look, you're just playing a simple game of he said she said. the usual debunking of the face on Mars is that it is just a naturaly occuring mountain where the sun light at certain positions creates the notion of a face staring from the ground. ok, but when someone asks for an example of a similar natural occurrence on Earth (because here we can be at least 99% percent sure) then nothing is brought forth. even if we ask of the debunkers an example of a naturaly occuring mountain on Mars with similar features we'd still be hard pressed to get some.

i've been following the "face" issue since its debut into the mainsteam limelight in 1998. i must say that i've had stronger convictions that the whole "complex" at Cydonia could be artificial but now im not that convinced anymore. even so, that doesnt mean that i dont still see some of those formations with interest. i do, i find the possibility for artificiality on Mars amazing.

by the way, do you really expect me to go prove the debunkers claim? =D>

:wink:

you're wellcome. unfortunetly i cannot find another interesting image i had, the so called Didan Rock also in Iran. i can swear it looks just like the Cydonia five sided pyramid.

Outcast wrote:
Sure, but there's a really big if in it.

Don't you think that kinda impairs a scientists judgement?

Really? I thought I was trying to end it by asking A.DIM:

V-GER wrote:
It's not for the debunkers to proove anything. You're the one with all the radical ideas to proove. Yet you keep asking for us to do it.

I wouldn't dream of such a thing, I merely tried to show you how difficult it is to find something like that from all the images out there. Besides what is a similar natural occurence? Something of a same size that looks like a face? I don't think so, since the original doesn't look like a face either.

So, the burden of proof to provide something of "similar scale" rests with whom? .. you? There, you just answered your opening question.Your mistake is implying what I'm thinking. I never accused you of having proof for anything you "imply" A.DIM, in it's place we get "net-mining, cherry-picking, shoe-horning" delivered with your usual innuendos.We can play more semantical games A.DIM but your innuendo here was quite clear.No. I see similarities between the second Cydonia images and the mound. :-k Maybe the Iranian images are "doctored" too .. I wonder.. :wink:

Outcast wrote:
Oh yeah, the unsymmetrical pyramid that looks curiously like a mountain.

You mean our burden of proof? :wink: Why the reliance on a "to scale" comparison? Is symmetry confined by scale? I haven't seen "nada" regarding any such confinement.

First of all, I don't remember anyone saying that a civiliation would not create a face hill, all I remember is people saying that this hill is not facelike and not artificial.
Secondly, you have shown that ancient cultures on Earth have made large structures. No kidding. It's not very symmetrical though (the pyramids or Stonehenge or many Stone Age camps, like in Denmark, are much more symmetrical), and it isn't facelike at all. So what have you shown here? Nothing anyone disputed.
I don't know if 'terraforming' is the word I'ld use for such things either, but that's not important here.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

[quote="V-GER"]Outcast wrote:
but since some are so certain that such a natural formation does indeed exist then one must ask why hasnt it been presented allready.

the peculiarities of the "face" on Mars do not rest mainly in the face like appearance (or lack of it) even despite your opinion that it doesnt look like one, its still a symmetrical platform in which the sides run paralel to each other and end up at exactly the same points, much in the same way as the Iranian mound. the upper and lower parts also provide an interesting quasi circular symmetric structure. i would like to see someone explain what natural processes would produce the whole range of effects present in this peculiar mountain. as for the lack of the face like appearance in the more high resolution images one can allways see in there a very eroded (perhaps destroyed?) artificial construction. im not saying i do, but many still do:

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com...01/index.shtml

Please edit that link as it's really messing up the whole page.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

unsymmetrical? it looks pretty symmetrical to me:

pyramid

pyramid again

then again there are people who have a hard time seeing perspective, shape and even form in an artistic sense. so i can understand that some will never see a "face" or a "pyramid" nor even the obvious symmetry, natural or not, in these formations.

excuse me? 8-[
why is very much obvious. but this has nothing to do with burden of proof im just asking for the debunkers to simply provide the meat for their particular claims. by the way, the conceptual "confinement" is being defined by the very subject we're discussing here. and i believe that each and every example must comply to the same standards.

i didnt specify the provinience of such arguments but i've read them before. after all, this discussion is not confined to this BBS is it?

well, artificiality cannot be easily proven (or not at all) specialy untill men set foot on Mars, but the facelike appearance of that hill is undisputed since it was this same likeness that set forth the controversy in the first place. what one can claim, and this we must not forget to point as mainly personal opinions which are probably fed by their own bias, is that the new high resolution images show less of a face, particularly with the sun light at such angle.

again, the resilience in accepting symmetry where it is obviously present. whatever.

no, but its as similar as it gets and it is artificial.

i've shown that such large scale artificial transformations of terrain (terraforming) for religious or inspired artistical objectives is possible and has happened in the past.

Outcast wrote:
Same process that produces all sorts of formations here on Earth,
erosion.

And then there are those who see faces and conspiracies everywhere. In an artistic sense and otherwise.

Especially the second picture you provided looks more like a surreal painting than a geometrical symbol.

I already posted a link to an image of the Bahamas that looked like an old hockey mask, but the link on the ESA page keeps changing so I won't look for it again. But you can't seriously be telling me that you have never seen an aerial pic of something that looks like something artificial and is on a big/huge scale? How about the "boot" of Italy? But of course
like you said it yourself: "there are people who have a hard time seeing perspective, shape and even form in an artistic sense"

Here are three possible co-ordinates for the Tepe at Malik-Shah
Iran.

Using software found HERE:

http://www.earthsearch.net
------------------------------------
Search Results - first 100
Name - click for world map location Country Type Latitude Longitude.

Tepe IR PPL 33.7802778 49.1011111
Tepe IR PPL 33.985 49.0252778
Tepe IR PPL 37.2197222 50.2319444
-------------------------------------

Here is the Co-ordinates for Dadan,Iran

Search Results - first 100
Name - click for world map location Country Type Latitude Longitude
Dadan IR PPL 33.3558333 59.1933333

-------------------------------------
Note the co-ordinates for the ROCK itself is still unknown
Requests by fellow researchers by e-mail concerning excact location have not been returned by the oriental Inst.Chicago

__________________
With a Forked Tongue the Snake Singsss...

Interesting you should point that out....

The Cydonian Imperative.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

What particular claims? You just contradicted yourself here BTW.huh? So natural symmetry is confined by the subject we're discussing? :roll: You can't cherry-pick scale Outcast. Either natural symmetry is confined by scale or not. Unless a case can be made that it is, then Cydonia's symmetry in of itself can not be cited as any indicator of unnatural origin. Oh, you can try .. but it would be based on a flawed premise.

Hmm...large, natural monoliths...How about Ayer's Rock aka Mt. Uluru, Australia. Monument Valley (in the USA) also has some pretty interesting natural formations.

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

Well then, "hints" aside, do you think I did? If so, where explicitly?


:-? Opening Post - 6th paragraph...
-(if you can call a sentence a paragraph)-

...and yet, it's been overlooked and here we are!

Similarly, I started this thread "for what it's worth" based on Fleming's arguments to the contrary.
And you'd have me agree with you based on Dr. Porco's supposed statements?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

OK...I have a question...

Lets say Men do get to Mars, and lets say that the "face" and surrounding areas are throughly examined and proven to be natural formations...

What do you think the response from the "Hoaglands" of the world will be??

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

Ah, where explicitly! I'm glad you brought this up .. and no "hints aside" .. you're not getting off the hook that easily. Why these type of games A.DIM? You don't say too much of anything explicitly and you know that. V-GER is right, you make "hints (I call them innuendos - same difference), just so you can make posts like this one I quoted. Now ask yourself why myself and others got the impression you attempted to shift the burden of proof.. after all, you didn't come right out and explicitly say "prove" anything, did you? No - being explicit isn't your style. Instead we get:To me on Pg. 2:Heck, even Outcast got that impression (he denies it of course but did give himself away here):You'll notice Outcast chided "the usual crowd" for not accepting your "request" for Cydonia-scale symmetry on Earth right? So how can you make this kind of statement:and expect to come across as a standup person?

You're right about one thing .. you didn't shift the burden, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

Again, everybody knows that such a transformation is possible and has happened. Furthermore, a 'tepe' was usually not made for religious or inspired artistical objectives: it was a city. The most probable reason to make it on an artificial hill was military. And (like with Troy and so on) those hills tended to grow over the centuries because they just kept on building on top of older ruins, dirt, waste, and so on.

From Archaeology Wordsmith:
If you have additional information showing that it was different for this tepe, please link it (or give the source).

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Archer, my OP was rather explicit in stating my position, was it not?

And in turn, I received a bunch of rif raf about hoagland, aliens et al.

I pointed out that the "trick of light and shadow" argument is insufficient for me, and I find myself frustrated with how easily many others will accept it. The "old man" was proffered and I certainly allow pareidolia, but I'd like to see it on a similar scale to fully agree; otherwise, I remain skeptical of this explanation. Is that an attempt to "shift the burden" in your mind?

If so, I disagree.


NC More's Ayers Rock is the closest thing yet to a natural formation on similar scale, and I must say that I find few similarities between it and "the face." But I must admit that, at first glance, there are more likenesses between the Tarik Shah mound and "the face" than with Ayers Rock.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

A.DIM wrote:
In the very same quote I quoted which you then quoted:

You can argue semantics until Christmas if you want but it's pretty obvious you're asking us to proove something. Like Archer said, even Outcast thinks that.

A simple answer or opinion would suffice but instead we get this:

Now I'd like to think I speak reasonably good english, having lived and worked there, but I'm having a hard time making out what exactly it is you're trying to say sometimes.

R.A.F. wrote:
Since they believe Nasa lies all the time (moon hoax, face, ufo's) I don't think they would have a hard time denying any evidence Nasa would present.

i stand corrected as to the meaning of "tepe". i've searched around but could not find any new information for this particular formation. in my opinion it differs somewhat from other tell mounds but i have no way to be sure of what its purpose was.

anyway i found a link for the Dadan rock (not Didan like i said before) :
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRA...1D4_72dpi.html

A.DIM wrote:
But of course not, what would she know...

Is a fish instead of a face also acceptable? Two-thirds to the right, two-thirds up, face to the left, tail to the right.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Actually I was going to add your OP to my last post and see V-GER beat me to it. But, let's go through this again and take a look: First you state:Then comes the inevitable:Then:Doesn't look very explicit to me either. By asking our opinion ("Is it wrong to agree.."), I know you well enough that if someone would say "NASA isn't covering something up!" or "there was no Martians/aliens/Annunaki on Mars!" you'd just say, "I didn't say that" or something similar. You pull that all the time.You're the one that attempted to resurrect The Face, with all it's implications. Are you going to say that Hoagland or "aliens" have nothing to do with Cydonia? Want to quibble about what "alien" means again A.DIM?Disagree all you want, but as I have pointed out, I wasn't the only one to get that impression. That should have been a red flag to you if that wasn't your real intent. If you were more straightforward with your posts you wouldn't have to spend so much time explaining what they "really" mean all the time. This kind of literary duck and weave is part and parcel of your posting style since Day One.I've already pointed out the problems with "similar scale" being used regarding Cydonia and how Tarik Shah looks like the followup Cydonia images, not the initial Viking "face" ones. I noticed you haven't made such a distinction .. being deliberately ambiguous again?

what kind of erosion? are you being evasive just because you dont want to risk an analysis? maybe you can do better than Nasa geologist Dr. Terry Martin, who apparently also does not have a clue:


Transcript from JPL/NASA conference

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...And then there's,uh,"Strangeness"
and uh,
I bring up this uh, so called "Face on mars".
not to talk about it as a "Face"
but to talk about it is a Geologically Interesting Place.
because -"What is this edge that we see?"
What is this...this "funny business" here,and also, here.

It turns out that the Sun is shining from the left and the, uh,
the feature is pretty much where you don't have Sun.
It's on the uh,,the North facing side of this,uh," Hill."

And people have talked about this possibly being a,an old snow deposit.
that snow has been covered over by dust,
so it looks the same brightness as everything else.
but it's receded from the top by the action of the Sun.
and so it is ,uh,hiding from the Sun basically but,
surviving,uh, under this dust layer.
Sort of an insulating layer, and we see a lot of this "Stuff"
uh, in moderate latitudes,it's not at the polar caps,
this is down at,uh, 40 degrees,or so, latitude.

So again...
Water in places that are interesting,
and, if you were a Creature,
perhaps,uh, you know,
this Latitude would be more comfortable.
and yet there's this Water handy for you,uh, to make a Living.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and then there are those in denial while being continuing suckered and failing to think for themselfs. in an artistic sense and otherwise, of course.

geometrical? not necessarily. symmetrical, yes.

I'm sure you can disagree with Dr. Martin's opinion without insulting him. [-X

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

some claim that the "face" can only be a natural formation, so it was asked for a comparative natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale.

none was provided until this:

http://www.saveourscreen.com/TNV/Aus...Rock%20SS1.htm

in my opinion, it does not have the same elements that make the "face" so interesting, but its a start.

no i didnt.

you seem to misundestand what i said.

"Most of our knowledge about how landforms have evolved on Mars is based upon interpretation of images taken by the Mariner and Viking Orbiters and the Viking and Pathfinder Landers. Interpretation of surface features and the processes that have created them is primarily based upon comparison with similar terrestrial features and some rudimentary scaling arguments." - Alan D. Howard, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia