Edtharan Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 An equilateral triangle with 900 foot sides........... I can see the triangle, but it doesn't look equilateral to me, Isosceles maybe or even Scalene. If you look closely the base (the side nearest the oval shaped protrusion) it is clearly shorter than the others. However, the side counter clockwise to that does appear to be the largest. Also that largest sized side appears to not be entierly straight. Well thats what it looks like after a few seconds of close examination. It seems that such glareing errors like that can be overlooked just so that someone can fit it to their desires. I would like there to be ailens, but I woulld rather get my hopes up for the reall thing that just go chasing after illusions. I think this is what seperates the two groups that want there to be ailens, one want it so badly that they will latch onto the tinyest bit of "thing" that might just hint that there might be some evidence of aliens. The other group would rather wait for good evidence that it really is aliens (and not just something, like a lense flare, mirrored images or as in this case fractured rock and shadows). Seen from this distance, whatever it is doesn't have to be man made. It just fits a pattern you, KS42, associate with symmetry and you are leaping to the conclusion that that kind of symmetry doesn't happen in nature. I assure you it does. I have seen rocks fractured into geometrical patterns before and by purely natural means, so that there are geometraclally fractured rocks is of absolutly no suprise to me. For it to be so close to a triangle is interesting, but it is not proof. Even if it was a perfect equilateral triangle it is not proof. Of what purpose would an alien race have of leaving such an obscure "message". If they had left the first 10 digits of PI in a binary code carved into the rocks so it could be seen from orbit, then that would be a decent message. But a Triangle? And something that is supposed to be a face. Why would they leave such a thing. What if we haden't evolved to ahve a face like that, what if we had more of a muzzle, or a completely different set of features (like that of a slug, or insect). We would not recognise it as a "face" at all. By the way, that face only appears in a couple of photographs because when viewed from a slighly different angle or the sunlight is at a different angle then the "face" doesn't appear as a face, but just as a collection of rocks that have fractured and eroded.
KS42 Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 Hello. I 3 views of the Pyramid. Yes....it is a damaged or ruined pyramid. JPEG Image: http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/fig830.jpg Lossless PNG format: http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/fig730b.png http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/fig757a.png I have 3 views....post edit
Klaynos Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Looks natural to me. Now really is there a point to this thread?
ydoaPs Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Here's a better view of the face on Mars: Courtesy of Blike.
insane_alien Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 yeah... there are mountains on earth that look more like pyramids than that.
ydoaPs Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 The faces of the "pyramid" don't even converge to a tip.
Edtharan Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 The faces of the "pyramid" don't even converge to a tip. Yes they don't form a proper Pyramid shape. In a pyramid, if the top was removed, then the shape of the new top section would be the same shape as the base (that is a square). But in those images the visible top section does not forma square. This indicates that it is not actually a pyramid shape at all. The top should make a kind of >-< shape. It is more like wedge than a pyramid.
Phi for All Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Yes....it is a damaged or ruined pyramid. Stop that. You're just going to get ridiculed here if you keep making statements like this. You can't draw this type of conclusion based on looking at these photographs. You can say "it *looks* like a damaged or ruined pyramid but you can't say it *is* one without more evidence. Believe me, this is an important distinction.
KS42 Posted March 31, 2008 Author Posted March 31, 2008 A closer look of the pyramid. PNG format. http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Cydonia_Images/fig760a.png
iNow Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Has anyone else noticed that this guy has not responded to a single question or comment directed at him? Thanks for pimping your site using SFN's google strength, sir spams a lot.
Phi for All Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Has anyone else noticed that this guy has not responded to a single question or comment directed at him?It's the Tacit Argument from Incredulity fallacy. He just keeps enhancing / cropping the pictures and implying that we need to look closer because he can't believe we don't see it.
DrP Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 I wonder what conclusions he'd draw from my mates carpet?
iNow Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 It's the Tacit Argument from Incredulity fallacy. He just keeps enhancing / cropping the pictures and implying that we need to look closer because he can't believe we don't see it. Oh, well, in that case, then there's also a Kermit the Frog on Mars: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/25/face2.html There is another region on Mars that looks like Kermit the Frog. On the planet Venus, there is a volcanic feature that resembles the face of Miss Piggy (minus one ear). Taken together, and using the same logic as proponents of the Face on Mars, these two features would seem to prove that there once was a group of intelligent aliens who traveled from planet to planet, and worshipped Muppets! Most people would agree that is just a little absurd. Like the Rorschach ink blot tests that psychologists use to probe a person's psyche, claims about the Face on Mars tell us more about humanity's desire not to be alone in the universe than about Martian geology.
KS42 Posted April 2, 2008 Author Posted April 2, 2008 Hello. The Pyramid is not a natural geological feature. It is a designed and built structure. I have come to this conclusion by simply looking at the photographic evidence. The Mars Express images ID numbers SEMVHE8LURE, SEM6IE8LURE are a form of evidence. Look at the ID's themselves. LURE....To attract? The following images highlight areas of interest: http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/F162.jpg http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/F166.jpg
iNow Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Hello. The Pyramid is not a natural geological feature. It is a designed and built structure. I have come to this conclusion by simply looking at the photographic evidence. Well, now that you put it THAT way, I'm convinced.
Realitycheck Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 I saw a UFO once. Really! And I wasn't even looking for it.
Phi for All Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 I have come to this conclusion by simply looking at the photographic evidence. Ah, the Mars Express hypothesis. The Mars Express images ID numbers SEMVHE8LURE, SEM6IE8LURE are a form of evidence. Look at the ID's themselves. LURE....To attract?Are you suggesting that the people who labeled this "pyramid" built it?
DrP Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Hello. The Pyramid is not a natural geological feature. It is a designed and built structure. I have come to this conclusion by simply looking at the photographic evidence. QUOTE] I'm not saying it's definately NOT a 'man' made (or squigoth made) structure... it's just that you can't draw that sort of conclusion from these photos alone. You'd have to go there and get a closer look. NO CONCLUSIONS can be made from these really nice photos. With the 'evidence' available I'd say that it is probably (99.9999999%) a natural feature. I would be happy to be 'proven' wrong when the next Mars lander gets a close up.
CaptainPanic Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 I am shocked... I definitely expected this picture here too: source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/01/23/scimars123.xml It is better proof of Martians existing (existing? Man, this guy is not just existing, he's chilling out!), and conveniently looking like human beings (rather than CO2 breathing giant slugs with a million eyes and an appetite for Astronauts)... I think KS42 should include this picture in his arsenal, and then proceed to ignore every argument. p.s. I love alien/UFO discussions. It is so cool that the "proof" always has a resolution that is just too low. and that the strongest argument always is "just look at it!". Gimme more!
Klaynos Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 CaptainPanic we'd discussed that on IRC, there's an excellent destruction of the image in a vid on youtube, I'm ure moo will post it shortly....
DrP Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Yea Klanos! but just look at the picture again more closely!.... it's certain proof that a man went to mars and had a sit down! I'm mean.... you just can't dispute that sort of evidence!
Phi for All Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Moved to Speculations due to content. But I'd like to point out that we require better evidence before drawing such solid conclusions even in Speculations.
ydoaPs Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 CaptainPanic we'd discussed that on IRC, there's an excellent destruction of the image in a vid on youtube, I'm ure moo will post it shortly.... ?
Recommended Posts