed" images been provided, even 7 hours later, the public would've seen an image with symmetry and straight lines, still looking somewhat like an eroded face. But certainly not "unmasking" the idea that it might be artificial.

To me, it appears that NASA was hurried to simply negate "the face" in whatever way possible.

IMHO, of course.

[Archer17]

Do a search of this board .. like I said before, this subject has been discussed here in the past.

[A.DIM]

And so that prohibits further discussion? :-?

[R.A.F.]

A.DIM...The "cat box image" is NOT the best image available.

So what is your point? Why do you keep bring it up??

Apparently, you refused to read the articles dealing with it.

Tread carefully, A.DIM...I don't like the implication that I'm "refusing" to read certain things. I've read all the relevant links.


...the public would've seen an image with symmetry and straight lines, still looking somewhat like an eroded face.

Somewhat??...how about not at all. You must "want it" to be a "face" really bad.

[ToSeek]

Interesting, but I can't find the raw image that shows the broad bright stripe?

Both Fleming and I have links to it. The stripe is not as evident in the raw image because the contrast in the image is very low. It's hugely enhanced in any processing that does a histogram stretch and not much else, like the original NASA processed image.


And what would you suppose are Fleming's motives for ignoring the enhanced images?


To make NASA look worse.

[Archer17]

And so that prohibits further discussion? :-?My post was in response to this A.DIM:

The Face not being a face is what negated public interest in it A.DIM. It's that simple. No subterfuge required.

OK, I'll go along with this.

Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?

[A.DIM]

A.DIM...The "cat box image" is NOT the best image available.

So what is your point? Why do you keep bring it up??

Apparently, you refused to read the articles dealing with it.

Tread carefully, A.DIM...I don't like the implication that I'm "refusing" to read certain things. I've read all the relevant links.

Sorry, RAF, but all I have to go on is your response. And from the question above, you either missed the point, or you didn't read the article.
I suppose for now, I'll agree that you missed the point.



...the public would've seen an image with symmetry and straight lines, still looking somewhat like an eroded face.

Somewhat??...how about not at all. You must "want it" to be a "face" really bad.

Funny, RAF. =D>
Even the BA, on the page you asked me to read, says it still looks "vaguely like a face."
Did you read it?

[A.DIM]

And so that prohibits further discussion? :-?My post was in response to this A.DIM:

The Face not being a face is what negated public interest in it A.DIM. It's that simple. No subterfuge required.

OK, I'll go along with this.

Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?

Yes, I know.
In no thread I've read here has there been presented anything remotely on the scale as "the face."

[A.DIM]

Interesting, but I can't find the raw image that shows the broad bright stripe?

Both Fleming and I have links to it. The stripe is not as evident in the raw image because the contrast in the image is very low. It's hugely enhanced in any processing that does a histogram stretch and not much else, like the original NASA processed image.

OK, but didn't you state "the broad bright stripe at the center.... is in fact clearly visible in the raw image?"

So if it's "not as evident" now, is Fleming's argument that it's an artifact of processing more valid?



And what would you suppose are Fleming's motives for ignoring the enhanced images?


To make NASA look worse.

But to what end?

[Archer17]

And so that prohibits further discussion? :-?My post was in response to this A.DIM:

The Face not being a face is what negated public interest in it A.DIM. It's that simple. No subterfuge required.

OK, I'll go along with this.

Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?

Yes, I know.
In no thread I've read here has there been presented anything remotely on the scale as "the face."I have a feeling it wouldn't of mattered anyway A.DIM. This was just an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto others. Why else make an issue of "scale?" That's like me saying that Valles Marineris could not be a "natural" Martian canyon because there's nothing similar to "scale" on Earth.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?

If it was the Anunnaki that made this "face", don't you think they would have made one here on earth too? Or were our Anunnaki more of a low key artists spreading word of mouth to mid-eastern sheephearders as oppose to the faschist architecture of the Martian Anunnaki?

But since you asked, here's Jason's hockey mask (http://search.esa.int/queryIG.html?col=mmg&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws =1&la=en&si=0&fs=&op0=%2B&fl0=ContentType%3A&ty0=p &tx0=Image&op1=%2B&fl1=category%3A&ty1=p&tx1=&op2= %2B&fl2=showcase%3A&ty2=p&tx2=ESAA1KZ84UC&qt=&ex=& rq=0&oq=&searchType=general&qm=0&ql=a&tipo=Image&s howcase=Earth+observation&st=78&nh=1&lk=3&rf=3) on top left.

(edited to correct link, since they changed it. It's picture #SEMXJG25WVD at the image gallery)

[01101001]

Second-rate Earth only got visited by some space-faring tribe of foot-fetishists that designed the Great Italian Boot.

[Metricyard]

http://www.suppressedscience.net/2002themis.jpg

Mon dieu! The scale of the coverup is unbelievable! The "face" on Mars is just a distraction from the real mystery. If you look to the lower right you will clearly see the, albeit highly eroded, head of Mickey Mouse!

Walt Disney was an alien and his "amusement parks" are naught but vicious medical laboratories wherein obscene and inhuman experiments are performed on unsuspecting humans!

It is a real face and I can prove it!

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/drzaius.jpg

The real coverup is that the martians were apes, the planet was dieing and they all moved to earth, thus proving Darwin right.

[Superluminal]

Our astronomy club has one resident woo woo, he actually believes his father is an alien! After NASA released the latest pictures of the Face, he was convinced that there was nothing there. When he was convinced I thought that that would be enough to convince every one.

[Archer17]

Regarding Mars: Sitchin goofed by hitching part of his Annuaki hokum on a non-existent wagon .. the "Face." Sitchin can always fall back on the "safe" assertion that his mythical Nibiru is just "too far away" to be detected ad infinitum but the day is coming where that won't even save him. A.DIM, was careless here, hence my impression that following the Sitchin/Face debacle in another thread, A.DIM is getting desperate.

What has A.DIM really brought to the table? Let's review this thread and his extraordinary innuendos:

NASA lies - His biggest mistake IMO and he did it right off the bat! :roll: By implying that NASA "lies," A.DIM shoots any "evidence" of artificiality in the foot. How can a case be made for this myth without NASA's involvement? If they "lie," how can anything from them be used as evidence for anything regarding artificiality? That's why I asked A.DIM from the get-go if he thought this through.

Pic Fluff - A.DIM relies on those that dispute the second flyby's pics. Like many woo woo apologists, A.DIM is good at net-mining/cherry-picking/shoe-horning and there's enough net-fodder out there for him to fluff another couple pages .. but he can't have it both ways. If he implies NASA lies, then he destroys the credibility of him relying on any NASA pic (or anyone else that shovels this hokum) to peddle this nonsense. A.DIM tries to have it both ways and for some strange reason doesn't seem to realize how obvious he is.

Symmetry - Here's another A.DIM trick. Shifting the "burden of proof." Does he have any proof for any of his nonsense? No. So what does he try to do? He tries to force us into "proving" that natural symmetry to scale exists elsewhere. [-( To approach this scientifically A.DIM needs to prove: A) natural symmetry doesn't exist (and since it does); B) that natural symmetry is limited by scale. Up for that A.DIM?

[Maksutov]

http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/assets/images/nh_images/old_man.jpg
Here is another rock formation that looks like a human face. Why isn't there a big investigation to prove that this wasn't created by some ancient or alien civilization?

For those not familiar, this is the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire Link (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/assets/images/nh_images/old_man.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/wheretogo/nh/white_mts/franconia_notch/&h=258&w=196&sz=14&tbnid=oWXr2RnVA7IJ:&tbnh=107&tb nw=81&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNew%2BHampshire%2Bold%2Bman%2Bmountai n%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff). It collapsed several years ago. That must have been part of the NASA/CIA/Lizardman conspiracy to cover up the aliens on Earth. :roll:

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss The Old Man of the Mountains, A.DIM.

For example, here's a photograph of it I took in 1988.

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/3958/tomotm26tu.th.jpg (http://img160.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tomotm26tu.jpg)

Just a rock formation, huh?

[R.A.F.]

...you either missed the point, or you didn't read the article.
I suppose for now, I'll agree that you missed the point.

There is a 3rd option...that the point the article was making simply wasn't valid. Which is why I was asking you to elaborate.


Even the BA, on the page you asked me to read, says it still looks "vaguely like a face."

Let's put that into context...


This hasn't stopped Hoagland, of course. He protested the way the image was processed, the way it was released, the method used to take it, the methods not used to take it, anything to distract from the fact that no matter what, it just doesn't look like a real face. This is overlooked a lot, and it's really a key part: while it still looks vaguely like a face, it is clearly not at all like a representation of a human face.

emphasis mine...

Not "quite" as you represented it. Fact is, I don't agree with the BA, here. I don't think that the HIRES images look anything like a face at all.

[ToSeek]

OK, but didn't you state "the broad bright stripe at the center.... is in fact clearly visible in the raw image?"

So if it's "not as evident" now, is Fleming's argument that it's an artifact of processing more valid?

Well, we can argue over the definition of "artifact" in this context. I would say an artifact is something placed there by manual processing that wasn't there before. Making something more obvious in a photograph is not only not an artifact but frequently the very point of doing the processing




And what would you suppose are Fleming's motives for ignoring the enhanced images?


To make NASA look worse.

But to what end?

Oh, come on. The whole point of his screed is the claim that NASA is conspiring to minimize the significance of the Face. That there were higher-quality images from NASA available only hours after the raw image was released undercuts his entire argument, as does the availability of vastly better imagery taken later in the MGS mission, which he also ignores.

[Maksutov]

http://www.suppressedscience.net/2002themis.jpg

Mon dieu! The scale of the coverup is unbelievable! The "face" on Mars is just a distraction from the real mystery. If you look to the lower right you will clearly see the, albeit highly eroded, head of Mickey Mouse!

Walt Disney was an alien and his "amusement parks" are naught but vicious medical laboratories wherein obscene and inhuman experiments are performed on unsuspecting humans!

It is a real face and I can prove it!

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/drzaius.jpg

The real coverup is that the martians were apes, the planet was dieing and they all moved to earth, thus proving Darwin right.
Man, how many times have I looked at that Mars photo and thought, "Huh, Dr. Zaius!", but then didn't post anything about it.

Good one, Metricyard!

=D> =D> =D>

PS: How'd your "MT" weekend go?

[A.DIM]

So my intentions were never to "prove" the artificiality of "the face" on Mars, or to prove "NASA lies" or whatever, only to get peoples' impressions of the "catbox" issue and the apparent misbehavior of NASA as presented in the article.

ToSeek: Thanks for taking the time, but I disagree that the "hours later" images undermines Fleming's argument. The fact remains that NASA allowed the "catbox" image to be released first to countless media outlets claiming "unmasked" when even the follow-up images show a very unusual "pile of rocks."

I just don't think the artificiality hypothesis can be "debunked" through mere images. Nor do I think it can be "proven."

All Else: From the responses proffered, I realize "the face" issue warrants only ridicule and pseudoskepticism, which comes as no surprise. But thanks anyway.
I find this an unenviable position considering recent discoveries that suggest lots of water in Mars' past.
And I'm amazed at how many people can allow the ETH "out there but not here, not now & not in the past," and so matter of factly dismiss the artificality hypothesis.
In my mind, true skepticism on the issue would be one of withholding judgement.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

And I'm amazed at how many people can allow the ETH "out there but not here, not now & not in the past," and so matter of factly dismiss the artificality hypothesis.

I used to be very interested in these matters and toyed around with a "what if...?" idea, but the sheer amount of rubbish "evidence" made
me loose all objectivity in this matter or any other hypothesis considering ancient(or present) alien precence in our solar system. I mean come on A.DIM just look at the "face" in the above image! Is that supposed to be the martian elephant man or what? It's just not a face, it has something that could vaguelly be interpreted as eye sockets, but if you turn it upside
down I see the same eye sockets where the "mouth" is now. To me that shows that my brain just tries to form a familiar shape out of a natural formation. The same thing happens when you look at clouds or better yet,
go to a forest at night and the trees and bushes become all sorts of things in your mind.

[ToSeek]

ToSeek: Thanks for taking the time, but I disagree that the "hours later" images undermines Fleming's argument. The fact remains that NASA allowed the "catbox" image to be released first to countless media outlets claiming "unmasked" when even the follow-up images show a very unusual "pile of rocks."

To the best of my recollection, NASA made no claims at the time about what the image revealed, leaving that to individual scientists and the media.

[aurora]

the public would've seen an image with symmetry and straight lines, still looking somewhat like an eroded face. But certainly not "unmasking" the idea that it might be artificial.


I'd like to know more about the geology of the region, but it certainly does not have symmetry and straight lines. It does have a ledge along the left side (as seen in the previous image), but that ledge looks to me like it would map to the flat top of the "mickey mouse" butte to the lower right. Probably they are the same formation, with one difference that being that some resistant rock did not erode from above the flat ledge on the face, or maybe it was never deposited on that position in the first place on Mickey.

We've gone around and around, but there is nothing found to date on Mars that even looks remotely artificial, and certainly no evidence that there was once any sort of civilization capable of moving large quanitities of rock (and then covering up their tracks and any signs of their living quarters or food growing and everything else :roll:

[R.A.F.]

So my intentions were never to "prove" the artificiality of "the face" on Mars, or to prove "NASA lies" or whatever, only to get peoples' impressions of the "catbox" issue...

The "catbox" issue and the Viking images are irrelevant...and have been since the higher resolution images became available. I don't see why that should be so hard to understand.


...and the apparent misbehavior of NASA as presented in the article.

You say that it was never your intention to prove "NASA lies", yet you say there is "appearent misbehavior" by NASA...

...so which is it?


From the responses proffered, I realize "the face" issue warrants only ridicule and pseudoskepticism, which comes as no surprise.

Yep...that's us...all a bunch of pseudoskeptics. :lol:

But really, A.DIM...from the responses, you realize??? Do you mean to tell this board that you had no idea how your OP would be received until you read the responses?? You've been on this board for a few years now...I just can't believe that you couldn't anticipate what response you would receive.


I find this an unenviable position considering recent discoveries that suggest lots of water in Mars' past.

Past water on Mars in no way validates the idea that the "face" is artificial.


And I'm amazed at how many people can allow the ETH "out there but not here, not now & not in the past," and so matter of factly dismiss the artificality hypothesis.

Matter of factly? Not at all. The face idea is not being given the "brush-off", but has been looked at very carefully. To "matter of factly" consider the "face" artificial would be a mistake.


In my mind, true skepticism on the issue would be one of withholding judgement.

You are correct...it's all in your mind.

[Metricyard]

PS: How'd your "MT" weekend go?

Pretty well, only a few drinks at a wedding I had to go to, and a few tokes at a friends house the following day. And the doodles looked exactly like, well, doodles. I could probably try some acid, but those days are long, long, long gone.

It's funny to think that 30 years ago, it (MT's theory) would problably have been a revalation. Or caused instanity. Probably best not to find out.

But anyway, back on topic.

I would think that if anything on a distant planet that remotely hinted at a "lost civilization" don't you think that all the major governments would have made a massive effort to get to Mars? The potential for exploitation of a whole new technology would have caused an unprecedented space race. Never underestimate the power of greed.

[N C More]

I would think that if anything on a distant planet that remotely hinted at a "lost civilization" don't you think that all the major governments would have made a massive effort to get to Mars? The potential for exploitation of a whole new technology would have caused an unprecedented space race. Never underestimate the power of greed.

Absolutely! Consider this as well, if NASA and the powers that be really thought that "the face" was artificial and they wanted to keep "quiet" about it...why release the photos to begin with? Also, all of our money and effort wouldn't have gone into the development of the rovers! The promise of any new technology would have been of primary importance.

[A.DIM]

From the North Texas Skeptics Society (http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2001-05-28.htm):

"Today, May 24, 2001, after years of political pressure, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration finally released a long awaited overhead, high-resolution view of the Face on Mars. Unfortunately, while we are generally pleased with the image, it has a number of problems -- which once again call NASA's commitment to a fair hearing of this entire issue into question. After withholding the image for almost two months (it was taken on April 8th, 2001) NASA released the new image today amid a flurry of extremely negative public comments simultaneously posted on several official NASA websites.

While we are disappointed that NASA has chosen to continue the disinformation campaign they began when the initial "catbox" Face image was released, in April, 1998, we are hardly surprised. As noted, especially prepared "hit pieces" were posted today coincident with release of this new image. Obviously, these were prepared days or weeks before today's data release, and we know that senior NASA officials were meeting late into the night last night, plotting "strategy." We would like to remind our readers that these were political strategy sessions, not scientific, and we saw today the results of this two-months-late, carefully orchestrated release. A scientific approach would have been to simply release the data the day it was acquired, and allow the scientific debate to take its course. Instead, we were once again treated to a calculated smear campaign obviously aimed directly at the national media. We deplore this unscientific propaganda campaign and call on NASA Headquarters to put a stop to it immediately."

What does this mean?

I'm perplexed how one skeptical society can perceive the NASA wrongdoing while another remains immovable in their unabashed loyalty.
Why?
Would acknowledging such a thing be so damaging to their "proof" against an artificiality hypothesis?

Also, if "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" wouldn't that in turn require "extraordinary investigation?"
I think one would have to admit NASA's efforts can hardly be called that.

Additionally, I utterly disagree Mars' past water "in no way" validates an artificiality hypothesis. IMHO, it lends validity to the idea.

[V-GER]

Some skeptics...
If you don't know about Richard Hoagland, you need to check this out what a way to stamp one's authority in the world of skepticism. Of course, the quote A.DIM posted was a quote from
RCH's web site and thus not necessarily what the Texan skeptics think.

Usually those who accuse Nasa(or an undetermined "government") of disinformation, are full of it themselves.

Once again, everyone seems to know better what's in Nasa's pictures
than Nasa itself. In fact, everything associated with Nasa, whether it be this, Bush's bold new vision, shuttles return to flight, we have all sorts of scientists telling it can't be done or Nasa's neglecting this or that. If these experts are so damn smart, why aren't they running the space program!?!

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

Additionally, I utterly disagree Mars' past water "in no way" validates an artificiality hypothesis. IMHO, it lends validity to the idea.

Sigh, once again it's up to others to prove there never was a civilazition on Mars just because it might have been possible, eh A.DIM? How typical to shift the burden of proof. Now I claim for the record that we are the only living beings in the universe ever to have existed. Let's see you prove me wrong.

[A.DIM]

Some skeptics...
If you don't know about Richard Hoagland, you need to check this out what a way to stamp one's authority in the world of skepticism. Of course, the quote A.DIM posted was a quote from
RCH's web site and thus not necessarily what the Texan skeptics think.

What?!
That links directly to ntskeptics.org archives. They linked to Hoagland's site, just as they link to smithsonianmag or csicop in other articles.


Usually those who accuse Nasa(or an undetermined "government") of disinformation, are full of it themselves.

This strikes me as ad hominem; you know, attacking "those" instead of objectively evaluating NASA behavior regarding this?


Once again, everyone seems to know better what's in Nasa's pictures
than Nasa itself. In fact, everything associated with Nasa, whether it be this, Bush's bold new vision, shuttles return to flight, we have all sorts of scientists telling it can't be done or Nasa's neglecting this or that. If these experts are so damn smart, why aren't they running the space program!?!

Politics perhaps?

I don't know, maybe it's only the scientific process at work; there will always be dissenters.

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:

Additionally, I utterly disagree Mars' past water "in no way" validates an artificiality hypothesis. IMHO, it lends validity to the idea.

Sigh, once again it's up to others to prove there never was a civilazition on Mars just because it might have been possible, eh A.DIM? How typical to shift the burden of proof. Now I claim for the record that we are the only living beings in the universe ever to have existed. Let's see you prove me wrong.

Sigh...

"How typical to shift the burden of proof." ????

You've assumed I'm trying to prove something.
I've not asked anyone here to disprove the artificiality hypothesis, V-GER.

All I said is that the existence of Life on Mars, IMO, lends validity to the artificiality hypothesis, and to the ETH in general.

The artificiality hypothesis is falisifiable and NASA has acted as if the initial "trick of light and shadow" explanations and the follow up "catbox" release and a few other images have been sufficient to disprove it.
Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there's certainly been no extraordinary investigation.
But I realize you're not very objective on the issue, as you admitted, so I don't expect you to agree.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

All I said is that the existence of Life on Mars, IMO, lends validity to the artificiality hypothesis, and to the ETH in general.

Well that certainly suggests that you think it is artificial. But let's keep
this simple: do you think that the "face" is artificial, and that Nasa is knowingly deceiving people=lying?


What?!
That links directly to ntskeptics.org archives. They linked to Hoagland's site, just as they link to smithsonianmag or csicop in other articles.

The text they posted and you quated was from Hoagland's website.
I simply pointed out that it isn't necessarily what they think as one might have thought by reading just your post alone.


This strikes me as ad hominem; you know, attacking "those" instead of objectively evaluating NASA behavior regarding this?

Just how big a deal was this whole "face" thing to the general public? Perhaps Nasa didn't view the photo as the major scientific event of the year and therefore didn't go public all guns blazing. And maybe Nasa is just tired of having to prove and explain themselves to all the Hoaglands out there, I know I would be. In fact if I could decide these matters I wouldn't even comment on any lunar hoax/face/cover up/alien/disinfo/whatever- carbage. Just because there is something Nasa
can't immediately explain or a detail they don't immediately comment on doesn't mean the detail is artificial and they're trying to cover it up.
In short, just because they're not answering my questions doesn't mean they're hiding something. In February 2003 I sent them an e-mail regarding true colors of Mars. Now I still haven't received a reply! outrageous! Obviously I must have touched a nerve and exposed a hoax, right? :-?


I don't expect you to agree.

We agree there.

[Archer17]

Regarding the NT skeptic site: That Hoagland snippet A.DIM linked to was a "heads-up," not a revolution in skeptical thinking. The first line says it all:
If you don't know about Richard Hoagland, you need to check this out:
All I said is that the existence of Life on Mars, IMO, lends validity to the artificiality hypothesis, and to the ETH in general.So if we find micro-organisms on Mars this validates artificiality? That's a heck of a leap. I'd need evidence of artificiality itself before I took that plunge.

[R.A.F.]

...if "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" wouldn't that in turn require "extraordinary investigation?"
I think one would have to admit NASA's efforts can hardly be called that.

Why should NASA have to investigate it? When I say "requires extraordinary evidence" I'm saying that those who make the extraordinary claim have to prove that it has validity. This agrument is just a "re-wording" of the "prove me wrong" idea, and that's not how science works.


Additionally, I utterly disagree Mars' past water "in no way" validates an artificiality hypothesis. IMHO, it lends validity to the idea.

the only thing that past water on Mars valdates is that there was past water on Mars...nothing else.


The artificiality hypothesis is falisifiable and NASA has acted as if the initial "trick of light and shadow" explanations and the follow up "catbox" release and a few other images have been sufficient to disprove it.

emphasis mine...

And a few other images?? Those are the most important "ones". They are the best available, yet you dismiss them as "and a few others".

Hardly objective thinking...and it shows.


Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there's certainly been no extraordinary investigation.

So it's up to NASA to investigate every extrordinary claim??? No...I don't think so...

[A.DIM]

Regarding the NT skeptic site: That Hoagland snippet A.DIM linked to was a "heads-up," not a revolution in skeptical thinking. The first line says it all:
If you don't know about Richard Hoagland, you need to check this out:

Indeed, that's how I took it: "Beware: WooWoo-ism Inside."

And are you suggesting that Hoagland prompted the NT skeptics to write a snippet supporting him? Or are you attempting to associate the nt skeptics own opinion with Hoagland in order to reduce credibility?

:-k



All I said is that the existence of Life on Mars, IMO, lends validity to the artificiality hypothesis, and to the ETH in general.So if we find micro-organisms on Mars this validates artificiality? That's a heck of a leap. I'd need evidence of artificiality itself before I took that plunge.

I didn't say it "validates" it, Archer. I said it lends validity to the idea; more "in support of" than "confirmation," you know?
Once Life of any kind is proven elsewhere, it will support the ETH more than harm it, lending validity to an artificiality hypothesis.

Of course, I realize that even then, the argument could likely be "Life abundant? Sure. Intelligent Life? Rare." :wink:

[01101001]

And are you suggesting that Hoagland prompted the NT skeptics to write a snippet supporting him?

Please. Why do you think the NTSS is supporting Hoagland just because they quoted him?

I just quoted you and I don't support what you said.

[A.DIM]

...if "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" wouldn't that in turn require "extraordinary investigation?"
I think one would have to admit NASA's efforts can hardly be called that.

Why should NASA have to investigate it? When I say "requires extraordinary evidence" I'm saying that those who make the extraordinary claim have to prove that it has validity. This agrument is just a "re-wording" of the "prove me wrong" idea, and that's not how science works.


Additionally, I utterly disagree Mars' past water "in no way" validates an artificiality hypothesis. IMHO, it lends validity to the idea.

the only thing that past water on Mars valdates is that there was past water on Mars...nothing else.


The artificiality hypothesis is falisifiable and NASA has acted as if the initial "trick of light and shadow" explanations and the follow up "catbox" release and a few other images have been sufficient to disprove it.

emphasis mine...

And a few other images?? Those are the most important "ones". They are the best available, yet you dismiss them as "and a few others".

Hardly objective thinking...and it shows.


Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there's certainly been no extraordinary investigation.

So it's up to NASA to investigate every extrordinary claim??? No...I don't think so...

RAF, I'm sorry, but if you were to admit that you, too, "loose all objectivity" when discussing this subject, and as your first post here implies, the rest of your posts would make more sense to me.

As it is, you continue to offer "that's not how science works" and other such proclamations in the guise of "skepticism," while apparently, to me, missing some pertinent points.

Science demands objectivity, RAF, and in my mind (yes, "in my mind") you exhibit very little when "skeptically" discussing ATM ideas.

[A.DIM]

What?!
That links directly to ntskeptics.org archives. They linked to Hoagland's site, just as they link to smithsonianmag or csicop in other articles.

MY mistake.

Upon perusing that page I understood it to be an archive of articles put out by the NTS.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

I've not asked anyone here to disprove the artificiality hypothesis

Then I must have misunderstood this one:


Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?

[R.A.F.]

Once Life of any kind is proven elsewhere, it will support the ETH more than harm it, lending validity to an artificiality hypothesis.

You're talking about 3 different things here. Once/if life is proven elsewhere it will prove that live exists elsewhere. The ETH is a separate issue as is the "artificiality hypothesis".

The first by itself does not "lend validity" to anything but itself. The other 2 must be validated on their own merits (or lack thereof.)


Science demands objectivity, RAF, and in my mind...you exhibit very little when "skeptically" discussing ATM ideas.

Why quote my entire post if you're not going to comment on it?

Particularly this part...
And a few other images?? Those are the most important "ones". They are the best available, yet you dismiss them as "and a few others".

Hardly objective thinking...and it shows.

I'd really like you to hear what you say in response to that...

So, it's come down to I say you're not being objective, and you say that I'm not being objective.

I think I'll let the other posters here determine which of us has a stronger case. :wink:

[Archer17]

Regarding the NT skeptic site: That Hoagland snippet A.DIM linked to was a "heads-up," not a revolution in skeptical thinking. The first line says it all:
If you don't know about Richard Hoagland, you need to check this out:

Indeed, that's how I took it: "Beware: WooWoo-ism Inside."

And are you suggesting that Hoagland prompted the NT skeptics to write a snippet supporting him? Or are you attempting to associate the nt skeptics own opinion with Hoagland in order to reduce credibility?huh? All I'm "suggesting" is that this was just a "hey guys, check this out" kinda thing. We have some people that do that here with Nancy's Zeta-spiel in the PX forum.
All I said is that the existence of Life on Mars, IMO, lends validity to the artificiality hypothesis, and to the ETH in general.
So if we find micro-organisms on Mars this validates artificiality? That's a heck of a leap. I'd need evidence of artificiality itself before I took that plunge.
I didn't say it "validates" it, Archer. I said it lends validity to the idea; more "in support of" than "confirmation," you know?Semantics, my point still stands.
Once Life of any kind is proven elsewhere, it will support the ETH more than harm it, lending validity to an artificiality hypothesis.

Of course, I realize that even then, the argument could likely be "Life abundant? Sure. Intelligent Life? Rare." :wink:And I'm sure you'll continue to imply otherwise, what's your point?

[PhantomWolf]

"After withholding the image for almost two months (it was taken on April 8th, 2001) NASA released the new image today
.....
A scientific approach would have been to simply release the data the day it was acquired, and allow the scientific debate to take its course."

I can just see it. A science tem spends years working on a project, selecting just the right camera for the mission, organising the areas to be photographed. They work with JPL and NASA to get the perfect pictures. The day of the launch comes and they wait with hold their collective breath as they watch the rocket lifting off, praying that the equipment will remain intact and working. Over the next six months they can barely contain themselves as they watch their probe getting closer and closer.... until the big day. It enters Mars orbit and moves towards their target. They gather in their rooms, computers ready for the data to be sent and start to be analysed, knowing, just knowing that they will find something, anything that will allow them to write their papers and make their names in the industry....

The phone rings.

"Hi, this is Mission Control, we have your images, but because Richard Hoagland demanded that everyone gets them immediately we've posted them to the internet. Of course you're free to download them from there with everyone else."

[Outcast]

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?

yes, typical and ridiculous. but you should have by now be used to that, after all, you've been tackling this same bunch of debunkers for years.

anyway, since everyone obviously "missed" (side steped?) your request, i thought i'd bring something to your attention, A.dim.

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G9_4.gif

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G8_4.gif

Copyright © 1998 Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

does it look familiar? its an artificial mound at Malik Shah, Iran. who said that if the Anunnaki built the Mars face they should have also made one on Earth? how insightfull, maybe they actually did. =D>

[R.A.F.]

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?

...since everyone obviously "missed" (side steped?) your request...

Actually, Archer covered that back on page 2 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=494767#494767) of this thread.

[Archer17]

..

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?yes, typical and ridiculous. but you should have by now be used to that, after all, you've been tackling this same bunch of debunkers for years.

anyway, since everyone obviously "missed" (side steped?) your request, i thought i'd bring something to your attention, A.dim.All A.DIM did was try to shift the burden of proof Outcast. As R.A.F. linked to, A.DIM obviously "missed" my request to prove that natural symmetry doesn't exist or is limited by scale. Feel free to answer that for him.
.. Iranian (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G9_4.gif)mound images Copyright © 1998 Oriental Institute, University of Chicago (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G8_4.gif) does it look familiar? its an artificial mound at Malik Shah, Iran. who said that if the Anunnaki built the Mars face they should have also made one on Earth? how insightfull, maybe they actually did. =D>Regarding your Iranian mound .. "insightful?" Not really. I don't recall seeing proof that A) the Anunnaki exist; B) that the Martian "Face" is really a "face" or anything artificial, or C) Malik Shah was built by ancient-astronauts.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

does it look familiar? its an artificial mound at Malik Shah, Iran. who said that if the Anunnaki built the Mars face they should have also made one on Earth? how insightfull, maybe they actually did.

Wow, I have insight!

Nice to hear from you again Outcast, I was wondering what kept you from the debate. Now, the feature in your picture does look familiar, it looks like the "face" on Mars! Although the only thing that "lends validity" to is that the Martian one is of natural origin. You provided proof of a natural formation just like the one on Mars, here on earth. Well there you go A.DIM. thanks Outcast!

Edited to correct:
Oh yeah, it is artificial, looked so natural I didn't even properly read the text, my bad Outcast, sorry. Hmm.. could this mean... :-k Nah, it looks less a face than the Martian one and that's saying a lot.

[Fram]

Outcast, are you suggesting that that mound looks anything like a face? Or just that people have made mounds? The latter is quite obvious, and the former looks to me like wishful thinking.

[01101001]

Malik Shah (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G9_72dpi.gif)

Shouldn't the portrayal of a face at least, like, have eyes and a mouth, maybe a nose?

A pyramid is a better face sculpture than Malik Shah. At least a pyramid has a nose.

[Swift]

Malik Shah (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G9_72dpi.gif)

Shouldn't the portrayal of a face at least, like, have eyes and a mouth, maybe a nose?

A pyramid is a better face sculpture than Malik Shah. At least a pyramid has a nose.
It looks like a horseshoe crab or one of those wooden spatulas they use to take pizzas out of the oven. Proof that pizza loving horseshoe crabs ruled the Earth. :wink:

[A.DIM]

..

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?yes, typical and ridiculous. but you should have by now be used to that, after all, you've been tackling this same bunch of debunkers for years.

anyway, since everyone obviously "missed" (side steped?) your request, i thought i'd bring something to your attention, A.dim.All A.DIM did was try to shift the burden of proof Outcast. As R.A.F. linked to, A.DIM obviously "missed" my request to prove that natural symmetry doesn't exist or is limited by scale. Feel free to answer that for him.

What "burden of proof" are you talking about, Archer?

I never set out to "prove" anything here. I wanted to discuss NASA's behavior toward "the face" as put forth by Fleming, who seemed to be objectively considering the issue.

I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.

I'm willing to accept symmetry and parallel lines occuring naturally, but for the "man on the mountain" explanation to be enough, I need to see it on a similar scale.

As for your charming word salad suggesting how I claim "NASA lies," am good at "net mining, cherrypicking & shoehorning" as well as possessing "tricks:"
Your mistake was thinking that I claimed to have proof of anything regarding the artificality hypothesis.



Iranian (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G9_4.gif)mound images Copyright © 1998 Oriental Institute, University of Chicago (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G8_4.gif) does it look familiar? its an artificial mound at Malik Shah, Iran. who said that if the Anunnaki built the Mars face they should have also made one on Earth? how insightfull, maybe they actually did. =D>Regarding your Iranian mound .. "insightful?" Not really. I don't recall seeing proof that A) the Anunnaki exist; B) that the Martian "Face" is really a "face" or anything artificial, or C) Malik Shah was built by ancient-astronauts.

Right you are, but does that mean you see no similarities between this mound and "the face?"

[A.DIM]

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?

yes, typical and ridiculous. but you should have by now be used to that, after all, you've been tackling this same bunch of debunkers for years.

anyway, since everyone obviously "missed" (side steped?) your request, i thought i'd bring something to your attention, A.dim.

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G9_4.gif

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G8_4.gif

Copyright © 1998 Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

does it look familiar? its an artificial mound at Malik Shah, Iran. who said that if the Anunnaki built the Mars face they should have also made one on Earth? how insightfull, maybe they actually did. =D>

Maybe. =D>

Thanks Outcast, for bringing this to my attention, but of course we have to realize that no matter what similarities one may find between these two "mounds," none of it will constitute evidence and will certainly not "prove" anything.

:wink:

[Outcast]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.

Ok, but...


I'm willing to accept symmetry and parallel lines occuring naturally, but for the "man on the mountain" explanation to be enough, I need to see it on a similar scale.

...this does strongly hint that you did.

And as to minimize future -he said she said- debates, do you think the Martian "face" is

a) Artificial

b) Natural

or

c) The jury's still out there

As for Nasa's behaviour, for what it's worth, Dr. Porco did say in a BBC program that she would like it nothing better than there to have been an ancient civilization on Mars. That would solve their budget problems for a while. So it's not like Nasa's activily trying -not to find- anything there.

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:

does it look familiar? its an artificial mound at Malik Shah, Iran. who said that if the Anunnaki built the Mars face they should have also made one on Earth? how insightfull, maybe they actually did.

Wow, I have insight!

Nice to hear from you again Outcast, I was wondering what kept you from the debate.

you want to know what kept me from debating in this BBS? well, i believe that true debate must imply at least a modicum of understanding of the subject at hand, i believe that debate that strives for an answer must be imparcial and truthwordy, i believe that debate should not be built around strawmens and false precepts, i believe that debate should not single out people because they do not follow a pack mentality. i believe that debate should be followed with critical thinking and honesty no matter the evidence that is brought to table.

so what kept me away from debate was the nasty tendency of certain debunkers to merrily follow people around with false premises, inuendo and a terrible lack of critical thinking and imagination.

[V-GER]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.

So you too apparently think A.DIM shifted the burden of proof?

and it is somewhat a large task to go through random satellite photos of the earth, try here for instance:
here (http://search.esa.int/queryIG.html?rf=3&searchType=general&tipo=Image&tx 0=Image&tx1=&col=mmg&qp=&qs=&qc=&ws=1&nh=12&lk=1&v f=0&ql=a&op0=%2B&fl0=ContentType%3A&ty0=p&op1=%2B& fl1=category%3A&ty1=p&op2=%2B&fl2=showcase%3A&ty2= p&tx2=ESAA1KZ84UC&showcase=Earth%20observationur l)

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

you want to know what kept me from debating in this BBS? well, i believe that true debate must imply at least a modicum of understanding of the subject at hand

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase? :wink:

[Outcast]

Outcast, are you suggesting that that mound looks anything like a face? Or just that people have made mounds? The latter is quite obvious, and the former looks to me like wishful thinking.

im sugesting to the people that have sugested that an intelligent and craftfull civilization would never produce such a gigantic symetrical artificial mound with face like features that in fact it can actualy happen. ancient Mesopotamia is packed full with this kind of large scale terraforming works of engineering. if ETs (Anunnaki?) have been around our solar system now and in the past, why not also on Mars?
it may be wishfull thinking but im entitled to it. i dont think i have to remember anyone that many wishfull thinkers of the past have indeed made ground breaking discoveries.

[Outcast]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.

So you too apparently think A.DIM shifted the burden of proof?

(and it is somewhat a large task to go through random satellite photos of the earth, try here for instance:

look, you're just playing a simple game of he said she said. the usual debunking of the face on Mars is that it is just a naturaly occuring mountain where the sun light at certain positions creates the notion of a face staring from the ground. ok, but when someone asks for an example of a similar natural occurrence on Earth (because here we can be at least 99% percent sure) then nothing is brought forth. even if we ask of the debunkers an example of a naturaly occuring mountain on Mars with similar features we'd still be hard pressed to get some.

i've been following the "face" issue since its debut into the mainsteam limelight in 1998. i must say that i've had stronger convictions that the whole "complex" at Cydonia could be artificial but now im not that convinced anymore. even so, that doesnt mean that i dont still see some of those formations with interest. i do, i find the possibility for artificiality on Mars amazing.

by the way, do you really expect me to go prove the debunkers claim? =D>

[Outcast]

Maybe. =D>

Thanks Outcast, for bringing this to my attention, but of course we have to realize that no matter what similarities one may find between these two "mounds," none of it will constitute evidence and will certainly not "prove" anything.

:wink:

:wink:

you're wellcome. unfortunetly i cannot find another interesting image i had, the so called Didan Rock also in Iran. i can swear it looks just like the Cydonia five sided pyramid.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

if ETs (Anunnaki?) have been around our solar system now and in the past, why not also on Mars?

Sure, but there's a really big if in it.


i dont think i have to remember anyone that many wishfull thinkers of the past have indeed made ground breaking discoveries.

Don't you think that kinda impairs a scientists judgement?


look, you're just playing a simple game of he said she said.

Really? I thought I was trying to end it by asking A.DIM:

V-GER wrote:

And as to minimize future -he said she said- debates, do you think the Martian "face" is

a) Artificial

b) Natural

or

c) The jury's still out there


ok, but when someone asks for an example of a similar natural occurrence on Earth (because here we can be at least 99% percent sure) then nothing is brought forth. even if we ask of the debunkers an example of a naturaly occuring mountain on Mars with similar features we'd still be hard pressed to get some.

It's not for the debunkers to proove anything. You're the one with all the radical ideas to proove. Yet you keep asking for us to do it.


by the way, do you really expect me to go prove the debunkers claim?

I wouldn't dream of such a thing, I merely tried to show you how difficult it is to find something like that from all the images out there. Besides what is a similar natural occurence? Something of a same size that looks like a face? I don't think so, since the original doesn't look like a face either.

[Archer17]

..What "burden of proof" are you talking about, Archer?

I never set out to "prove" anything here. I wanted to discuss NASA's behavior toward "the face" as put forth by Fleming, who seemed to be objectively considering the issue.

I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.

I'm willing to accept symmetry and parallel lines occuring naturally, but for the "man on the mountain" explanation to be enough, I need to see it on a similar scale.So, the burden of proof to provide something of "similar scale" rests with whom? .. you? There, you just answered your opening question.
As for your charming word salad suggesting how I claim "NASA lies," am good at "net mining, cherrypicking & shoehorning" as well as possessing "tricks:"
Your mistake was thinking that I claimed to have proof of anything regarding the artificality hypothesis.Your mistake is implying what I'm thinking. I never accused you of having proof for anything you "imply" A.DIM, in it's place we get "net-mining, cherry-picking, shoe-horning" delivered with your usual innuendos.
Spokesperson Soffen lied when the first image was released.
Termed an "unfortunate misstatement" by Sagan, it was nonetheless a LIE. Are you willing to believe that NASA spokespersons are merely inept and publicly make such "misstatements?"We can play more semantical games A.DIM but your innuendo here was quite clear.
.. but does that mean you see no similarities between this mound and "the face?"No. I see similarities between the second Cydonia images and the mound. :-k Maybe the Iranian images are "doctored" too .. I wonder.. :wink:

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

i can swear it looks just like the Cydonia five sided pyramid.

Oh yeah, the unsymmetrical pyramid that looks curiously like a mountain.

[Archer17]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.You mean our burden of proof? :wink: Why the reliance on a "to scale" comparison? Is symmetry confined by scale? I haven't seen "nada" regarding any such confinement.

[Fram]

Outcast, are you suggesting that that mound looks anything like a face? Or just that people have made mounds? The latter is quite obvious, and the former looks to me like wishful thinking.

im sugesting to the people that have sugested that an intelligent and craftfull civilization would never produce such a gigantic symetrical artificial mound with face like features that in fact it can actualy happen. ancient Mesopotamia is packed full with this kind of large scale terraforming works of engineering. if ETs (Anunnaki?) have been around our solar system now and in the past, why not also on Mars?
it may be wishfull thinking but im entitled to it. i dont think i have to remember anyone that many wishfull thinkers of the past have indeed made ground breaking discoveries.

First of all, I don't remember anyone saying that a civiliation would not create a face hill, all I remember is people saying that this hill is not facelike and not artificial.
Secondly, you have shown that ancient cultures on Earth have made large structures. No kidding. It's not very symmetrical though (the pyramids or Stonehenge or many Stone Age camps, like in Denmark, are much more symmetrical), and it isn't facelike at all. So what have you shown here? Nothing anyone disputed.
I don't know if 'terraforming' is the word I'ld use for such things either, but that's not important here.

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:
[quote]I wouldn't dream of such a thing, I merely tried to show you how difficult it is to find something like that from all the images out there. Besides what is a similar natural occurence? Something of a same size that looks like a face? I don't think so, since the original doesn't look like a face either.

but since some are so certain that such a natural formation does indeed exist then one must ask why hasnt it been presented allready.

the peculiarities of the "face" on Mars do not rest mainly in the face like appearance (or lack of it) even despite your opinion that it doesnt look like one, its still a symmetrical platform in which the sides run paralel to each other and end up at exactly the same points, much in the same way as the Iranian mound. the upper and lower parts also provide an interesting quasi circular symmetric structure. i would like to see someone explain what natural processes would produce the whole range of effects present in this peculiar mountain. as for the lack of the face like appearance in the more high resolution images one can allways see in there a very eroded (perhaps destroyed?) artificial construction. im not saying i do, but many still do:

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n01/index.shtml

[ToSeek]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.

So you too apparently think A.DIM shifted the burden of proof?

(and it is somewhat a large task to go through random satellite photos of the earth, try here for instance:
[link removed])

Please edit that link (http://search.esa.int/queryIG.html?rf=3&searchType=general&tipo=Image&tx 0=Image&tx1=&col=mmg&qp=&qs=&qc=&ws=1&nh=12&lk=1&v f=0&ql=a&op0=%2B&fl0=ContentType%3A&ty0=p&op1=%2B& fl1=category%3A&ty1=p&op2=%2B&fl2=showcase%3A&ty2= p&tx2=ESAA1KZ84UC&showcase=Earth%20observation) as it's really messing up the whole page.

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:

i can swear it looks just like the Cydonia five sided pyramid.

Oh yeah, the unsymmetrical pyramid that looks curiously like a mountain.

unsymmetrical? it looks pretty symmetrical to me:

pyramid (http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/mars/d&m_pyramid.jpg)

pyramid again (http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/mars/d&m_sharper.jpg)

then again there are people who have a hard time seeing perspective, shape and even form in an artistic sense. so i can understand that some will never see a "face" or a "pyramid" nor even the obvious symmetry, natural or not, in these formations.

[Outcast]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.You mean our burden of proof? :wink: Why the reliance on a "to scale" comparison? Is symmetry confined by scale? I haven't seen "nada" regarding any such confinement.

excuse me? 8-[
why is very much obvious. but this has nothing to do with burden of proof im just asking for the debunkers to simply provide the meat for their particular claims. by the way, the conceptual "confinement" is being defined by the very subject we're discussing here. and i believe that each and every example must comply to the same standards.

[Outcast]

First of all, I don't remember anyone saying that a civiliation would not create a face hill

i didnt specify the provinience of such arguments but i've read them before. after all, this discussion is not confined to this BBS is it?


all I remember is people saying that this hill is not facelike and not artificial.

well, artificiality cannot be easily proven (or not at all) specialy untill men set foot on Mars, but the facelike appearance of that hill is undisputed since it was this same likeness that set forth the controversy in the first place. what one can claim, and this we must not forget to point as mainly personal opinions which are probably fed by their own bias, is that the new high resolution images show less of a face, particularly with the sun light at such angle.


Secondly, you have shown that ancient cultures on Earth have made large structures. No kidding. It's not very symmetrical though

again, the resilience in accepting symmetry where it is obviously present. whatever.


and it isn't facelike at all

no, but its as similar as it gets and it is artificial.


So what have you shown here?

i've shown that such large scale artificial transformations of terrain (terraforming) for religious or inspired artistical objectives is possible and has happened in the past.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

i would like to see someone explain what natural processes would produce the whole range of effects present in this peculiar mountain.

Same process that produces all sorts of formations here on Earth,
erosion.


then again there are people who have a hard time seeing perspective, shape and even form in an artistic sense. so i can understand that some will never see a "face" or a "pyramid" nor even the obvious symmetry, natural or not, in these formations.

And then there are those who see faces and conspiracies everywhere. In an artistic sense and otherwise.

Especially the second picture you provided looks more like a surreal painting than a geometrical symbol.


but since some are so certain that such a natural formation does indeed exist then one must ask why hasnt it been presented allready.

I already posted a link to an image of the Bahamas that looked like an old hockey mask, but the link on the ESA page keeps changing so I won't look for it again. But you can't seriously be telling me that you have never seen an aerial pic of something that looks like something artificial and is on a big/huge scale? How about the "boot" of Italy? But of course
like you said it yourself: "there are people who have a hard time seeing perspective, shape and even form in an artistic sense"

[Electric Ashalar]

Here are three possible co-ordinates for the Tepe at Malik-Shah
Iran.

Using software found HERE:

http://www.earthsearch.net
------------------------------------
Search Results - first 100
Name - click for world map location Country Type Latitude Longitude.

Tepe IR PPL 33.7802778 49.1011111
Tepe IR PPL 33.985 49.0252778
Tepe IR PPL 37.2197222 50.2319444
-------------------------------------

Here is the Co-ordinates for Dadan,Iran

Search Results - first 100
Name - click for world map location Country Type Latitude Longitude
Dadan IR PPL 33.3558333 59.1933333

-------------------------------------
Note the co-ordinates for the ROCK itself is still unknown
Requests by fellow researchers by e-mail concerning excact location have not been returned by the oriental Inst.Chicago

[A.DIM]

Malik Shah (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11G9_72dpi.gif)

Shouldn't the portrayal of a face at least, like, have eyes and a mouth, maybe a nose?

A pyramid is a better face sculpture than Malik Shah. At least a pyramid has a nose.


Interesting you should point that out....

The Cydonian Imperative (http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative25.html).

:)

[Archer17]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.You mean our burden of proof? :wink: Why the reliance on a "to scale" comparison? Is symmetry confined by scale? I haven't seen "nada" regarding any such confinement.excuse me? 8-[
why is very much obvious. but this has nothing to do with burden of proof im just asking for the debunkers to simply provide the meat for their particular claims..What particular claims? You just contradicted yourself here BTW.
..by the way, the conceptual "confinement" is being defined by the very subject we're discussing here.. huh? So natural symmetry is confined by the subject we're discussing? :roll:
..and i believe that each and every example must comply to the same standards.You can't cherry-pick scale Outcast. Either natural symmetry is confined by scale or not. Unless a case can be made that it is, then Cydonia's symmetry in of itself can not be cited as any indicator of unnatural origin. Oh, you can try .. but it would be based on a flawed premise.

[N C More]

Hmm...large, natural monoliths...How about Ayer's Rock aka Mt. Uluru, Australia. (http://www.saveourscreen.com/TNV/Australia/Ayers_Rock/Ayers%20Rock%20SS1.htm) Monument Valley (in the USA) also has some pretty interesting natural formations.

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:

I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.

Ok, but...


I'm willing to accept symmetry and parallel lines occuring naturally, but for the "man on the mountain" explanation to be enough, I need to see it on a similar scale.

...this does strongly hint that you did.

Well then, "hints" aside, do you think I did? If so, where explicitly?



And as to minimize future -he said she said- debates, do you think the Martian "face" is

a) Artificial

b) Natural

or

c) The jury's still out there

:-? Opening Post - 6th paragraph...
-(if you can call a sentence a paragraph)-

...and yet, it's been overlooked and here we are!


As for Nasa's behaviour, for what it's worth, Dr. Porco did say in a BBC program that she would like it nothing better than there to have been an ancient civilization on Mars. That would solve their budget problems for a while. So it's not like Nasa's activily trying -not to find- anything there.

Similarly, I started this thread "for what it's worth" based on Fleming's arguments to the contrary.
And you'd have me agree with you based on Dr. Porco's supposed statements?

[R.A.F.]

...artificiality cannot be easily proven (or not at all) specialy untill men set foot on Mars...

OK...I have a question...

Lets say Men do get to Mars, and lets say that the "face" and surrounding areas are throughly examined and proven to be natural formations...

What do you think the response from the "Hoaglands" of the world will be??

[Archer17]

A.DIM wrote:

I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.

Ok, but...


I'm willing to accept symmetry and parallel lines occuring naturally, but for the "man on the mountain" explanation to be enough, I need to see it on a similar scale.

...this does strongly hint that you did.

Well then, "hints" aside, do you think I did? If so, where explicitly?Ah, where explicitly! I'm glad you brought this up .. and no "hints aside" .. you're not getting off the hook that easily. Why these type of games A.DIM? You don't say too much of anything explicitly and you know that. V-GER is right, you make "hints (I call them innuendos - same difference), just so you can make posts like this one I quoted. Now ask yourself why myself and others got the impression you attempted to shift the burden of proof.. after all, you didn't come right out and explicitly say "prove" anything, did you? No - being explicit isn't your style. Instead we get:
Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?To me on Pg. 2:
Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?Heck, even Outcast got that impression (he denies it of course but did give himself away here):
you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.You'll notice Outcast chided "the usual crowd" for not accepting your "request" for Cydonia-scale symmetry on Earth right? So how can you make this kind of statement:
I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.and expect to come across as a standup person?

You're right about one thing .. you didn't shift the burden, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

[Fram]

So what have you shown here?

i've shown that such large scale artificial transformations of terrain (terraforming) for religious or inspired artistical objectives is possible and has happened in the past.

Again, everybody knows that such a transformation is possible and has happened. Furthermore, a 'tepe' was usually not made for religious or inspired artistical objectives: it was a city. The most probable reason to make it on an artificial hill was military. And (like with Troy and so on) those hills tended to grow over the centuries because they just kept on building on top of older ruins, dirt, waste, and so on.

From Archaeology Wordsmith (http://www.reference-wordsmith.com/cgi-bin/lookup.cgi?category=&where=headword&terms=tepe):

tell or tepe
SYNONYM: tell mound; tel (Hebrew); choga, tepe (Persian); hüyük (Turkish)
CATEGORY: feature
DEFINITION: A large mound formed by superimposed habitation layers, particularly in the Middle East (Near East). Tells are the result of continuous habitation over a long time span, and are important ancient settlement sites. Tells are normally found only in regions where buildings were of mud-brick, a material of limited life and too plentiful to be worth salvaging when it collapses. This, coupled with the accumulation of domestic refuse, can build up vast mounds 100 feet/30 meters +. The tells of the Middle East offer valuable stratigraphic evidence. Such mounds incorporate other settlement refuse, graves, and many other materials. [site names beginning with "Tell" in this dictionary are alphabetized under the second part of the name.]


If you have additional information showing that it was different for this tepe, please link it (or give the source).

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:

I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.

Ok, but...


I'm willing to accept symmetry and parallel lines occuring naturally, but for the "man on the mountain" explanation to be enough, I need to see it on a similar scale.

...this does strongly hint that you did.

Well then, "hints" aside, do you think I did? If so, where explicitly?Ah, where explicitly! I'm glad you brought this up .. and no "hints aside" .. you're not getting off the hook that easily. Why these type of games A.DIM? You don't say too much of anything explicitly and you know that. V-GER is right, you make "hints (I call them innuendos - same difference), just so you can make posts like this one I quoted. Now ask yourself why myself and others got the impression you attempted to shift the burden of proof.. after all, you didn't come right out and explicitly say "prove" anything, did you? No - being explicit isn't your style. Instead we get:
Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?To me on Pg. 2:
Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?Heck, even Outcast got that impression (he denies it of course but did give himself away here):
you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.You'll notice Outcast chided "the usual crowd" for not accepting your "request" for Cydonia-scale symmetry on Earth right? So how can you make this kind of statement:
I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.and expect to come across as a standup person?

You're right about one thing .. you didn't shift the burden, but it wasn't for lack of trying.


Archer, my OP was rather explicit in stating my position, was it not?

And in turn, I received a bunch of rif raf about hoagland, aliens et al.

I pointed out that the "trick of light and shadow" argument is insufficient for me, and I find myself frustrated with how easily many others will accept it. The "old man" was proffered and I certainly allow pareidolia, but I'd like to see it on a similar scale to fully agree; otherwise, I remain skeptical of this explanation. Is that an attempt to "shift the burden" in your mind?

If so, I disagree.


NC More's Ayers Rock is the closest thing yet to a natural formation on similar scale, and I must say that I find few similarities between it and "the face." But I must admit that, at first glance, there are more likenesses between the Tarik Shah mound and "the face" than with Ayers Rock.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

Well then, "hints" aside, do you think I did? If so, where explicitly?

In the very same quote I quoted which you then quoted:


...I need to see it on a similar scale.

You can argue semantics until Christmas if you want but it's pretty obvious you're asking us to proove something. Like Archer said, even Outcast thinks that.


Opening Post - 6th paragraph...
-(if you can call a sentence a paragraph)-

...and yet, it's been overlooked and here we are!

A simple answer or opinion would suffice but instead we get this:


Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

Now I'd like to think I speak reasonably good english, having lived and worked there, but I'm having a hard time making out what exactly it is you're trying to say sometimes.

R.A.F. wrote:

Lets say Men do get to Mars, and lets say that the "face" and surrounding areas are throughly examined and proven to be natural formations...

What do you think the response from the "Hoaglands" of the world will be??

Since they believe Nasa lies all the time (moon hoax, face, ufo's) I don't think they would have a hard time denying any evidence Nasa would present.

[Outcast]

So what have you shown here?

i've shown that such large scale artificial transformations of terrain (terraforming) for religious or inspired artistical objectives is possible and has happened in the past.

Again, everybody knows that such a transformation is possible and has happened. Furthermore, a 'tepe' was usually not made for religious or inspired artistical objectives: it was a city. The most probable reason to make it on an artificial hill was military. And (like with Troy and so on) those hills tended to grow over the centuries because they just kept on building on top of older ruins, dirt, waste, and so on.

From Archaeology Wordsmith (http://www.reference-wordsmith.com/cgi-bin/lookup.cgi?category=&where=headword&terms=tepe):

tell or tepe
SYNONYM: tell mound; tel (Hebrew); choga, tepe (Persian); hüyük (Turkish)
CATEGORY: feature
DEFINITION: A large mound formed by superimposed habitation layers, particularly in the Middle East (Near East). Tells are the result of continuous habitation over a long time span, and are important ancient settlement sites. Tells are normally found only in regions where buildings were of mud-brick, a material of limited life and too plentiful to be worth salvaging when it collapses. This, coupled with the accumulation of domestic refuse, can build up vast mounds 100 feet/30 meters +. The tells of the Middle East offer valuable stratigraphic evidence. Such mounds incorporate other settlement refuse, graves, and many other materials. [site names beginning with "Tell" in this dictionary are alphabetized under the second part of the name.]


If you have additional information showing that it was different for this tepe, please link it (or give the source).

i stand corrected as to the meaning of "tepe". i've searched around but could not find any new information for this particular formation. in my opinion it differs somewhat from other tell mounds but i have no way to be sure of what its purpose was.

anyway i found a link for the Dadan rock (not Didan like i said before) :
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/ASF/11D4_72dpi.html

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

And you'd have me agree with you based on Dr. Porco's supposed statements?

But of course not, what would she know...

[Fram]

Is a fish (http://www.parstimes.com/spaceimages/zagros_srtm.jpg) instead of a face also acceptable? Two-thirds to the right, two-thirds up, face to the left, tail to the right.

[Archer17]

.. Archer, my OP was rather explicit in stating my position, was it not?..Actually I was going to add your OP to my last post and see V-GER beat me to it. But, let's go through this again and take a look: First you state:
I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.Then comes the inevitable:
Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.Then:
So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?Doesn't look very explicit to me either. By asking our opinion ("Is it wrong to agree.."), I know you well enough that if someone would say "NASA isn't covering something up!" or "there was no Martians/aliens/Annunaki on Mars!" you'd just say, "I didn't say that" or something similar. You pull that all the time.
And in turn, I received a bunch of rif raf about hoagland, aliens et al.You're the one that attempted to resurrect The Face, with all it's implications. Are you going to say that Hoagland or "aliens" have nothing to do with Cydonia? Want to quibble about what "alien" means again A.DIM?
I pointed out that the "trick of light and shadow" argument is insufficient for me, and I find myself frustrated with how easily many others will accept it. The "old man" was proffered and I certainly allow pareidolia, but I'd like to see it on a similar scale to fully agree; otherwise, I remain skeptical of this explanation. Is that an attempt to "shift the burden" in your mind?

If so, I disagree. Disagree all you want, but as I have pointed out, I wasn't the only one to get that impression. That should have been a red flag to you if that wasn't your real intent. If you were more straightforward with your posts you wouldn't have to spend so much time explaining what they "really" mean all the time. This kind of literary duck and weave is part and parcel of your posting style since Day One.
NC More's Ayers Rock is the closest thing yet to a natural formation on similar scale, and I must say that I find few similarities between it and "the face." But I must admit that, at first glance, there are more likenesses between the Tarik Shah mound and "the face" than with Ayers Rock.I've already pointed out the problems with "similar scale" being used regarding Cydonia and how Tarik Shah looks like the followup Cydonia images, not the initial Viking "face" ones. I noticed you haven't made such a distinction .. being deliberately ambiguous again?

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:

i would like to see someone explain what natural processes would produce the whole range of effects present in this peculiar mountain.

Same process that produces all sorts of formations here on Earth,
erosion.

what kind of erosion? are you being evasive just because you dont want to risk an analysis? maybe you can do better than Nasa geologist Dr. Terry Martin, who apparently also does not have a clue:


Transcript from JPL/NASA conference

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...And then there's,uh,"Strangeness"
and uh,
I bring up this uh, so called "Face on mars".
not to talk about it as a "Face"
but to talk about it is a Geologically Interesting Place.
because -"What is this edge that we see?"
What is this...this "funny business" here,and also, here.

It turns out that the Sun is shining from the left and the, uh,
the feature is pretty much where you don't have Sun.
It's on the uh,,the North facing side of this,uh," Hill."

And people have talked about this possibly being a,an old snow deposit.
that snow has been covered over by dust,
so it looks the same brightness as everything else.
but it's receded from the top by the action of the Sun.
and so it is ,uh,hiding from the Sun basically but,
surviving,uh, under this dust layer.
Sort of an insulating layer, and we see a lot of this "Stuff"
uh, in moderate latitudes,it's not at the polar caps,
this is down at,uh, 40 degrees,or so, latitude.

So again...
Water in places that are interesting,
and, if you were a Creature,
perhaps,uh, you know,
this Latitude would be more comfortable.
and yet there's this Water handy for you,uh, to make a Living.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And then there are those who see faces and conspiracies everywhere. In an artistic sense and otherwise.

and then there are those in denial while being continuing suckered and failing to think for themselfs. in an artistic sense and otherwise, of course.


Especially the second picture you provided looks more like a surreal painting than a geometrical symbol.

geometrical? not necessarily. symmetrical, yes.

[R.A.F.]

maybe you can do better than Nasa geologist Dr. Terry Martin, who apparently also does not have a clue...

I'm sure you can disagree with Dr. Martin's opinion without insulting him. [-X

[Outcast]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.You mean our burden of proof? :wink: Why the reliance on a "to scale" comparison? Is symmetry confined by scale? I haven't seen "nada" regarding any such confinement.excuse me? 8-[
why is very much obvious. but this has nothing to do with burden of proof im just asking for the debunkers to simply provide the meat for their particular claims..

What particular claims?

some claim that the "face" can only be a natural formation, so it was asked for a comparative natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale.

none was provided until this:

http://www.saveourscreen.com/TNV/Australia/Ayers_Rock/Ayers%20Rock%20SS1.htm

in my opinion, it does not have the same elements that make the "face" so interesting, but its a start.


You just contradicted yourself here BTW.

no i didnt.



huh? So natural symmetry is confined by the subject we're discussing? :roll:

You can't cherry-pick scale Outcast. Either natural symmetry is confined by scale or not. Unless a case can be made that it is, then Cydonia's symmetry in of itself can not be cited as any indicator of unnatural origin. Oh, you can try .. but it would be based on a flawed premise.

you seem to misundestand what i said.

"Most of our knowledge about how landforms have evolved on Mars is based upon interpretation of images taken by the Mariner and Viking Orbiters and the Viking and Pathfinder Landers. Interpretation of surface features and the processes that have created them is primarily based upon comparison with similar terrestrial features and some rudimentary scaling arguments." - Alan D. Howard, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

[The Supreme Canuck]

in my opinion, it does not have the same elements that make the "face" so interesting, but its a start.

And what elements are those exactly?

[Outcast]

apparently the "cat box face" was not the only time that the team of Geologists at JPL have been caught doing the nasty business of being less than straightfoward:


On April 8th, 2001, the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) acquired a full image of the "Face" on Mars. After an unexplained six-week delay, the image was publicly released. The release of the image was accompanied by the nearly simultaneous posting of a "news article" on an official NASA web site. The intent of the article was apparently to render a definitive scientific conclusion that the Face is an unremarkable hill or mesa. The posting of the article on a NASA web site implies that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration officially endorses the methods and conclusions represented.


The JPL "elevation map," which has never been released, was purportedly created by combining the visual Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) image with elevation data acquired by the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA). The fallacious claims made about the resolution of the MOLA instrument are described elsewhere and won't be repeated here.

The article shows a "3D perspective" image (Figure 1) created from this elevation map. This image, like JPL's "Catbox" enhancement of the previous MOC image of 1998, shows a surprisingly flat landform. The Catbox was created by misuse of high-pass filtering. This image has been created by misuse of the MOLA data, as will be shown subsequently.




CONCLUSION
The May 24th NASA article quotes James Garvin, chief scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program as stating:

"We took hundreds of altitude measurements of the mesa-like features around Cydonia, including the Face. The height of the Face, its volume and aspect ratio -- all of its dimensions, in fact -- are similar to the other mesas. It's not exotic in any way."
That the two low-resolution profiles of the Face reveal nothing "exotic" cannot be disputed, but nothing exotic about the shape revealed by the meager MOLA data could be expected. The profiles do, however, reveal that the NASA 3-dimensional reconstructions of the landform based on the MOLA data are in serious error. They may, conceivably, have even been based on a MOLA profile of the wrong landform. (JPL's apparent use of MOLA data for the wrong landform is covered in detail in the New Frontiers in Science paper). Perhaps a mistake was made in the haste of preparing the public relations material for the article in time for its release to coincide with the release of the MOC image. This is a matter of conjecture since no details of the reconstruction process were given in the article. Queries made to the article's author and to the web page curator have not been answered.
Regardless of the cause of the error, the landform is, at a minimum, 37% higher and probably more like 67% higher than the estimate made by NASA. All conclusions presented in the NASA article based upon the MOLA data are therefore invalid -- most notably, the claim that elevation maps based on the MOLA data show that face-like features apparent in all the visual images can be explained as tricks of lighting.

The MOLA profile is not only consistent with Carlotto's height estimates but conforms in shape as well. The close match provides grounds for increased confidence in the validity of the SFS model. The NASA article cited the MOLA data to support the assertion that features resembling those of a face do not really exist as three-dimensional contours on this landform. To the contrary, the conformity of the MOLA data to the SFS model supports the reality of the unusual features predicted by Carlotto's model.

While scientists at JPL may be highly competent in geology, physics, and chemistry, the facts show that for some reason, they cannot do a competent job when it comes to evaluating possible evidence of past life on Mars, especially intelligent life. The obvious hostility they have for such possibilities seems the most likely explanation for this selective incompetence. As shown by a recent "hit piece" written by an individual associated with JPL about the work of several respected Hungarian scientists, this seemingly irrational hostility appears to extend even to researchers who merely propose that there is evidence of microbial life on Mars.

Some people argue that the geologists and physical scientists with JPL would be "pleased" to find evidence of intelligent life on Mars because it would mean more money for their budget. That does not make sense; the money would go to archeologists and biologists, not to them. In any case, such arguments are irrelevant because the facts, as demonstrated here and in other articles on this web site, show that they would be anything but pleased. If proof of life on another planet within the solar system is ever discovered, it will not be done by JPL, at least as it is presently constituted.


-- Lan Fleming

text in bold is my emphasis, rest of the article in here: http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html

[Outcast]

in my opinion, it does not have the same elements that make the "face" so interesting, but its a start.

And what elements are those exactly?

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n01/index.shtml

[Archer17]

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.You mean our burden of proof? :wink: Why the reliance on a "to scale" comparison? Is symmetry confined by scale? I haven't seen "nada" regarding any such confinement.excuse me? 8-[
why is very much obvious. but this has nothing to do with burden of proof im just asking for the debunkers to simply provide the meat for their particular claims..

What particular claims?

some claim that the "face" can only be a natural formation, so it was asked for a comparative natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale.

none was provided until this:

http://www.saveourscreen.com/TNV/Australia/Ayers_Rock/Ayers%20Rock%20SS1.htm

in my opinion, it does not have the same elements that make the "face" so interesting, but its a start.I've pointed out the problem of a "to scale" comparison prior. I've noticed that you and A.DIM haven't addressed the issue of whether symmetry is confined by scale, yet continue to use that flawed reasoning. As far as claims go, assuming something is natural until proven otherwise is not a "claim." I don't believe Cydonia is artificial based on the followup images and comparing geological features limited by just a certain scale is cherry-picking.

You just contradicted yourself here BTW.
no i didnt.What does "provide the meat for their particular claims" mean in your language?

huh? So natural symmetry is confined by the subject we're discussing? :roll:

You can't cherry-pick scale Outcast. Either natural symmetry is confined by scale or not. Unless a case can be made that it is, then Cydonia's symmetry in of itself can not be cited as any indicator of unnatural origin. Oh, you can try .. but it would be based on a flawed premise.you seem to misundestand what i said.

"Most of our knowledge about how landforms have evolved on Mars is based upon interpretation of images taken by the Mariner and Viking Orbiters and the Viking and Pathfinder Landers. Interpretation of surface features and the processes that have created them is primarily based upon comparison with similar terrestrial features and some rudimentary scaling arguments." - Alan D. Howard, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of VirginiaMisunderstand what you said? Not at all. Unless symmetry is confined to a certain scale then success or failure to find exact matches between Martian and this planet's natural formations is not a viable argument for artificiality. Mr. Howard talks about "rudimentary scaling" while you talk about the "same approximate scale."

[aurora]

NC More's Ayers Rock is the closest thing yet to a natural formation on similar scale, and I must say that I find few similarities between it and "the face." But I must admit that, at first glance, there are more likenesses between the Tarik Shah mound and "the face" than with Ayers Rock.

Except for one major difference. The images of the area around the "face" seem to me to show a geologically consistent pattern (ledges formed at similar elevations presumably be the same formation that has been cut by erosion, for example. I pointed this out previously in this thread).

If dirt was piled up artificially, it wouldn't show that pattern would it?

So how can you say "the face" is like a mound created by humans?

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:


http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n01/index.shtml


NFS publishes research and theories outside currently accepted scientific paradigms.

Great source...

Outcast wrote:

what kind of erosion? are you being evasive just because you dont want to risk an analysis? maybe you can do better than Nasa geologist Dr. Terry Martin, who apparently also does not have a clue

Your admiration toward scientists is abmirable...

But as for me being evasive? I don't see how, I'm no geologist but I do know erosion is caused by wind, dust, sand and water. You know, natural erosion please tell if there are other kinds of erosion, hyperdimensional perhaps?



and then there are those in denial while being continuing suckered and failing to think for themselfs

So not only do I lack artistic vision, I'm gullible and unable to think for myself as well? Lucky for me then I decided to look for information first from Nasa instead of the "alternative" sources.

And why is it that everytime people "think for themselves" they always promote these far out, if not downright ridicilous ideas? Is this the same thing when some people call bad comedy intelligent? or boring crappy movies artistic?


geometrical? not necessarily. symmetrical, yes.

Well I did mean them to be the same case in this one. Like a square is geometrical as well as symmetrical. The pyramid is not symmetrical. Not even the drawing you presented over the pyramid is symmetrical. Besides hasn't this Hoagland-esque lines over land formations in Cydonia been milked dry already.

[V-GER]

Is a fish (http://www.parstimes.com/spaceimages/zagros_srtm.jpg) instead of a face also acceptable? Two-thirds to the right, two-thirds up, face to the left, tail to the right.

Of course it's acceptable, I can also see a sea lion and an ameeba. Besides, apparently there's a fish on Mars (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2001/016/fishsym.htm) as well!

[Electric Ashalar]

Dadan
http://www.earthsearch.net/

Dadan IR PPL
Latitude 33.3558333
Longitude 59.1933333


http://mars-news.de/news/dm_dadan_ani_big.gif

==================
Courtesy :Holger Isenberg
http://mars-news.de/
==================

[PhantomWolf]

Is a fish (http://www.parstimes.com/spaceimages/zagros_srtm.jpg) instead of a face also acceptable? Two-thirds to the right, two-thirds up, face to the left, tail to the right.

Of course it's acceptable, I can also see a sea lion and an ameeba. Besides, apparently there's a fish on Mars (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2001/016/fishsym.htm) as well!

What you missed the dolphin, hermit crab, octopus and tadpole (well either a tadpole or an alien chest buster, haven't decided on that one yet.)

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:


http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n01/index.shtml


NFS publishes research and theories outside currently accepted scientific paradigms.

Great source...

Outcast wrote:

what kind of erosion? are you being evasive just because you dont want to risk an analysis? maybe you can do better than Nasa geologist Dr. Terry Martin, who apparently also does not have a clue

Your admiration toward scientists is abmirable...

But as for me being evasive? I don't see how, I'm no geologist but I do know erosion is caused by wind, dust, sand and water. You know, natural erosion please tell if there are other kinds of erosion, hyperdimensional perhaps?



and then there are those in denial while being continuing suckered and failing to think for themselfs

So not only do I lack artistic vision, I'm gullible and unable to think for myself as well? Lucky for me then I decided to look for information first from Nasa instead of the "alternative" sources.


you just proved my point. you used two strawmen above in order to promptly dismiss my sources and evade dealing with the arguments. sorry, either you address the issues or you dont, if you're just another debunkerish type then this conversation is over.

[Outcast]

NC More's Ayers Rock is the closest thing yet to a natural formation on similar scale, and I must say that I find few similarities between it and "the face." But I must admit that, at first glance, there are more likenesses between the Tarik Shah mound and "the face" than with Ayers Rock.

Except for one major difference. The images of the area around the "face" seem to me to show a geologically consistent pattern (ledges formed at similar elevations presumably be the same formation that has been cut by erosion, for example. I pointed this out previously in this thread).

If dirt was piled up artificially, it wouldn't show that pattern would it?

So how can you say "the face" is like a mound created by humans?

the pattern shown is that the formations around "the face" show various degrees of symmetry. starting from the d&m pyramid, up into the "city" and then to top right where "the face" is, most of those formations are radically different from each other and yet all of them present strange recognizable geometrical forms.

allthough the high resolution images of these areas have shown these formations to be covered in dirt and highly eroded, the same hints of symmetry that were present in the original orbiter images are still there, even if less obvious. anyone familiar with the Cydonia area knows that the further away you go from the face and adjoining formations the less similarities exist with the original polemic formations.

do i think they're artificial? not really. i personaly found a couple of formations in Mars images that look similar to the face and there are other mountainous formations that look pyramidal in other places. allthough i've never seen a place where all of these strange erosion patterns fell all in the same place and at so close distance to eachother. still, doesnt mean they're artificial, but it gives one a pause for thought.

now i'll tell you what bothers me with all of this debunking nonsense, is that anyone can and should be skeptical of a claim of hundreds of meters high and wide artificial structures in another planet, but that is no reason to withhold data from enquiry and study, distort information, appeal to ridicule and/or authority, publish unscientific opinionated based rebuttals, pretend that geometrical and symmetrical patterns even if naturaly occuring are not there, and a host of other nonsense.

http://www.aadm.com/cydonia/pageheader.gif

[Tensor]

Is a fish (http://www.parstimes.com/spaceimages/zagros_srtm.jpg) instead of a face also acceptable? Two-thirds to the right, two-thirds up, face to the left, tail to the right.

Of course it's acceptable, I can also see a sea lion and an ameeba. Besides, apparently there's a fish on Mars (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2001/016/fishsym.htm) as well!

What you missed the dolphin, hermit crab, octopus and tadpole (well either a tadpole or an alien chest buster, haven't decided on that one yet.)

Don't forget the bunnies and the little men.

[R.A.F.]

...but that is no reason to withhold data from enquiry and study, distort information...

This is the same old tired "NASA is hiding something" argument...and that "argument" is not supported by any objective evidence. I can't imagine what you are thinking when you post "stuff" like that.

And why in the world would you post this Viking image...

http://www.aadm.com/cydonia/pageheader.gif

...of the Cydonia region? HIRES images are available.

...though I did find the page (http://www.aadm.com/cydonia/) where you got it, very amusing. :)

[Electric Ashalar]

OUTCAST


do i think they're artificial? not really.
i personaly found a couple of formations in Mars images that look similar to the face and there are other mountainous formations that look pyramidal in other places.
allthough i've never seen a place where all of these strange erosion patterns fell all in the same place and at so close distance to eachother.
still, doesnt mean they're artificial, but it gives one a pause for thought.


http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Arcology.jpg

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

you used two strawmen above in order to promptly dismiss my sources and evade dealing with the arguments. sorry, either you address the issues or you dont,

Yes I do dismiss your sources but I did not evade anything:

you asked:


I would like to see someone explain what natural processes would produce the whole range of effects present in this peculiar mountain.

I answered:

V-GER wrote:

Same process that produces all sorts of formations here on Earth,
erosion.

after that you ask:


what kind of erosion?

to which I reply:


I'm no geologist but I do know erosion is caused by wind, dust, sand and water. You know, natural erosion please tell if there are other kinds of erosion, hyperdimensional perhaps?

Now, what did I evade?

Only anti-science, that's right: ANTI-SCIENCE! can turn a debate into an argument over who said what or what some word actually means.
I bet quantum physics would provide more straight forward conversations.



if you're just another debunkerish type then this conversation is over.

Thanks for dropping by.

[R.A.F.]

So, EA...care to tell us from what website you got this image? And it's exact location in the Cydonia region??

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Arcology.jpg

All I get is a "404" message when trying to get to anything other than that image. I'd like to see more images of that area..."ones" that aren't telling me "what" I should see.

[Archer17]

.. do i think they're artificial? not really.Then this commentary:
now i'll tell you what bothers me with all of this debunking nonsense, is that anyone can and should be skeptical of a claim of hundreds of meters high and wide artificial structures in another planet, but that is no reason to withhold data from enquiry and study, distort information, appeal to ridicule and/or authority, publish unscientific opinionated based rebuttals, pretend that geometrical and symmetrical patterns even if naturaly occuring are not there, and a host of other nonsense.Debunking nonsense? The only nonsense I see is the allusions of distortions and withholding of information constantly spouted by those that want to keep a dead issue alive .. yet those that sing that song base their ballad on images from the very agency they don't trust. #-o In your case it is even more ridiculous in that you concede that you don't "really" believe Cydonia is artificial, yet continue to spout non-mainstream tripe anyway.

I don't think anyone here really cares what bothers you about "debunkers" .. I know I don't. It's irrelevant anyway.

[Archer17]

So, EA...care to tell us from what website you got this image? And it's exact location in the Cydonia region??If you want to know where EA is coming from, read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=314468#314468) thread from last summer. We've been there, done that.

[Tensor]

So, EA...care to tell us from what website you got this image? And it's exact location in the Cydonia region??If you want to know where EA is coming from, read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=314468#314468) thread from last summer. We've been there, done that.

Yeah, he did say one year back then. Let's see, that gives it 27 more days, if you count from the first post in the previous thread.

[Graham2001]

Is a fish (http://www.parstimes.com/spaceimages/zagros_srtm.jpg) instead of a face also acceptable? Two-thirds to the right, two-thirds up, face to the left, tail to the right.

Of course it's acceptable, I can also see a sea lion and an ameeba. Besides, apparently there's a fish on Mars (http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2001/016/fishsym.htm) as well!

What you missed the dolphin, hermit crab, octopus and tadpole (well either a tadpole or an alien chest buster, haven't decided on that one yet.)

Don't forget the bunnies and the little men.

You left out the smiley face (http://www.msss.com/education/happy_face/smile.gif) :wink:

[R.A.F.]

If you want to know where EA is coming from...

Oh I know where he's "coming from"...:)...I'd just like to know where he got that image, and, (if he's going to use it as some "kind" of evidence), I'd like to know just what part of Cydonia that image is from...:wink:

[N C More]

Yeah, Let's all "Dream On" about Cydonia! (my apology to Arrowsmith!)

Everytime that I look at the Viking images
All those lines on Cydonia are clearer
The past is gone
It went by, ET left their creations
Isn’t that the Anunnaki way?
Everybody’s got the clues to see!

I know what nobody knows
Where pyramids precisely line up
I know it’s everybody’s sin
You gotta see the face in order to win

Half my life is based on info from RCH
Live and learn from fools and from sages
You know it’s true
all lack of evidence comes back to you!

Sing with me, sing for the years
Sing for the nonsense, sing for the jeers
Sing with me, if it’s just for today
Maybe tomorrow ET will come an' take you away!

Dream on, dream on
Dream yourself a Martian dream come true
Dream on, dream on
Dream until your Martian dream come true
Dream on, dream on, dream on...

[Electric Ashalar]

Location of Anomaly:

Approx -
Latitude: 38.94 * North
Longitude: 9.98 * West

Or on a South-East diagonal node in the Matrix Generated by the Square Complex,which is in itself,is Generated by the Anomaly "AN"
@
Latitude: 38.942 * North
Longitude: 9.99 * West

This Anomaly was located by using the Square Complex/ Cydo-Axis as a base measure to Grid and scale the layout of Cydonia.

[01101001]

Location of Anomaly:
Why anomaly?

[Electric Ashalar]

Why Anomaly?
(Besides the Fact it is in Cydonia wich shouldn't concern you)

As an appendage of The Prime Anomaly "AN"(wich is merely a geographic co-ordinate: 38.942*North-9.99*West) that becomes the Origin Of Peculiar geometric landforms in Cydonia,Beggining with the Square Complex. Anything that falls on the matrix of what is basically an exo-archeological grid(for lack of a better term)Registers itself as "suspect and Anomalous" if it shares the orientation to(but not exclusive to--- The LONG VERTICAL AXIS of Symmetry of :

-Ares' "Face"
-The "Fort"
-The "City"
-The D&M "Pyramid"
-The Square "Complex"

**the Square Complex in itself,The CONTROL of all others listed above.**

[01101001]

Anything that falls on the matrix of what is basically an exo-archeological grid(for lack of a better term)Registers itself as "suspect and Anomalous" if it shares the orientation to(but not exclusive to--- The LONG VERTICAL AXIS of Symmetry of :

Why don't you just say artificial?

[Electric Ashalar]

Why don't you Say Cydo-Axis?

[01101001]

Why don't you Say Cydo-Axis?

Cydo-Axis.

Happy?

Now, why do you claim these things are artificial?

[Electric Ashalar]

Thanx,Now this is part of the lexicon.
Say it again and Smile.
"Cydo-Axis"
8)
I claim Evidence of Artificiality ,like that's NEWS?
Simply for this reasoning.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of its absence.
Presence of Evidence is Evidence of Artificiality.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of its absence.

No, but it also isn't evidence of presence.

Are you admitting that you have no proof? If not, can we see it?

[Electric Ashalar]

Of Course you can See it:It is Requisite.

http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=25;t=006623;p=1

[01101001]

If not, can we see it?

Yeah, come on. You're a skeptical person. You don't just believe astounding things without strong evidence, right? What's the strongest evidence you've seen that convinced skeptical you that there are non-human artifical objects on Mars? What tipped you over? What fact made you certain?

[Fram]

I've started reading the thread you linked to, EA, but I haven't finsihed it, as I'm in an environment where laughing out loud is frowned upon.
You place significance on the number 19.5, and for that reason, you check what is on pixel 195 on a line in a jpg. And you use this as proof of anything? I'll go back to discussing this with Outcast and A.DIM, those discussions at least are based on interpretations of reality.

[Maksutov]

Why Anomaly?
(Besides the Fact it is in Cydonia wich shouldn't concern you)

As an appendage of The Prime Anomaly "AN"(wich is merely a geographic co-ordinate: 38.942*North-9.99*West) that becomes the Origin Of Peculiar geometric landforms in Cydonia,Beggining with the Square Complex. Anything that falls on the matrix of what is basically an exo-archeological grid(for lack of a better term)Registers itself as "suspect and Anomalous" if it shares the orientation to(but not exclusive to--- The LONG VERTICAL AXIS of Symmetry of :

-Ares' "Face"
-The "Fort"
-The "City"
-The D&M "Pyramid"
-The Square "Complex"

**the Square Complex in itself,The CONTROL of all others listed above.**
OK, got it, you're actually ZaphodBeeblebrox in disguise!

If not, then you've been taking capitalization lessons from him. :)

Meanwhile concerning all your "evidence", please read this. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html)

[Tensor]

Meanwhile concerning all your "evidence", please read this. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html)

It's not gonna matter Mak. The last time he was here we pointed him the the BA's pyramid web page. You can see how much effect that has had.

[N C More]

Meanwhile concerning all your "evidence", please read this. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html)

It's not gonna matter Mak. The last time he was here we pointed him the the BA's pyramid web page. You can see how much effect that has had.

Agreed, won't do a bit of good. Come on everybody! Let's Sing! (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=503527#503527) :D

[V-GER]

N C More wrote:

Sing with me, sing for the years
Sing for the nonsense, sing for the jeers
Sing with me, if it’s just for today
Maybe tomorrow ET will come an' take you away!

This...too...much... =D> :lol: =D> :lol: =D>

[V-GER]

EA wrote:

Or on a South-East diagonal node in the Matrix Generated by the Square Complex,which is in itself,is Generated by the Anomaly "AN"

My god! he speaks Martian!

[N C More]

EA wrote:

Or on a South-East diagonal node in the Matrix Generated by the Square Complex,which is in itself,is Generated by the Anomaly "AN"

My god! he speaks Martian!

Well, EA speaks *something*. :o

Now, this fellow, Scott Lever, (http://www.apu.edu/spotlight/alumni/2004/11/speaking/) he speaks Martian! 8)

[Superluminal]

How long before Hoaxland put this on his site?

http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20050712A.html

[Electric Ashalar]

I've started reading the thread you linked to, EA, but I haven't finsihed it, as I'm in an environment where laughing out loud is frowned upon.
You place significance on the number 19.5, and for that reason, you check what is on pixel 195 on a line in a jpg. And you use this as proof of anything? I'll go back to discussing this with Outcast and A.DIM, those discussions at least are based on interpretations of reality.

Laughing out Loud is NOT frowned upon in the thread you alluded to.
It is Requisite.
As a matter of fact,that is what Phase 1 of that thread is about.

Exorcising your nervous reactions.Before you shift.
Like a pack of Heyenas ,I'll let the world judge how Certain here in the last few posts sound.Like the Jokers @ where I am Based.

Here:(Courtesy Dan Smythe,Ex-MODERATOR @ Anomalies.net)
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/tombstone.jpg
Read post 52 & 53 and please read the thread in it's entirety.
This is the Ultimate end that a Forum Moderator @Anomalies Net intended for Members to see.
It's Humor are HIS WORDS NOT MINE.
If asked to admit anything,Between Two Canucks.
I'll admit that Fram ADMITS that he was handled.
I'll also admit Fran never read the entire thread...You will admit he is Lazy.
Phase 1.Keep laughing...it's healthy.
And Say Cydo-Axis again...that's Reality,and healthy also.

[Archer17]

I've started reading the thread you linked to, EA, but I haven't finsihed it, as I'm in an environment where laughing out loud is frowned upon.
You place significance on the number 19.5, and for that reason, you check what is on pixel 195 on a line in a jpg. And you use this as proof of anything? I'll go back to discussing this with Outcast and A.DIM, those discussions at least are based on interpretations of reality.

Laughing out Loud is NOT frowned upon in the thread you alluded to.
It is Requisite.
As a matter of fact,that is what Phase 1 of that thread is about.

Exorcising your nervous reactions.Before you shift.
Like a pack of Heyenas ,I'll let the world judge how Certain here in the last few posts sound.Like the Jokers @ where I am Based.

Here:(Courtesy Dan Smythe,Ex-MODERATOR @ Anomalies.net)
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/tombstone.jpg
Read post 52 & 53 and please read the thread in it's entirety.
This is the Ultimate end that a Forum Moderator @Anomalies Net intended for Members to see.
It's Humor are HIS WORDS NOT MINE.
If asked to admit anything,Between Two Canucks.
I'll admit that Fram ADMITS that he was handled.
I'll also admit Fran never read the entire thread...You will admit he is Lazy.
Phase 1.Keep laughing...it's healthy.
And Say Cydo-Axis again...that's Reality,and healthy also.Nothing but gibberish here EA.

[Electric Ashalar]

precisely my analysis of of your last post.
Gibberish.

Archer?Archer my Arse.

I doubt it.

Let me "TELL" you why: little wee-"Willy"

"WillyIam Tell" (tell being "TEPE")***Very TELLING***
=====================

The Cydo-Axis is Arrow Straight.
Aim:narrow, does not deviate.

Slice of occams's razor
Slice of Bamf pi
The arrow the eraser
of the BEAM in your Eye.
Sir Robin at the contest
Veiled tho' in a hood.
Rooster in the Context
of the Cydo-neighbourhood



If asked what you have.
As armory in Quiver?
The task you have.
The Glamour or the Shiver.

Shiver as you Ponder.
How my words apply.
as you gaze yonder,
and watch the bolt fly.


The Arrow is Loosed: the bound Son's wince.
Fruit is split,and shows Crown and Quince

Why don't ya mean?
Plain ol' geology.
Cydonia seems
a plain of geometry
As the target is reached and the Fruit is split
The Facade is breached and You'll Intuiut it
What is Concealed
is Revealed ...

And The Truth Shall Conquer ALL!


http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/19.jpg

[PhantomWolf]

You know EA, putting a whle lot of words from the dictionary into a hat, shaking them up and then trying to turn them into peotry really doesn't help your argument.

[Electric Ashalar]

I agree Phantom...
Ignore it .
It is only Archers truth.
On Target,and not meant for you.
as a Matter of fact -
BULLSEYE!

You are Moot like he /She is.

[The Bad Astronomer]

How long before Hoaxland put this on his site?

http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20050712A.html


Wow. It's Balok (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/gallery/images/340/tosbalok.jpg)!

[The Bad Astronomer]

Archer?Archer my Arse.


Oops. Strike 1.

There will not be a Strike 2. Read the FAQ.

[Enzp]

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Unlike, say, the face on Mars?

I recall Hoagland regularly griping on Art Bell that NASA was hiding pictures and wouldn't release them, on and on. Well, then NASA sent him ALL the images, and he promptly went on Art Bell to complain that NASA was trying to hide the truth by drowning him in pictures.

[Electric Ashalar]

Apologies to Archer ,though he missed his mark I Feel the Poem was More on the range than a blue word.
Sorry Phil.Sometimes Grownups swear,forgive me.



If not, can we see it?



Yeah, come on.


Steps up to the Plait:

---Ok.
--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep6.jpg


You're a skeptical person.


--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/NEWGRID.jpg

You don't just believe astounding things without strong evidence,


--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-19.jpg

right?


--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/rightangle2.jpeg

What's the strongest evidence you've seen that convinced skeptical you
that there are non-human artifical objects on Mars?



--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep4_small.jpg

--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep-ani-gif.gif

--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep12.jpg


What tipped you over?


--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep5.jpg


What fact made you certain?[/quote]


--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-0.jpg
--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-1.jpg
--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-2.jpg
--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-3.jpg
--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-4.jpg
--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-5.jpg
--- http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-Bamf19.5X2.gif

...Homer!!!

[01101001]

Steps up to the Plait:


What's the strongest evidence you've seen that convinced skeptical you that there are non-human artifical objects on Mars?
--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep4_small.jpg

--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep-ani-gif.gif

--- http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep12.jpg
There you have it fans: the very strongest evidence of artificiality on Mars. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will! This is as good as it gets.



...Homer!!!
I suggest finding another phrase, more indicative of failure.

[Electric Ashalar]

Failure?Hardly.


Evidence of Artificiality.

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/1.9471latdistance.jpeg
Positive.

[Archer17]

Apologies to Archer ,though he missed his mark I Feel the Poem was More on the range than a blue word.
Sorry Phil.Sometimes Grownups swear,forgive me.I didn't miss my mark at all. I said you spout gibberish, you do. If you have a problem with that, quit doing it or suck it up, because I'm going to continue calling it as I see it. Your whole package, from the glurge you spout to the inane graphics you post is anomalies board fodder .. it won't sell here.

[R.A.F.]

Wow. It's Balok (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/gallery/images/340/tosbalok.jpg)!

I could use a shot or two of Tranya after reading some of these threads...:)

[V-GER]

01101001 wrote:




http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep-ani-gif.gif

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep12.jpg

There you have it fans: the very strongest evidence of artificiality on Mars. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will! This is as good as it gets.

And it doesn't get good at all. Instead of the smoking gun, all this is rather a red herring, how can Hoagland make two completely different kinds of analysis of the same formation?(the above images)

[The Bad Astronomer]

Electric Ashalar, I am going to be as clear as I can here: I debunk Hoagland's claims about the city and special numbers (like that 19.5 degree angle) on this page (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html). Your simply linking to his pages does not support your argument, since I have already shown them to be wrong.

If you have something new to present, rather than rehashing already-debunked arguments, then please do so. But I am tired of seeing people presenting old, wrong material as if it's new, or as if it's correct, or as if it's convincing.

In other words: read what I wrote. If you can find fault in it, then please do so. But if you keep rehashing old arguments, you won't be continued to be allowed to post here.

[Maksutov]

How long before Hoaxland put this on his site?

http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20050712A.html


Wow. It's Balok (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/gallery/images/340/tosbalok.jpg)!
LOL! =D>

Of course a lot of us remember what the real Balok (http://sttos.epguides.info/?Role=1369) looked like! :wink:

[N C More]

I still don't see anything wrong with the idea that these formations are heavily eroded Igneous Landforms (http://slackpacker.com/igneous.html). Eroded mesas, volcanic necks and resulting dikes, eroded laccoliths, perhaps a monadnock ....these offer good explanations for what we see in Cydonia. Well, perhaps not as much fun as ancient alien cities but reality tends to be "less fun" in these matters! Want fun? I suggest the movies, War of the Worlds and Fantastic Four were both far more "fun" than Hoagland's stuff.

[V-GER]

N C More wrote:

I still don't see anything wrong with the idea that these formations are heavily eroded Igneous Landforms.

Nor should you, that's what they clearly are.

[algorithms]

I thought this image was rather instructive:

http://www.comcast.net/assets/05/05/03/02/01/asset-33128.jpg

So let's face facts...this:

http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/moc_5_24_01/face/face_e03-824_proc_i.gif

...looks more like a butte than a "face." Otherwise, them martians must be really ugly mothers.

[Electric Ashalar]

Introduction to the City


This Image is a Re-introduction to the classic enigma termed: the City .
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/cityproject.jpeg
as You will note,the graph is composed of Two equal parts,divided by the Square Complex.

-Version #1 of the city's image is often and erroneously viewed as mundane geology at its worst
but as a geologist dream as its most forthright description.
That is not really a contention.
What is a contention,is when you use a 'new' clue about Cydonia,
That is provided in the geology itself.
This clue is The Square Complex.
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/sqaure.gif
And it's basic properties,as This theory demonstrates,is a Unit of measure.
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-3.jpg
In it's infancy,this theory already possesed ,and annexed by default,
all previous theories - be they right or wrong.
By testing them to see if they: (the Anomalies of Cydonia)are right.
Right,being right-angled and beholden to a square,as they are.
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-Cydo-axis%20Layout.jpg

[BA qoute]Hoagland is perhaps most famous for his claims about "Face" on Mars being artificial.
However, lately, he is not beating that pulpit as much as he was in earlier years. [/quote]

decades of investigation have transpired,the face playing its role as merely out of many:One.
Cydonia is an cornucopia of suspicious terrain.
He has made his case for the face to satisfaction and searches other routes,its that simple.


The reason has to do with where the "Face" is on Mars.

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Laneyzcyd.jpeg
(Rotated 33.3 degrees to level it off and Square it.-EA)


It sits in a plain called Cydonia. There are many interesting geological features in Cydonia,
as there are for most places on Mars. I won't go into them here,
but you can find more info on Cydonia at the Mars Orbiter Camera webpage about it.




There are lots of big formations in this region; the "Face" is just one of them.

Excactly the reason why Artificiality is not solely analysed on the Properties of Ares' Face alone.



They are reminiscent of mesas and buttes, and are, according to the MOC page, probably heavily eroded remnants of the uplands to the north.

they are also reminiscent of artificial/modified geological structures found on earth."probably heavily eroded remnants of the uplands to the north"
probably the KEYword.not definitive.


In a nutshell (haha), Hoagland claims these features are the remnants of a city.
He bases this on images which do not have the resolution to support the claim,
but even aside from that, his supposition rests on what he claims is a mathematical relationship between the objects in that "City".



This relationship is so extraordinary, so special, he says, that it forms a new type of "hyperdimensional physics "
that opens up the mysteries of the Universe.
This is the drum he has been beating for some time.
This hyperdimensional physics rests solely on the relationships he sees in the "City".
As you'll see, his claims that these relationships are special are totally bogus.


How Many Angles Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/orbitfig0ne.jpeg


The following method used by Hoagland appears to have first been used by Erol Torun, who has a webpage about it.
Hoagland took an image of the Cydonia region, found his objects, then connected them with lines.
He then measured the angles between the objects and manipulated them mathematically.
He took ratios (dividing one angle by another), performed trigonometry (taking the sine, cosine, and tangent of the angles),
and then went about seeing if those numbers have any special significance.
And he found that they do indeed appear to relate to one another!
In the image above are some of the relationships he found; click on it to see a high-res version that is easier to read.

He found that some of these numbers correspond to such mathematical constants as e (the base number in the natural logarithm system, equal to about 2.718),
pi (3.1415), and multiples of simple square roots (like square root of 2 = 1.414, square root of 3 = 1.732).
Amazingly, he seemed to have found an intricate relationship between the placement of these objects on Mars.

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/19.jpg


If true, this could not have happened naturally. There must be some intelligence behind the "City".
Hoagland claims that over time he became so convinced that the relationships in the "City" cannot be coincidence,
and represent an artificial structure, that he all but abandoned his claims about the "Face". As he says himself:

But simultaneously, we do not want anyone to lose sight of the fact that the Face, at a more fundamental level,
has almost become a secondary part of this debate for many years;
Hoagland's Geometric Relationship Model for Cydonia -- with its potential for quantification and testing of the foundations of
the "intelligence hypothesis" itself, in the form of specific predictions made by the Hyperdimensional Physics theory derived from that alignment Model
-- has clearly stepped to the forefront of the debate over the artificiality of Cydonia of late.
Because of this quantifiable basis for the Model, the Face itself ("But, what does it look like?")
has been relegated to a secondary, "confirmatory" status -- rather than the linch-pin around which all decisions vis-à-vis the artificiality of Cydonia must (or should) be anchored.

This is the linch pin
http://http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-the%20place.jpg



So if the math he did turns out to be wrong, then his claims -- really, all of them-- are wrong too.

Guess what?

His mathematical analysis is so full of holes, flaws, and misdirection that it is completely worthless.
This not only destroys his claims about the "City", but by his own words, everything else he says too.
Why? How specifically is he wrong?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Numbers Game
First off, his claims of measurement accuracy are too high, given that he measured these angles off a photograph.
This throws off his amazing relationships. He claims one angle is exactly 120 degrees, but if his ruler is off by a tiny bit,
then his angle might be 119 or 121 degrees. This in turn completely negates all the fancy math he then does before he even turns on his calculator.

I demonstrated in the Cydo axis theory with angles generated by the "rotate"tool in JASC "Paint Shop Pro"
The vertical line/ I overlay in 33.3 degree rotation to prove Cydonia's angularity and Unit of measure is therefore just.
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-3.jpg


Second, by picking and choosing which features to use (he uses a hill in one spot, but not another very similar hill next to it)
he ups the odds of finding what he wants. A suspicious person might assume he initially drew lines from all the available features,
and only kept the ones he liked. That makes the mathematical relationship seem a lot stronger than it really is.

Third, even if he didn't pick and choose, the odds of finding relationships are extremely high, even with random numbers.

I demonstrate that The Square Complex(in BOLD white border)naturally Grids Cydonia and Places the Face,city and D&M pyramid
in proper context,The nodes of this Grid show how these landforms are conformant to an matrix and probably designed to conform)


For one thing, he had lots of measurements to choose from. He only shows a few connections in his drawing, but in fact, given that he shows 17 points,
there are literally thousands of angles he could have used.
Don't believe me? Draw 3 points on a piece of paper, and then connect them. You made a triangle, of course, and there are three angles.

True,but draw three points and connect them with a straight line,The points being the Location of where the symbolic "Third Eye"
of Ares' Face(and also bisected by the long axis of symmetry),the pinnacle of the D&M pyramid and its long axis of Symmetry,and Center of the Square Complex.
As proven in Themis Image #IO1024002
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-19.jpg


Now, draw 4 points randomly on a piece of paper (don't make a square).

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-Square%20ani-gif.gif


Connect every point to every other point. You'll have six lines (the outside four, and two connecting opposite vertices). How many angles do you have?
I count 16 when I do this, but some of the angles are equal due to geometry, so really there are 14.
And that's with four points! The numbers increase very rapidly. By the time you draw 17 points, as Hoagland did,
the numbers of angle to choose from is staggering. Some of them are bound to be close to special values, simply by chance.



But even that isn't everything. Fourth, by taking ratios of these angles, and using trig functions, he is forcing lots of his measured numbers to be in a small range of values,
mostly between 0 and pi. The numbers he then chooses as a comparison (like, say e/square root(5)) are all in that similar range.
Besides his huge number of angles to choose from, he has a huge number of mathematical constants to choose from as well.

Wich is all the more suspicious,asThe Square Complex seems to only support his evidence when viewed by numbers that are common to his application of tetrahedral and spherical geometry.[/quote]



Using the square roots of the numbers between 1 and 5 gives you 5 numbers, of course: 1, 1.414, 1.732, 2, and 2.236. But then if you allow multiples of those numbers,
like 2 times the square root of 2, then you start getting vast amounts of numbers to fiddle with.
If you allow multiplying by, say 1-5, then each number suddenly becomes 5 numbers, so you now have 5 x 5 = 25 numbers.
Allowing division of those numbers (square root of 2 divided by 2) yields 5 more sets, for a total of 50.
You can also do numbers divided by square roots, making a bigger set.
Add e and pi into the mix, and you wind up with hundreds of numbers to play with, roughly between 0 and 4.
Some of these numbers are too big (like multiples of the square root of 5)
but those are more than made up for by the hundreds or even thousands to choose from that are in the right range.


Suddenly, Hoagland's "magic" relationships aren't looking so hot.
In fact, given his accuracies, it would be amazing if he hadn't found any near hits to mathematical constants. Given enough random numbers,
you can always find lots of coincidental numbers that are close to mathematical constants involving square roots, e and pi.

How do I know? Because someone did exactly this! Mathematics professor Ralph Greenberg at the University of Washington stumbled on Hoagland's claims one day,
and set about showing how what Hoagland is saying is, to be polite, full of it.
Read it for yourself. Dr. Greenberg's analysis is as beautiful as it is thorough, and it totally trashes Hoagland's claims.
Even more wonderfully, Greenberg sets up his own experiment using telephone numbers to show that any set of random numbers,
when played with as Hoagland has, will generate mathematical relationships.
In fact, using random numbers, Greenberg did even better than Hoagland did with his numbers.

telephone numbers!!! WOW! phonebooks are phonebooks,Cydonia is Cydonia.
The Square complex is the Progeny of a Specific number set.
19.471 x 2= 38.942 and 9.99/3=3.33 This Anomaly was generated from Hoaglands theories on Cydonia
to check Hoagland's claim of terahedral language,Knowing that He placed significance on the Numbers that are the
multiple of a Terahedral latitude and it sine.
Being rotated 33.3 degrees west of North,The Square speaks for itself.
Greenberg's demonstration lacks mine's simplicity and is innefectual.



Greenberg didn't stop there. He tried to contact Hoagland, who ignored him. He also called Art Bell,
who mentioned this to Hoagland on the "Coast to Coast AM" radio show.
According to Greenberg, Hoagland was dismissive, if not rude about the analysis.
Greenberg has even directly challenged Hoagland to debate this math,
emailing and faxing Hoagland and Art Bell. Given that Hoagland loves to get airtime,
and also bases nearly his entire "research" on the math he did, one would think he would jump at the chance to defend it.
In fact, he has ignored these calls to debate. That's not terribly surprising;
reading Greenberg's analysis shows conclusively that Hoagland's claim that these relationships indicate the "City" is artificial
is completely and utterly wrong.

I disagree when view in light of the Square Complex


I will be fair, and note that just because these relationships can be found in any random numbers does not mean the "City" isn't artificial.
After all, if you did this analysis using buildings in downtown Washington, DC you'd see similar patterns.

All the more indicative of what artificiality must be compared to,The Square on Mars(the Square Complex)
is analog to Washington D.C. Both being in virtually the identical place in respect to Latitude.
As well as the Fact they are both SQUARES.The Headquarters of NASA would neatly find itself snugly fit inside of Here
http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/Bad4Good-the%20place.jpg



What I am saying is that Hoagland is claiming the "City" is artificial because of these relationships.
That is clearly a bogus claim. Since the relationships turn up in random patterns, they cannot be used as an indication of artificiality.
And since the "Face" is also clearly just a hunk of rock, he cannot use that either. So, in the end, I can confidently state:


Hoagland's major claim about the artificial nature of structures on Mars is false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Conclusion
Hoagland claims images of a bunch of rocks on Mars show a mathematical relationship that means the rocks must be artificial. He is wrong:
1) His measurements cannot be as accurate as he claims they are.
2) He can pick and choose which features to use, upping his odds to find relationships.
3) The number of features he chose yields thousands of potential numbers to play with, and more like tens of thousands.
4) Any random set of numbers, when played with as Hoagland did, will yield many coincidental mathematical relationships. This shows that what Hoagland did is not at all convincing evidence of artificiality in Cydonia.
5) Because Hoagland claims the numbers show the "City" is artificial, and the numbers in fact are no better than random, his claims are wrong.
6) Furthermore, Hoagland himself claims this is the best case of artificiality on Mars. This relegates his other claims to even lower status than they were before.

My Conclusion,Go back to Square One,the page needs a re-write.
Because the Cydo-axis Casts major doubt on this
Greenberg needs to Analyse Cydonia,not Hoagland.

[algorithms]

Electric Ashalar,

Your post above is rather tedious and long-winded. Your assertions of "geometry" on the plains of Cydonia are essentially a two-dimensional equivalent of the practice of numerology. It is contrived, contorted and uncompelling.

The landforms in question are obvious natural features, especially under the harsh clarity of the MGS camera.

Perhaps what's most important is that none of predictions of the "face" advocates were realized. The "face" is nothing like a face. None of the "pyramids" are actually pyramidal in shape. The "fort" is just another chaotic butte. And the "city square" is just an irregular assemblage of four irregulate mounds.

These days, anybody with a home computer and "Paint Shop Pro" can draw straight lines over irregular terrain depicted in satellite imagery and pretend they are engaged in "scientific" discovery. But one can contrive all kinds of regular geometric shapes by connecting randomly selected dots in nature. Its a fool's errand. Those so compelled are usually not well schooled in planetary science or geology.

[R.A.F.]

...on the Properties of Ares' Face...

HUH??? The "face" has a name now?? :lol:


Greenberg's demonstration lacks mine's simplicity and is innefectual.

On the contrary...Mr. Greenberg's demonstration PROVES that even using random numbers, he can come up with the same "relationships" as Hoagland.


My Conclusion...snip...the page needs a re-write.

:lol:


...Because the Cydo-axis Casts major doubt on this...

...and from this, I must assume that you "choose" to ignore anything that doesn't support Hoagland's claims.


Greenberg needs to Analyse Cydonia,not Hoagland.

Mr. Greenberg is not the one making extraordinary claims...Hoagland is...

[Archer17]

It's obvious we are going to get the same kind of empty-calorie diet from EA as we did last summer. EA didn't make any progress then with his nonsense and continues to substitute quantity over quality in this postings this year. The issue of Cydonian artificiality was laid to rest a long time ago and the refuseniks from Hoagland on down to EA here seem to think that people are incapable of seeing things with their own eyes, let alone thinking for themselves. Anyone so inclined can use the numerous resources available over the internet to obtain the wealth of information gleaned from the various Martian imagers. Debunking Hoagland's and EA's similar nonsense is as simple as comparing the Viking-MGS images and it's apparent that the folly of relying on numerology and "paint-shopped" lines to make something out of nothing is lost on Electric Ashalar.

[V-GER]

Electric Ashalar wrote:

19.471 x 2= 38.942 and 9.99/3=3.33

And don't forget that 3.33 x 100 x 2 = 666!!!!


...on the Properties of Ares' Face...

Hmm, Ares' face (http://images.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=http://www.softassteel.com/hut/galleries/ares/ares.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.softassteel.com/hut/galleries/ares/&h=478&w=702&sz=239&tbnid=HTInPAQUL8MJ:&tbnh=93&tb nw=138&hl=fi&start=40&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dares%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3 Dfi%26lr%3D%26sa%3DNurl) :-k

[Trebuchet]

Every time I see this topic I get tempted to take the digital camera downstairs to the cat (litter) box, take a picture, and blow it up to see what artifical constructs I can find!

[Swift]

Every time I see this topic I get tempted to take the digital camera downstairs to the cat (litter) box, take a picture, and blow it up to see what artifical constructs I can find!
:lol: I keep having the same thought
http://www.lovethatcat.com/images/litr2cats.jpg

[N C More]

Hey Swift! Those are two cute little *Martians* you have there! :D

[The Bad Astronomer]

Electric Ashalar, you appear to have missed the entire point of my essay:

Hoagland's analysis is indistinguishable from random numbers. He picks and chooses which features to use in drawing his lines, and then he has literally millions of angles to choose from. In fact, I can do better then he can using random numbers (which is what Dr. Greenburg showed using his simple -- yes, simple -- analysis), which clearly shows that Hoagland's analysis is bogus.

He claims that these relationships are what is significant, and lead to his idea that the structures are artificial. However, you can do his analysis on any random patterns in rocks, and get the same (or better) results.

Therefore, Hoagland is wrong.

Now I will be clear again-- do you have anything new to add to this? If you want to keep rehashing old ideas that are already shown to be wrong, or you want to continue going on in circles, I invite you to do it somewhere else.

[John M. Dollan]

:lol: I keep having the same thought
http://www.lovethatcat.com/images/litr2cats.jpg

Oh, I hate it too when someone catches me on the toilet...!

...John...

[A.DIM]

While the intended focus of the thread is long gone, I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face," and states that there is "insufficient data" to "definitively" establish what it is; albeit, most planetary scientists find it "highly unlikely" that "the face" is artifical.

AND YET, "skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.

[Fram]

While the intended focus of the thread is long gone, I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face," and states that there is "insufficient data" to "definitively" establish what it is; albeit, most planetary scientists find it "highly unlikely" that "the face" is artifical.

AND YET, "skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.

In your OP, you quote this

Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered.
So apparently you admit now that this wasn't true. I know that you didn't say this and only presented it as a question, but perhaps you should aim your arrows of bias against the people who wrote that quote, before aiming it at the skeptics...

[Swift]

... I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face," and states that there is "insufficient data" to "definitively" establish what it is; albeit, most planetary scientists find it "highly unlikely" that "the face" is artifical.

Do you have a reference for this "official" opinion?
On this NASA website (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forkids/artsstories/CS_Face_On_Mars.html) (it's a kids page) they say

Some people once thought that the face was some sort of statue carved by Martians.

It is really a design in the land on Mars created by wind beating the surface for years and years, causing parts of the land to wear away.

This website (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_60.html) says the following in a picture caption

A detailed analysis of multiple images of this feature reveals a natural looking martian hill whose illusory face-like appearance depends on viewing angle and angle of illumination

You may disagree, but it sounds to me like NASA thinks it is just a natural formation.

[A.DIM]

While the intended focus of the thread is long gone, I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face," and states that there is "insufficient data" to "definitively" establish what it is; albeit, most planetary scientists find it "highly unlikely" that "the face" is artifical.

AND YET, "skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.

In your OP, you quote this

Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered.
So apparently you admit now that this wasn't true. I know that you didn't say this and only presented it as a question, but perhaps you should aim your arrows of bias against the people who wrote that quote, before aiming it at the skeptics...

Indeed, I aim my skepticism in all directions.

But this doesn't negate the fact that even you argue matter-of-factly that it is a "natural formation" when there exists "insufficient data" either way.

[algorithms]

Swift & Fram,

Thanks for your effective debunking of A.DIM's claims about what NASA's "offiicial opinion" about the so-called "face" on Mars is. One of the reasons some people believe weird and silly things is because they often have their facts wrong to begin with. Obviously, this is the case with Mr. A.DIM here.

And, we already know for certain that the so-called face is a "pile of rocks." The question is whether or not we have any reason whatsoever to believe it was piled there by intelligent martians. Without evidence to that effect, the answer is "no." Maintaining an "open mind" on the subject is only prudent if someone can offer any substantive reason why we should regard this butte differently than any other butte in the vicinity.

Regards,
Algorithms

[R.A.F.]

...I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face,"...

After reading Swift's post, I see that this doesn't need answering. Thanks, Swift. :)


..."skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

Biased opinions??? And just who has these "biased opinions". Those who (after looking at the HIRES images) have determined that there is no reason to assume that the "face" is anything other than a "pile of rocks", or those who (ignoring the HIRES images, and with NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER) have determined that what they are looking at "somehow" indicates artificiality???


IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.

WHY?? Why do we have to assume that it "might" be artificial, when the evidence indicates that is just not so???

The "Hoagland's" of the world have no problem claiming that it is artificial...why don't you have a problem with their "true skepticism"??

[A.DIM]

... I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face," and states that there is "insufficient data" to "definitively" establish what it is; albeit, most planetary scientists find it "highly unlikely" that "the face" is artifical.

Do you have a reference for this "official" opinion?

I took my paraphrase from here (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetaryfaq.html), which states:

"What is NASA's official opinion as to what the "face" on Mars is?

NASA has no official opinion on what the so-called "face" on Mars is. Most planetary scientists agree that, although there is insufficient data to make a definitive analysis of the feature, it is highly unlikely to be anything other than a combination of a natural feature and unusual lighting conditions."

[A.DIM]

Swift & Fram,

Thanks for your effective debunking of A.DIM's claims about what NASA's "offiicial opinion" about the so-called "face" on Mars is. One of the reasons some people believe weird and silly things is because they often have their facts wrong to begin with. Obviously, this is the case with Mr. A.DIM here.



Baaaa Ha Ha Ha! =D>

[A.DIM]

...I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face,"...

After reading Swift's post, I see that this doesn't need answering. Thanks, Swift. :)


Again: Baaaa Ha Ha Ha! =D>

And so a NASA FAQ page isn't supportive of my "claim?"

You guys.

:roll:

[Fram]

While the intended focus of the thread is long gone, I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face," and states that there is "insufficient data" to "definitively" establish what it is; albeit, most planetary scientists find it "highly unlikely" that "the face" is artifical.

AND YET, "skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.

In your OP, you quote this

Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered.
So apparently you admit now that this wasn't true. I know that you didn't say this and only presented it as a question, but perhaps you should aim your arrows of bias against the people who wrote that quote, before aiming it at the skeptics...

Indeed, I aim my skepticism in all directions.

But this doesn't negate the fact that even you argue matter-of-factly that it is a "natural formation" when there exists "insufficient data" either way.

So from now on, I'll have to start sentences with 'although there is insufficient data to rule out every other possibility, I'm 99.48 % certain that the so called 'face on mars' is nothing but a natural formation'.
I am not a true skeptic, A.DIM, and I'm glad I'm not. I'm a reasonable skeptic, and I give my opinion of what you want to discuss based on the available data.

You don't aim your skepticism evenly in all directions, contrary to what you say. You aim it very openly at NASA, and only reluctantly in the other direction. Not the way a true skeptic would do it...

[R.A.F.]

...I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face,"...

After reading Swift's post, I see that this doesn't need answering. Thanks, Swift. :)


Again: Baaaa Ha Ha Ha! =D>

And so a NASA FAQ page isn't supportive of my "claim?"

You guys.

:roll:

Official opinion or unofficial opinion...who cares. Planetary scientists have determined that there is NO reason to assume that the "face" is anything other than a "pile of rocks".

So what is your "point", A.DIM???

edited to add...and it would be "polite" if you would address the rest of my post. :wink:

[algorithms]

A.DIM,

You miss the point entirely. NASA is a public space exploration agency, not a decider of scientific fact. It doesn't issue edicts or orders about what is or is not true. Consequently, its not supposed to have "official opinions," but instead bases its work upon what the community of planetary scientists have to say about astronomical and planetary science.

In the case of the so-called "face," the consensus opinion within the scientific community is that its just a pile of rocks. This opinion was reached because there is no evidence to the contrary. Without evidence, no one can make a claim that this pile of rocks was put there by martian rock pilers. Its good to have an open mind, but shouldn't there be something of substance to open it up to?

Algorithms

[N C More]

Ok, here's another approach. Other than Mr. Hoagland's "number games", which have been shown to have no validity, I'd like to know why "the face" (and other Cydonia "structures" as well) can not be considered to be of geological origin?

[V-GER]

N C More wrote:

I'd like to know why "the face" (and other Cydonia "structures" as well) can not be considered to be of geological origin?

Because apparently random, unsymmetrical rocks with imaginary lines
between them can only be artificial.

A.DIM wrote:

And so a NASA FAQ page isn't supportive of my "claim?"

So now you have no problem with NASA's peculiar statements concerning the face? Furthermore this is a strange comment to make on page 8 of a thread that you open with:


the "catbox" fiasco...

...NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary...




Swift & Fram,

Thanks for your effective debunking of A.DIM's claims about what NASA's "offiicial opinion" about the so-called "face" on Mars is. One of the reasons some people believe weird and silly things is because they often have their facts wrong to begin with. Obviously, this is the case with Mr. A.DIM here.



Baaaa Ha Ha Ha! =D>


An all-around unbiased, mature response.

(edited to remove line break)

[Archer17]

While the intended focus of the thread is long gone, I'd like to point out that NASA itself has no "official" opinion on "the face," and states that there is "insufficient data" to "definitively" establish what it is; albeit, most planetary scientists find it "highly unlikely" that "the face" is artifical.

AND YET, "skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.heh .. this is rich. A.DIM is reduced into trying to shoehorn a NASA statement to keep a dead issue alive. Based on V-GER's last post, I'm not the only one that sees the irony here. For those that didn't bother to read this whole thread, which never really had focus to begin with, A.DIM made these comments in his second post (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=494362&sid=8b058454a45a7258d8b79cf 46552a868#494362) here:
Spokesperson Soffen lied when the first image was released.
Termed an "unfortunate misstatement" by Sagan, it was nonetheless a LIE. Are you willing to believe that NASA spokespersons are merely inept and publicly make such "misstatements?"
I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.Now he uses a NASA citation?!? As A.DIM would say ... Baaaa Ha Ha Ha! =D>

As I've told A.DIM before, skeptics don't walk around in some kind of undecided fog about everything. Do you believe in elves and unicorns, A.DIM? .. or do you "reserve judgement?" Now I'll come right out and say I don't believe in 'em. According to the woo woo rhetorical playbook, when I say I don't believe in such mythological creatures, I'm not a "true" skeptic. heh .. so be it.

The use of terms such as "skeptics" and "debunkery" is just rhetoric. I think what's lost on a lot of people promoting non-mainstream ideas is that "skeptics" and "debunkery" is not confined to any one ideology. Woo woos are just as skeptical of various facets of the mainstream and will do their best to "debunk" whatever mainstream thinking that stands in the way of their beliefs.

[The Bad Astronomer]

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgment on the issue.

That is incorrect. If that were true, we could never decide anything.

I reserve judgment until the evidence clearly points one way or another. In this case, there is no evidence -- none -- that points toward artificial origins of anything on Mars. The "evidence" Hoagland brings up is indistinguishable from random noise. That is not evidence.

As others have pointed out, you seem to be cherry-picking your NASA statements, A.DIM. That's a big no-no. So which is it?

[Electric Ashalar]

Phil,please,call me Clay.Screen-names are fun,but I'm quite serious here.
I need not educate you on the anoniminity of Screenames
(and as you term them...sock puppets)
My name is Clayton Spencer Ireland,and I have Evidence of Artificiality.


I get the entire point of your essay.
I get Greenberg's objections as well.
And I have Valid reasons to object and reject.
It is Square and as Just as Themis' Scales.
Phil,As you and I reject "Sock Puppets"Anyone who does NOT provide credentials,
as an ACTUAL HISTORICAL PERSON,is MOOT.(see ya later sock puppets)
Unworthy of the consideration that these cowards seek. Yes? No? -answer:YES!

I suggest it is you who fails to see my point,but you will.
That inevitability,merely temporal.

While accusing me of "re-hashing" old arguements,
and threatening me with banishment,I reject that for these reasons.
First- this very thread about the "Cat-box"image is an "old arguement",is it not?
(of course it is)...
but feel free to single me out,I can handle myself.
I am well aware It is not a democracy ,as you own this site.
No problem there.
Secondly,When I announced the discovery of the Square Complex,
@ Anomalies.Net on September 30, 2002,this was 6 years AFTER Greenberg's
analysis/experiments.Rather "NEW" in comparison,
especially when contrasted against the decades old July 25th,'1976 Origin of this case.
On the heels of my Setting precedent Square:Greenberg needs to go back to the tracing board.

Dr.Mark J. Carlotto's independant anouncement of the same feature,
following on October 9, 2002, 'seconded' the nomination,and was a cherry on the Square's parfait.

Now TWO people were bringing this enigma to attention.
One(Carlotto) being a more Qualified and better scientist than either you or I in recognizing possible artificiality.
I admit this and You can't, because You are superior...yet Dr. Mark J.C. devastates your zero-submittince to any peer-reviewed journal
as rebuttal to:
the possibility of artificial elements.(where are your PEER REVIEWED debunkings??? here@ Bad Astronomy???)LMAO@!

In comparison-I am a Three-dimensional "realtime"scientist that constantly
analyizes "Furniture"and how it will relate to Shifting from one place to another ,Gauranteed and undamaged.
I was scientifically a "Pro" a decade ago...Now I am a Law. yet respectfully still a FURNITURE mover.
You ,Mr. Plait are a Bookseller foremost,and a frightened individual.
Never will I Suggest censoring You or your Pulp.( I have great respect for Paper and it's butt-wipeability)
Nothing wrong with that.everyone needs to bring home the bacon.(gotta replace them crazy shower curtains,eh?)

But You and the "Choir" here feel strength in quantity- is Strength in arguement.
While I will pick you off one by one,and send you home to "Mama"
I Stand alone.
I walk softly and carry a Big Square.
I also have,and will Crush your bias.

And defeat You in the Fact that you
and the Supporting drones on this website have not carried out an astronomical analysis of Cydonia,
even though You and others here claim to be astronomers.
I believe you analyse your book-sales more than you actually do The Work on Cydonia.
As You are Lazy,You are also MOOT.

Anyways, you lazy lot.


This Square was first noticed,quite by accident,imbibing wine,as I had my head tilted left to look at
Ares'Face in what I now know was Holger Isenberg's enhancement of ASU/Themis Image#20020724A on TEM's website.A slip of my mouse cursor must have hit the vertical
slide side-bar and the Square "popped" into place.

I don't know what Dr. Tobias Owens thought when
he first saw Ares' Face,but I was in disbelief.I was Staring at a Giant Square.Now I'm ashamed,I don't recall wich came first as a TOOL.

A book of matches,or a buisiness card,they were both simultaneously at my arm's reach,disposal.Each I tried the Square with(though wich was former or latter...ask the wine?for the simple fact
that they are cut to right angles(90 degrees,Square)What I thought I saw as Square was thus proven initially by the overlay of these simple devices(well...actually a buisiness card is a form of Communication and contact,
A book of matches is a very high technlogy device...Quest for Fire! embodied with chemistry and physics and the skeletal remains of life,artificaily designed to transmute friction into light).

Anyhow...

Basically discovered in the first ASU "Infra-red" image.
http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20020724A.html

and found present again in the second IR image release.
ASU/Themis image#IO1024002

http://themis-data.asu.edu/img/I01024002.html.

-the SQUARE, confirmed TWICE from the same instrument as Infra-red anomalies.
This is not a trick of "shadow and light" insomuch as it is a thermal difference,and SQUARE.
Visible /IR comparisons.A heat signature.Bats and dolphins etc.can use sound waves as a sensory imager.
SssNAKES can Sssmell/SssEE HEAT.And Trust me...I'm a Snake.

When I say:
"What is Concealed is Revealed.
And the Truth Shall Conquer ALL!"
this is an allusion to what is not an illusion.
Make that distinction.***"VISIBLE" -vs.- Infra-red.***
Basically invisible to the Vikings and MOC.
if it is a "Trick" it is Then a Mirage.
Two subsequent, (but using time as a function,
March and July) images shouldn't confirm a mirage.
Yet they do.And This causes concern among you.

Phil.I sense this 'concern' Especially in You.
************************************************** ***
Here is a Proposal ,Sir.
As you claim to have calibrated Hubble(HST) filters,and I have NO reason to Doubt you.
And you claim You can "BEST" Mr. Hoagland in a "Numbers game"-random noise
experiment.Then Myself and a majority of the members here...

Would be nothing but Anticipating you to 'back this up.'
************************************************** ****
As Prime "Scientist" on your site...I'd say it is mandatory, You have Nothing to fear.
Take as long as you need,but this is an official request from one of your members to ---
practice what you preach.Let's see it(anyone want to wager on non-production???)
Phil you sell books...therfore YOU are biased by financial and ego motives...Tsk!Tsk!

a major No-No for credulity.Lacking credulity,Your status as some sort of NASA Outreach officer is
called into Question.I suggest a non-confidence vote regarding that.I outreached to You
and you derisively Spurn and infinitely allow the infantile Antics of certain members here to run Rampant.
You offer NO moderation.Therefore when others and myself are chided and ridiculed,We stand our Ground.
The Ground I and Others Stand on is not Terra-Firma in respect to Mars.It is Ex-terra-firma and Solid.
I call again, a non-confidence vote.There's No "SCIENCE" going on in here...If there IS:
Alert the Members(including myself) so that we can Review it.
Don't forcefeed us your proclaimations...SHOW us.
BAD!,Bad! Astronomer...No Doughnut.

I personally Trounce your ideology of the geology of the Cydonia Region.
I also empathically feel for you,as you cling to it.
I was guilty also,
of clinging to an untenable anti-artificiality position until I researched on my own,
and was justifiably persuaded otherwise.
You cannot withstand the Cydo-axis,so avert it as you wish.
wishful thinking as it obviuosly is. As a member here,
I have a MANDATE to make you comply, to the very requisites you may believe only "WE" the people that people your forum must conform to.


Here is where I shewed you Evidence of Artificiality.though this is NOT the place.
Pay attention.You big Baby.

[Maksutov]

Later, EA.

[Fram]

EA, don't try to speak for the majority of the members here, please. If they fee like you, they'll say so themselves. Until then, you (just like me and everyone) are on your own.

[Enzp]

Ooooo K. If I were riding the bus right now, I would change my seat.

[Yorkshireman]

EA, I would like to summarise your argument above.


It is a square! Is too!

It's not. It's not even a trapezium. It's a few low hills and mesas. Deal with it.

[Electric Ashalar]

Fram?
Mr. Plait does not have to back his claims?

Sounds like a cult in here.

[Electric Ashalar]

EA, I would like to summarise your argument above.


It is a square! Is too!

It's not. It's not even a trapezium. It's a few low hills and mesas. Deal with it.

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/kydoaxis.jpg

I'll summarise yours in kind yorkshireman,MOOT

[Yorkshireman]

EA, I would like to summarise your argument above.


It is a square! Is too!

It's not. It's not even a trapezium. It's a few low hills and mesas. Deal with it.

I'll summarise yours in kind yorkshireman,MOOT

Why moot?

Bottom left 'corner': the wavy right edge of a mesa, not even a straight line, meets a wonky line of small mounds or dunes - (it's hard to tell at this resolution what they are. What they are _not_ is a single straight edge.
Bottom right 'corner': does not exist at all.
Top left 'corner': inferred from the right edge of a nearby mesa (which is not actually aligned with the 'edge' mesa below it) and the curved-looking, irregular front of a mesa above and to the right of it. Noes not actually exist.
Top right 'corner': the front of a large drift of dust (of which there are many other instances scattered around on the image) meets and drifts around the front of a little hill.

It's in your imagination. It's an illusion. There's nothing there!

[Maksutov]

EA, I would like to summarise your argument above.


It is a square! Is too!

It's not. It's not even a trapezium. It's a few low hills and mesas. Deal with it.

I'll summarise yours in kind yorkshireman,MOOT

Why moot?

Bottom left 'corner': the wavy right edge of a mesa, not even a straight line, meets a wonky line of small mounds or dunes - (it's hard to tell at this resolution what they are. What they are _not_ is a single straight edge.
Bottom right 'corner': does not exist at all.
Top left 'corner': inferred from the right edge of a nearby mesa (which is not actually aligned with the 'edge' mesa below it) and the curved-looking, irregular front of a mesa above and to the right of it. Noes not actually exist.
Top right 'corner': the front of a large drift of dust (of which there are many other instances scattered around on the image) meets and drifts around the front of a little hill.

It's in your imagination. It's an illusion. There's nothing there!
All he did in the images was split and mirror. This is similar to what a kaleidescope does. Here's an example as applied to the Moon.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/286/moonmirror3ul.jpg

Wow, look at all the symmetrical features! The Moon must be artificial! And ruled by that goateed, bug-eyed monster in the middle that's wearing a crown.

Actually, since the left and right images contain the same information (i.e., one half of the original photo), the x+ pixels have corresponding x- pixels (or vice versa), providing an artificial symmetry to the image.

Rorschach inkblot tests work the same way.

[Fram]

Fram?
Mr. Plait does not have to back his claims?

Sounds like a cult in here.

Have you actually read his webpages about Hoagland?
This is what you said about the BA:

And you claim You can "BEST" Mr. Hoagland in a "Numbers game"-random noise
experiment.Then Myself and a majority of the members here...

Would be nothing but Anticipating you to 'back this up.'

Now, everyone who has read his Hoagland pages would not be anticipating him to back this up at all, as he has explained why he can 'best' Hoagland, and has given links (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html#numbers) to people who have done exactly that. Why should he repeat that?

[N C More]

All he did in the images was split and mirror. This is similar to what a kaleidescope does. Here's an example as applied to the Moon.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/286/moonmirror3ul.jpg

Wow, look at all the symmetrical features! The Moon must be artificial! And ruled by that goateed, bug-eyed monster in the middle that's wearing a crown.

Actually, since the left and right images contain the same information (i.e., one half of the original photo), the x+ pixels have corresponding x- pixels (or vice versa), providing an artificial symmetry to the image.

Rorschach inkblot tests work the same way.

Good Grief! :o There actually is a *man in the moon* and he's proclaimed himself King! The next part is where all the terrified earthlings run amok! :D

[JohnW]

It's in your imagination. It's an illusion. There's nothing there!
Exactly, Yorkshireman*. When I saw EA's "evidence", my reaction was "Is that IT? That's what it's all based on?" Then my eye-rolling muscles got a good workout.

Still, EA's presentation hasn't been totally in
vain. I've Learned that if
you break UP lines at odd Points and
capitalize words AT random, you can Make your nonsense Look really
really Profound. Because the Harder it Is to Read, the
Harder It is to see
Just how utterly Silly this Whole Thing is.



*We're everywhere!

[The Bad Astronomer]

Sigh.

I am getting tired of banning people who are against the mainstream. Is it not possible to make a point without resorting to nonsense?

The major purpose of this board is to discuss controversial astronomical topics, but it seems like too many people who hold contrary ideas can't get them across without breaking any number of rules here. I don't think I've made it too hard, and I don't think I'm asking too much!

There are quite a few people here, regulars, who do seem to be able to make their points... even if I disagree with them. Electric Ashalar isn't one of them.

[Enzp]

Wait, when did they do that to the Moon? It has been cloudy here the last few days. There was nothing about it on the news. Or is it a media thing?

[Maksutov]

Wait, when did they do that to the Moon? It has been cloudy here the last few days. There was nothing about it on the news. Or is it a media thing?
It's another media cover-up. Like anyone's actually going to go out and look at the Moon themselves when they can see it on the Internet or TV?

As for the Moon itself, they probably did it at night when everyone was sleeping.

(wicked laugh) I might post this on GLP and see what happens. Might mention something about a winged lizard-king or something. Maybe throw in a few appropriate images from Quatermass and the Pit (http://www.cv81pl.freeserve.co.uk/quatermass.htm). (wicked laugh)

:lol:

[N C More]

I remember seeing another movie version of Quartermass and The Pit. I think the title was something like, 5 Million Miles To Earth or something similar?

I do think Mak should post his moon image over on GLP. Perhaps it will fire up a good apocalyptic man-in-the moon cult? I'm getting a bit bored with the mesa-face, yeah, the man-in-moon is exactly what we need for the summer doldrums! :wink:

[R.A.F.]

I remember seeing another movie version of Quartermass and The Pit. I think the title was something like, 5 Million Miles To Earth or something similar?

That would be 5 million years to Earth.
Which also had the title Quatermass and the Pit.

The first version you are speaking of was a serialized TV show.

It's a bit confusing... This (http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/8504/qhome.htm) should explain it all...

[Outcast]

And, we already know for certain that the so-called face is a "pile of rocks."

"we" do? how's we? is "we" you and the rest of the "experts" around here or maybe others equaly opinionated out there who for the sake of debunking assume that their opinions are apriori correct?

last time i checked (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502647#502647) there were no certainties.

[Outcast]

You don't aim your skepticism evenly in all directions, contrary to what you say. You aim it very openly at NASA, and only reluctantly in the other direction. Not the way a true skeptic would do it...

so i see that you dont agree that NASA has in this case engaged in a mediatized debunking effort supported by nothing but an appeal to authority in front of what should have been an unbiased scientific analysis or at least an honest presentation and availability of the data. well, its ok, the evidence for NASA's actions are available for all to see and make their own conclusions.

[Archer17]

And, we already know for certain that the so-called face is a "pile of rocks." "we" do? how's we? is "we" you and the rest of the "experts" around here or maybe others equaly opinionated out there who for the sake of debunking assume that their opinions are apriori correct?last time i checked (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502647#502647) there were no certainties.Knock off the rhetoric Outcast. "We" is most of this board including the BA. The second flyby of Cydonia put the myth of artificiality to rest. End of story. You do know about the second images of Cydonia don't you? Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical.

Outside of engaging in crude attempts at attacking members here, you know, the "rest of us experts" that include "others equally opinionated out there who for the sake of debunking assume that their opinions are apriori correct" why even make this and the following post? After all, in this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=503089#503089) post you even concede:
do i think they're artificial? not really

You don't aim your skepticism evenly in all directions, contrary to what you say. You aim it very openly at NASA, and only reluctantly in the other direction. Not the way a true skeptic would do it...so i see that you dont agree that NASA has in this case engaged in a mediatized debunking effort supported by nothing but an appeal to authority in front of what should have been an unbiased scientific analysis or at least an honest presentation and availability of the data. well, its ok, the evidence for NASA's actions are available for all to see and make their own conclusions.More empty rhetoric from you Outcast. Fram actually posted this to A.DIM, but the shoe fits you perfectly as well.

Edited to fix link

[A.DIM]

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgment on the issue.

That is incorrect. If that were true, we could never decide anything.

Generally speaking, I suppose you're right.

But on this issue, you yourself exemplify true skepticism by at least stating:


I reserve judgment until the evidence clearly points one way or another.

Now, have you seen any of the other "skeptics" here make such a statement?
I've not.
They ALL have made matter of fact statements that "the face" is proven to be a natural formation.
I perceive that as biased, don't you?


In this case, there is no evidence -- none -- that points toward artificial origins of anything on Mars. The "evidence" Hoagland brings up is indistinguishable from random noise. That is not evidence.

I'll agree Hoagland's "evidence" is not evidence, but I'm not prepared to agree that there is "none" that points toward possible artificial origins.

Can you explain to me the natural processes that would shape the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium? Or provide an example of similarly shaped natural formations here on Earth?

Aside: Is the above "shifting the burden" as some will allege?
I know of nothing terrestrial that resembles such tetrahedral pyramids, nor do I agree that "Ayer's Rock" is an example of a similar formation to "the face." And so if I ask someone to provide such examples in order to more readily accept the "natural" explanation, am I really "shifting the burden?"


As others have pointed out, you seem to be cherry-picking your NASA statements, A.DIM. That's a big no-no. So which is it?

I'm sorry, Phil, I don't see how I'm cherry picking anything.

Please elaborate?

[A.DIM]

A.DIM,

You miss the point entirely.NASA is a public space exploration agency, not a decider of scientific fact. It doesn't issue edicts or orders about what is or is not true. Consequently, its not supposed to have "official opinions," but instead bases its work upon what the community of planetary scientists have to say about astronomical and planetary science.

OK, but NASA isn't really responsible to the public, it answers to the government. It was bourne out of paranoia and war; the exploration of space was directly linked to defense policy. In Section 102(c) (a) of the Act of 29 July 1958 (The Space Act), which formed NASA, it states:

"NASA is charged with the making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense that have military value or significance...
Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be made available for public inspection except: (a) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (b) information classified to protect national security."

To me, this reads like a "duty to withhold" certain categories of information.


In the case of the so-called "face," the consensus opinion within the scientific community is that its just a pile of rocks. This opinion was reached because there is no evidence to the contrary. Without evidence, no one can make a claim that this pile of rocks was put there by martian rock pilers. Its good to have an open mind, but shouldn't there be something of substance to open it up to?

Indeed, and the purpose of this thread was to point out that "the face" issue persists primarily because of NASA's behavior toward it, not necessarily that there is evidence of artificiality.
That, and the fact that I find it frustrating so many of you state matter of factly that it has been "proven" to be natural.

I remain skeptical.

[R.A.F.]

Out of curiousity, A.DIM, will you be answering this post of several days ago?...



..."skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

Biased opinions??? And just who has these "biased opinions". Those who (after looking at the HIRES images) have determined that there is no reason to assume that the "face" is anything other than a "pile of rocks", or those who (ignoring the HIRES images, and with NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER) have determined that what they are looking at "somehow" indicates artificiality???


IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.

WHY?? Why do we have to assume that it "might" be artificial, when the evidence indicates that is just not so???

The "Hoagland's" of the world have no problem claiming that it is artificial...why don't you have a problem with their "true skepticism"??

[Archer17]

IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgment on the issue.

That is incorrect. If that were true, we could never decide anything.

Generally speaking, I suppose you're right.

But on this issue, you yourself exemplify true skepticism by at least stating:


I reserve judgment until the evidence clearly points one way or another.

Now, have you seen any of the other "skeptics" here make such a statement?
I've not.
They ALL have made matter of fact statements that "the face" is proven to be a natural formation.
I perceive that as biased, don't you?I'll let the BA supply his own answer but speaking for myself, there's no "bias" here. I did reserve judgment on Cydonia prior to the second flyby, which showed the "artificiality" implied by the Viking images was not the case. You believe in Sitchin right? Sitchin endorses a past Annunaki presence on Mars right? Now, despite the damning images of the second flyby you still are not convinced - yet have no evidence to put forth - so where's the bias here?

In this case, there is no evidence -- none -- that points toward artificial origins of anything on Mars. The "evidence" Hoagland brings up is indistinguishable from random noise. That is not evidence.I'll agree Hoagland's "evidence" is not evidence, but I'm not prepared to agree that there is "none" that points toward possible artificial origins.Well, what else is new A.DIM? You are entitled to your opinion but if you feel the need to post it here you'll get other opinions.
Can you explain to me the natural processes that would shape the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium? Or provide an example of similarly shaped natural formations here on Earth?

Aside: Is the above "shifting the burden" as some will allege?
I know of nothing terrestrial that resembles such tetrahedral pyramids, nor do I agree that "Ayer's Rock" is an example of a similar formation to "the face." And so if I ask someone to provide such examples in order to more readily accept the "natural" explanation, am I really "shifting the burden?" In my opinion you are. If you believe certain Martian formations have the potential to be artificial, that's your opinion. When you ask those that don't share that opinion to essentially prove yours wrong, what do you call it? The onus is on you to make a case for those formations yet you try to put the onus on us to match those formations. I've asked you to prove symmetry is confined by scale and also pointed out the fallacy of mix & matching Earth-Mars features when I pointed out that Earth has no equivalent to Valles Marineris.

As others have pointed out, you seem to be cherry-picking your NASA statements, A.DIM. That's a big no-no. So which is it?I'm sorry, Phil, I don't see how I'm cherry picking anything.

Please elaborate?It's rather obvious A.DIM. Since this was addressed to the BA I'll let him respond but am more than willing to elabaorate myself.

[A.DIM]

Out of curiousity, A.DIM, will you be answering this post of several days ago?...



..."skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

Biased opinions??? And just who has these "biased opinions". Those who (after looking at the HIRES images) have determined that there is no reason to assume that the "face" is anything other than a "pile of rocks", or those who (ignoring the HIRES images, and with NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER) have determined that what they are looking at "somehow" indicates artificiality???


IMHO, true skepticism would reserve judgement on the issue.

WHY?? Why do we have to assume that it "might" be artificial, when the evidence indicates that is just not so???

The "Hoagland's" of the world have no problem claiming that it is artificial...why don't you have a problem with their "true skepticism"??

Sorry, I've been on the road this week (as usual) and have tried to address the more important posts when I have time.

I've not said you have to assume if might be artifical, RAF. I've said that your statements, like many others, come off as matter of fact, when this is "just not so."

I'll agree that the general consensus toward artificiality is "highly unlikely" among planetary scientists, and I understand your basing your opinion on these views.

And I certainly have a problem with the "Hoaglands" saying matter of factly that they are artificial.

[Archer17]

..
In the case of the so-called "face," the consensus opinion within the scientific community is that its just a pile of rocks. This opinion was reached because there is no evidence to the contrary. Without evidence, no one can make a claim that this pile of rocks was put there by martian rock pilers. Its good to have an open mind, but shouldn't there be something of substance to open it up to?Indeed, and the purpose of this thread was to point out that "the face" issue persists primarily because of NASA's behavior toward it, not necessarily that there is evidence of artificiality.
That, and the fact that I find it frustrating so many of you state matter of factly that it has been "proven" to be natural.

I remain skeptical.You'll just have to get over your "frustration" A.DIM. I'd say 99% of the members here don't take Sitchin seriously and our skepticism regarding artificiality on Mars isn't a result of any kind of dogmatic belief. There's no "anti-Sitchin" out there we subscribe to and as a result our skepticism is based on the available evidence. I also disagree that there's any kind of persistent controversy over Martian artificiality (outside of woo woo circles), let alone NASA is somehow culpable for why some woo woos don't let this nonsense go.

[V-GER]

Didn't some people want to see a "face" on Earth on a similar scale? (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog)

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

"the face" issue persists primarily because of NASA's behavior toward it

Do you mean the peculiar behaviour or the one that's supportive of your claim?

[Wolverine]

OK, but NASA isn't really responsible to the public, it answers to the government. It was bourne out of paranoia and war; the exploration of space was directly linked to defense policy. In Section 102(c) (a) of the Act of 29 July 1958 (The Space Act), which formed NASA, it states:

"NASA is charged with the making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense that have military value or significance...
Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be made available for public inspection except: (a) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (b) information classified to protect national security."

Hmm. Why is it that a bit of Googling only returns five hits (including an older thread here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7743)) for the above phrasing, and the other four sites are all... well, questionable, to say the least?
(One (http://www.jaesonjrakman.com/Cydonia%20101/PAGES/PAGE2kjn9858734jnvk83.htm), two (http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=21), three (http://www.angelfire.com/wa/UFO/page36.html), four (http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/980615/cydonia-1.txt)).

Funny, the third link cites Hoagland & the Enterprise Mission (via the second url to the "Paranormal News" article), but even the EM contains a scanned copy of the Space Act (http://www.enterprisemission.com/spaceact.html) which appears to match the text posted at NASA HQ (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html). Your quotation conspicuously matches the above URLs but not the original legislation.

The phrase "NASA is charged with" does not appear in the text.

102(c)(6), under Declaration of Policy and Purpose states:

"The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;"

Sec.303, under Access to Information states:

"(a) Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this Act shall be made available for public inspection; except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, (B) information classified to protect the national security; and (C) information described in subsection (b): Provided, That nothing in this Act shall authorize the witholding of information by the Administrator from the duly authorized committees of the Congress.

(b) The Administrator, for a period up to 5 years after the development of information that results from activities conducted under an agreement entered into under section 203(c)(5) and (6) of this Act, and that would be a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential under the meaning of section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code, if the information had been obtained from a non-Federal party participating in such an agreement, may provide appropriate protections against the dissemination of such information, including exemption from subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code."


To me, this reads like a "duty to withhold" certain categories of information.

This document (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/report59.htm) describes the objectives listed in Sec. 102:

"In operational terms, these objectives are instructions to explore and to utilize both the atmosphere and the regions outside the earth's atmosphere for peaceful and scientific purposes, while at the same time providing research support to the Department of Defense."

Given the climate of the time and intense competition with the USSR, the DOD reference is perfectly understandable, and I don't see anything here that makes a case for NASA withholding scientific data, let alone in the present day, or where Mars is concerned.


I remain skeptical.

Of that, I'm unconvinced.

*Edited for typo.

[A.DIM]

..
In the case of the so-called "face," the consensus opinion within the scientific community is that its just a pile of rocks. This opinion was reached because there is no evidence to the contrary. Without evidence, no one can make a claim that this pile of rocks was put there by martian rock pilers. Its good to have an open mind, but shouldn't there be something of substance to open it up to?Indeed, and the purpose of this thread was to point out that "the face" issue persists primarily because of NASA's behavior toward it, not necessarily that there is evidence of artificiality.
That, and the fact that I find it frustrating so many of you state matter of factly that it has been "proven" to be natural.

I remain skeptical.You'll just have to get over your "frustration" A.DIM. I'd say 99% of the members here don't take Sitchin seriously and our skepticism regarding artificiality on Mars isn't a result of any kind of dogmatic belief. There's no "anti-Sitchin" out there we subscribe to and as a result our skepticism is based on the available evidence. I also disagree that there's any kind of persistent controversy over Martian artificiality (outside of woo woo circles), let alone NASA is somehow culpable for why some woo woos don't let this nonsense go.

Hey Archer, where'd the Sitchin nonsense come from?

I'll pay more attention to your posts if you'll address the merits of Fleming's arguments instead of trying to pigeon hole my "methods" of discussion. After all, I was interested in what people thought about Fleming's argument regarding NASA's behavior, not how I "cherry pick" "shoehorn" or what have you...

So are you now relegating Fleming too, to "woowoo?"

It always works like around here; Anyone who argues against the mainstream, no matter their credentials, is decidedly "woowoo" with motives to sell books or disparage NASA, right? :roll:



I do believe I'm finished with this thread.
I never set out to prove artificiality, nor to prove "NASA lies," or whatever. I wanted to see how people reacted to Fleming's well reasoned argument pointing out NASA's peculiar behavior regarding "the face" and Cydonia.
I should've known that no one here would recognize it as "peculiar."
Some will see it, some won't.
I know where you stand.
You know where I stand.

Thanks for your time, I suppose.

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:

"the face" issue persists primarily because of NASA's behavior toward it

Do you mean the peculiar behaviour or the one that's supportive of your claim?

I mean that behavior which is clearly described in Fleming's argument.

[A.DIM]

OK, but NASA isn't really responsible to the public, it answers to the government. It was bourne out of paranoia and war; the exploration of space was directly linked to defense policy. In Section 102(c) (a) of the Act of 29 July 1958 (The Space Act), which formed NASA, it states:

"NASA is charged with the making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense that have military value or significance...
Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be made available for public inspection except: (a) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (b) information classified to protect national security."

Hmm. Why is it that a bit of Googling only returns five hits (including an older thread here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7743)) for the above phrasing, and the other four sites are all... well, questionable, to say the least?
(One (http://www.jaesonjrakman.com/Cydonia%20101/PAGES/PAGE2kjn9858734jnvk83.htm), two (http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=21), three (http://www.angelfire.com/wa/UFO/page36.html), four (http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/980615/cydonia-1.txt)).

Funny, the third link cites Hoagland & the Enterprise Mission (via the second url to the "Paranormal News" article), but even the EM contains a scanned copy of the Space Act (http://www.enterprisemission.com/spaceact.html) which appears to match the text posted at NASA HQ (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html). Your quotation conspicuously matches the above URLs but not the original legislation.

The phrase "NASA is charged with" does not appear in the text.

102(c)(6), under Declaration of Policy and Purpose states:

"The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;"

Sec.303, under Access to Information states:

"(a) Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this Act shall be made available for public inspection; except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, (B) information classified to protect the national security; and (C) information described in subsection (b): Provided, That nothing in this Act shall authorize the witholding of information by the Administrator from the duly authorized committees of the Congress.

(b) The Administrator, for a period up to 5 years after the development of information that results from activities conducted under an agreement entered into under section 203(c)(5) and (6) of this Act, and that would be a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential under the meaning of section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code, if the information had been obtained from a non-Federal party participating in such an agreement, may provide appropriate protections against the dissemination of such information, including exemption from subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code."


To me, this reads like a "duty to withhold" certain categories of information.

This document (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/report59.htm) describes the objectives listed in Sec. 102:

"In operational terms, these objectives are instructions to explore and to utilize both the atmosphere and the regions outside the earth's atmosphere for peaceful and scientific purposes, while at the same time providing research support to the Department of Defense."

Given the climate of the time and intense competition with the USSR, the DOD reference is perfectly understandable, and I don't see anything here that makes a case for NASA withholding scientific data, let alone in the present day, or where Mars is concerned.


I remain skeptical.

Of that, I'm unconvinced.

*Edited for typo.


OK, I'll concede then, that NASA doesn't have a "duty to withhold" according to legislation.

[tofu]

I'd just like to say that this whole thread strikes me as very silly.

A.DIM says: Hey! You guys aren't being skeptical enough! You should reserve judgment on Cydonia. You can't say for certain that it's natural.

Everybody else says: Well ok, what evidence is there that's it's artificial?

A.DIM says: Whoa! I didn't say it was artificial!

What exactly are you guys talking about?? If A.DIM has some evidence that it's artifical, then great, we have something to discuss. Otherwise, there's no content here.

So how about it A.DIM? Can you make a post that begins with the words, "here is some good evidence that might suggest artificiality..."

[A.DIM]

I'd just like to say that this whole thread strikes me as very silly.

A.DIM says: Hey! You guys aren't being skeptical enough! You should reserve judgment on Cydonia. You can't say for certain that it's natural.

Everybody else says: Well ok, what evidence is there that's it's artificial?

A.DIM says: Whoa! I didn't say it was artificial!

What exactly are you guys talking about?? If A.DIM has some evidence that it's artifical, then great, we have something to discuss. Otherwise, there's no content here.

So how about it A.DIM? Can you make a post that begins with the words, "here is some good evidence that might suggest artificiality..."

No, since the purpose of this thread was intended to discuss the merits of Fleming's arguments.
There was only one person who actually addressed the linked article.

But since you asked, IMO, the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium strike me as unnatural, which might suggest artificiality.
The "pile o rocks" that is "the face" also strikes me as too symmetrical (with parallel lines) to be of natural causes, which might suggest artificiality. Contrary to what many claim, IMO, it looks nothing like the other "buttes" seen around Cydonia.
Likewise, the D&M pyramid doesn't strike me as a natural formation, which might suggest artificiality.

[Archer17]

..Hey Archer, where'd the Sitchin nonsense come from?You. Remember the first sentence in the OP? Now what and who do you suppose we were talking about before you started this latest chapter of "lets keep Cydonia alive." ? Need a hint?
I'll pay more attention to your posts if you'll address the merits of Fleming's arguments instead of trying to pigeon hole my "methods" of discussion. After all, I was interested in what people thought about Fleming's argument regarding NASA's behavior, not how I "cherry pick" "shoehorn" or what have you... I'm not going to reply to your posts on your terms A.DIM. You did more than say "Hey guys, check out what Fleming says!" and you know it.
So are you now relegating Fleming too, to "woowoo?"Did I say that? I don't play your innuendo games A.DIM.
It always works like around here; Anyone who argues against the mainstream, no matter their credentials, is decidedly "woowoo" with motives to sell books or disparage NASA, right? :roll:Are you talking about Fleming? Uh .. he's not here A.DIM. My post was addressed to you. You're not Fleming are you?
I do believe I'm finished with this thread.
I never set out to prove artificiality, nor to prove "NASA lies," or whatever. I wanted to see how people reacted to Fleming's well reasoned argument pointing out NASA's peculiar behavior regarding "the face" and Cydonia.Explaining what you really mean again? Like I said before, if you didn't play "hint and deny" semantical games this thread would have ran it's course a long time ago.
I should've known that no one here would recognize it as "peculiar."Welcome to the BABB. 8)
Thanks for your time, I suppose.Your welcome, I suppose.

[tofu]

But since you asked, IMO, the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium strike me as unnatural, which might suggest artificiality.
The "pile o rocks" that is "the face" also strikes me as too symmetrical (with parallel lines) to be of natural causes, which might suggest artificiality. Contrary to what many claim, IMO, it looks nothing like the other "buttes" seen around Cydonia.
Likewise, the D&M pyramid doesn't strike me as a natural formation, which might suggest artificiality.


Thank you A.DIM. It's very big of you to be so forthright! :)

Would you accept the following test of your line of reasoning: If I can go to google maps and find some place on Earth with; 1) a natural symmetrical mesa, and 2) a natural pyramid-like structure

Then that would indicate that such features *do* form naturally. Would you accept that, or would you move the goal post?

[Fram]

A.DIM, from the quote you gave in the OP:

However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public

Are you seriously amazed that we are not very interested in discussing this? Evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts? You consider this a serious and not woo-woo starting point of a discussion of either NASA or Cydonia?

[Gillianren]

while it's not particularly symmetrical, I can give another example of a giant face found in nature. the man in the moon. now, some cultures see a rabbit, and according to a trip I took to the Griffith Observatory when I was a small child, some feminists see a (remarkably ugly) woman, but doesn't that go even farther to proving that you see what you think is there?

as for Sitchin, I for one bear no animosity to the man. in fact, I'd never heard of him until I joined this board. however, if he's advocating that the mesa is really a face carved by aliens or gods or whatever it is he's suggesting, no, I'm not going to believe him until he shows me evidence. you say I'm not keeping an open mind?

absolutely right. I am keeping a scientific mindset: just because it might, in some possible universe, be true, doesn't mean I have to accept that it might be true before there's evidence in front of me. I mean, it might have been carved by leprechauns (well, no; leprechauns are cobblers), but since there's no evidence of that, I don't have say that it might be true, simply because I'd first have to presuppose the leprechauns, which I also have no reason to do. however, I have lots and lots of examples of buttes, mesas, etc, which have eroded to look vaguely like things.

[tofu]

you say I'm not keeping an open mind?

absolutely right.

Wait a second. If someone had even higher resolution photos that very clearly showed that it was artificial, you'd accept that. Would you? I know I would. I'd welcome it, because it would bring the world together for the purpose of sending humans to investigate. I'm sure that you would accept such evidence too.

You have an open mind, it's just that no one has met your requirements for changing your mind.

[A.DIM]

..Hey Archer, where'd the Sitchin nonsense come from?You. Remember the first sentence in the OP? Now what and who do you suppose we were talking about before you started this latest chapter of "lets keep Cydonia alive." ? Need a hint?

So the Cydonia issue is "dead" in your mind?
To me, it remains as one of the most geologically interesting places on that planet; regardless of your Sitchin associations.



I'll pay more attention to your posts if you'll address the merits of Fleming's arguments instead of trying to pigeon hole my "methods" of discussion. After all, I was interested in what people thought about Fleming's argument regarding NASA's behavior, not how I "cherry pick" "shoehorn" or what have you... I'm not going to reply to your posts on your terms A.DIM. You did more than say "Hey guys, check out what Fleming says!" and you know it.

And so instead of addressing what Fleming says, you made your Sitchin associations and spent time pointing out my "tricks."
That strikes me as a sort of ad hominem. You know, attacking the person rather than the issue?

What I did, Archer, and you know it, is say that Fleming's arguments are well reasoned and lend validity to the idea that NASA's own behavior toward the subject has perpetuated the conspiracy theories. I readily admitted that I allow the ETH, but in no way do I think artificiality is proven. I asked if I'm wrong to agree.
And what did I get?
Need a hint?



So are you now relegating Fleming too, to "woowoo?"Did I say that? I don't play your innuendo games A.DIM.

Maybe not, but you're rather adept at semantics and rhetoric just as you accuse me.

So....
What is your take on the Fleming's argument?
You mentioned that it is only an issue within "woowoo cirlces," no?
Are you suggesting that yet another scientist associated with NASA has gone "woowoo?"



It always works like around here; Anyone who argues against the mainstream, no matter their credentials, is decidedly "woowoo" with motives to sell books or disparage NASA, right? :roll:Are you talking about Fleming? Uh .. he's not here A.DIM. My post was addressed to you. You're not Fleming are you?

No, but what about his arguments?



I do believe I'm finished with this thread.
I never set out to prove artificiality, nor to prove "NASA lies," or whatever. I wanted to see how people reacted to Fleming's well reasoned argument pointing out NASA's peculiar behavior regarding "the face" and Cydonia.Explaining what you really mean again? Like I said before, if you didn't play "hint and deny" semantical games this thread would have ran it's course a long time ago.

Perhaps.
And with only one person actually addressing Fleming's arguments.



I should've known that no one here would recognize it as "peculiar."Welcome to the BABB. 8)

This says it all, doesn't it? 8)

[A.DIM]

But since you asked, IMO, the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium strike me as unnatural, which might suggest artificiality.
The "pile o rocks" that is "the face" also strikes me as too symmetrical (with parallel lines) to be of natural causes, which might suggest artificiality. Contrary to what many claim, IMO, it looks nothing like the other "buttes" seen around Cydonia.
Likewise, the D&M pyramid doesn't strike me as a natural formation, which might suggest artificiality.


Thank you A.DIM. It's very big of you to be so forthright! :)

You're welcome.

Contrary to various allegations, I'm not here to play "hint & deny" sematical games.


Would you accept the following test of your line of reasoning: If I can go to google maps and find some place on Earth with; 1) a natural symmetrical mesa, and 2) a natural pyramid-like structure

Then that would indicate that such features *do* form naturally. Would you accept that, or would you move the goal post?

Sure I'd accept that as strengthening the natural processes argument.

[tofu]

Sure I'd accept that as strengthening the natural processes argument.

Well, here's what I came up with after about 10 minutes of scrolling around the grand canyon:

Original image:

http://www.maj.com/gallery/tofu/babb/01.gif

Contrast Enhanced:

http://www.maj.com/gallery/tofu/babb/02.gif


Interpretation:

http://www.maj.com/gallery/tofu/babb/03.gif

This came from the NE part of the canyon. I don't know how to get coordinates out of google. Maybe after dinner I'll have a look to the west of the canyon.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

Contrary to various allegations, I'm not here to play "hint & deny" sematical games.

Hint:

The "pile o rocks" that is "the face" also strikes me as too symmetrical (with parallel lines) to be of natural causes, which might suggest artificiality.

If "the face" doesn't strike you as natural, then there's not too many options left to it's origins, in your opinion, is there?


Denial:

in no way do I think artificiality is proven

[A.DIM]

A.DIM, from the quote you gave in the OP:

However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public

Are you seriously amazed that we are not very interested in discussing this? Evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts? You consider this a serious and not woo-woo starting point of a discussion of either NASA or Cydonia?

Sure I do.
Why not?

Quoted in the initial Fleming argument, from the NASA commissioned Brookings Report:

"Cosmologists and astronomers think it very likely that there is intelligent life in many other solar systems.... Artifacts left at some point in time by these life-forms might possibly be discovered through our future space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus."

Considering the assumption that "life is out there" underlies most of our space endeavors, coupled with most scientists allowing the ETH and Mars being the most earthlike, I don't see why it shouldn't be taken seriously.

IMHO, of course.

[V-GER]

tofu, great pictures! Not surprisingly, the gardens look a lot like
the so called vegetation on Mars, which of course is usually obscured by Nasa's image tampering efforts.