How are those sites designed? You take all the main walls of all the main buildings, and one of them will point north? Then you take such a map and point some crude arrows on them (the 'jacobsladder' link), suggesting there is more to it?

Here are some more links for you: Another map of Ur, and the Temenos, the part where jacobsladder points it red arrows. What in the Temenos suggests any planning with regards to latitude, longitude, or other orientation? They almost have some likeness to a northeast/southwest orientation. So what?
This is the Ziggurat, and again there is no clear orientation. So all you have is one wall of the palace.

Keep on searching and you will find cities with a south-north orientation or a east-west orientation or so, but that's the law of chances... And if you take more recent, Western cities in account, they are often build around a church, and those often have a clear east-west orientation (mosques as well, perhaps?). My advice to all dreamers: why use exotic, flawed examples when you have easier ones at hand?

The use of an orientation in Earthling cities doesn't prove (or disprove) anything about Cydonia. If there was a square pointing straight north or straight east, it would be harder to blame it on coincidence/nature, but then you have to have a square in the first place

Francis

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Mathematical "relationships" and orientation to certain directions can't prove that the formations are artificial. The question of how else could these features have been formed, can be seen here (I posted it a few pages back). There is a geological explanation for these formations. There is no need to be looking for more "out there" explanations.

Occam's razor:
"Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred"

Isaac Newton:
"We are to admit to no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance"

Albert Einstein:
"Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler than need be"

Therefore, it seems obvious to me that the Cydonia region is geological in origin.

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

Blind faith???

No...what is appearent is that you have made an extraordinary claim and you have no evidence to support that claim...

Oh, btw, EA...the "burden of proof" is on you...your "feelings" are irrelevent.

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

Electric:

I mean no offense by posting this, only help, but you are coing off as very arrogant in these latest posts. That will get you banned by the BA eventually. Tone it down so we can have a decent discussion.


Now back to what i was saying.

The face at Cydonia and its perplexities were brought up by you. IT was thuroghly debunked, expecially by Freddo. You you ingored his evidence for the "assumed" symetry of the face when it is obviously not.

Taking images from a website and drawing lines on them is not scientific study. The disclaimer is there for a reason. Converting the picture to jpeg can blur lines and make angles stand out when ther are none. I have taken many digital images and turned them to jpegs to know that this distrotion can occur. Especially if it is compressed and shrunk like several of these pages do.

Drawing lines on the pictures and saying "see it looks similar!" to earthbound structure does not mean anything.

The only way to really work with images is the uncompressed, unchanged origonal photograph. Either digital or hard copy. Otherwise the results cannot be trusted when measuring angles and directions of each point.



Now onto a east west orientation. That is a very simple explanatioin. Several cultureas of the world worshoped the sun and moon. Some of the south American tribes are very good example. After long periods of recording and watching the sun they learned to predict the movements of it throught the year. Its very simple to do, ive done it for a class myself. Just find a stable motionless point and look at the same place every day. Then meassure the distance the sun is at the horizon from that point. Voilla! You have your chart. Over several years you can get more accurate.

Thus many built their temples and structures to represent this east wes configuration and maximize the sunlight coming in their windows (candles are very expensive to make) and also use it as a calendar for their structures. They built special slits that would only be lit by the sun on a certain date range. During this they would be their holidays. A very ancient automatic calendar.

Thus there is NO reason to think that a directional configuration of a site means anything at all.



Next.....



P.S> as many have said, the Burdon of prrof is on you. Your job is to do the reaserch or pose theories and then back up your claims. We are here to question those claims, back them up as correct, or show you why they are wrong. think of us as a review panel for a doctoral committe. We don t do anything except help you on your paper, we will not go lout into the world and do your work for you to write that paper.

[fixed sentance that made no sense. Just changed the order of words around and deleted a word. It was about didital pictures. ]

__________________
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world."
G'Topia

Good explanation from Humphrey. One more thing about geometry EA. Even if you correctly handle the photos and do find straight lines or squares shapes in some photo, that does not prove they are artificial. As NC More recently pointed out (and I pointed out pages ago with some crystal photographs), straight lines and geometric shapes are not unusual in nature and do not require intelligent beings (human or other) to create. So they are not proof of some civilization on Mars.

I'm not sure you understand the idea of burden of proof. You are making an extraordinary claim, that some civilization on Mars built a city and other structures. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. I don't think anyone would consider a straight line on some photo proof of this. IMHO, unless one of the orbiters find a large structure that spells out "EAT AT JOE'S" (I make a little joke) the only way such a proof could be made would be an exploration of Mars that found more than photographic evidence from orbit. If you look around these forums you will find discussions of what is involved in proving that something is artificial on Earth (microscopic analysis for tool marks, chemical analysis, etc.). I would think you'd need at least that much on Mars.

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

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

I have built entire jpeg planets...

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

So are you saying that it does not happen or that it does?

I just remember seeing when i put a picture on my webpage that a disdortion from the unedited image can occur in some of the finer lines.

__________________
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world."
G'Topia

I´m saying that you´re absolutely right.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Of course you CAN use the pictures, but without the callibration or orthographic info or all the collary data that is necessary to properly project a 2 dimensional image of a 3 dimensional object on to a 2 dimensional grid without distortion, any mathematical analysis will be pointless.
Since apparently the crux of your argument for "artificial" origins of the city relies upon precise mathematical relationships between features, choosing sloppy data undermines your whole enterprise, no pun intended.
While it may be "fun" for some as you put it, it won't be scientific.
GIGO, as they say.

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

So EA a reply in the other thread but none here?

sts60

Bad Grad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
I think Carlotto's work overides freddo's opinion quite well

***and still does***

sts60---
and freddo's 'demonstration' referred to merely shows Hoagland's Hominid/Feline model to be on equal footing with natural morphology.

***and still does***

sts60---
Freddo made an elegantly clear demonstration showing lack of symmetry.

***freddo made an elegantly clear demonstration of Hoagland's Hominid/Feline or split-faced morphology ,but this work has been done quite well before him,and I'm sure elsewhere After him,you are excused from this for lack of experience of other's research...Freddo has done nothing new,freddo is merely in a line of precession beyond others with virtually the excact same image results :Good job Freddo/not as good a job as Hoagland though***

sts60---
It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.
***Your words not mine***

sts60---
You are simply denying a fact.
***wich "Fact?"***

sts60---
Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
***ummm...no.that's the way it WAS,this thread
aims to change that***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
The Square can Back itself up in its own expression when applied to design.
***duhhh :wink: ***

sts60---
This doesn't even mean anything
***it means what it says***.

sts60---
What are you trying to say? "Back itself up in its own expression"?
***i'm not equipped to speak the thousand words the picture I included for the context you qouted me***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
It seemingly reveals its prescence when searched for as an underlying element to artificiality or design.

If you keep looking until you find a few points you can draw lines through to suit your predisposition, sure, anything will "reveal its presence". Never mind all those points that inconveniently don't suit your purpose.
***this is your opinion of how I work,erroneous as it is ,it now requires Emphasis...so that you cannot shirk from the next ERROR you make***

sts60---
That's not science, that's wishful thinking.
***explain to the board your version of what is and isn't "Science"---In YOUR own thread---you'll last a weekend (at best) before you realise you are not equipped to qauntify or qualify what science "IS"***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
Hence my confidence that Cydonia will exhibit astronomical properties in layout.

Your confidence is misplaced;
***My confidence is only misplaced in a sense that this thread belongs in "against the mainstream"...not the M chronicles oh well!?!?!?... ***

sts60---
you can't make it so by wishing it to be so, or simply plugging your ears and repeating that it is so.
***neither can you...even though i don't recall ear plugging or such wishing....the wish I -DID- make in this thread is on this page...it is my first and only wish"to See Light"***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
"What is Concealed is Revealed.
And the Truth shall conquer All."

The truth is available to you.
***You?Truth's arbiter?Pass thanx***

sts60---
However, it doesn't suit your preconceptions,
***my preconceptions were ten times as anti-artificial as your lukewarm posts,and I would have happily and forcefully applied them to non-sense like a face on mars ,---That was before I looked.---
My mind has since been Changed by evidence***

sts60---
so you are ignoring it in favor of a silly Hoaglandesque (that's a redundant adjective pair) fantasy.
***Not at all,but YOU are ignoring - THIS - The Washington D.C./Cydonia Square analogs(that's a redundant geometry pair)and yes, I know it Scares you.

sts60---
<snip picture of checkerboard>
You drew a square on a checkerboard. So what?
***incorrect,please return to the website that is provided in the context of that image on page 7 and verify that this is untrue,then get your butt back in here and rescind that remark ---and do NOT edit out the false statement--- on the SAME page you made it,so as not to misguide any future readers not already tainted with this fallacy,Thanx in advance.***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
Gentleman,instead of analysing the Face, at present,I will continue with analysing the "City Square"and see if it "IS"Square based.The Face will be covered in due course.Others have done enough work already.No rush.

A. Your analytical techniques consist of searching around until you find something to draw a square on.
***wrong***

B. "Others" have done a lot of Photoshopping.
***your point?***
This "analysis" is somewhat lacking in rigor.
***mine or yours?...I'd say the latter***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
For all intensive purposes,from the point of view of the city center,all that seems to be generally stated is that the Sun "Appeared to RISE" out of the Mouth in past history.I myself don't know if this is true.But the mere referance to this by default requires a referance point.Old viking images aside the MOC image will do nicely.

"Someone claimed it. Therefore there must be something to it."

***someone claimed the face reminded them of middle butte and another has claimed it looks like camel-back mountain,It's a small mountain,a big hill,a knob,a mesa ,a sheild volcanoe,Your point??***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
That should not stop me from determining what possible relation these structures may have geometrically.The Face will be discussed later.

***and still WILL be discussed later once the City Square is concluded for study***


sts60---
It's already been discussed, right here. You can't pretend otherwise - or rather you can, but you won't fool anybody here.

***the face has raging discussions all over the internet,I've participated in a bunch,wich may be a reason for misguided charges of arrogance against me ,when it's simply a matter of:..."Been there-Done That!"
Phil has his reasons why he refuses debate ,I -don't- refuse I merely diffuse attempts to sidetrack my thread***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
We must,first,in my opinion have a vantage point so that we can begin determining the possible significance/artificiality of the City Square.

There is no evidence for a "City Square". Just images downloaded and Photoshopped until they scream for a quick and merciful end.

***direct me to The article in Nature or any other journal that has been published on this,anyways...that is why we will use as many images from "official sources" as possible...so that any "photoshopping" will only show up on THEIR debit card***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
Obviously,if the City Square is a 'ruin',its long decayed and covered in debris,sand,dust and possibly snow.

Snow???
***yep ,Snow.***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
Regardless. If it "WAS" a ceremonial centerpiece in a Complex or 'City' it should reveal traces of that possibility.

Correct.
***thanx***

But it doesn't, except in the fevered imagination of imaginative, er, gentlemen like Hoagland.

***I still await mr.Hoagland's City Square analysis, so in essence it probably is still in his imagination and at best in draft form,at any rate I haven't seen it yet.***

sts60---
Electric Ashalar wrote:
The Crux of determining any possible significance begins within it's boundaries.So The City square will suffice at this stage.

No square. No City. No significance, except that it's Mars, which is plenty cool and interesting without silly alien stories.
***No significance/Lol! then feel reprieved and have fun...no need to return to this thread...bye!***

sts60---
I'm sorry for sounding so harsh, EA. But you're trying to sell us a story with nothing to back it up, and collectively we can see through it.

***What Story/Stories? The only person I can identify trying to sell anything(books?)is the owner of this website...I have no online store,the closest thing to selling a story I have come across is my sister who has been the researcher of author Maggie Siggins,winning two Governor General Awards in Canada for non-fiction(real awards-not Angstroms-lol!)***

What saddens me is that people overlook the amazing story of another world, and our ability to explore it, in favor of ghost stories. It's like driving to the Grand Canyon and paying all your attention to discarded bottle caps.
***bottle caps are Evidence of Artificiality,if the twin-rovers came across something similar to one I doubt you'd know about it though***

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Well, 9 pages in and I finally have to concede one to EA, though I don't cotton to the ad hominem at the tail end. Maybe I am whipped up with the debate fever here in the U.S.,but point to Electric for the zinger.

I suggest a more appropriate analogy involving the Grand Canyon would be it's interpretation by the Young Earth Creationists, who upon viewing the canyon would only see proof of it being formed in a single supernatural catastrophic flood event, ignoring the overwhelming and beautiful evidence supporting the scientific naturalistic explanation of deposition offered by "traditional" geology. (Please note that despite the bottle caps, I agree with the sentiment you were expressing, sts60. I think the natural explanation is mind blowing and wonderful without additional postulates of a Martian civilization, or another deus ex machina.)

On another point, EA, if you are going to post long line by line rebuttals it would be helpful (at least for me) if you used the board's quote tags- it took a while to follow who said what for a while there. Doesn't take that much extra time once you get the hang of it and it improves the format a bajillion percent IMHO....

And here is where I think lies the root of the problem.
EA, it really appears that you are the one operating under a different understanding of "what is and isn't 'Science'" than the other members of this scientific board. If you really think the practice of "science" is somehow malleable or contigent upon what each of us thinks or chooses, then the misunderstanding between us is greater than disagreements over image interpretations. No one of us gets to choose the rules, though the ingenious discover them. Nature was like that before we got here, and often reminds us that she sets the agenda, not us. Every idea, brilliant or bonkers, gets held up to the same measuring stick of the way things are. Science is a verb not a noun.

Ironically, in a crude way the bbs format mimics the scientific process of show me what you got-acid test-many minds bashing together to arrive at a better model of the universe thingy. And it gives the concept of publish or perish quite a new spin, too.

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

I don't think Freddo or anyone claimed that he had done new research. He has done it again himself, to better make up his own mind, instead of relying on other peoples research. This is sometimes a good thing to do, you know. More importantly, Freddo has shown why he is correct and Hoagland not. You just claim the opposite without giving any evidence.
One time you claim you are here to learn, next time you are here to teach. Make up your mind please. But keep it open

Yep, but that's still nothing...

It really scares me, indeed. The analogy between a at random drawn square over a Washington DC picture and an even randomly drawn square over Cydonia is amazing. They both have nothing to do with any geographical feature. I'm really scared by people who have trouble ignoring things that aren't there.

Are you claiming that sds60 has already edited out remarks, or are you implying that he might do that? I hope you mean the former, because the latter would be IMO a very low ad hominem...
[-X I think it is very important that both the people who think that there is a city square (or even simply a square), and those who don't, stay in the discussion. If you only 'allow' people who agree on your point of view, you don't have a discussion at all. It is not because it is 'your' thread that you can decide who can participate (or even where it belongs). If that's what you want, start your own board. You can be assured that I won't be there...

You haven't been able (or trying) to argue against any argument given against your claims.All you can say is 'my sources are better, no matter what you say'. You haven't given a reason why Freddo's symmetry argument is invalid, or why my Ur-pictures don't show that your claims about them are wrong and irrelevant. If you need more time to look things up, fine, say so. If you see our point but still believe in the face or the square, fine, again say so. But don't say 'you're wrong' without any valid argument. It's a very annoying habit, even more than your lack of the use of BBcode (quotes etc.).

Francis

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Electric Ashalar, you show us a picture of a square on a crosswordpuzzle. You add a link to a gif which gives the exact same picture. There is no explanation there. If we go to the homepage of that link, there is a bunch of stuff. What the link is between the homepage and that particular picture, or between the discussion and that particular picture, remains unknown. I am not going to go through every page and link on that website to find out when I by chance will happen on your picture, and thus know what is the meaning of it. If your links aren't useful (i.e. informative), please refrain from giving them.
I have in the meantime searched a bit more on this website, and I find no reference at all to Mars, Cydonia, or the Face. Almost all other crackpot theories are there, but not this one, apparently. Could you please show us which part of this website is supposed to be relevant?
I don't have the impression you have drawn that square on that crossword, but all we know is that someone has done that and you show it and link us to it. The difference is very small, but obviously extremely important to you... If you want to convince people, you will have to do much better than that. Now you are only weakening your position.

Francis

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

As a professional image analyst, I'm most interested in a reply to this, EA.

CJSF

Wow, EA. You disappear for a while, I stop paying attention to the thread, and you come back and post tiny snippets of everything I've said in this thread, with no context, and flail away. I wish you'd learn to use the quote feature.

Anyway, give me a little time to put together a proper reply, and I'll address your latest. In the meantime, I have two requests for you:
1. Kindly refrain from accusing me of changing the record, or from admonishing me to refrain from doing so in the future. I have not, I never do, and I do not appreciate the aspersions cast on my integrity.
2. I'd like to know what your qualifications are in terms of astronomy and space-related issues in general. For the record, I have undergraduate degrees in space physics and anthropology, both of which could be considered germane to the current discussion. My graduate engineering degrees aren't really relevant to this discussion, but my experience is:I've been a space systems enginer (I usually just say "aerospace" because that's what people are familiar with) for 13 years, have been an amateur astronomer on and off most of my life, and have at least a nodding familiarity with planetary science and the design and operation of the spacecraft sent to Mars. I've also been part of a team that built, launched, and checked out a recent commercial Earth-imaging satellite, which gives me some background in remote sensing.

As for the rest, I'll "get [my] butt back in here" when my work and family schedule permit me to compose a proper reply, which will include quoting your statements fully and legibly - a courtesy I hope you will strive to reciprocate in future posts.

Wow, EA. You disappear for a while, I stop paying attention to the thread, and you come back and post tiny snippets of everything I've said in this thread, with no context, and flail away.

***I have posted wholesale your entire Post and -ONLY- your entire post from page 7 that i have replied to on page 9,there is ---NO--- out of context tiny snippets,but basically a point by point reply because you erroneously claimed I did an action I did NOT do***


I wish you'd learn to use the quote feature.
***my wish is still my only wish...YOUR wish is not My command***

Anyway, give me a little time to put together a proper reply, and I'll address your latest.
***sure,I'm not unreasonable,though many of you have not given me an inch of slack let alone a moment to drink a beer or enjoy smokin' a doobie,feel free and take a week, say ummm...October 13th.Is that good for you Sir?see ya then.***

In the meantime, I have two requests for you:
1. Kindly refrain from accusing me of changing the record, or from admonishing me to refrain from doing so in the future. I have not, I never do, and I do not appreciate the aspersions cast on my integrity.
***You are doing a bang up job on your own in the integrity department,please continue...I never accused you of anything in that regard,I warned you NOT to because in You I sensed avarice,I'm gonna tame that from you and a few others who have been needlessly expanding the pages of this thread with crap,but you are the unluckly guy who made a false claim***

2. I'd like to know what your qualifications are in terms of astronomy and space-related issues in general. For the record, I have undergraduate degrees in space physics and anthropology, both of which could be considered germane to the current discussion. My graduate engineering degrees aren't really relevant to this discussion, but my experience is:I've been a space systems enginer (I usually just say "aerospace" because that's what people are familiar with) for 13 years, have been an amateur astronomer on and off most of my life, and have at least a nodding familiarity with planetary science and the design and operation of the spacecraft sent to Mars. I've also been part of a team that built, launched, and checked out a recent commercial Earth-imaging satellite, which gives me some background in remote sensing.
***I'm a Mover,that is how things like furniture and paradigms go from where they were...to where they will be, wichever institute that gave you a piece of paper/papers to frame would reconsider if this display was observed,I will continue to show you why.***

As for the rest, I'll "get [my] butt back in here" when my work and family schedule permit me to compose a proper reply, which will include quoting your statements fully and legibly - a courtesy I hope you will strive to reciprocate in future posts.
***I have and already did what YOU 'propose' to do in the future ,my distaste for "Code" is merely a distractionary avenue for you and others to vent frustrations,My frustration is you claimed as Truth a falsehood(and it still has not been rectified as of this post,...rectify it.)as for YOUR qualifications...I'm glad I procur no services from you or your TEAM...you can't even get things straight in this thread...no wonder Mars missions fail /if there is guys like you involved...with this much attention to detail... you are moot,Try harder.***

==========================================
Christopher Ferro
Welcome to the team.

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

This is a discussion board and what you may view as "crap" others may see as a valid argument or simply comic relief.

What I want to know is the reason why Cydonia can not be of geological origin? The hypothesis that I have put forth (that these formations are geological in nature) has yet to be disproven. No amount of mathematical manipulation, attention to orientation or simply "looking like something" (pareidolia) is sufficient to negate the hypothesis that the formations are geological.

In order to support the hypothesis that Cydonia is of alien construction there has to be considerably more evidence than I've seen presented here (or anywhere else for that matter). Now that we have a professional image analyst here (welcome aboard Chris Ferro) perhaps these issues will be addressed.

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

Using the quote feature is simply courtesy...you'll find that being dis-courteous, on this board, will get you nowhere.
This goes far beyond being dis-courteous...that's just plain insulting. Must you behave in this manner to get your "point" across???

Stick to the issues, and leave personalities OUT OF IT!!!

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

Let's not be hasty. I've been through this morass before, though years ago and in a different venue.

I find your style condescending and pretentious, your arguments unscientific, biased and uninformed. I almost regret piping in on this thread, but it irks me so to see such drivel promulgated as some objective search for "truth."

And you still haven't explained:

You can't make a claim to some mathematical relationship between arbitrarily important features without some systematic method for geometrically correcting and image rectification. What is your geodetic (or areodetic?) datum? What projection are you going to use? What are it's parameters? What coordinate system? What scale factor? What method are you going to use to correct the image geometry to match? Are you going to use image triangulation? Polynomial transformation of what order? What accuracy can you hope to acheive? How precise is it? What kind of elevation are you going use to correct the image?

These questions all have QUANTIFIABLE, real answers. You can't just take GIFs or JPEGs from a website, that were derived from uncorrected image data, and start measuring them.

With that, I am going back to lurker mode for this thread. I see no reason to pursue this issue. Just looking at the geomorphology (areomorphology?) of Cydonia, it's plain to me that this is NOT artificial. Spectacular, beautiful, yes.

CJSF

edited to insert NOT above. ARGH!

Mak (coming out of sleep mode):

Christopher, why do you think Cydonia is artificial?

Mak (going back into sleep mode)

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

Then I suggest you start to feel it.

When you make a claim that is contrary to established science, then the burden is in fact on you to provide evidence for that claim, good evidence. You haven't done this so far, and you've had 10 pages in which to do so. All I have seen is bluster and innuendo.

I strongly urge you to start backing up your claims with hard evidence.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

AUGH!
I mean NOT! NOT!
[homer voice]D'OH! (muttering)Stupid forgetting a word brain thing![/homer voice]

(I edited it to fix it.)

Great, now EA is going to say this is a Freudian slip, and reveals what the image analysis speaks to your subconcious, which is more capable of understanding the hypermath than your conscious mind. Or not.
This is not only discourteous and smacks of arrogance (joining the board and not abiding by it's conventions), but it also displays a disregard for clarity and communication. What possible downside could there be to presenting your comments in a way that everyone can easily follow what is being actually said by whom? Wait, I think I answered my own question.

And as for attitude:
"What further need have we of witnesses?" "Release Bawabbas!" Please read Steven Dutch.

(And, poster to poster, when the BA ducks in to fire a warning shot over the bow, you really need to take it seriously if you want to be a member for much longer... I personally feel you are on thin ice and need to show a lot less flippancy and a little more data, but the final call is always up to Phil, and it is a final call.. A lot of folks here are giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your intentions- that you aren't just here to waste time and wind us up. Your ad hominem attacks and then ignoring facts are eroding that premiss.)

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

Phew! I'm very happy to see that "NOT" .

Now, back to the OT. I'd like to know why (what evidence supports the claim) that Cydonia is NOT of geological origin?

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

Electric Ashalar, here is problem 1. You stated that the Face is symmetrical. That is a clear, direct statement with no ambiguity. Freddo proceeded to demonstrate that there is not symmetry. That is a clear, visual demonstration that cannot be argued against. As you say, Hoagland (or someone on his site) did it first. Freddo never claimed to be original, merely pointing out the demonstration for all to see here. And the image is crystal clear - the bilateral symmetry is not there.

Hoagland had to concede that - thus the sudden turn to a new explanation, the human/cat split face. That is required because the face is not symmetrical. So you have now asserted that the human/cat face idea - while simultaneously retaining the claim that the face is symmetrical. This is a self-contradiction. You can't have it both ways, and your attempt to do so shows you are incapable of clear thought on the topic. This seriously undermines anything you have to say. If you argue there's symmetry in something as easily shown visually to not be symmetrical, then there's no reason for us to consider anything you have to say about any other visual topics that rely on judgement and interpretation. Yours are shown to be suspect.

Problem 2:
What does greed have to do with posting integrity? (Avarice is greed. Perhaps you meant duplicitousness? Deviousness?) Correcting your word choice is not my real point. The real point is your attitude with this comment. "I'm going to tame that from you..." Your comment was rude. R-U-D-E rude. It is the assertion that sts60 would edit his post to change content. You make this assertion with no evidence that he would do so, and no justification. Besides which, to do so would be in violation of the board rules, something that would get him banned. Therefore, he is not likely to do it, so you have less justification for thinking he might.

Problem 3:
Incorrect. The operative word is legibly. Your method of quoting makes it difficult to separate who said what.

You are purposefully blocking clear communication. That is rude. That is also contrary to the stated goal of learning. Rules for writing (such as grammar, punctuation, word choice, etc) are there to ease the transfer of ideas. Ignoring those rules just makes communication more difficult.

Furthermore, why create more reasons for someone to be frustrated? In my experience, frustrations are additive, not subtractive. They accumulate, not vent. Creating a frustration just makes people less likely to listen to you. If you want people to be receptive, you should remain polite and attempt to reduce frustrations for all.

Okay, clarify. What falsehood do you mean? As far as I can tell, you are bent out of shape because sts60 said that you drew a square on a checkerboard and then posted it. What about that statement is it that you find so objectionable?

Is it that it's not a checkerboard per se, but resembles more an empty crossword puzzle grid? I.e., it is not an alternating grid of red and black, but some more complex pattern of black and white? That doesn't seem worthy of complaint.

Is it that you didn't draw the square, someone else did, you just linked to the picture? Again, hardly worthy of so much ire. Okay, you posted someone else's picture, not your own. Big deal.

So please explain just what falsehood sts60 is so guilty of stating, because so far I can't figure out what's so important.


Problem 4:

Your grasp of the English language seems lacking. Several times you have made statements that are incomprehensible, and you do not clarify what you meant when people ask. If English is not your primary language, let us know so we can cut you some slack, but still you need to work on clarification when asked.

"The Square can Back itself up in its own expression when applied to design." What I think this is supposed to mean is that the Square speaks for itself with regards to the idea of it being a designed city feature, and does not need any more evidence. Is this a fair restatement of your intent? If so, you are in error. The Square is lacking in detail to justify seeing it as more that a random collection of features. You have yet to prove it is even a square, other than in the barest semblance of structure.

"it means what it says" Hardly a good response to someone who can't understand what it says and is asking for clarification. "Sorry, you're not allowed to understand what I'm saying. I'm speaking cryptically, and if you can't figure it out, that's your problem." Right.

"i'm not equipped to speak the thousand words the picture I included for the context you qouted me"

WHAT? Okay, the thousand words refers to the old saw, "A picture's worth a thousand words." Thus there was a picture instead of a thousand words. Great. But your sentence is a complete mishmash and is incomprehensible. Your intent seems to be to say that you can't explain clearly in words what the picture conveys visually. At least, that's what I can make out from that sentence.

If so, that's a lousy response. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it depends on the picture as to what words it replaces. Showing a picture of a child running down the street with burning napalm on them is worth a whole lot of words trying to describe the horror of that image and the terror, pain, and humiliation of the event. But some pictures need a thousand words before you can make any sense of them. For instance, the Astronomy Picture of the Day has a lot of pretty pictures, but if you don't read the captions it is often difficult to know exactly what you're looking at - what nebula, what light wavelength, false color or true color, which instrument, what is so interesting about the image, why was it worth posting that day, etc. And poor word choice with bad sentence structure are not made up for by posting a picture. Sorry, you still must express your message in comprehensible English.

That's not meant to be a complete list of what's wrong, merely four major problems impeding communication.

Well, this thread was almost interesting at first, fun even. But am I alone here in getting tired of waiting, what 10 pages now, for something tangible, concrete (pun unintended).

Even with my very very very open mind, I'm struggling to see anything new or artificial here....

Perhaps I'm not clever enough to see what EA is showing me.

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

No offense fellas but it really looks like someone is playing 'Whack the Hornet's Nest!" with this thread.

__________________
Ranger Brad: Oh, say... You don't believe those old legends about the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, do you?

Dr. Roger Fleming: Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything.

Well, EA did say in his OP that this thread had a "built-in one year time limit"...though I don't see it going on for that long.

...and no, you're not alone...

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