No it wasn't. That was a response to your first post. Between preparing work and home for a possible hurricane, I didn't see your link to the knibbs theory until a few minutes ago. I'll look at your link to the theory and the other links you posted and get back to you. Be aware, depending on which way Hurricane Charley moves, I may be off line for a few days, possibly starting early tomorrow afternoon.

Heheheheh, yes, sorry, hello.

Why exactly would you assume that? What specifically leads you to believe it has astronomical significance?

Again, what exactly do you mean by astronomers? And what credentials are you looking for in determining if someone is an astronomer? And, you still haven't answered which astronomical theories you think apply. So, you want to get a bit more specific with you general statements?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

This form on the Martian Surface can be explained by a crystalline structure underneath and dust blow over the top.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...ep-ani-gif.gif

There is no mountain on Earth that I know of that is of this geometry. Natural Geology looks like this and that, and some other things. Why are these sides flat? Why the bilateral symmetry? The notion of an intentionally crude angular mound created by God-playing aliens is as perposterous as the invention of the airplane and the printing press.

If we made the Viking Orbiter again and took pictures of the face at the same angle and the same time and season, etc., the face would look very different. But that's not going to happen, because that's not the purpose. The cracks on that smithereened "face" were not there before. The thing was busted like pie crust.

Freddo
QUOTE:
"Why use old images when you can use new?"

Great point---Crisp new Data---
that is better than decades old Viking stuff.
Truly, that is right in line with one aim of this thread.

Let's see how NEW data can interact with old and be used for clarity.


From Researcher Steve Gordon/a.k.a. "Zarathos"

Thumbnails:================

http://home.earthlink.net/~selk/images/cydonia_v1.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~selk/images/cydonia_vtl1.gif

Large Versions:==============

http://home.earthlink.net/~selk/images/cydonia_v.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~selk/images/cydonia_vtl.gif
========================

To better assess Cydonia's message,(if any)in an astronomical sense,
wich, as I've stated upon opening ,
will also allow room for the output still coming down the pipe.
---Fresh!---Data.

Also Data of Our own will likely be generated.
We don't have to rely on anyone to "Tell" us what is "what".
We can Find out ourselves.
Anyone who knows very little about astronomy like myself should be able to learn a few things as
this thread progresses.
So far My experience has been without telescopes and merely staring up into space.

================================================== =

Tensor, I doubt I could Exactly answer your questions to your satisfaction so,instead.
I'll just continue and I'm sure you will begin to get my drift.

I came across a fascinating concept proposed by R.C.Hoagland.
These strange "landforms" if veiwed as an Exo-Archeological site,
exhibited in the past a curious property.And I want to check for these properties NOW,
as well as what is viewed as Hoagland's claims.***Note...below is not R.C.H,'s direct quote***
==================================================
Pg.132 The Mars Mystery- c. 1998 Graham Hancock.

QUOTE:
"The Cliff,wich lies on an axis parallel to the Face,
might be a thin wedge-shaped mesa or a gigantic wall.
It seems to act as a backdrop to the profile of the Face as seen from the City,
along a line that runs from the "City Square"
through the mouth of the Face,and then on to the center of the Cliff.

Hoagland used computer technology to re-create the Martian sky
to see if this horizontal line had any astronomical significance.
He calculated that a viewer positioned at the City center
would have seen the Sun rising out of the Face's mouth
at dawn on the summer solstice approximately 330,000 years ago."

================================================== =
I found this absolutely fascinating.

Further...
Discussing Cydonia with Noel Gorelick/a.k.a."BAMF" of ASU/Themis he informed Me of the imminent release of a dawn photo
that would Show in Planview what Cydonia looks like ---NOW---
approximately 330,000 years Later than Hancock's version of Hoagland's claim above.
I felt honoured to be the Herald of this impending data that other researchers were not privy to it's existance. Noel Described verbally the Qualities of the Image to a "T"and When it was produced ,it fit best his Slang Summary..."It's pretty Cool!"(I agree Noel.) It in fact materialized as:

http://themis-data.asu.edu/img/V03814003.html



And since My analysis of what I think

Therefore This Dawn Image(wich is CRUCIAL to this investigation I believe)
can be used for analysis in the ,at present,loose parameters of this thread.


In ancient times,before telescopes were invented,an astronomer for all intensive purposes,basically "Looked up to the stars"
sort of like this: :wink:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...824_proc_i.gif


Tensor,I guess I'm looking for the closest to this definition :

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118421/whata.html

Members who can Assess in that capacity!!!Please do.

but an ordinary astronomer will suffice.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Ummm...
What just happened here?

---PAUSE Thread---

Forum:
"AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM"
Moderators: None


QUOTE:
"Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream.
Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place."

---(Moderators: None)---

I note that there is not an asigned moderator here, but someone deemed my thread transposeable to another forum.
WHY?
wich I immediately request that this be rescinded and rectified back to the proper forum I posted it in.

I am not at all happy.

=============================
For example below:

Doe.John
QUOTE:
"Silly me, I thought there was a forum put aside for Cydonia and other Mars related discussions."

Whoever did this must have really felt the Heat!

The unbareable pressure from Noteable individuals as this "Newbie"
Doe.John
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Wow!!!

If a longstanding member of this board has such influence then I need not mock anymore than this.

There is a distinction between a screen-name and it's owner.
Phil is REAL./B.A.
Hoagland is REAL/(R.C.H.)
Noel is REAL/BAMF
Clay is REAL/E.A.

Who are You?
Doe,John. 8)

Return this thread to its rightful Spool.
Thanx.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

There is one moderator on the entire board, the owner/operator Phil Plaitt a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer. He has divided the board into several forums (fora?) according to post subject. If you are posting about Mars (and you are), it should be in the Mars Forum. This is its rightful spool. Feeling the heat had nothing to do with the complaint or the move.

Refering to Doe, John as a newbie in a disdainful tone is rude. I would suggest knocking it off.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

This might not be a good time to start throwing stones on the pseudonym issue, "Electric Ashalar". Just a thought.

I know that John isn't an official moderator (we don't have them here, as Phil chooses to do that sort of thing himself), but he's right, you know. We do have a specific folder for dealing with matters relating to Mars - its where you'll find the best experts on the subject of Cydonia, and so it would be useful to you, too, to have your questions posted in the correct area.

No.
Sorry.
I didn't ask a mouthpiece (I say that respectfully)to explain anything. :wink:
Don't impart Importance to yourself when I never asked your opinion on something you never did.

I am Posting about Astronomy...Mars /cydonia is peripheral .

And I believe this is obviously against the mainstream.

If in fact Phil did it.
He can explain why,and also correct his error.

This is not a confrontation my friend,
so remove yourself politely from the matter I am discussing for all to see with the issue I have on wether "This is the Place".
In matters pertaining to"This is the Place "...
Musashi.
You are out of your league.
With all due respect ,Sir.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Mid
Missed your post
my reply was previous to you>peace Mid.

I'm not in agreement though (Mid) now that I HAVE read your post.
I posted Elsewhere and that is where it belongs.
Final.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Let's see...

It sure sounds like Against the Mainstream is where it belongs.

I was not at all happy. Now, I'm happy.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

You're absolutely correct that this is really a side issue to your main post, so I'll let it lie now. I just wanted to clarify my earlier implicit point - Phil is indeed the one responsible for moving this thread, as he is the only person with the power to do so.

Getting back to the essence of R.C.H.'s claim,While I await justice and the return of this thread to "Against the Mainstream" where it belongs.

We can bring A very high resolution image of "The City Square" wich is a key player in this investigation,to Light.




http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...citysquare.gif

Shown in contextcircled / labled "City Square"/upper mid-center of image)

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/cydgeom3.jpg

Remember:
Within the confines of this structure Hoagland proposes a Vantage point.
Obviously if this was akin to a Ceremonial center much like the ones Humans on Earth design,There may be merit to this structure.

And From here You would be able to see the Sun being spoken from the Mouth of Ares' Face at Dawn approx.330,000 years ago.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

For the love of god, stop the madness!!

oxxo/Ashalar/whoever you are.... please write your question/theory concisely and with the best grammar you can manage. To be honest, not very much at all of what you're saying is making any sense at all

While I recognise English may not be your first language, please try to structure your posts more so we are better able to understand the point you are trying to make. At present, IMO, and with all due respect, you're talking garbage.

This is not a personal attack, I am merely saying the form of your posts is nonsensical.

Surely this high-resolution merely disproves Hoagland's baseless claim of a square, which only vaguely worked within the context of the low resolution picture you linked to, since there wasn't enough information to tell one way or the other?

That did not answer my request: (emphasis mine)
What kinds of evidence would you need to see to be convinced that Cydonia is natural?

Sorry to say this, Electric, but get over yourself! Phil RUNS this board and he has moved your thread for good reason, It's about Mars. To continue to complain about it, serves no purpose.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Having thought about the
subject, more. I have arrived at the following conclusion.

When using
the cardinal points of the compass as a baseline as suggested earlier
and using the work of others linked to in this
topic
the juxtaposition of the Earth-Sun line being irrefutable with regards to the city. The mirrored images of the "face" having shown
beyond doubt that said "Face" (as popularised by Hoagland) is but a hill. Such elegant proof cannot be denied.

The "city" was harder to to decipher, but by considering the angles suggested again by Hoagland, and using the latest NASA photos - not the older ones - it can again be shown through interpretative interpolation
that again
there is clear evidence (taking the cardinal points of the compass integrated with the angles between the "pyramid" and the location of the sun at noon mars time
that the aforementioned "city" and all it's artefacts
are in fact

hills.

all of this I have determined with recourse to maths and astronomy, and I am an astronomer. Are you?

alas!
further proof have I found with recourse to "Google" that
on CYDONIA (Mars, not Croydon)
that such a city as proposed by Hoagland et al.

is indeed not a city

but hills

observe

http://www.csicop.org/si/8512/face-on-mars.html

and thus we can let the mystery be solved

Well, I'm not a photographic expert and I'm only an astronomer "wanna be" but I can read. I'd like to quote from the BA's analysis of this issue:

This logic works for me.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Listen. I am not a mouthpiece. I am not imparting importance to myself. I don't care if you asked my opinion or not. If it isn't a confrontation it is at least another example of your rude posting style. I will not remove myself from this matter. You cannot stop me from posting here. I am not out of my league. I don't want your respect. You certainly do not have mine. Keep up the rudeness, it will please me to no end.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Electric Ashalar, you might want to read through some of the many threads we have had on picking patterns out of photographs; this one for example...
LINK
The fact that one thinks a pile of dirt looks like face, doesn't make it a face. I also think, IMHO, you may want to be looking for the expertise of a geologist and an archaeologist, not an astronomer, if you want to prove that this feature is the result of the work of an ancient civilization.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

EA, can you specify what part of astronomy you want to get to know? Attempting to demonstrate that the Cydonia "Face" is artificial isn't really astronomy, it's... exoarchaeology, I suppose, and highly speculative at best. Edit: Darnit, Swift, you Jay'd me!

Given the regularity of many features to be found in the natural world, and the irregularity of the "face", the burden of proof is on you. Simply dragging out arbitrary numerical relationships, as Hoagland loves to do, is not proof, or even evidence - the geography and morphology of any natural feature can be mined for such "amazing" numerological tidbits. (Moreover, Hoagland's track record is mighty poor, as most recently evidenced by his frenzy of labeling put-near every rock found by Spirit and Opportunity as an alien artifact. It's just pareidolia helped along by wishful thinking and arrogance.)

Let's look at it another way. I would be convinced that the "Face" is an artifact by an inarguably artificial physical feature, electromagnetic signature, etc. What would convince you the "Face" is not artificial?

BTW, you can't dictate where the thread goes or how long it lasts. Other than that, welcome to the board, and no, I don't think you're oxxo.

Yes, I do see.
Thank you, dear.

Yes, but do you understand that Freddo's images show that the face does NOT demonstrate bilateral symmetry, and thus, according to that criterion, is not artificial?

If it were bilaterally symmetric--if the left side of the "face" was truly identical to the right side--then when Freddo cut the picture in half and "mirrored" the two halves, then the two pictures he came up with would have been identical. The fact that they are not--the fact that the two final pictures look like two completely different things--means that the "face" is not bilaterally symmetrical. The left-hand side of the "face" is not identical to the right-hand side.

Hey Freddo,

I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here. Have we got any nice artificial ruins here on Earth that you can do the mirror game with, and show that there would be symmetry if Cydonia were artificial?

I singled you out, because you did the face picture, but anyone can jump in here.

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Well, the Colosseum (despite missing some parts), the pyramids, the Easter Island statues, and the Parthenon all should work.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

This, to me, is a good example of arbitrarily choosing parts of the Cydonia plain to support their claim and ignoring other parts that don't support their claim. Why is the mound almost due south of the "face" not included on the grid? If included on the grid, the grid is no longer 33.3 degrees off of true east. And why is 33.3 degrees used? Why is 33.3 considered important?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

The picture is hardly new. It's from 2001. It's been analyzed quite a bit since then.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

And exactly what do you disagree with on those pages? If you think you will be able to convince most people here that the objects on Cydonia are and are placed artificially, you will have to show where those pages (and the links to other refutations) are wrong.

Did you read the entire page and the links? And, if you did, what do you disagree with Greenberg's refutation with the reference points in the "city" that causes you to so dismiss the refutation so lightly?


This appears to be cherrypicking your evidence. You throw out a valid demonstration of how random numbers can be used to show mathematical relationships such as presented by Hoagland (without any explanation on why you think it is wrong) , but include a the name of the city used in the demonstration. Then you go on to say that Cydonia and DC are analogs. Sounds to me like you've made up your mind that Cydonia is artificial, without providing any evidence.

You continue to make statements without proof, then say be patient. Why don't you just present your idea, with the evidence, let us look it over and discuss it with you. Instead of presenting pieces here and there, that don't seem to go together.

I'm not sure why you brought this up. Are you saying that the"city" on Cydonia was designed using knibbs' ideas on city planning?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Mr Ashalar. I have no influence on this placement of threads on this board. I was merely making an observation. Another observation is that I find the tone of your posts pompous and arrogant. I will refrain from posting in this thread henceforth. Have a nice day.

__________________
Free speech is no problem
It's listening that costs

First,I apologize to all,I've cooled my jets.



Excellent Reasoning! By Mr. Plait.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html

=================================

I can Agree with this line of deduction.

So I will Use some of Phil's criteria to be a benchmark,
as I find these Valid and reasonable .

======================================
B.A.
QUOTE:
"Third, even if he didn't pick and choose, the odds of finding relationships are extremely high, even with random numbers. For one thing, he had lots of measurements to choose from. He only shows a few connections in his drawing, but in fact, given that he shows 17 points, there are literally thousands of angles he could have used. Don't believe me? Draw 3 points on a piece of paper, and then connect them. You made a triangle, of course, and there are three angles. Now, draw 4 points randomly on a piece of paper (don't make a square). Connect every point to every other point. You'll have six lines (the outside four, and two connecting opposite vertices). How many angles do you have? I count 16 when I do this, but some of the angles are equal due to geometry, so really there are 14. And that's with four points! The numbers increase very rapidly. By the time you draw 17 points, as Hoagland did, the numbers of angle to choose from is staggering. Some of them are bound to be close to special values, simply by chance.

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

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

Suddenly, Hoagland's "magic" relationships aren't looking so hot. In fact, given his accuracies, it would be amazing if he hadn't found any near hits to mathematical constants. Given enough random numbers, you can always find lots of coincidental numbers that are close to mathematical constants involving square roots, e and pi."
======================================
From Here I will extract The "Three Point"(triangle) and "Four Point"(don't Make a Square---but will also include the Square because that makes these Four points Perfect---)

Also,Since Phil has included Washington D.C.
in his article,so shall I.
QUOTE:
"I will be fair, and note that just because these relationships can be found in any random numbers does not mean the "City" isn't artificial. After all, if you did this analysis using buildings in downtown Washington, DC you'd see similar patterns. What I am saying is that Hoagland is claiming the "City" is artificial because of these relationships.

For simplicities Sake I will Use A Square because This is included in the "Knibbs Theory of City Design" Fig. 3 and so are examples of D.C.
Within the Properties of the Square in Fig.3 are phil's words.
QUOTE:
"Now, draw 4 points randomly on a piece of paper (don't make a square). Connect every point to every other point. You'll have six lines (the outside four, and two connecting opposite vertices). How many angles do you have? I count 16 when I do this, but some of the angles are equal due to geometry, so really there are 14. And that's with four points!"

That is absolutely reasonable.

================================
Where are we now?

For this Project,I have Gathered enough preliminary avenues of investigation
to Start us down the road to inquiry so now our "Tools" seem to be,so far,but not limited to:
-The Universe Generally
-The Milky Way Galaxy Specifically
-The solar System
-Mars Generally
-Cydonia Specifically
-Earth Generally
-Washington D.C. Specifically
-All known Official Data
-All known Unofficial Data
-The Cardinal Points of a Compass(wich exibits the Properties of a Square)
-A Triangle
-A Square(and,according to Mr. Plait its 16/14 angles)
-Bilateral symmetry
-An accurate Planetary Map making Software Tool.
-Knibbs Theory of City Design.
===========================================
Tensor
QUOTE:
"This, to me, is a good example of arbitrarily choosing parts of the Cydonia plain to support their claim and ignoring other parts that don't support their claim. Why is the mound almost due south of the "face" not included on the grid? If included on the grid, the grid is no longer 33.3 degrees off of true east. And why is 33.3 degrees used? Why is 33.3 considered important?"

Simply Awesome Questions Tensor!!! and before I,answer ,I again apologise for how I post,I'm not here to fight.I am here to LEARN.
I am not oxxo???(whoever that is)My Name is Clayton Spencer Ireland,I am not arrogant,I am prepared to Work for a response from Board Members,or basically..."Sing for my supper"(read my tagline,Lol!)
If I don't seem to Answer anyone who Questions me specifically,I am sure as we progress you will find your Questions answered merely as a direct result of this investigation.I am NOT ignoring you,I'm just a Human with limited time and resources much like many of you,and Feel I Have great pressure upon me to "Immediately" satisfy your requests.
I request Patience.Thank You.

Anyways...
Tensor
A variant of 33.3 would be the Sine of 19.471 I believe but I can and will offer other reasons concerning this number.
Wich on Phil's City slicker Webpage Quoted above I notice is not referenced but I think Should be.

So adding to our list of "TOOLS" I will now insert
-33 degrees
-19.471 degrees

This is an adventure!

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

If the truth is characterized by facts, reasoning and clear language, than your posts are far from it.