Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

A History of Martian Illusions

77 posts in this topic

I don't think you've established a case that we can reasonably conclude consists of "straight lines" which essentially nullifies your "really excellent point."

Are you looking at the same pictures I am? Because I don't see the straight lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you or anyone personally thinks of Richard Hoagland, it's extremely silly to say that what he does is "science at its finest".

The LHC is science at its finest. The Apollo missions were science at their finest. Putting remote controlled rovers on the surface of Mars to explore it is science at its finest. Unravelling the structure and nature of DNA is science at its finest. The computer you are using to view this webpage is the cumulative result of science at its finest.

Whatever Richard Hoagland is, he is not an example of "science at its finest".

That's a fair assessment. Let's just agree to call it Science then?

After all, I consider what I'm doing in my lab to be science at it's finest also, and you are right, there is a difference...

My point though, regarding Science being Science no matter who is personally performing the Science was what I was really trying to express here. You are correct that 'at it's finest' was not an accurate description of the work.

-Brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you've established a case that we can reasonably conclude consists of "straight lines" which essentially nullifies your "really excellent point."

Are you looking at the same pictures I am? Because I don't see the straight lines.

Hi booNyzarC,

My apologies, I should have posted my image composite again. It was on page 2 I think.

Here you go (I can't seem to figure out how to post images in a post...)

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5p0hwMqkwURNWRmNTBmMmEtZjljNi00MTg5LTk5NmMtMDMxYzhlNzc3NWEz&hl=en_US&pli=1

Straight lines, intersecting at angles... Missing a geologic explanation... As mentioned in my above post.

-Brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the original and comparing to your lines, we can see that you don't really have a match on the lines. You are ignoring the natural contours and the geographical features. Drawing straight lines over the top of jagged and irregular geographical features does not make the features miraculously conform to your straight lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the original and comparing to your lines, we can see that you don't really have a match on the lines. You are ignoring the natural contours and the geographical features. Drawing straight lines over the top of jagged and irregular geographical features does not make the features miraculously conform to your straight lines.

Wow, you have a real inability to rationally think, huh?

All while being insulting. Nice that.

What I'm suggesting is that erosion forces (you know, things we know of, that exist, and that are observable) have weathered this structure over time.

Really booNyzarC, it's not like I didn't spell it out for ya...

I'm not sure why I bother with these forums.

Go ahead and proclaim that there are no straight lines and angels in that picture.

Go ahead and forego the realization that your argument is not actually skeptical.

Pseudo-skepticism is really sick man. Here I am trying to rationally analyze a real mystery, and here you are ignoring the evidence.

You really think I just randomly drew lines on an image and am trying to sell BS here? Really? After writing such well thought out and clearly polite posts on this subject for days now?

I'm disappointed by the quality of actual skepticism displayed here.

Your best argument now is to paint ME as some sort of Hoagland character? Your not even going to address what is actually there in the image, and think rationally about geologic time?

It's a real mystery how straight lines come to form on another world as imaged from space.

It's a mystery WORTH ANALYZING on a board like UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES.

But I guess you're not interested in actual mysteries, eh?

Is anybody out there willing to rationally discuss this?

Can anyone find me a process of geology that produces straight lines & angles?

Color me frustrated and disappointed in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the original and comparing to your lines, we can see that you don't really have a match on the lines. You are ignoring the natural contours and the geographical features. Drawing straight lines over the top of jagged and irregular geographical features does not make the features miraculously conform to your straight lines.

Also, I like how you accuse me of painting in lines, on a composite image that clearly shows BOTH originals and both altered images, and labels them both as such.

Not subtle, nor fair. But I'll point out the distinction for those who didn't bother to actually look at the image themselves.

-Brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is with the overreactions of people today? Insulting? Accusing? Really?

I'll be more thorough when I have more time. I didn't intend any offense. My brevity was due to the inconvenient reality that I'm at work.

If you want to talk about being insulting, look in the mirror. I have an inability to rationally think?

Seriously, people need to just relax a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with boon.

Just because we dont agree with Amber (and Richard Hoagland) about Cydonia doesnt mean that we are insulting anyone.

We have shown that straight lines and pyramide shapes do occure in nature. Now it is up to those who claim that Cydonia is made by ET to provide the evidence.

Take your time.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here's some pictures taken from Google Mars. The imagery Google used isn't the best of the area, but Google Mars has one really cool feature. Google Mars, like Google Earth, has information about the height of the terrain (from satellite radar scans of the surface) and as a result you can alter your view angle and get a view of how it would look at an angle if you were down closer to it, and not looking straight down as the satellite pictures are taken from.I regularly do this in Google Earth to get a better feel of the area I'm exploring. Looking straight down doesn't really give you an idea of the 3d geography of the area.Anyway, here's some views of the D&M Pyramid I took when looking at it from an angle:dm1h.pngdm2i.pngdm3q.pngdm5z.pngdm6m.png

Doesn't look anything like a pyramid at all. Those ridges are only "straight" when looking down from above (and they're not even that straight to begin with).

The last image is a top-down image for reference.

Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Hazzard. Disagreeing with a proposed hypothesis is simply that. Pointing out flaws in a hypothesis should be expected and being offended by this shows that one is too attached to their predetermined conclusion.

Great pics Archimedes. When put into proper perspective like that it looks just like what it is; a big mountain. Wish I had thought to do that! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of what I said yesterday on another post. It is not healthy to blindly believe in something, without actual data to verify before you make a conclusion..

I've always loved this region of Mars. It's exciting, but entertainment at that. That could be said about the endless mysteries of life. Most of the data that needs to be collected to verify a mystery, only exists in the realm of fantasy and speculation, till the proper tools are invented/discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It doesn't really take much effort to do a bit of digging into claims like this and the others I've looked at - the "reservoir" and "Bio Station Alpha" - and realize you're not looking at anything artificial because there's so much data available in the public domain to allow you to look at it from another angle, in different lighting, view images from a different satellite etc.

Yet those who are making the initial claims don't seem to be putting much effort into investigating the matter properly to see if they really are looking at what they claim.

I wonder how many people still claim that's an artificial structure when it really just looks like a hill. Mars (like Earth) has thousands and thousands of hills, mountains, craters, buttes, mesas, etc. Is it really unusual to find one with interesting but very inexact symmetry and straightish lines?

If, for argument's sake, there was human-like intelligence life on Mars and it was examining Earth the same way they are examining Mars, they would be under no illusions whatsoever about the existence of artificial structures on Earth.

But on Mars, the best we get are brownish red rocks, hills, etc. on a brownish red planet that people are claiming are clearly artificial structures, but on further investigation turn out to be just what they looked like at first glance - natural.

Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

<SNIP> and the 'face'.

There is no face!

Haven't you seen the new pictures of that same spot???

Regarding that 'pyramid' you guys were talking about, I'm afraid I agree with booN, if you look closely, those really are NOT straight lines and as others have already pointed out, nature IS capable of producing stright lines and mounds or mountains that look like pyramids...

If I get the chance I'll post my own picture of that mound and draw in the actual lines as they really are... (booN - maybe you can do it ;0 )

P.S. Welcome to UM BrandOfAmber :)

Edited by Paxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's amazing the things people think they can see in what are rocks and hills.

Somehow, this:

image015.jpg

Is what some people see when it actually is this::

307-230906-3253-6-3d1-Cydonia_L.jpg

Where everyone else sees mountains in a desert, they conjure up "cityscapes", "pyramids", "fortresses".

They draw all sorts of angles, lines, triangles superimposed on these landscapes, and starting dividing, adding, etc. until they get something close to pi or the square root of 2 and declare it to be some sort of mathematical design. The natural terrain is nowhere near as even, straight lined and symmetrical as they claim and thus it's not hard to fudge your lines and triangles to make things look artificially neat and geometrical.

This is then combined with a total misunderstanding and mutilation of statistics and probability to conclude "there's just no way that chance could have produced these amazing geometrical patterns!!!!111!!!"

Yet, at the end of the day, all we've got is a bunch of mountains on Mars and some wild imaginations. No pyramids. No cityscapes. No fortresses. No enormous face.

Just more goddamned rocks.

edit: That "city complex" diagram is actually of a different area of mountains in Cydonia than the D&M Pyramid region (it's north of the D&M "complex"), but my point still stands.

Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Archimedes

It makes me wonder if the people who believes those natural landscapes have artifical structures on them are being hosnest with themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never ceases to amaze me. People convince themselves of some of pretty crazy things. I can only shake my head in response to some of it. But pointing and laughing sometimes seems a viable and reasonable option too. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok, I did it :)

As you can see, it's a LOOOONG way off from having straight lines!

May I remind you that on Earth we've seen natural mountains that have far straighter lines.

Also, keep in mind, this mound is HUGE, if you looked at it close-up, you'd see how far off straight those lines are!

post-102112-0-03450800-1308847538_thumb.

Edited by Paxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I think that we can safely say that this Hoagland claim, IS PURE BUNK.

NEXT! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I did it :)

As you can see, it's a LOOOONG way off from having straight lines!

May I remind you that on Earth we've seen natural mountains that have far straighter lines.

Also, keep in mind, this mound is HUGE, if you looked at it close-up, you'd see how far off straight those lines are!

post-102112-0-03450800-1308847538_thumb.

Nice, but of course you know what the argument will be... the structures were eroded to be irregular over time. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they eroded, why doesn't the erosion show any internal structure? It this was a regular structure that eroded, then it seems to have been carved out of or built up from solid rock.

Building something like this out of solid rock doesn't seem like something an advanced intelligent civilisation would do (at least to me).

Making enormous solid (or mostly solid) structures out of rock was what the Egyptians were doing 5,000 years ago because they lacked the technology. The shape of the pyramids is also a result of it being a naturally stable shape - it doesn't require advanced technology to prevent it from collapsing or falling over.

These days, we have much more advanced technology that allows us to build towers like the Burj Khalifa that is six times the height of the pyramids and weighs only a fraction of them.

Where's the Martian equivalent of the Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, etc. Enormous beautiful architecture that doesn't take someone drawing triangles and circles all over it to show it was made by an advanced civilisation? Surely they advanced beyond the technology of simply building huge simple shapes out of solid rock.

I can guess that the suggested solution to that problem is that Mars is currently dead and all other evidence of their civilisation has been eroded away and these "pyramids" are all that is left. Well those silly Martians ended up building pyramids that eroded to look like the mountains that are scattered all over the same area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, but of course you know what the argument will be... the structures were eroded to be irregular over time. :rolleyes:

Yep, and then they'll say we're all a bunch of closed minded meanies... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yea, I think that we can safely say that this Hoagland claim, IS PURE BUNK.

NEXT! :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325346,00.html

"No one on the Mars Rover team is puzzled or surprised by the rock," he said. "I can guarantee you that if [the alien theory] had any validity, we would would have a major press conference."

:)

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, and then they'll say we're all a bunch of closed minded meanies... :yes:

never..... :innocent:

but 'we' might say that you are possibly subjectively selective of the data you take on board...you know..

the confirmatory bias thing...or maybe that you are in denial.... :P

aaaaaanyway....you've heard from the rest...now lets hear it from the best... ^_^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ4Meh7SNdU

(richard's hair... :w00t: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

nice work on this thread, BrandOfAmber...... :yes:

Richard Hoagland is, IMO, brilliant. I always enjoy what he has to share.

He is, of course on the 'sceptics' hit list..lol...right up near the top, if not actually TOP of the list.

THAT'S how potent his research/work is.

:)

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Remember that all visual evidence at this site is drawn from, verifiable in, and supported by the official science data. Links to the associated official science data is always provided to both encourage and facilitate verification. Absolutely no evidence alterations have been made except to enhance clarity. There is no need for a leap of faith. If ever in doubt, pursue the verification process and prove it to yourself.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/

:w00t:

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.