76 replies to this topic

[BrandOfAmber]

Hazzard, on 10 June 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Richard Hoagland...       







Wait... that was a joke, right?  

Actually I wasn't joking, and I was pretty clear and nice about it.

What I said was that you can agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he's been using the Scientific method to study this issue specifically for decades now.

I'd say that makes his work worth mentioning.

Also, you do know that he worked for Walter Cronkite, and NASA before that, right?

At any rate, you can disagree with his conclusions, that's cool, I do on several subjects.  

But what he does is Science, his work is repeatable, and Geometry is a real thing that should not be scoffed at.

On the note of being polite about it, I would humbly submit to you that the compelling Exhibit A you are looking for is offered in a case study on the Battle of Los Angeles I did a while back at the ATS boards.  Here's a link, it is worth a read:
ATS Boards Link Here

I will certainly rationally discuss either subject further should you like. But on a forum such as this, I would appreciate it if we could steer away from character attacks and keep to the subject matter.  

After all, these are Unexplained Mysteries we're discussing.  All of us are just like Hoagland here, looking at mysteries and applying our theories.  To decry his pursuit of truth goes against what we do here.  

To debate his conclusions, and his methodology is another thing entirely, and I welcome that conversation.  It's one that both 'sides' in these debates need to have, as a conversation, and not an 'argument'.  Ya know?

You seem reasonable though.  Perhaps the two of us can have that conversation here?

[Hazzard]

BrandOfAmber, on 10 June 2011 - 05:54 PM, said:

Actually I wasn't joking, and I was pretty clear and nice about it.

What I said was that you can agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he's been using the Scientific method to study this issue specifically for decades now.

I'd say that makes his work worth mentioning.

Also, you do know that he worked for Walter Cronkite, and NASA before that, right?

At any rate, you can disagree with his conclusions, that's cool, I do on several subjects.  

But what he does is Science, his work is repeatable, and Geometry is a real thing that should not be scoffed at.

On the note of being polite about it, I would humbly submit to you that the compelling Exhibit A you are looking for is offered in a case study on the Battle of Los Angeles I did a while back at the ATS boards.  Here's a link, it is worth a read:
ATS Boards Link Here

I will certainly rationally discuss either subject further should you like. But on a forum such as this, I would appreciate it if we could steer away from character attacks and keep to the subject matter.  

After all, these are Unexplained Mysteries we're discussing.  All of us are just like Hoagland here, looking at mysteries and applying our theories.  To decry his pursuit of truth goes against what we do here.  

To debate his conclusions, and his methodology is another thing entirely, and I welcome that conversation.  It's one that both 'sides' in these debates need to have, as a conversation, and not an 'argument'.  Ya know?

You seem reasonable though.  Perhaps the two of us can have that conversation here?

Im sorry, Amber, I was so sure that you where joking. To me RCH and his buddies in the UFO Hall of Shame is an instant red flag.

I happen to know a little about RCH, I have heard him on C2C many times and followed his Website and so on... and I have to tell you that everything he has written about ancient structures/aliens on Mars and other celestial bodies in our solar system is a bunch of rubbish.

His "hyper-dimensional physics model" is nothing but pure and utter nonsense.

Personally I cant stand the guy.  He might mean well  but when his actual work is indistinguishable from that of a money-loving charlatan, is there really any difference?  He fabricates and speculates like there is no tomorrow, all to make money from the gullible.

Working for Cronkite and NASA is no guarantee that someone isnt fantasy prone. Just look at that ex scientist Stanton Friedman, or Apollo astronaut Ed Mitchell.

People like this are doing far more harm than good.

They should leave science to real scientists.


But sure, if you have something specific in mind Id be happy to take a look at it.  

[BrandOfAmber]

Well that's fair.  I listen to Coast to Coast a lot too, and like I said earlier, I don't always agree with what Hoagland is saying.

The Hyperdimensional Physics model isn't something I support, however (and it's a big however) the internal Geometry of the Cydonia plateau, from which Hoagland draws these theories, is clearly present.

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.  
In order to hypothesize (and I agree he does it in a non-skeptical fashion...) he's done science.

That's really all I was saying, is that there is decades worth of actual research there, simply on the anomalies themselves.

Sure, some of the conclusions I don't agree with.  I've always personally had a hard time understanding the impetus behind the whole "it's a half human half lion face on mars" argument he came up with a while back.  He does tend to jump to conclusions that in my opinion are not suggested by the preponderance of evidence accumulated.  That being said, he's an awesome accumulator of data, and not terrible at distribution either (national radio shows and a decent website).

I also wholeheartedly agree with you on the "selling his books" thing.  I understand it from a financial perspective of a writer, however personally for me there are some things that you write about and don't sell.  I include it in the code of journalistic integrity.  It's why I did my research on the Battle of Los Angeles out in the open on the ATS boards, so that anybody could read the entire thread for free, and add to the conversation.  If you take a look at that thread, and my initial bibliography there, I could easily have just written a book instead and gone the Hoagland financial route.  There was enough data there for several books...

But clarity aside, and back to the subject at hand, I see clear signs of artificiality in Cydonia.  You asked for something specific, so let's start with the D&M Pyramid, which in my view is just the craziest thing in our whole solar system.  

Let's also, for those reading in, give some back-story...
Here is a good article outlining what has people excited about the D&M Pyramid: http://mars-earth.com/dm/
Here is an excellent article arguing against Hoagland's conclusions: http://www.math.wash.../DMPyramid.html

Here is an image of the D&M itself:
http://t0.gstatic.co...ZMOtu_f6k5sy1lw

Here's one with the angles drawn in:
http://t0.gstatic.co...RoK0Z_mBJVnAtiQ


Here is the D&M Pyramid in context to the other 'structures' found at the Cydonia Plateau:
http://www.martinkei...ik_pyramids.jpg


Personally, my own case for the artificiality of the Cydonia region is based upon the statistical improbability of the amount of anomalies contained within the same physical region of the planet.  Nothing more and nothing less.  

To be honest, I'm kind of in the camp of Tom Van Flandern, with the Exploded Planet Hypothesis.  His theories explain the observable solar system in my view (and I've got a pretty good telescope to see what's out there for myself...) better than any other I've come across.  

But let's start with by far the weirdest thing at Cydonia, the D&M (weirder than the face to me), what are your thoughts?

[BrandOfAmber]

OMG I just saw that your location is 'inside Voyager 1'.

That's awesome.  I like your sense of humor. I totally picked the right person to have this conversation with.  

[Hazzard]

BrandOfAmber, on 10 June 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

OMG I just saw that your location is 'inside Voyager 1'.

That's awesome.  I like your sense of humor. I totally picked the right person to have this conversation with.  

[Pax Unum]

BrandOfAmber, on 10 June 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

OMG I just saw that your location is 'inside Voyager 1'.

That's awesome.  I like your sense of humor. I totally picked the right person to have this conversation with.  

Unless you're lumping Hoagland in with martian illusions, I suggest you start a thread to discuss his theories... Otherwise you're getting way off topic...

[Hazzard]

BrandOfAmber, on 10 June 2011 - 07:58 PM, said:

..... But let's start with by far the weirdest thing at Cydonia, the D&M (weirder than the face to me), what are your thoughts?

Ok...




I think that just because something looks like a face/pyramid/glassworm/dome/canal etc  doesnt necessarily mean that it actually is one.

We must be careful when all we have to work with is a picture, one picture taken from a specific angle.

Im sure that you are familiar with pareidolia?

Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct. Under ordinary circumstances, pareidolia provides a psychological explanation for many delusions based upon sense perception.

It explains numerous religious apparitions and visions, like an image of Mother Teresa or Ronald Reagan in a cinnamon bun, or a man in the moon as well as the hearing of sinister messages on records played backwards... And it explains why some people see a face or a building in a photograph of the Cydonia region of Mars.

Much to the dismay of mystery mongers, NASA says that the Cydonia region is a "normal geologic feature with slopes and ridges carved by eons of wind and downslope motion due to gravity."

After looking at the latest high resolution photos recorded by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESAs Mars Express I have to agree with them. I see nothing but slopes and ridges. Use the zoom in this photo and you can see what I mean...





Cydonia - http://www.esa.int/e...1.html#subhead5


Edd to fix pic.

Edited by Hazzard, 10 June 2011 - 08:56 PM.

[BrandOfAmber]

Pax Unum, on 10 June 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

Unless you're lumping Hoagland in with martian illusions, I suggest you start a thread to discuss his theories... Otherwise you're getting way off topic...

With respect Sir/Mam, this topic explicitly references the 'Face' on Mars as an optical illusion.

Debating this point by asserting my own theory that due to the statistical improbability of multiple anomalies regionally (local to Cydonia), and sourcing the D&M Pyramid as an item in question, then further referencing (with pointed disclaimers as to the Author's character) work into the subject...

That's not off-topic.

I would be willing to hear why you think that any of the above referenced material is off-topic?  If not in this topic, where indeed would you categorize/discuss such material?

I get that folks don't like Hoagland, but seriously, discussing 'Mars Illusions' without referencing his work is like discussing the Iliad without referring to Homer.

If you feel that my thoughtful posts are not contributory to this forum, perhaps I should know now, and move someplace else?

I've seen moderators intervene in meaningful conversations before, to the detriment of those having that discussion.

This discussion seems on topic, and more than civil, and I'm not interested in sparring with mods (I could run my own message board if I wanted to play that game...).

So, without further ado, would anyone like to comment on the content of my above post?  Or discuss some of the other 'illusions/possible artificial structures' on the surface of Mars, like the D&M Pyramid?

[BrandOfAmber]

Hi Hazzard,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I can assure you that I'm familiar with this concept, and that I'm not falling under it's spell here.

I don't have the ability to post pictures yet apparently (still a new member at the UM).

But in the picture you embedded there, what has me curious is the internal geometry of the structure itself, and the platform upon which it is laying (the platform clearly shows straight lines between the points of the 'pyramid' (where each angle hits the 'ground') and an 'apex' point.

It's weird to me, I can't find a geologic process that could create such a pattern.

Also, taking the entire Cydonia complex into context, different weathering patterns would necessarily have had to have been in place to produce the very different patterns found on the Pyramid, and on the 'face', as well as the 'tholus' and the other '3-sided' pyramids.

Can you offer a geologic explanation for the appearance of such drastically different patterns within the same physical region?
I cannot, hence my confusion on this.

Also, I cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for the lines.  Remember the scale involved here, this is a very large structure, and there are very clear straight edge lines that encounter other very clear straight edged lines at precise angles within the base of the structure (not in the pyramid itself, but in what appears to be a 'platform' beneath it...)

I cannot find an example where such natural structures can be found anywhere else in our Solar System.  Giza is clearly the best Earth analogue for Cydonia, and I think that we're all in agreement at least that the Giza plateau was not created by natural geologic weathering alone.  

Thoughts?

[Lilly]

Well, to be fair the title of the thread is "A History of Martian Illusions" and Mr. Hoagland certainly promoted one of the major martian illusions of the 20th century. The so-called "Face on Mars" was brought into popular culture by none other than Mr. Hoagland himself. That said, there have been other famous illusions of stuff on Mars way back including Percival Lowell's "canals" on Mars. I'd say it's ok to discuss Mr. Hoagland in the context of the "face"...just so we don't get completely bogged down on just this one illusion.

Edited by Lilly, 10 June 2011 - 09:08 PM.
I can't spell!

[Hazzard]

BrandOfAmber, on 10 June 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

But in the picture you embedded there, what has me curious is the internal geometry of the structure itself, and the platform upon which it is laying (the platform clearly shows straight lines between the points of the 'pyramid' (where each angle hits the 'ground') and an 'apex' point.

If you use the zoom function on the photo I posted you will see that your "straight lines" arent that straight at all.

Edited by Hazzard, 10 June 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[BrandOfAmber]

Hazzard, on 10 June 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

If you use the zoom function on the photo I posted you will see that your "straight lines" arent that straight at all.

Sorry for the delay, just spent a lot of time with your image after you fixed it.

Great photo.

You are correct that the lines look less straight up close in that particular image.  I'll readily admit I've not seen this image before, and I haven't seriously looked into this topic for quite some time (which is why it fascinates me to discuss it when the topic is brought up...)

I would also submit that the angle of the Sun in an image will reveal things differently at different times of the day, and the same goes for the angle/orientation of the camera when the photo was taken.  And that these lines don't really 'go-away' no matter how close you zoom in.  They appear to be there.  And that brings us back to (ruler straight or not) how were they created by geologic means?

In the absence of a viable theory for the geologic formation of such a structure, we can't just say 'it is natural', ya know?
Nature works according to rules, and I've yet to see a geologic model even proposed for how the Cydonia region (with it's many, very different land structures) could have been formed naturally.

What really bothers me about Cydonia in general is the preponderance of Anomalies in that region.

For example TVF makes a really good argument for Artificiality of the 'face' based upon A priori predictions made from Viking data that were then confirmed by MGS.
http://www.metaresea...files/proof.asp

This is a clear use of principles of the Scientific Method.  

And this is not the only anomaly in the region.  The more of these that exist, the higher the probability of the artificiality of the region itself goes.

This is a clear use of the principles of statistics.

From the position of a skeptic, these principles weigh heavily on any determinations made from examining the data set.

Which is why I find myself in the position of saying "I'm not sure but it looks like an anomaly to me", and I'm totally agreed that we won't likely know for sure until boots are on the ground in Cydonia.

But I'm not so sure I'm ready to call this mystery solved either.  Does that make sense Hazzard?

@ Lilly - thanks, I thought I was going crazy...

[Hazzard]

It does. Having only seen this picture I too would wonder.




Those lines are very straight. Seriously, its going to take more than Hoagland drawing lines on a photo to dazzle me.

Here is a guy taking it one step further... http://dcsymbols.com...ion/cydonia.htm

Quote

In the absence of a viable theory for the geologic formation of such a structure, we can't just say 'it is natural', ya know?
Nature works according to rules, and I've yet to see a geologic model even proposed for how the Cydonia region (with it's many, very different land structures) could have been formed naturally.

We must not forget that we are looking at something very different than Earth... its an alien planet after all.

http://en.wikipedia....Geology_of_Mars

http://mars.jpl.nasa...utmars/extreme/

http://mars.jpl.nasa...eme/quickfacts/


Edd - to make sence.

Edited by Hazzard, 10 June 2011 - 10:07 PM.

[BrandOfAmber]

Hi Hazzard,

I think I might have mis-communicated - these are the lines I was talking about.

Since I've made 20 posts, hopefully I can post an image now?

Hmmm.. can't seem to figure it out, link to image below.

Now my comments regarding sunlight angle, etc. can be demonstrated visually...

https://docs.google....c3NWEz&hl=en_US

These lines are very weird to me.  It's not just that it's an apparent 5 sided pyramid like structure, it's that it seems to be sitting upon a rectilinear platform also.  

As I tried to say earlier, it's the multiple preponderance of these anomalies that makes it so weird.

How can natural erosion patterns explain these lines?  Erosion could clearly explain why there AREN'T lines on the other side of the structure (one sided damage to a structure is further evidence of erosion patterns), but Erosion can't explain why there ARE lines on the one side...

Things just don't erode into straight lines...  

Hope I phrased it better that time...

[BrandOfAmber]

"We must not forget that we are looking at something very different than Earth... its an alien planet after all"

Hazzard here I would disagree.  Mars is made of essentially the same stuff that Earth is, and in it's past it had an atmosphere, and the surface of the planet shows much of the same erosion patterns that we see here on Earth.

I've actually been to Mono Lake, camped there for a few days.  It's beautiful, and remarkably full of life too (although that's a different topic entirely

Wind and water erode in set patterns, and those patterns are determined by the geologic formations influencing the overall system (weather system or hydro-dynamic systems both...).  In simple terms, Wind and Water (and particulates carried in them) are moved through the past of least physical resistance through a region.  This leads to predictable weathering patterns, and similar topography in local regions, that differs (sometimes vastly) from other regions.  

These patterns follow the laws of physics, were of course exist both here on Earth, and on Mars.  

Let's take Giza for example, here on Earth, we have clear wind and even signs of water erosion at Giza.  (Arizona is also a fantastic example of this...).  We can see the effect of these forces over the centuries upon the pyramids.  What we observe is the obfuscation of lines and angles with the softening of abrasive contact.  These forces are literally incapable of producing lines and consistent angles (by consistent, I mean symmetrical angles within a single structure, like we see in the D&M).  

It's like using sandpaper as a hand-saw, it just won't work.  These forces erase lines, they don't create them.

And these are the same forces we're seeing here on Earth.

So what is missing here from the 'natural geologic' explanation is a method for producing straight lines in nature...