Space.com article SUPPORTS Cydonia research

[Wombaticus Rex]

So to reduce this thread to it's point: you and RCH used an astronomical data point to form the larger collage of your arguments for Cydonia being the single most important esoteric secret on Earth. Recently, a website called space.com ran an article about that same data point. You now view this re-appearance of your data point as additional validation of your theory.

Huh.

[SanDiegoBuffGuy]

Let's just get to the point here Max. What does all of this mean to you? Can you summarize in a few sentences what this all means??

[barracuda]

My understanding from reading the Carlotto paper you linked to (as well as from twenty years of PS experience) is that such processing is at best a good estimation.

Not quite.

There is a proven scientific method for achieving 'ortho' data which Dr. Carlotto illustrates and describes neatly here (See appendix B).

I know, I read that. But even the finest angled rear-projection onto an elevation map produces an approximation of point coordinate positions. As Carlotto states in Appendix B: "By using a model of the actual surface and orthorectifying the image a much better approximation to its true shape is obtained." I think he's pretty much right about this. Even a point by point alignment would have a certain margin of error which would be magnified by the scale issues you are confronting. (Full disclosure: I worked here for two years. Not that it made me an expert, but it did give me some idea of the limitations of the techniques you are attempting.)

I've already demonstrated in Rorschach that even upon the image you chose to make your point w/ (which is quantitatively speaking, i.e., lighting & angle, the WORST image from which to view a feature that is a face) the iconography remains.

Maybe, but even the best overhead views of the "face" require the viewer to essentially be instructed to see a face.



And the better the resolution, the less facial it appears to be.

Futhermore... the old indian profile... No different from the 'Happy Face' crater. It is a logical fallacy to argue that it diminishes... in any way shape or form, the overwheming proof that is Cydonia.

"Logical fallacy" - you throw that term around pretty loosely. It has a wide variety of meanings. Anyway, I wasn't using the Indian in Alberta to diminish Cydonia, god forbid. I just like to have pictures in my posts. For instance, I "heart" this thread!

And... since you seemed to have missed the point, here's a simple if/then question for you, Barracuda.

If The Face is of natural origin, then why would Malin deliberately falsify his data?

Hmm... I know why...

I'm not convinced that he did, or that it matters.

[MaxtheKnife]

@SanDiegoBuffGuy...

I've already given a few summaries, and I can't imagine how repeating myself is going to help, but for the sake of 'good faith' I'll consolidate them and add a little something to it.

Cydonia is a LINK to & ORIGIN of ALL our beliefs.

It leaves EVERYONE'S beliefs in tact, while at the same time puts them into their proper perspective.

It is also a symbolic representation... a diagram... of THE physics model, meaning a viable Unified Field Theory.

The geometry underpins the reflections and the reflections underpin the physics model which is neatly expressed as e/pi.


Cydonia is a giant geometric proof... a lesson unto itself.

[MaxtheKnife]

Barracuda writes:

I know, I read that. But even the finest angled rear-projection onto an elevation map produces an approximation of point coordinate positions. As Carlotto states in Appendix B: "By using a model of the actual surface and orthorectifying the image a much better approximation to its true shape is obtained." I think he's pretty much right about this. Even a point by point alignment would have a certain margin of error which would be magnified by the scale issues you are confronting.

So? What's your point? That there is an inherent margin of error of what... .0001? I can live with that, no problem.

Do you really want to split hairs? See this paper: Splitting Hairs.


Barracuda writes:

I'm not convinced that he did.

That's the great thing about geoemtry... it is all verifiable & falsifiable.... True or False.

You don't have to take my word for it.

You can actually do the work and discover the truth for yourself.

[SanDiegoBuffGuy]

Max, repeating yourself did help (if you were repeating; I don't recall seeing this from you before, exactly). Thanks. Very interesting.

[MaxtheKnife]

Oh... If and when you DO actually get to work, you will also discover that it matters a great deal.

But even if you don't do the work... since when is it ok to falsify scientific data?!

I'll venture a guess and surmise it's ok so long as it's done to preserve the status quo.

[MaxtheKnife]

@SanDiegoBuffGuy...

No problem... sorry you missed it... I'm glad I clarified, then.

You're welcome.

[SanDiegoBuffGuy]

This seems really important to you Max. Why is that? What got you interested in this? (I did read the story about your dad, btw).

[82_28]

I am willing to listen to (read) anyone. But Max, you can't be so sure. Shit doesn't work that way. Am I sure you are completely "nutz" -- no. Am I convinced you have a cogent point to make -- I think so, whether falsifiable or not (which I currently doubt). But it's all in your delivery. I do not think that personal anecdotes, cryptic metaphors, along with a demonstration of sketchy geometry without the raw coordinates of all subjects involved -- position of Mars in relation to Sun -- position of spacecraft in relation to that.

I'm always down with any kind of speculation of any sort. But this doesn't cut it for me.

You also don't seem to exude a curiosity about it, but more a seeking of affirmation of something currently held. This isn't to say you do not have a case to make. You obviously are seeking to impart something. If you read the writings of scientists or even metaphysicists who desire to share their own curiousity on complex and mysterious matters, you always want your reader to become curious along with you. What you write tells me is that I don't know shit, while you do. And that again, doesn't work and hence the skepticism you are encountering.

I think you should make your case, empirically, examples (anecdotal if you must) and with a better format for your writings contained on your site. Maybe you think I am "missing it". But if even one willing member is missing anything about what one attempts to describe through his demonstration, it means, at least to me, you are not doing your job as a writer. The only exception to this standard is if you are attempting to be sardonic and or writing in a language the reader does not know.

[barracuda]

So? What's your point? That there is an inherent margin of error of what... .0001? I can live with that, no problem.

It must be nice to pull a number out of a hat and assign that as your margin of error. I would say it's higher than that by several orders of magnitude. But the issue is simply that we don't know. Google Earth is probably not the best venue for close survey work, even though it has it's rough uses in that regard.

The geometry underpins the reflections and the reflections underpin the physics model which is neatly expressed as e/pi.

Thanks for this reply, which is really what I was waiting for. Can you point me to the page on your site where you derive this relationship?

Also, the page in which you reveal exactly who you think built the face (greys?) and the pyramids, too. Might as well cut to the chase here. (Your site has some severe navigation and usability issues, IMHO.)

I won't pretend that I can or will replicate the geometry on your site to test it. I hate maths. So maybe I really am not your intended audience. That's also why I'm interested in your notion of the objective symbolisms of the formation, pretty much to the exclusion of the rest of it.

As I said earlier, When I don't understand something I tend to examine the premises, or assumptions of that thing, along with my own assumptions. From my observation of the photographs of the face on Mars, I begin with the assumption that it is a natural formation caused by geological forces. I really can see no other logical way to begin any examination of the thing. I can't think of a single good reason to proceed otherwise. Anything regarding Cydonia sort of has to start there for me.

I wasn't really among those who looked at the face when it was still supermarket checkout tabloid fodder and thought about it any more than I thought about the Bat Boy. By the time I began examining the issue at all, there were already very good hi-resolution pictures available of the structure which looked absolutely nothing like a face. So my relationship with the formation had not really been colored by the earlier, blurry low resolution images which were the target of, I believe, pareidolia, and the hubris of men to map their own image over everything, especially those things which they are not able to own. Man as the measure of all things is a benchmark that has lost it's luster, I think.

[Iamwhomiam]

Max,

I rarely post to the boards but I share with you a view that once Mars was inhabited.

However, it appears to me that you really don't get it. I have not the time to rework your math, so forgive me for my being so frank.

I believe that your analysis is deeply flawed.. to the point of being nearly meaningless.

One of your premises is that someone has ever so slightly altered the photograph of the Cydonian 'head', and I can accept that as being fact, even though in this case I'm not sure that's happened. Perspective, or bias, colors all and is always unique. you wrote:

"But even if you don't do the work... since when is it ok to falsify scientific data?!" and this too, excerpted and taken out of context from your blog: "...It is obvious morally ambiguous and ethically questionable reasoning..."

Well, here comes the 'smoke & mirrors'... the smoke is that you do not plainly answer very simple questions put to you. As has been said, your answers are cryptic. You've directed us to your blog to read, well, not only all of it, but then onto others too, like the paper on Incan ritual ceremonies. But nowhere in any of these links is any explanation relating to your opening post, that Nemesis in any way at all has anything to do with anything written on your blog or for that matter, Cydonia.

"Space.com article SUPPORTS explicit prediction of Cydonia research"

What is your "explicit prediction?"

It would be appreciated if you would extrapolate on your "truth", without mentioning the math or the light. What does Cydonia represent to you?

How does Nemesis relate to Cydonia? Are you suggesting Nemesis caused the supposed destruction of a civilization that once flourished on Mars?

Now for the mirrors...

You seem to have no problem with your own manipulations of the image, first by mirroring it, then by rotating it, and then by changing the angle of the mirror, all to obtain the results of your preconceived notions. I would think doing so to 'prove' your conclusions, ie. Set, Osiris, plucked eye, castration, is the more egregious manipulation. (still don't know where Nemesis fits in)

"There is truth in the light."

Simply put, Truth is.

Truth is in everything. Light, shadow, absolute absence of light, everywhere there is truth.

Some would say that all that is, is truth.

Some would say all that is believed to be truth, is illusion.

[MaxtheKnife]

This seems really important to you Max. Why is that? What got you interested in this? (I did read the story about your dad, btw).

As I state in Truth & Light: "It was around 1990 or 91. So I was either 17 or 18 years old.

One of my best friends was one of the first to be ‘online’.

When he was pulling up the image for me to see, I commented, “Fred, if it’s really a face, there ought to be other things near by, like pyramids or something.”

Talk about scientific prediction and fast confirmation.

From the get go, I knew there was something monumentally important going on here.

The Face was never alone."


~~~~~~

It took a few years, before I started to actually get involved, though.

I talk a little bit about how I got started in my short bio.

The only thing I can think to add at the moment is, like many people who discover their purpose in life, from a very early age, I just 'knew' I was here for a reason.

I just happened to discover mine the moment I realized there really is truth in the light.

[psynapz]

I've followed RCH's work since before the first modern re-imaging pass which prompted the Art Bell fax-storm campaign that got it re-re-imaged due to obvious de-rezzing by someone at MSSS as simply evidenced by the image histogram.

However... and I wish I had time for a longer post on the subject, but just to get the jams kicking...

From the Principia Discordia, Page 61:



Footnote to this page from Cosmic Trigger vol. 1, page 58 (emphasis mine):

The Aneristic illusion is that order is real; the Eristic illusion is that disorder, or chaos, is real; Illumination is the realization that it depends on the perceiver.

[Avalon]

Maybe, but even the best overhead views of the "face" require the viewer to essentially be instructed to see a face.

Every piece of art has an optimum condition for viewing. These can be a matter of distance (nose hairs and pores too close, hundred yards too far), resolution, or illumination effects (color of light source, location, intensity). Add the many ways of processing (and miss-processing, through malice or incompetence) the raw data from a craft in orbit around another planet. If the Face is a huge eroded sculpture, you've got to factor all of those in, plus make allowances for obvious disturbances such as the slumping of the eastern side of the Face. While an early Viking program commentator complained that the Face was "a trick of light and shadow," in truth every single Mars feature being captured in black and white images was visible only because it was revealed by light and shadow.

While you seem to have problems seeing it as a face, there are plenty of people who believe it is a natural geological feature who are willing to concede that it is a good simulacrum of a face. FWIW, as far as I've been aware over the years, there has not ever been a single peep out of those in the remote sensing archeology community (not the psi remote sensing) regarding the Face on Mars controversy, pro or con. I suspect that for them it may be a bad career move to even discuss it; still, I'd love to have seen them discuss it in their context.

And that's where your attempt at articulating the greater picture fails, Max. When you just talk in that mushy fashion about the Light, it's meaningless. Light means nothing without the dark to contrast. And if you can't integrate that notion, remove Taoism from your list of great religions.