CompuServe The Issues Forum
Cydonia Reality
S 7 / Mars Mission Issues
Date Range: 02-Sep-89 to 05-Sep-89
#193982
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: ALL
Dt: 02-Sep-89
OK, I have a question for everyone: what would take for YOU to accept Cydonia as artificial?
(Be as specific as you like, and please estimate *when* this is likely to be accomplished, and by what means.)
#193991 reply to #193982
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Richard,
In my book I propose a simple test. The image of half a face is so unusual that is must have only the slightest chance of occuring through natural processes, such as wind erosion. So, just take photos of the other side, hidden in shadows. If that looks like a natural formation, the whole structure will lose its "artificiality". If the unseen half looks like the complementary half of a human face, well, what are the chances of that? It would sure convince me.
NASA SHOULD have reprogrammed Viking to look while they still could. But they didn't, so we must await Mars Observer. --- Tom
#194143 reply to #193991
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 04-Sep-89
Tom (and all those who gave basically the same response),
I'm a bit mystified. We HAVE photos -- marvelous computerized, detailed enhancements now (thanks to Carlotto), of both the original low sun-angle frame, 35A72 (the version that's most well-known, with the right side of the "face" indeed in shadow), AND, high sun-angle frames 70A11 and 70A13, with the shadowed side revealed. It's these frames (with the sun 20 degreees higher) that amply confirm that the exquisite bisymmetry, proportionality, and image structure we see hints of in 35A72 is continued in the so-called "hidden side." The point is: with the Viking data we (NOT NASA!) have exhaustively analyzed and published now (and will make available to anyone who asks), there IS NO hidden side! This feature's remarkable symmetry (which is about 95% -- erosion could well account for the "missing" 5%) extends even to the detailed *shape* of the "eyebrow ridges" at the structure's "top," left and right. In a Viking low-resolution "morning frame" (753A33 -- with sunlight coming from the right) this "eyebrow" morphology can be matched perfectly to "degraded resolution images" we specifically prepared (at SRI, in 1983) of these identical features on 35A72 -- with sunlight coming from the left, as well as with Carlotto's 3-D views, "lit" at the appropriate angle. And they're a perfect match.
So, what's all this about "needing to see the whole structure." We ARE seeing the whole structure . . . (see examples on our stationery and Newsletter!), and STILL no one is willing to "commit" on the basis of the face *alone*. Com'on, guys, what's the REAL reason? -- Dick
#194182 reply to #194143
Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dick:
Now I'm the one that's mystified.
I'm looking at "Unusual Martian Surface Features," 4th ed., pg. 41. I see three different enlargements of 70A13 on the right side. The first two look like raw data, the third one looks like some kind of computer enhancement - at least, I can't see how they got the "shadow side" information. Looking at the other two, it just isn't there.
If that bottom blow-up is computer-enhanced, I would need to see a treatise on the process used (S.P.I.T.?), and a refereed review of the appropriateness of using such a process.
If that blow-up is "au naturel", its very impressive, but still too ambiguous for me. I see flaws in the bisymmetry right off the bat - the right eye seems lower and closer to the bridge of the "nose" than the left.
I hope your suggestion of an ulterior motive in my hesitance was in jest. If not, your petulance is most unbecoming a man of science. You DID ask what would CONVINCE us it was artificial. I'm very IMPRESSED, but unCONVINCED.
Jim
#194199 reply to #194182
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Jim Speiser 72135,424
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Jim,
Yes, my comment on "what's REALLY going on?" was in jest -- tinged, I guess, with a bit of frustration.
Morphologically, as the geomorphologist in Torun noted, the D&M is far more intriguing to us at this point than "the face" -- as it is a figure NOT influenced by the psychological pitfalls of "humanoid projection" (as "faces" inevitably are, and ALWAYS will be, viewed by "sceptics"). It is deomonstrably there, with its own unique symmetry, specific alignments with the other "unique objects," AND its own resitting precisely astride
the *one latitude* which ties all that interconnected geometry into its very location on the planet. Very hard to explain, Jim, *very* hard . . . other than by deliberate intention.
Which bring me to your question: what would it take to convince me that this is all a natural "fluke" (I'm paraphrasing). Answer: for someone else (actually, a number of "someone elses") to REPEAT all our geodetic and geometric measurements, between all the objects at Cydonia -- and to have EVERY ONE of these independent groups discover we were wrong in all the measurements. Science IS measurement, observation, analysis of data , etc., . . . and, * repeatablity*. What this investigation needs now is what any science at this point deserves: simple independent replication.
My frustration is that no one seems willing publically to test our measurements.
They say, instead, "Oh, they'll prove nothing!", or, "Let's wait for better pictures." When, in fact, by any standard of any science that I've ever known, those measurements should now be the basis for any future *scientific* judgements on Cydonia. If they're wrong, then the whole thing is highly suspect. And I would be the first to admit it! But if they're right . . . It's like NASA not agreeing simply to "take the damn pictures in 1993": as long as the "day of reckoning" can be put off . . . we don't have to make "the decision." And the REAL meaning of Cydonia remains in limbo. Frustrating
42
Dt: 05-Sep-89
(Continued from last message)
In answer to your question re "raw images" and "enhancements" of 70A13:
Yes, on page 41 of "Unusual Martian Surface Features," 4th ed., the three righthand images ARE THE SAME. The top one is the full-frame of 70A13; the righthand one is an enlargement of the "face" area in the same frame; and the middle (bottom) image isht out," "something stretched," something
amplified," "something made visible above the noise," etc. Here it does NOT mean "something added!"
Dipietro and Molenaar's SPIT algorithm was not, strictly speaking, an "enhancement technique" at all. It was an "anti-aliasing (sp?) technique"; it merely "smoothed the edges" between pixels (picture elements -- the "dots") making up the computer image. True "enhancement" removes noise, stretches contrast, corrects geometric distortions, etc. It ultimately redistributes what data is available, so the human eye can SEE that data easier (like "false color" )! What Carlotto has done, in contrast (another pun . . .) to D&M, is truly apply a range of these state-of-the-art enhancement techniques to these images - - all carefully described in the Applied Optics piece. I KNOW that when you see the new images from the Mars Mission ("new" only in the sense of the techniques applied to these, now, 13-year old data tapes), you'll be amazed at what you see. And realize why Erol and I think continuing arguments about the "symmetry" of our friend here slightly miss the point. -- Dick
#194235 reply to #194200
Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Dick,
Science is more than numbers and measurements. You have not left any room for interpretation, nor evaluation of your conclusions. Imagine if I were to claim
that the mere existence of some 10,000 unexplained UFO reports over 40 yare subject to review, not my interpretation.
Bottom line: What percentage of possibility do you think there is that your measurements are all correct, yet the "monuments" are still naturally formed?
I'll say it again, I'm impressed enough with your work to be willing to DEMAND further research and more openness on the matter from NASA, but only becld depend on the results of that series of independent replications, as to my next decisions re "naturalness").
Over the years I've spent on this (six very intensive ones, as of now), as long as we were dealing with "soft" data ("faces," approximate geometric "alignments," etc.) I carefully maintained the appropriate "open mind" re the ultimate interpretation of Cydonia -- believing that we would indeed need to wait for high-res Mars Observer images, before we clarified the situation.
Then Torun, a geomorphologist, cartographer and geographer with Defense Mapping, began in late 1988 *independently* testing my "relationship model, established in "Monuments" as a "what would constitute 'ultimate proof' for or against the Intelligence Hypothesis" (because he thought my assertion of bilateral symmetry in the D&M "absurd" -- his word!). To his amazement, nay shock -- he found my assertion was correct: the D&M is bilaterally symmetric, and is "aimed" directly at the "face." Further, he extended those initial observations, and discovered that the object possessed extraordinary internal symmetry, mathematical elegance (the front is exactly a third of a circle), and REDUNDANT geometric "constants" difficult to rationalize in any manner other than potentially deliberate. Morphologically, after a broad survey of a lot of other Viking images and geological regimes, and an assessment of realistic processes and "weathering agents" proposed by the Viking geologists for other surface features, he concluded that both mathematically and geomorphologically, Dt: 06-Sep-89
(Cont'd from previous message)
What really got me, however, was not "just" the mathematical elegence Torun found within the D&M. It was the fact that he discovered, completely independently, a *second* example of a curious "coincidence" I included in "Monuments" as a "throw away" on the very back of the book: that the tangent of
the (then) approximate lshington, from a total stranger currently working with Defense Mapping, who has found -- not only additional apparent constants "encoded" in the D&M --
but good ol' "e/pi" itself!
Redundancy. A possible (note I still say "possible") signal (see #194254 et al) !
No, Jim, I could maintain a fascade, a political "front" on this, and I guess make a lot of people feel easier. Only, I have leveled with everyone all the way along. When it was uncertain, I said so. Now, we have something VERY specific that can easily be tested: *dozen*s of repeats, across the entire "complex," of these two numbers and other specifically related constants -together, alone, inverted, and even multiplied. These multiple redundancies BEG TO BE INVESTIGATED. If they hold up, this "signal" is telling us NOW -not in three years -- that Cydonia is real. And that should *insure* that we get those vital images! -- Dick
#194208 reply to #194199
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dick,
I object to your criteria in answer to the question about what would convince you Cydonia was natural. You have surely heard of numerology (the
attachment of special significance to certain numbers). And you must know the difference between *a priori* and *ad hoc*.
Consider a randomly-generated set of millions of dots on a large, flat surface. If you specify IN ADVANCE (a priori) some special pattern, such as 24 dots forming a nearly perfect square with 6 dots per side, the chances are very slight that it will occur by chance in a random pattern. So if you find chance.
So if you are searching for a 24-dot square, and find instead two sets of four triangles, each making a perfect square, that is NOT significant, because some improbable things MUST happen purely by chance. Finding a rationale for this pattern after you have found it is *ad hoc* (after the fact), and
convinces only those who have not dealt with large random sets before.
I have asked for any *a priori* significance to the measurements you cite, and received unconvincing answers. If is not reasonable for us to accept your measurements, replicated or not, as proof of anything unless they have *a priori* significance. This is the main stumbling block between us over your whole "measurements" approach to proving artificiality. It is also why I said symmetry in the face WOULD be convincing, because it is *a priori* significant. --- Tom
#194215 reply to #194208
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Tom, Although I have NOT dealt with large random number bases, I do agree 100% that * some * of these patterns could be, as you put it, * ad hoc *. However, as you yourself have pointed out, the face (even half a face) is * a priori *. Given the fact that a line drawn from the "city center" (which DOES look
artificial) to the cliff (which DOES look artifi that not represent * a priori * ? Given the fact that there is an object in the immediate vicinity of the face which DOES
LOOK like a pyramid, would that not represent * f a site with similar
"objects" are "relationships" be solely considere d to be * ad hoc * ? Marty
#194318 reply to #194215
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Marty,
objects? What about lying on the arc of a circle, lying at a perfect right
angle, or at an angle of 40.97 degrees, etc, etc. Do you see the problem?
Since you mention objects here on Earth, I agree there is a lot to be intrigued by among the pyramids and other artifacts. But if there is any significance at all to the latitude (40.97 degrees) of the D&M pyramid on Mars, and if there is any Earth connection, then WHY isn't there something significant at that latitude on Earth??? That would be truly "a priori", provided you don't open up the field of "something significant" to include more than major ancient structures of possible ET origin. --- Tom
#194331 reply to #194318
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Tom,
*a priori* and *ad hoc* are fine when you're dealing with a mathematical puzzle. What we have here, however, is something that "looks" very suspicious. There is simply NO PRECEDENT for calculating odds for the possibility that these may be or may not be ET artifacts. How many advanced civilizations have arisen in the galaxy during the past 4 billion years? How many are "humanoid?" How many engage in monument building? What do they consider important; geometry, art, faces, etc? Until we have answers to those questions, it will
simply be impossible to apply any "known formulander thousands of atmospheres of pressure in ocean trenches; "advanced life forms" which breathe Hydrogen Sulfide. Almost everything we "knew" about the planets and their moons has
been proven wrong. I vividly remember a statement made by a planetary
scientist regarding the riverbeds on Mars , "We considered every conceivable liquid, including champagne, before finally deciding that the only possible answer was vast amounts of liquid water." The "impossible" has already happened too many times in the recent past to justify throwing this out just because it in too incredible to be real.
I think there is a temptation to view the two sides in this issue as: THOSE
WHO ARE CONVINCED (ARTIFICIAL) * VS * THOSE WHO ARE CONVINCED (NATURAL.) I see it in another context: THOSE WHO WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH * VS * THOSE WHO
ARE CONVINCED...and finding out the truth demands further investigation by Mars Observer.
Marty
#194349 reply to #194331
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Marty,
I completely concur with your thoughts in #194331.
Did I say something which made you think I would not be? --- Tom
#194401 reply to #194349
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 08-Sep-89
priori* and *ad hoc*
depend on the level of knowledge of the person (persons) attempting to "interpret" a message? A quick example AND PLEASE let me know if I'm off base
here: We (20th century) unearth a large million , in fact, there is a message) was left as opposed to a message based on something we understand, should be a yardstick for determining if
there is actually a message. If there is a "pattern," it should be certainly
be considered "suggestivur example of the periodic table of the elements is a good one. But
wouldn't we be disappointed if such a table from ET's with interplanetary
capability stopped at 106 or sooner (i.e. told us nothing we didn't already
know). I would then immediately suspect that the gold disk was a fraud. But if
it does go to higher elements, that's something we can use and verify.
Of course you are right that ET messages may come in strange packages, perhaps intended for us and perhaps not. We already know, from thinking about our own attempts at communication, how difficult it is to imagine what would be meaningful to ET life. I agree, quite generally, that we shouldn't ignore patterns, but should study them.
Nonetheless, patterns of dots, lines, angles, ratios, etc. are all suspect, because these very things can, and MUST, arise naturally. I honestly do not see a way that a few examples of simple, "special" patterns, whatever they are, can argue for the artificiality of Cydonia. Given that artificiality, then everything about the site becomes interesting. But just because the ET architects find e/pi angles aesthetically pleasing does not imply they are part of a message.
I certainly agree that Cydonia is a remarkable phenomenon, and should be
#194420 reply to #194415
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Tom, Your comment "an unusual set of natural features" makes MASA's refusal to "commit itself" even more suspicious. This also brings to memory a discussion I had with one of the planetary Geologists at the USGS. He stated "this is nothing more than an example of bizarre geology." Now, if I had been really quick on my toes, I would have commented, "well, you're a geologist aren't you? Why are you opposed to photographing something that you, yourself, describe as 'bizarre?"
If NASA really has a problem lending "credibility" to Hoagland and the other researchers, why don't they just agree to takes more pictures because it "bizarre geology?"
Marty
#194254 reply to #194208
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Tom,
I believe that part of the problem we are having, on this very crucial aspect of our work, lies in semantics: precisely how does one define "a priori" and "ad hoc." Let me give an example from the "standard" SETI community, then pick up ( if the 37 lines permit!) on your own example -- the "million random points" (any cousin to George Bush's "thousand points" . . .?).
SETI has been looking for The Signal for precisely thirty years, now. A LOT of
people, over those years, have debated exactly wavailable specturm will look like true "white noise," the *real* signal will look exactly like the Galactic background! -- until a proper "decoding
algorithm" is applied. [Since we can't be expected to know what that decoding
algorithm is, say these guys, the "real" signals will be "from aliens TO
aliens" (who already have the code), which we'll merely intercept by accident.
And so on.] If you flew through the beam of Voyager 2's telemetry and dage.)
#194255 reply to #194254
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
(Cont'd from last message)
I've always been a bit suspicious of these arguments. Trying to "crawl inside the psychology of aliens" to me has always seemed both hopeless . . . and somewhat chauvanistic. The true "signal," I have come to suspect (after you finally find it -- the hard part!), must contain WITHIN ITSELF ITS OWN "A PRIORI" DEFINITION THAT IT IS A SIGNAL. That's the only way it COULD work -in a Universe of almost infinite possibilities and combinations, where each "unique" reasoning about "a priori" must be based on the individual receiver's experience, awareness, and level of intelligence (or, just as bad, the "sender's" "guesstimates" of same).
What I'm saying is that, to be totally "universal," the "senders" could make NO ASSUMPTIONS regarding "a priori." The "signal" would have to do its own defining. And the only way I could see that it could do that, would be if it was SELF-REFERENTIAL. Like "intelligence" itself.
So, how would this work in practice? You're at your radio telescope, attentively scanning the skies, looking for an intelligent signal that (so our
physics say) is going to be far down "in the noise" (simple distance andan "intelligent signal," against all that other "hash?" Must it give you "pi" before you accept it? A
prime number? A raster scan of Vanna White?
No. All it has to do is REPEAT something -- anything! "Noise" IS random. It will not repeat (at least, not within a highly limited "search space" and time).
But a true signal will instantly be recognizable BY ITS SIMPLE REPETITION of "the signal" -- regardless of WHAT that signal "thinks" it's important to communicate. It's the *redundancy* which immediately lifts it "out of the noise of randomness." (And if you're thinking of the "pulsar problem," that's NOT the kind of simple "time repetition" I'm describing. The precise PATTERN must replicate. -- More)
#194257 reply to #194255
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
(Continued from last message).
There is a real difference between "a priori" and "arbitrary." If we have "a priori" defined our "sige combinations of
those SAME FEW DOTS. To insist at that point that "only the square could be significant" would be highly arbitrary. The trianges, by their redundancy, become the "carrier" for "the signal"; the redundant mathematics the "modulation" of that carrier -- the actual information.
What we have found, Tom, is the equivalent of the "highly-redundant triaconstants amid these highly limited combinations (to repeated three sig. figure accuracy), that has us convinced we're "on to something."
I would be the first to "throw away" our possible "first-cut" at a MEANING (what "they" might have intended by this pattern). That there is now an intelligent PATTERN there -- "a message," which has defined itself by its *extreme* redundancy -- I will defend quite strenuously. And I insist that others actually examine what we have discovered and then either replicate or refute the *measurements*, BEFORE they criticize our logic and results -- "a priori." -- Dick
#194261 reply to #194257
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Tom,
The computer "ate" a vital line in my third message. it was supposed to read
". . . I would totally agree that finding the triangle -- while intriguing --
is not particularly significant-(the *exact* ratios of the angles of that triangle, their trig functions, and their radian measure) occurred twice
. . three times . . . ten times . . ."
Dick
#194262 reply to #194261
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Tom,
OK, let's try one more time! (Georgia, doesn't the system like capitols for emphasis?) The line is supposed to read
". . . I would totally agree that finding the triangle -- while intriguing -mes . . . ten times . . ."
Dick
#194319 reply to #194257
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Dick,
If your other compelling measurements and relationships are like TAN (latitude) = e/pi, I'll pass when it comes to replication of your calculations, because "a priori" I don't attach any significance to that sort of coincidence.
But perhaps we are reaching the point where I need to know more detail before I can fairly criticize or support your finding that you already have enough evidence to conclude that the Cydonia objects are artificial, other than through the artificial appearance.
I have been through the exercise of finding an amazing conclusion after lengthy calculations (the breakup of the asteroidal planet); and then having the frustration that others who don't repeat the calculations, but only hear my description about how compelling they are, can never appreciate first hand to what extent they are "air tight" vs. having "loopholes" or subject to interpretation or experimenter bias. So I can emphathize with your frustration.
So, what is the single most important single thing you would like someone to replicate, and what raw materials would that someone have to possess to begin? If you make the task better defined and a little less formidable, you may get some volunteers (maybe even me). --- Tom
#194431 reply to #194319
Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Tom: The single most could examine would be the alignments between the "monuments"
themselves. This would NOT involve a search for numbers with an
abstract significance, but for whole angles such as 60, 90, &
120 deg., and for these and other angles that appear in more than
one place. This investigation would not be analogous to
he aforementioned sightline intersection point.
- This bisected 120 deg. angle matches the geometry of
the "front" of the D&M.
- The City Square to Cliff(lower) to Tholus angle is 85.3
deg., matching the sides of the D&M.
- The Cliff(lower) to Tholus to D&M angle is 90 deg.
These simple alignments, *combined with* the geomorphology of each object, should support the contention that nature may not have been wholly responsible for their existence.
I suggest that you get the original orthographic negs or
prints from NSSDC at Goddard and mosaic them. You'll need frames 35A72, 35A73, and 35A74. You might get some hostile comments
from the folks at NSSDC, but probably not. After all, who could reasonably object to your wanting to find out for yourself?<grin-- Erol
#194454 reply to #194431
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Thanks, Erol. I'll order them Monday. --- Tom
#194463 reply to #194431
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Tom,
Erol and I debated a bit re how extensive to make our response to your request. We decided to begin with the "basics" that Erol has now outlined in his note: low): the main problem we've had all along is the
quality of the data itself. Geometric measurements must be made on orthographic rectifications of the original images. But JPL only produced *one* set of such "rectified images" (at least, that I've ever seen), and . . . the image quality is lousy!; features are grossly over-exposed, or are essentially black. So, even recognition of "control points" for accurate measurement is difficult. For this reason, we've made very large blow-ups, in several different scales, to assist in reducing simple identification confusion. And we've constantly crosscompared features between the NASA "orthos" and our own "Carlotto *rectilinear* enhancements" -- which really pull all the original imaging data from these tapes, and show features in *exquisite detail*, but are geometrically useless. You might ask "Why haven't you produced our own computerized orthographic mosaics?" The answer is: it's extremely difficult to do that *outside* of NASA.
The geometric corrections must be derived from the latest navigation data from the Viking spacecraft, which -- when we tried to get it -- we were informed "that tape has been erased, as we (NASA) had no further need for it." This was in 1986. So, we've had to live with "doing it by hand." Some way to do science, eh? BTW: when Mert Davies (at RAND) offered to check our measurements, he asked US for a set of decent rectilinear prints "because my JPL copies are so bad." Interesting buraucratic system we've established here, for "independent testingFm: Eric Haas 73320,2553
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 07-Sep-89
The CIS message limit is approximately 2000 characters, or 96 lines, whichever comes first.
#194395 reply to #194374
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Eric,
Then why does it truncate my messages after only 37 lines (sometimes after 32!)?
I'm setting line length to 80 characters (so it will fit on a normal screen). Tips? Hints?
Dick
#194423 reply to #194395
Fm: Mark.Y 71340,276
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Richard, each message can be approximately 2700 characters, but CompuServe adds its own overhead, like an extra byte or two between words, so usually one can count on only about 2500 characters, or about 33 lines. CompuServe has truncated my messages with only 31 full lines (79 characters each), and it has allowed 37 lines through when there were many blank and very short lines.
I use TAPCIS on a PC clone, and it warns that I may be exceeding the message length when I get to 30 lines.
#194461 reply to #194395
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 09-Sep-89
If you were to completely fill 25 lines with 80 characters each, you would reach the 2000 character limit, and your message would be truncated. Since your lines are rarely 80 characters long (due to word wrap) and you leave
I would hardly say that was the "*one latitude*". 23.78, 26.63, 30.09, 40.42, 49.13, 49.58, 59.91, 63.37 and 65.75, 66.22 all have similar relationships with e, pi and trigonometic functions. In fact, 40.42 and 49.58 probably would have served even better, as they are e/pi radians from the pole and the equator, respectively.
#194326 reply to #194237
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Eric,
I was referring to the *Tan* of 40.87 = e/pi = 0.865, as being the significant trig function of that "one latitude." While it is perfectly true that other trig functions, representing this same ratio (0.865), apply equally to some of the other latitudes you mention (which opens up the interesting thought: what's at THOSE latitudes on Mars . . . which we simply haven't had the resources to examine!), Erol and I maintain that there is a "unique significance" to the Tan of 40.87. For one thing, it alone seems to derive the "19.5 degree latitude predictions" (details in the paper) -- which demonstrably contain something "going on" at that latitude (in fact, the "biggest somethings" -- the Hawaiian Caldera, Olympus Mons, the Great Red Spot, and now the Great Dark Spot, Remember too that, every scientific inquiry has started out as a simple catalogue of PATTERNS -- long before the physical reasons for those patterns became "obvious." It becomes a "science" when, from the original pattern and a good theory (or mathematical model) you can PREDICT the next part of the pattern. We did that successfully with Neptune. Which, in any "normal"
inquiry should make makentially significant, because that angle is to be found on the D&M pyramid when viewed vertically (as it would be from space). The angle is formed by the
west ground-level edge and the edge that points from the apex towards the city
square.
While I was impressed by the repeated expression of e/pi in many
locations, I was especially intrigued by its expression by three totally
different methods: the ratio between angles, the trig. functions of angles, and
the aforementioned radian measure. What makes these three methods significant
(beyond redundancy) is the fact that they are not dependent upon the system of
mathematics used by the observer. Just as our hypothetical architects could
not assume what method of analysis would first be applied, they also could not
possibly assume that an observer of Cydonia would count in the decimal system
(base 10) or use a 360 degree system for denoting angles. The methods by which
I believe these numbers are expressed are independent of such assumptions.
(continued in reply)
#194372 reply to #194370
Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Your list of "significant latitudes" would reduce the odds that thappearance of possible architectures on one of them is deliberate, but this requires the additional assumption that these latitudes are equally
significant. The latitude of 40.868 deg. affords a good oppurtunity tots through the
aforementioned corner facing the city square AND the upslope terminus of the
"flat thing" on the front (towards the face). This representation of both the
e/pi and (sqrt 3)/2 latitude requires not only that the D&M have a certain
latitude, but also a certain shape, size, and orientation. Why not reprarguments as to
why that particular latitude was better than any of the others.
#194396 reply to #194376
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Eric,
I'm sad to note your last statement. It's makes it obvious that a serious discussion of what IS (as opposed to what ISN'T) is not possible between us. At best, you're inferring we're "deluded," and under ANY circumstances would continue our "delusion." At worst, that we're deliberately misrepresenting the data as we've found it. Either "scenario" effectively prevents further serious discussion. Impuning motives (or competence) is NOT a productive aid to discovering the truth -- in any scientific investigation. Independently testing mathematical assertions against the "source data" (in this case, by simply making about half a dozen measurements on the actual NASA orthographic Cydonia imagery -- available from the National Space Science data Center) would be.
Dick
#194430 reply to #194396
Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Eric:
ed Dr. Carlotto to
analyse the fractal geometry of Viking imagery and develop an
automated method that would flag landforms that are most unlike
the surrounding terrain. Using his method on Cydonia, the face
and city give the strongest signal of abnormality. This
technique could be used to scan all the Viking (and later Mars
Observer) imagery looking for objects to study in detail.
Of course this same technique could be applied to digital
imagery of ANY planetary surface to look for unusual landforms
that are of purely geological interest.
Erol.
#194458 reply to #194396
Fm: Ralph C. Henderson 72707,3357
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Eric has not accussed you of misrepresenting data, but of misrepresenting science. Finding coincidental equalities between trigonometry functions of constants and the latitude of your "city" is not scientific investigation--it's just number-juggling. What's sad to note is the false scientific gloss you're putting on these ideas.
ilar
physical processes (there may even be a similar process behind the hot spot that created the Hawaiian chain), but the fact that you found a method that yeilded a similar latitude proves nothing. There are plenty of mathematical functions, and an astronomical number of ways to put them together. A little juggling was bound to produce something.
-RCH-
#194462 reply to #194396
Fm: Eric Haas 73320,2553
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 09-Sep-89
I think you may be reading too much into my last statement. I simply think you've fallen victim to the all too common tendancy of humans to find meaning in meaningless coincidences. It is true, that at this point, you will find it very difficult (but not impossible) to convince me that there is any meaning to the location of the Cydonia face and other objects. If, however, you were to convince me that the face itself is artificial (at this point, a much easier task), I would be much more willing to entertain ideas about the possible numerical meanings of its location.
#194465 reply to #194462
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Eric,
Sorry if I'm a bit touchy on this point, but I'm just slightly tired of endless, redundant criticisms -- which never seem to get beyond the "this is why it CAN'T be real" stage. There is one singu
substance of what we thought we'd found. His reaction, like yours, was: "Well, ANY number of points can be connected to give any *ad hoc* "meaning" to a landcape." (Sound slightly familiar . . .?) Anyway, a day went by . . . and then the phone rang. It was the physics guy again. His voice was definitely strained. He said, "You know those relationships you said you'd found? Well,
last night I took out a bunch of old Viking prints I'd been given some tndom Martian rocks. That's why I know we're "on to something." Science is NOT endless criticism; its doing the damn
measurements. They're not hard (well, not THAT hard, see #194431 and my
follow -on) Just mind-boggling. -- Dick
#194572 reply to #194465
Fm: Ralph C. Henderson 72707,3357
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 11-Sep-89
Science involves proving that the relationships you've found exist apart from your rationalizion of them; you or others must make predictions based on your theories, and see if they pan out.
The "physics guy" gave up after one day? Haven't _you_ put a lot more time and thought into it than that? Also, your motivation is much better than his was--you believed that there was a real message, while he was sure there wasn't.
Besides, what was it that "didn't work" for him? If he picked another print and tried to find the same numbers you came up with, he had the technique backwards. Aren't most of these relationships found by thinking about what things might be suggested by the numbers? There's a world full of things to draw on, and the human mind is rabid about finding patterns.
I think you'd see the point if you'd ever read one of the "pyramidology" books. One fellow had stumbled onto the notion that changes in the passageways of the Great Pyramid of Giza symbolized the future history of the world, with so many
inches of passageway equalling so many years. The author was able to "p(including the world wars), but his ability to predict post-publication events was quite poor. He did not fabricate anything;
the markings and changes in the passageways were quite real, but his reasoning
was only rationalization. It can become quite a trap--the more determined and
imaginative a person is, the more relationships they are able to see,
meaningful or not.
-RCH-
#194499 reply to #194462 Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364 To: Eric Haas 73320,2553 Dt: 10-Sep-89
I would like to offer a few quotations that offer informed opinion on the differences (or lack thereof) between ad hoc and a priori, and related issues. These quotations are sec
"It is the theory which decides what we can observe."
"Even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices. The prejudice ... (sic) consists in the faith that facts by themselves can and should yield scientific knowledge without free conceptual construction."
-Albert Einstein
"We ourselves introduce that order and regularity in the appearance which we entitle 'nature.' We could never find them in appearances had we not ourselves, by the nature of our own mind, originally set them there."
"The POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIENCE is, then, that which gives objective reality to all our A PRIORI cognitions."
-Immanuel Kant
(more)
#194500 reply to #194499 Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364 To: Stan Tenen 75015,364 Dt: 10-Sep-89
(Relevant quotations, continued)
"Quantities like length, duration, mass, force, etc. have no absolute significance; their values will depend on the mesh-system to which they are referred.... (sic) There is no fundamental mesh-system..."
"Mind filters out matter from the meaningless jumble of qualities, as the prism filters out the colours of the rainbow from the chaotic pulsations of white light."
-Arthur Eddington
I believe that there is only one a priori fundamental indication of consciousness - self-reference. Meaningful redundancy coupled with indications of self-knowledge or self-awareness in the physical record, regardless of the
class or type of data, is a unique quality of coference (within the Cydonia complex) of the D&M pyramid to the face and to and among the other odd and prominent features at
Cydonia, the repetition of the same angles between different features, the
internal symmetry of the D&M pyramid as shown by sight-lines to the other
forms, the exact E-W alicy and self-reference would still be sufficient.
I agree that this is not absolute proof. Coincidence is possible and new data must be obtained by a return visit with either much higher resolution imaging, a remote rover, pickup and return of samples, or, of course, a humanned visit. However, it is not likely, in my opinion, that the currently available hard data - the angular alignments - will change. We already know these alignments to 3 and 4 or more significant figures and I can't see what adding more significant figures could add.
In spite of the enhancement techniques, I am not convinced that the face is fully symmetrical. But I don't see how that matters. Even if there is only half a face; even if the whole face is nothing but "a trick of light and shadow," that will not change the redundant, symmetrical, and self-referential alignments. For me, the great mystery would be IF the Cydonia complex were ultimately found to be natural, because that would require an explanation of how - short of redundant coincidences - Mars could "know" where its prominent (by Mars' standards ???) features are.
I do find the fractal analysis intriguing, but I don't have enough experience with this tool to have developed a sense of perspective in its use.
One final quotation (reference lost):
"The logic of a theory must stem from an inner coherence, not because external evidence makes it the most logical over other theories." - Albert Einstein
I hope this helps to season the discussion.
Stan
o #194501
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Stan Tenen 75015,364
Dt: 10-Sep-89
Stan, I must disagree with you assertion that should the "face" turn out to be natural, Cydonia would still be interesting! It certainly would not be of any further interest to me. The "face" IS THE CENTERPIECE OF CYDONIA. It is the whole reason this issue reply to #194508
Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 10-Sep-89
I meant, if it turns out that the face is natural, but that the complex is not, after we have examined new data, then that would be the greater mystery. While it is true that the presence of what looks like a face started this investigation, and while it is very unlikely, given the context of the alignments of the other forms, that the face is natural, I still find the alignments themselves - from the data we have - a much more compelling indication of conscious intent than the face itself.
I am not attempting to dismiss the face. It is just that given the low resolution of the face, I find the high resolution of the alignments, by comparison, more likely not to change with new data.
For example, it appears to me that the landforms at Cydonia were artificially modified, but were initially chosen from the natural landforms available. The forms are very large and would have been very expensive to make if they were all entirely artificial. Even the face may/might have been adapted from a conveniently placed and formed natural feature which might not have been sufficiently symmetrical to start with for it to have been shaped into a completely symmetrical face. It is not even obvious to me that the face ought to be symmetrical. Real faces are not entirely symmetrical and artistic
lly carries information, not the symmetrical and redundant
carrier itself. I believe that the presence of static symmetry may not be as strong an indication of consciousness as slight asymmetry. Moslem geometric patterns always include a defect or an asymmetrical component because, among other reasons, perfect order is considered to be the province of God and not appropriate for man's view of reality which is always "defective". The face may be more than a weathered rock and still not be symmetrical. (more)
#194525 reply to #194524 Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364 To: Stan Tenen 75015,364 Dt: 10-Sep-89
A closer look at Cydonia will improve the precision of our view of the face significantly, but it is not likely to improve our knowledge of the alignments between the forms to any significant degree.
I am prepared to find that the face is not entirely symmetrical even after we find that the Cydonia complex is actually artificial. As for absolute proof: It would be beyond doubt an artificial complex if we were to find a map, chart, or illustration of the complex or the face inscribed/written/drawn on the face or on another object at Cydonia. That would be the ultimate proof of conscious design based on my a priori requirement of self-reference - even if the face were completely asymmetrill NOT "go away." While it is true that the
existing imagery reveals it is not "perfectly" symmetric (neither, in fact, is any "face"; just look in the mirror!), the small differences we see (and they are small) are easily explainable in terms of selective erosion. The prevailing winds at Cydonia -- as charted by the published global meteorological models developed from the Viking surface observations, uncomplicated by any "oceans" -reveal a long (millenia-long) pattern of seasonal-dependence of compassdirection. In other words, the right side (as you look at it) should b
Additional factors are: the "photometric function" of the surface. Light in both existing high-res images is falling across the curved "cheek" on the right at a significant angle, on a surface which strongly absorbs at low incident lighting angles (because it is composed of myriad little dust particles, each of casting a shadow on the next particle, at low angles). This can explain the rest of the *apparent* differences between the right and left side.
But, most important to me, is the simple fact that the "Face" is an INTEGRAL part of the geometry and specific relationships we've found on the Cydonia landscape. One line -- the line that precisely bisects the 120 degree front angle of the D&M Pyramid -- crosses the "face" at three critical points: the lower left "corner," the "teardrop" (just below the left "eye"), and at the upper "forehead" where the "face" literally ends. These *three* points (on that ONE line) in turn provide specific, redundant, angular relationships with three other objects. No, Marty, the "face" will not disappear -- leaving just the mathematical relationships (like the Cheshire Cat <grin>). The *two* are inextricably linked. -- Dick
#194204 reply to #194143
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dick,
I haven't the slightest inclination to backd by this very important point.
How can I get copies of your 11x14 pictures and enhancements, as described in your second paragraph to Michael. And how can I get SOURCE information about times and spacecraft location when these frames were taken, so I can be absolutely certain there is no mistake about this? It is too easy for a print to get reversed, and too important a matter to tolerate any chance of human error. --- Tom
#194207 reply to #194204
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Tom, I am sure that Richard will also reply to your message, but I thought an opinion from someone who has the enhanced enlargements may also be in order. There are only two ** known ** photographs of the face. One was taken at low sun angle (10 degrees) and the other was taken at high sun angle (30 degrees). In both photographs the right side is in shadow. Even in the low sun angle photo, it is possible to see what appears to be a "right edge" of the face.
The high angle "stretch-contrast" Carlotto enhancement (which also distorts the image) clearly shows **some symmetry** with the left side. It does not show the visual detail of the left side, this (right) side not being "filled-in" with data. Still, it ** tends ** to confirm rather than to ** disprove ** the "artificial hypothesis," at least in my mind.
Obviously what we need are more AND BETTER photographs!!! Marty
frames,
including made-to-order enlargements from those frames, are indeed available from the Mars Mission (see message to Darrell Green re "Mars Mission Order Form," # 194206). As to source information on the initial imaging parameters ( frame number, spacecraft distance from Mars, lighting azimuth, lighting angle to zenith, etc.), all these data are on the "data blocks" that accompany each
e IS a "second frame" with lighting at almost 30
degrees to the surface, which TOTALLY reveals the so-called "shadowed side." And under Carlotto's algorithms, it's a beaut!
I am aware of (and possess) at least one lower resolution, "morning shot" of the "face" (frame 753A33). As it was taken about five times higher than the two previous frames, its resolution is about 5 times lower. But, as I noted earlier, it's facinating for the detail it reveals regarding the left "eyebrow" region of the "face" at opposite lighting -- particularly when compared to both a "deliberately-degraded 35A72," and to Carlotto's 3-D computerized "face" model, the latter "lit" from the same "morning" angle. All three images show IDENTICAL DETAIL in this "eyebrow" region -- which is pretty impressive, considering that three different data sources being compared. I prepared an illustrated comparison of this effect years ago, but it "strayed." I'll try to find it -- or recreat it, if you're interested. -- Dick
#193997 reply to #193982
Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
OK, Richard:
I am looking for total bisymmetry in the "face." I've heard that Carlotto has shown some rudimentary bisymmetry through some sort of computer enhancement, but I have yet to see it. I would also like to see an objective skeptical treatment of Carlotto's work in this area. As with any anomalistic claim, I tend to wait for the skeptics' answer; if it is specious, or smacks of a priori rejection, I am inclined to sympathise more with the claimant. This is how I came to become an advocate of serious UFO research.
Now that I've answered y.Y 71340,276
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Richard, I am 60% persuaded that the Face and Pyramids are probably artificial.
I have read _Monuments of Mars_ and it left me tphotographs and ranging data.
#194049 reply to #193982
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Richard, This may sound like a simple answer but I think Mars Observer really will decide "once and for all." We have, for example, a photograph of only one side of the face. The "face" IS the centerpiece of Cydonia. If the "hidden side" (even at Viking level resolution) shows nothing, I think this whole issue will be settled. No copouts like "The Martians only built half a face." If, on the other hand, the hidden side shows the same symmetry and detail as the sunlit side, "just let someone suggest that we don't investigate or take higher resolution photographs!!!!!!"
This brings up another point: As you stated in your book, NASA "secretly" took another photo of the face 35 days after the first photo. It will probably never be known whether this was the result of "normal mapping" or if there was a conscious decision to do so. If they actually "made the decision," then it would be safe to assume that they also took a "third" photograph of the hidden side. If "that side" showed NOTHING, they could have used it to "disprove" all of this "nonsense" (their choice of words, not mine.)
Note: beginning of this paragraph: I didn't mean they secretly took the second photo, only that they never mentioned to the preDt: 03-Sep-89
Dick,
The Cydonia observations/measurements/predictions are extremely interesting and clearly warrant further examination by Observer, etc. My attention, however, keeps being drown back to another region on Mars referred to as Utopia, an area which is far away from Cydonia but in a similar latitude. DiPietro, Molenaar and Brandenburg, in their book "Unusual Mars Surface Features" (4th edition) point out two "faces" in the region. One of the faces looks remarkably similar to the Cydonia face, with its "characteristic" hair (helmet?). It is shown with comparisons to the Cydonia face on page 102 (Fig. 63) of their book. I would think it would be possible to do some kind of computerized comparisons between the two faces. If indeed similarities proved to be significantly "beyond chance", that would be supporting evidence for artificallity.
There are other intriguing features in Utopia, which you point out in your book "Monuments" (Fig 22) --a "Runway" complex, etc. One particular feature that caught my eye but was not specifically referred to is something that looks like a complete "humanoid body". This is just inside the right edge of Fig. 22 in your book. The "head" is about one third the distance from the top of the figure and has the "characteristic" appearance of the Cydonia face (most
distinguishable feature is the "hair". ). A "right arm" is stretched outportions resemble that of a
human. When I pointed this out to my wife, she immediately saw still another
"face" within the torso. I'm curious if you or anyone else has noticed te additional significant information gathered there, especially if certain mathematical relationships (similar to Cydonia?) could be
found. In any case, shouldn't there be some encouragement for Observer to look
city. Although I haven't even spoken to any
"geology experts" about this, I feel they would explain this by some kind of
local faulting.
I think what had made Cydonia the center of attention is that here we have five or six "bizarre looking" objects...all of which are very "DIFFERENT" from each other. That makes them much harder to explain through weathering or geology than the other "interesting" areas.
Marty Arant
PS Yes, I do see a "face." It "looks" interesting, but I don't think it has anywhere near the symmetry or "relief" that the face in Cydonia has.
#194101 reply to #194088
Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Ok. Some questions which have probably already been answered, but I'm { forgetful.
1) Who is the publisher of "Monuments"?
2) How can I obtain higher resolution photos (as opposed to halftones or whatever you see in magazines and, I suppose, the book) of the region in question?
#194144 reply to #194101
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
Dt: 04-Sep-89
Mike,
In answer to your questions: 1) "Monuments" is published by North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA. Its' available in Waldonbooks (even accessible here on CIS, I believe), B. Dalton, Crown, and a lot of major independents, anywhere in t that way, it's
signed, and the on-going research gets a percentage of the cover price).
2) The highest resolution photos are also available (as actual hard-copy 11 X 14 prints of 35A72, 70A11, and 70A13), with individual 11 X 14 enlargements of the key features (high atical
"overlays."
Does that help? -- Dick
P.S. There's also, just out (Sept 1), an "updated audio 'docu-drama' of the book" (NOT just someone reading "Monuments!") -- with illustrations, mosaics and a map included in the "bookpac" containing the cassette. Also called "The Monuments of Mars," and available like the book.
#194193 reply to #194144
Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Yes, but how can one get the photos you describe?
#194203 reply to #194193
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Mike,
To order the 11 X 14 enhanced full-frame images, and detailed enlargements of the Cydonia objects (or any of the other items discussed in previous messages -like "Monuments," the new audio-version of same, the Mars Mission Newsletter, the NASA-Goddard video, etc.), simply send a U.S Mail note requesting a list of what's available to: The Mars Mission, P.O. Box 981, Wytheville, VA 24382. You'll get a free issue of the "Mars Mission News" and an enclosed order form by return mail, detailing everything we have -- with ilustrations. If you have a PC (and you must, or you wouldn't be reading this <grin>!), simply call the Mars Mission BBS (703) 228-7822, and enter "Files." Follow the "prompts" from there to get to "RESOURCES" -- the file-name under which a detailed printout of what we have available is entered. There is also an order form filed there, which when printed out, filled out, and mailed to us (with check), will get you anything we have.
Hope this helps.
Dick
#194201 reply to #194144
Fm: Darrell Green 72406,1736
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dick, if I wanted to purchase a copy of "Monuments" directly from The Mars Mission, how much money should be sent? :dg
#194206 reply to #194201
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Darrell Green 72406,1736
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Darrell,
Please see message #194203: my response to Mike on a similar question. Also, I've copied the Mars Mission BBS "Order Form" below. Detailed descriptions of these items are available by calling (703) 228-7822, and following the "prompts" to "DESCRIBE" (in "RESOURCES"). -- Dick _______________________________________________________________________________
***** MARS MISSION ORDER FORM *****
Price Shipping Total Number
each &handling each ordered Subtotal
BOOK-Monuments of Mars $14.95 $3.00 $17.95 ________ $___________
5.00 1.00 6.00 ________ $___________
T-SHIRT(Size___Color______)10.95 2.00 12.95 ________ $___________
PHOTOGRAPHS (As marked) 16.95 3.00 19.95 ________ $___________
Face & Profile___ Pyramid___
Fort & Oblique___ Mosaic ___ Total of Order $___________
Virginia Residents add 4.5% Tax $___________
Total Enclosed $___________
PAYMENT IS BY: MoneyOrder__ Check__ SHIP TO: CHARGE TO MY: Mastercard __
Visa __ NAME:__________________________________ Card
#_____________________________ ADDRESS:_______________________________
Expires:___/___/___Bank No.________ CITY:__________________________________
Signature__________________________ STATE:____________ ZIP CODE:__________
Order Date___/___/___ PHONE NUMBER:(_______)_________________
Please place my name on your mailing list to receive future releases:______ Sale of above items helps to support THE MARS MISSION,a non-profit educational & scientific research group. THANK YOU for your order. Allow 3 weeks delivery. Mail this form to: THE MARS MISSION, P.O. BOX 981, WYTHEVILLE, VA 24382
#194228 reply to #194206
Fm: Darrell Green 72406,1736
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Thanks, Dick! And if I order the book direct from The Mars Mission I get a signed copy, right?
Appreciate the info. :dg
#194105 reply to #194088
perimposes the "torso" of
the "whole-body figure", which has a much more symetrical Cydonia-like face. That face is about a quarter the size of the other face and is slightly above the latter. Let me know if you can see it.
Bert
#194114 reply to #194105
Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,landforms, and is oriented exactly East-West.
Speaking of "faces", I think that there has been too much attention over the years given to the search for representations of the human form on Mars. The face in Cydonia is the only one that I feel has a chance of being real; the others don't even come close. But while the face in Cydonia appears real, it is NOT the most anomalous landform present from the viewpoint of geomorphology. There are objects in Cydonia whose location, shape, and orientation more strongly suggest intelligent design. These objects include the "cliff" - a straight ~2km long ridge located ON the ejecta apron of ancient pedestal crater, the "Tholus" - a hemispherical structure with a flat ledge around its periphery, the straight walled "city", and most anomalous of them all, the D&M pyramid - with its five sides and bilateral symmetry oriented toward the face. I began my own investigations into the possibility of ruins on Mars not after seeing the face, but as a result of seeing the D&M pyramid, a structure that geologically should not exist on Mars (or any of the inner planets).
#194232 reply to #194114
Fm: Bert 71450,3504
To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Erol,
I have not seen "The Face on Mars" by Pozos. Can you give me some infomation such as the publisher, etc. and any suggestions on how I might obtain a copy? Thanks.
Bert
#194240 reply to #194232 Fm: James Duke 75340,377 To: Bert 71450,3504
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Dear Bert: The formal title is "The Face on Mars: Evidence for a Lost Civilization?" by Randol of cost and current address of
the publisher; it's probably the same but sometimes publishers move.
#194250 reply to #194240 Fm: Bert 71450,3504
To: James Duke 75340,377 Dt: 06-Sep-89
James,
Thanks for the book info. I'll see if I can find a copy.
Bert
-Sep-89
Bert. Now that you mention it I see both the larger face as well as the smaller one (with the body.) It seems as though the "body" is pointing to something to the left of the picture. The "legs" seem slightly misaligned though. As for the larger face, it.... well....sorta looks like.... <gulp!>... Richard Nixon.
#194129 reply to #194127
Fm: Bert 71450,3504
To: Sysop Ted Markley 76012,3361
Dt: 04-Sep-89
Ted,
You're right the larger face does look sort of like Nixon. I thought it looked familiar but I couldn't place it <grin>. Actually, the image looks almost TOO real to be real (Ha!), but what's underneath it (the full figure) is quite intiguing. Do you think the small face (the one above "Nixon") looks like the Cydonia face? It would be interesting to see a "blowup" of it.
Bert
#194100 reply to #193982
Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Little manufactured things sprinkled around the surface, or buried beneath the surface features.
#194145 reply to #194100
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
Dt: 04-Sep-89
Mike,
Ok, my question back to you: how would you RECOGNIZE "little manufactured things" . . . if you can't recongize BIG manufactured things (like the D&M, the
"Fort," etc.)? In otherplease don't respond "because it will *look* manufactured."). -- Dick
#194194 reply to #194145
Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Guess I was shooting from the hip. How about a similarity of objects across several scales? Little faces just like the one on the surface. Now =that= would show consciousness to me.
#194179 reply to #193982
Fm: James Duke 75340,377
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dear Richard: I have seen the Carlotto photos and frankly they impress me as giving the clearest indication as of now that the face is most likely an artificial construct which in turn would lead to probable artificial construction of the pyramids and other objects of Cydonia. The only other feature is the negative made of one of the Viking photos shown on p. 43 in "The Face on Mars" by Dr. Pozos. However I would prefer to have IMAX photos which show the Face and the surrounding area in incredible detail enough to make the skeptics and myself scream, "OH, MY GOD!" But I must admit that Carlotto's work has certainly lessened my modest skepticism eeven more.
*** Capturing completed ***
Press <CR> !