September 3rd, 2002, 01:03 PM
Fact or Fantasy? Mars
Here is some interesting comparisons between Earth and Mars suggesting a physical or mental connection at some time in the past around 5000 years ago.
The Avebury Connection
I gathered this information to settle a clash of evolution opinions that spurred from a thread started by Er0k here I decided to start a new thread as this was quite a bit off topic.
Quoted below is the remark where we left off in Er0k's very informative thread, by retoor:
Make your own conclusions peeps, this topic is now open for discussion...
The landsmarks on mars, I canīt explain to you! But I doubt that anything lives on mars, heard the atmosphere isnīt to good. Havenīt really heard of it berfore!
I have a question; are you the bug, or the windshield?
September 3rd, 2002, 02:09 PM
I don't know how legit the site is or what kind of credentials the guy writing the article has,but it definately sounds convincing,but one thing I've learned about scientists through my rading of physics/cosmology material is that if they believe something to be true,they can easily convince the average person by dazzeling them with huge mathmatical equasions and scientific jargon.So who knows.(Theme to the twilight zone trails off in the distance...)
[shadow]I don\'t believe in anarchy.If you\'re not smart enough to beat the system it\'s your problem.
September 3rd, 2002, 05:48 PM
I would like to think that this guy is not a crackpot, although we do have some higher resolution photos that clearly show that the "face" is in reality a volcanic formation complete with lava flow, but it is placed in the middle of a clearly un-natural land formation that gives a sense of being there before the volcano formed, could the "volcanic" remnents be a cataclysmic event such as a fusion meltdown?
You can find more HiRes pictures here:
Mars Global Surveyor
I have a question; are you the bug, or the windshield?
September 3rd, 2002, 07:23 PM
Here's another viewpoint from the Online Skeptic's dictionary @ http://www.skepdic.com/faceonmars.html
(The Skepdic is really a useful resource, though I suggest being
skeptical even of all the skeptics out there )
the face on Mars
The face on Mars is the image of some photographs of the Cydonia region of Mars taken in 1976 by the Viking Orbiter. The image is most likely of a natural formation but some people see a face or a building and are convinced that it was constructed by intelligent beings.
According to Gary Posner, the one most responsible for the view that the face on Mars is an alien construction is Richard C. Hoagland, author of The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever (1987).
NASA claims that the photos are just a play of light and shadow. Some took this explanation as a sure sign of a cover-up. Some engineers and computer specialists digitally enhanced the NASA images. This soon gave birth to the claim that the face was a sculpture of a human being located next to a city whose temples and fortifications could also be seen. Some began to wonder: were these built by the same beings who built the ancient airports in Peru and who were now communicating to us through elaborate symbols carved in wheat crop circles? Others took the wonder to the level of belief, based on the flimsiest of evidence and the grandest of imagination. CarlSagan's more down-to-earth explanation for the face on mars is that it is the result of erosion and winds and other natural forces (Sagan, 52-55). Such a view seems most reasonable under the circumstances.
NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter sent back some more detailed pictures in July, 2002 that seems to slap the face into the ground with a group of other slapped faces. Much to the dismay of mystery mongers, NASA says that the Cycdonia region is a "normal geologic feature with slopes and ridges carved by eons of wind and downslope motion due to gravity."*
See related entries on ancient astronauts, apophenia, Our Lady of Watsonville, pareidolia, Rorschach Ink Blot Test, Sitchin, subliminal, and Velikovsky.
Unmasking the Face on Mars
The Face Behind the "Face" on Mars: A Skeptical Look at Richard C. Hoagland by Gary P. Posner Skeptical Inquirer, November/December 2000.
The Face on Mars: Unmasked by New Images by Tony Phillips
The Real Story Behind Mysterious Space Photos by Robert Roy Britt
New Pictures of the "Face on Mars" April 6, 1998
The New Face on Mars
The Face on Mars by Sally Stephens, Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Malin Space Science System "Face on Mars" page
The Face and Other Unusual Objects on Mars by Mark J. Carlotto
Mars Face Breaks Under Questioning by Pete Ford (Space.com)
Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1995).
September 3rd, 2002, 07:39 PM
I'm pretty skeptical of ALL of these photographs - from both believers and non-believers. I have a real problem with some of the photo "enhancement" that takes place on these sorts of things. If anybody can see how they got from this to this, well, you have better eyes than I do.
This is kind of like Robert Rines' famous underwater photograph of the Loch Ness monster's flipper that showed nothing but some white specks on a black background and was mysteriously "enhanced" at JPL to show a dramatic diamond-shaped flipper clear as day. (I searched google for before and after pics, but I couldn't find the original. All I could find was the published version. But trust me... I have seen it and it shows NOTHING.)
I think a lot of times "enhancement" is a euphemism for filling in what you want to see.
Do what you want with the girl, but leave me alone!
September 3rd, 2002, 08:24 PM
I have to admit that I too am a skeptical about this article. While a lot of interesting "facts" are noted, and, taken at face value this appears scientific, I do not take it at face value.
The 14:1 ratio is interesting but why would the ratio exist, also the tetrahedral equation brings two totally unrelated curiosities to point to one "Miraculous" circumstance. So we have the latitude, what about longitude. Even if that evidence is there it points to no specific place on the planet but a circular line extending around it. Instead of using enclosed angles any other feature could have been used to come up with any number of latitudes or longitudes. Why multiply by Pi. It is not the only universal constant it is simply one of them, e is the most common constant found in nature, not pi, it is the basis of the natural logirithm found to be the cornerstone of most engineering especially ancient engineering.
Similarly if size were to be the same since Mars is somewhat smaller than Earth why isn't the ratio such that the size of the site is related to the size of the planet? From the photo's I found it hard to determine if the photo had to be rotated. I am not saying it is but the original shadow on the face shows a definate angle different from what it seems it would be by the N-S facing of the picture. This could be due to seasonal positioning so it should not be taken as anything conclusive. Since the lattitude is fairly far north there could be some distortion and I don't have the resources available to determine the actual angle of the photo. I just not this because the axial offset of Mars is only slightly different than the axial offset of Earth.
Personally, while I find the article to be less than scientific in its presentation I also couldn't find much trying to debunk the whole scope of the writing just the "Face". I want to see someone discuss the dimensional parallels. So what if the formation isn't a face, if the geology still holds up and the comparisons are significant this can still mean intelligent design rather than geological randomness. While I am a sceptic I love the idea behind the article and find myself wishing someone would really prove my scepticism to be false.
\"We are pressing through the sphincter of assholiness\"
September 3rd, 2002, 09:17 PM
A wild guess is that this might have been originally an inside joke of some
of the people working in NASA at the time.
I also don't see a reason to dismiss the idea that there might have
been intelligent beings on Mars, I just don't see a reason for a cover up.
(unless there is an X-Files kinda thing behind all of this )