Wow!

Three pages on this...stuff! And no objective evidence yet from the OP author.

Wake me up when he provides something significant.

Thanks.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I vote that we actually go with this. He wants us to investigate certain things, and I think we should go ahead and investigate whether there is anything there. That way, we can go where the evidence leads us, and no one will be able to claim we're just dismissing things offhand. So, intead of just debunking theories that are offered, we could actually do an in depth study of whether the site at Cydonia is artificial or not, and the answer should be definitive, with all our working out to 'show our work'. What do we think?

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Fair enough. Where do we start?

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

A good place to begin would be getting the basics of Hoagland math written down in one place for all to see. As an example on Friday August 13, 2004 RCH used his theory of "special numbers" to come up with a rather startling discovery. He added the date that Art Bell retired for the first time to the height in feet of Bell's radio tower and arrived at an answer that had even George Noory shaking his head.

OK, first of all, we've got to decide a frame of reference for our measurements. We could use Latitude and Longitude, as we do here on Earth.

Latitude is easy to define, just how far north or south of the Martian equator we are.

Do we use degrees? Radians? What?

Longitude is more of a problem. What do we use as a meridian line? On the Earth, we use Greenwich, simply because there's an observatory there and that's where they first sorted all this out. It could have been anywhere on Earth, so the placing of the meridian is arbitrary. Where do we choose on Mars? Where is it on Mars anyway? I mean, what does NASA use to define where stuff is? Like MERs and features in orbital photos? When was the meridian on Mars defined, and by whom? It's important to find out because it may be part of the puzzle we're trying to unravel.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Looks like the Martian Prime Meridian passes through a crater called "Airy-0."

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...eleases/airy0/

Also, degrees appear to be the preferred unit.

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

Remember that hypothetical ancient Martians probably used a different location for their prime meridian, or even a different system altogether. They may not have even explored enough of the planet to need such a system.

__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn

Scalability as a Forensic Tool.
===============================
Immediately Springing to mind is the Base 10 "Metric System"
The Powers of TEN is a known system of measure and is Valid.
A Mandelbrot Set also possess scalable properties.
As do classic Geometric forms...A Square is a Square at any size.
applying as well to circles,triangles,etc.
Music theory is scalable.

So at any size or Resolution there are spatial constants.

This means Any Data concerning astronomical significance should be viewed with this in mind,Scalability.
By default,Any Evidence of Artificiality should also announce itself,no matter what size it is.
===============================
Getting back to 33.3

Tensor,Sir.

Consider then,the Number 10.
The Number 33.3
and a Circle.

Instead of dividing a circle by degrees,We use 10 and 33.3 for measure.
A circle is scaleable as is Ten.
So instead of a 12 point clockface or other devices commonly used such as 360 degrees,

***we call a Circle:TEN***

Now that a CIRCLE is ***"10"*** divide that Number by 33.3
the sum:0.3003003003003003003003003003003

Divide 10 by 3
the sum:3.33333333333333333333333333333333
Fairly redundant and therefore
33.3 is scalable.Please understand this.

So in reality You can Never Perfectly divide a circle by this number and come to a resolution,much like the Anomaly we call "Pi" or 3.14
Yet: wait!,if you Do equally divide a circle(10) by a 33.3 You result in 3 POINTS(phil's Triangle) each with there own 33.3rd ad nauseum never resolving to 10
yet actually dividing it in Tri-lateral symmetry by 120 degrees.A Circumscribed Terahedron.

To visualize this You basically will end up with this in 2 dimensional planview:
***Please Veiw the Circle as "10"***



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

Heeding requests to be more "specific" as best I can,I'll offer this:

Any Evidence of Artificiality Shall NOT be restricted by size,nor reasonable methods of measure.
Therfore...

If Cydonia does in fact display signs of intelligent design(a "message"),then it should at the very least,be expressed in various methods of communication that from the standpoint of it's designers should be able to transcend any attempts to read it.
An attempt to decode any possible message sent should uncover redundant or recurring properties,or a constant .
Certain Controls should be in place to ferret out "Noise" verses "Communication" thereby requireing one or more "Constant"
The More Constants required to communicate are proportional to the Simplicity/Complexity of a Message sent/recieved.
The problem or paradox may be that to Truly be a message of "High Intelligence", one would think You Must make it So complex that it is simple.
So that it is Simple to See it's complexities.Simple enough that you should be able to slice it with Occam's Razor.

Therfore I shall form a Singularity named "AN" to TEST what we have so far decided as requirements,a begging point,to generate our data.

Though Hoagland's model that incorporates 33 degrees and 19.471(19.5)is not specific enough for most and choice of data points leave one to question,I know of a way to "Tune" our senors to detect any design.

Therefore I choose These coordinates to designate "AN" at 1 pixel resolution/relative to any image studied(a Pixel/Square as Standard measure #1)
==
AN:
==
38.942 Degrees North
9.99 degrees west

2x19.471=38.942
9.99=3x3.33~33.3
Scalable derivatives
From here We have the Genisis of our investigation.
A 3 Triune
AN a coordinate.
AN a Square.
AN a Pixel.
All in one.



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

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/The%20Place.jpg

This map was generated by the Anomaly AN using the PDS advanced Mars "Map-a-Planet"

Now we have a graphic representation of the "Control" Point/area
We will incorporate the Fig.#3 Square from the Knibbs theory

The Square will be used as a Control because it is True to Itself and Evidence of Artificiality in this forming theory.

I will codify all this and collect the Tools necessessary,Then We Start the Actual "TESTING"

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Your last post made very little sense. However, regarding the number ten, we use a base ten number system is because we have ten digits. If we had eight digits, we would use a base eight number system. If we had twelve, we would use base twelve. Ten would not have nearly the significance it has now. If there ever was intelligent life on Mars, it was likely very different from us. Assuming they had things that could be called digits, they would probably have a different number than we do, resulting in a different number system. Of course, they could have based their number system on something else entirely, and they would still almost certainly use one very different from ours.

__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn

To see what Electric Ashalar has already done in this area please go here. Many pages of graphics and diagrams.
http://www.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs...25;t=006623;p=

http://home.1asphost.com/jacobsladder/TOOL.jpeg

Now we have a Tool.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Manifest.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

RCH seems to be saying that Martians used the same units of measure that are used on Earth.

quote: Further mathematical "terrestrial connections" with Cydonia:
The offset angle of the "Face" from true North, 22.5 degrees, is also
equal to the central "Message of Cydonia," e/pi.


This identical message is then redundantly communicated back on Earth
by the specific siting and geodesic relationships (great circles) between
two pivotal "sacred" sites: Stone Henge and the GP at Gizeh. One "great
circle," drawn on the Earth's surface so that it passes through the Great
Pyramid and crosses the equator 19.5 degrees east of Gizeh, intersects the
equator at precisely 60 degrees, the fundamental angle used in the
construction of a tetrahedron. A second "great circle," drawn between
Stonehenge and Gizeh then intersects the equator at 22.5 degrees east of
the GP. And 19.5 degrees / 22.5 degrees equals e/pi...


quote: Cydonia's own location on Mars is the ultimate reinforcement of
"planetary tetrahedral geometry." Olympus Mons is located at 19.3 degrees
north Martian latitude. If you place one vertex of a tetrahedron on Olympus
Mons (at 134 degrees west longitude) the next tetrahedral vertex lies
within five degrees of the longitude of the cydonia complex at 9.5 degrees
west.


quote: Precise 19.5 arc minutes of Martian latitude measured between
the D&M, the Face and the "City Square." Since one arc minute on the
Martian surface is (as on Earth) 1/60 of a degree, this can only mean that
the Cydonia complex was laid out in terrestrial units of our 360 degree
system.


(Above three quotes: RCH - The Monuments of Mars, between pages 198 and 199).

C.S.I.
(Celestial Scene Investigation :wink: )

Here is another Tool

The Software is providing images NOW.
A custom device in Our hands.
We can use it to solve for X,so to say.To get there we will use this trusted source for help.


Another verifiable TOOL

http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/MarsToday/marstoday.gif


Because of this we can now take another Valid refernce Point,
The "reasoning explained here...only "modified" to our purpose.

B.A.
QUOTE:
"35 years ago today, Neil Armstrong did something no one in the history of the Earth ever did:
he placed his foot on another world.
It was the culmination of the work of 400,000 people directly involved in the project,
and the confluence of technology, science, politics, and both the best and worst of human nature.
But it led to that one moment, a point in time at which we can divide all of history.
When Armstrong's boot touched the lunar surface,
the human race was no longer bound by the Earth's gravity.
We can choose to be a multi-planet race, and at that time, the choice was made.


Well,Truly inspired writing.
My hat's off,Sir.

QUOTE:
"But it led to that one moment, a point in time at which we can divide all of history."

Here is What I propose.
This is the Excact moment in time we will Choose to divide all of Cydonia's History!

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

Now we have to return to the Time the Face Spoke the Sun as Hoagland proposes approx 330,000 y.a.g.

As I've Set out from the offset guys...I'm learning quite a bit through my efforst to become an astronomer.
I think in a while I might get the hang of this!

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Now then Electric Ashalar, I have a simple question:

What on Earth are you on about?


Waffle.
That's a nice little page. What has it got to do with your argument?
I can't be bothered to wade through Hoagland's page to find the source of this proposal, and I want to know where you get this date from. If you are proposing to use this board to analyze Cydonia from an agreed baseline, don't start half way through Hoagland. We don't agree with that baseline.

Don't give up the day job just yet.

In other words, your list of 'Tools' includes everything you need to do a host of numerology, dodgy geometry and gif image manipulation, to spring a pre-decided conclusion on us, and to claim that we all assisted in leading you there. I would propose you add some additional tools to your list:

-scepticism
-consistency of analysis
-reasoned argument
-consideration of the alternative hypothesis, that Cydonia is purely natural geology.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

At the risk of feeding the troll, I offer this: Perhaps instead of rambling on about numerology and waiting for us to answer, a better approach might be to go to the library and check out a book on basic astronomy, earth science, physical geography, geology or how science works even. Perhaps there is a course at your local school or college you could take.

You may find these sites helpful, as well:
Virtual Museum: Astronomy
Introduction to Astronomy
More Simple:
WikiPedia: Astronomy
More Harder:
Open Course Astronomy
More Pretty Pictures:
JPL's Solar System
More advanced, but worth it:
Geomorphology From Space
More Awesome:
Remote Sensing Tutorial
More Relevant (more in the contents link):
USGS Eolian Processes
More Earth Science:
Intro to Physical Geography

Science involves more than ideas about stuff. If your assumptions are flawed, your conclusions are flawed, no matter how airtight your logic may be. You can riff all you want on what numbers go where and what shapes may mean or how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but that tells more about what goes on in a human mind rather than on the surface of Mars. The ideas may be fun, real discovery usually takes work, and must be grounded in data.

If folks on this board seem less than enthusiastic, it's because we have taken the time to educate ourselves and are a little skeptical of those who come in guns a-blazing. If you are really asking questions in good faith, then it behooves you to do some of the groundwork and grasp basics before expecting everyone to drop everything and plow through your obtuse manifestos. (My apologies if English is not your native tongue.) It really seems less like Astronomy and more like black light dorm posters.

I am not a professional astronomer, but there are quite a few who are on this board, and they have spent a lot of their lives becoming EXPERTS. What you propose (if I am parsing your postings correctly) seems so antithetical to what years of investigation has taught us, that I don't know how to respond but to send you to study hall. You wouldn't ask Stephen Hawking to help you with your Algebra 1 homework. I am frankly surprised that some of the Bad Masters and PhD's here have generously taken time to address this thread seriously, instead of just letting us newbies thrash it out.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to go look at those pretty pictures on the JPL website, having now finished writing my own obtuse manifesto.
(edited to repair picture link)

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

Yes. There is considerably more data supporting this conclusion. Such data from NASA, Malin Space Science Systems, JPL, scientists and many other sources should be included and weighed against impressions clouded by popular Sci-Fi cultural hokum and hearsay.

Geometric patterns and relationships which are precise in and of themselves, do not offer proof when applied to source material that is drawn from originally vague photographic impressions. This is not good science. Such mathematically applied relationships are employed as a justification for a Hollywood style advanced ancient alien civilization. (With temples, pyramids, a giant face, etc.)

All of Mars, as well as Cydonia, is a very interesting place. For the layperson, the problem with pseudo science and pop culture interpretations, is that pseudo science gets in the way of exciting real science, such as how the natural formations evolved and if there was once water and microbial life there.

Agreed - isn't finding out what is real is way more exciting than constructing fantastic scenarios? People seem to be so focused on "alien technology" that they ignore how amazing it is that our human technology is right now DRIVING AROUND ON ANOTHER PLANET!!!! (sorry to shout.) Why obsess on possible pyramids and arcane artifacts - we have a real live extraterrestrial rover that left our world and is exploring another one, and we did all by ourselves with no help from the gods or knowledge from the higher dimensions or having to build a giant face that looks at Mars. (Stonehenge don't count! )

Reminds me of the lunar hoaxies - with all the wheels within wheels of conspiracies and cover ups, wouldn't it just be easier to really go to the moon than to spend all the time and energy to pretend to go to the moon? But for some reason, the fantasy is more intriguing than the reality to some folks.

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

That square looks awfully familiar.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13520

I see that you've defined the edges a little differently. I guess yours makes a better square?

Let's go back to the Themis picture:
http://themis-data.asu.edu/img/I01024002.html
http://themis-data.asu.edu/img/brows.../I01024002.png

How much of that square is really there, and how much mental projection?

Bottom corner, pretty strong, well defined.

Top corner, not so clear. Your defined corner does not in fact match the geological features that suggest a corner there. Your right edge does not lie on the crease in the valley that grabs the eye. You are inside that line. Your left line does not lie along the edges of the hills along the top of that slope. Rather, you choose a slight offset. Why? (Because it works better?)

Right corner - not there at all. There is nothing from the midpoint on the upper right to the midpoint on the lower right. That corner is completely imaginary. Fill in the corner where ever you want to make it right.

Left corner - lots of options. Should I pick the dark shadow line along the linear mountain? That's what initially helps grab the eye, the almost square. But then it isn't really in line with the lower left edge, so you have to pick something else. The previous person defined it based on the edge of the row of mountains at top, projected in line. But I already pointed out how that isn't quite right, and you didn't pick that point. Rather, you chose the top corner of a singular mound. What criteria were used to select that corner? It's placement by projecting the bottom corner and left edge? That's not fair - the point is to find a feature and then see if it defines a square, not define a square and then pick out whatever features best fit.

You seem to have done the latter. The geographic features suggest a square, but then once you're looking for a square you then seek out the features that make the prettiest square and declare them the right ones. There's no objective criteria for evaluation.

Wow!

Four pages on this...stuff! And no objective evidence yet from the OP author.

Wake me up when he provides something significant.

Thanks.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I think I might be able to oblige... Had a few problems finding good source images though.

I started with the Colosseum, an obvious choice.


My source image, as you can see, is not directly overhead, which complicates matters somewhat.


Rotating the image kept the features and shadows consistent on each side, but as you can see I've run into some perspective issues.


So I mirrored them side by side as per the original image. Better, but it still doesn't look quite right.


I little bit of play with the colors I think I've matched the shadows as best I can - it seems pretty damn symmetrical now.

But that's a bit of a slam dunk. If someone's got some good source images of Stonehenge, the Sphinx, or other more ancient ruins (from directly overhead!) then I will happily have a play with them.

The last one is an image of the Sphinx from overhead, which is the right angle, but far from good resolution.

Linked for size


Even with this terrible little image, we can see some symmetry exists.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

I'd be interested in seeing just the "precise" patterns. I have read Hoagland's website, and his claims of precision are anything but. The table he lists of numbers found by dividing angles between objects in Cydonia is indistinguishable from random numbers, given his generous error margin. That's what my whole "City Slicker" page is about.

There is no reason to assume a priori that there are any artificial structures on Mars. To get me to listen to an argument that they do exist means having an armada of evidence backing you up. I have yet to see that evidence. Hoagland has a whole website devoted to "evidence", yet it's all bunk, as far as I can tell. His basic premise is wrong.

So should we start calling you Rip Van Maksutov?? Because I have a feeling that you'll be "napping" for quite some time.

Yes, I’d like to see the so called precise shapes and patterns too. I haven’t seen them yet. I was referring to Electric Ashalar's and others linked references to symmetries and geometric shapes, and the assertion or implication (or assumption) that such patterns can be applied to features on Mars. When the advocates of Mars ruins prop up coordinates and connected lines forcing a pattern on landscape features, there really is no actual proof when applied to the photo source material, which are usually the earliest images by the way. :-?

[quote="Chip"][quote="The Bad Astronomer"]Me too. I want to really know why 33.3 degrees is so important. Mystical references to dividing 10 by 3 doesn't do it for me, as it seems to be pulled out of thin air (no pun intended). Not to mention (as others have) surface features are included or not included to force connections with no explanation as to why the features are or are not included.'

__________________
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

See here. Hoagland and the like invoke the number 33 and expect one and all to believe the freemasons either built every structure ever, including Cydonia, or that they've uncovered some knowledge of ancient origin (probably Hoagland's hyperdimensional stuff he harps on about) and using 33 all the time is like some tribute or joke...

They always use the number like some kind of revelation too - because to them, nothing is coincidence.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Freddo, how about photos of the Pentagon from the air?

http://satellite.rsat.com/rsat/spati...g/pentagon.jpg
http://www.911dispatch.com/preparedness/pentagon.jpg
http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall200...s/Pentagon.jpg

So what did the Masons have to do with the playing speed of LPs?
[Hoagland]Let's see - 33 & 1/3 rpm- 12 inch perfect square cover - 12 divided by the 4 sides of the square = 3 which is really 33.33333, but if you play the Chipmunks at 16rpm, you can hear the message of Cydonia, and 16 is the SQUARE ROOT of 4, which is the first digit of 45 which is the next setting on the record player [/Hoagland]
- cripes! Where's the aspirin?
Besides, I thought the answer was 42....

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

Darling you're asking me to do a massive slam dunk. I think structures that are currently maintained are probably a little easy - they're not ruined, essentially.

Still, anything for you.. :wink:


Rotated. Remember this is not cheating, the catbox image of the Cydonia face was rotated to do this too!


And there you have it. The result is much more striking due to the good angle of the original shot, even when you consider this is a modern building.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif