Space.com article SUPPORTS Cydonia research

[smoking since 1879]

fuck off and play someplace else dude

[Belligerent Savant]

BTW shark, theres a post in the data dump somwhere that goes a long way to verifying the mystery that is Cydonia. You might care to read it sometime....

Okay, I've read it. And it's interesting.

I will say though that the above photo is indeed quite interesting [and wholly unrelated to any of The Knife's "postulations"].

It seems far too congrous to be mere coincidence/chance... but what could it mean? Evidence of a past civilization on Mars that subsequently made its way to Earth? Or perhaps a result of some collective unconscious manifestation/materialization [which can be feasible if indeed the holographic view of the universe/reality has merit].

Perhaps some split mirror tricks will yield some answers for us...

[barracuda]

Keep in mind that I have altered the scale to create as close an equivalence as I could between the two structures. The Cydonia mage is approximately 14.1 times larger than the one at Avebury, and you can see by my lower overlay that the fit is by no means perfect. However, I agree that this is a most unusual anomaly. But the question remains, does such a relationship point conclusively to the former habitation of Mars, and intelligent action at work? Its a leap I am willing to entertain as a guest, perhaps, but not yet as a lodger.

Ah, yes... the several preceeding posts...

Now they're...

BEMOANING.

Your interest in my word choice is charming. Perhaps you could take a moment to explain why you think "pareidolia" doesn't qualify as a real word, a statement you made on page one, and which I queried you about previously. Despite its rather recent coinage, all the parts seem to fit together admirably.

By the way, Savant, if you'd like to see how these threads typically progress, you can view this example:

http://www.space.com/common/forums/view ... 81&start=0

[slimmouse]

Keep in mind that I have altered the scale to create as close an equivalence as I could between the two structures. The Cydonia mage is approximately 14.1 times larger than the one at Avebury, and you can see by my lower overlay that the fit is by no means perfect. However, I agree that this is a most unusual anomaly. But the question remains, does such a relationship point conclusively to the former habitation of Mars, and intelligent action at work? Its a leap I am willing to entertain as a guest, perhaps, but not yet as a lodger.
Despite its rather recent coinage, all the parts seem to fit together admirably.

Well thats fair enough Barracuda. But my argument would be that somebody somewhere is clearly cognizant of the significance of 19.47 degrees, which indisputably manifests itself in some way or other on just about every planet in our solar system.

My own opinion is that Hoagland got burned for these findings. Meanwhile the double tetrahedron imagry is there in plain sight in a more contentious region of our planet.

Always remember that the logical mathematics of our creation were there long before we started figuring it out.
Though ,more probably in a fractal universe, we created it .

That is to say that you created it , just like myself and the 6 billion souls who currently inhabit this planet did.

But dont worry. I have little doubt that the pope in his next address will be telling you this !

Go figure

[MaxtheKnife]

Mmmmmm, the ORIGINAL Geometry at Cydonia 'thread'.

Here, use my saved copy, complete w/ all the necessary illustrations.

http://www.maxtheknife.com/022308Geomet ... UBBThreads™.htm
(For some reason the special characters, 'tm', do not translate for linkage in this post. Just copy and paste that part along w/ .htm into your browser, it should work)

Perhaps you could take a moment to explain why you think "pareidolia" doesn't qualify as a real word

Simple... see remarks regarding Sagan, subjectivity and "extraordinary claims".

It is a subjective 'word', purposefully conjured and injected into a quantitative scientific debate.

Citing this word, believing it is some kind of legitimate refutation of AOC is patently fallacious reasoning.

So, if you want it to be a real word, fine by me, just keep it out of this purely scientific debate... which, btw, in case you haven't noticed is not even a debate anymore... Cydonia IS... inescapably...

Artificial.

All the strawmen...

All the non-sequiturs...

All the bemoaning in the world...

Will never make the truth...

... go away.

The jig, as they say... is up.

[Simulist]

People don't often look for diamonds buried in the mounds at the city dump.

That said, there is something real and important in this thread, as I've acknowledged while also dismissing the abundant snowflakes of static and generous piles of bullshit so painfully evident throughout this discussion.

The "real and important" principle involved here is nothing new, however; in fact, it is ancient.

Belligerent Savant and Barracuda both appear to perceive it (as do several others, I'm sure) — despite all the noise here that has the effect of obscuring an otherwise clear signal.

[barracuda]

...which, btw, in case you haven't noticed is not even a debate anymore... Cydonia IS... inescapably...

Artificial.

Ah, finally some real evidence! If you'd only made that premise clear from the outset, I doubt we'd have had this misunderstanding in the first place.

Now if you could simply decree the meaning of your OP, I can die happy.

[MaxtheKnife]

It feels like I'm stuck in a "Seinfeld" loop w/ Kramer 'checking Elaine out' on his meat slicer... "But where does the meat go???"

[82_28]

Huh? So are we the Kramers and you the Elaine or are you the Kramer and we the Elaines? Or who's the meat and who's the slicer? Etc. . .

[barracuda]

So! Ah ha! Now we know there’s a Seinfeld connection – I probably should have guessed that. But I’m still not clear what that has to do with the Nemesis star, the angular momentum of the gas giants, hyper-dimensional physics, solar system luminosity and all that other troublesome stuff.

[Simulist]

Come to think of it, most of this thread is just like Seinfeld — it's a show about nothing!

"I don't even want to talk about it anymore. What were you thinking? What was going on in your mind? Artistic integrity? Where, where did you come up with that? You're not artistic and you have no integrity. You know you really need some help. A regular psychiatrist couldn't even help you. You need to go to like Vienna or something. You know what I mean? You need to get involved at the University level. Like where Freud studied and have all those people looking at you and checking up on you. That's the kind of help you need. Not the once a week for eighty bucks. No. You need a team. A team of psychiatrists working round the clock thinking about you, having conferences, observing you, like the way they did with the Elephant Man. That's what I'm talking about because that's the only way you're going to get better."

— Jerry Seinfeld

[psynapz]

Really, I love talking about Cydonia. I love thinking about Cydonia. Sometimes I see tetrahedrons and the fractal unfoldment of reality in my head, and I eventually, usually think of Cydonia.

But you, Max, have either suffered a relatively mild psychotic break which you mistook for enlightenment and have obsessed compulsively over ever since, or you're a very, very shitty teacher of very, very brilliant thoughts. Either get your ideas together, or get to a psychiatrist. Like, a good one.

And coming from this community, in either case, that should fucking tell you something,

[Simulist]

For the record, my Seinfeld quote wasn't intended to attempt any kind of a psychiatric diagnosis. I was just trying to be a "funny guy" (and we know what happens to those).

"We had a funny guy with us in Korea. A tailgunner. They blew his brains out all over the Pacific."

— Aldon Benes, Elaine's Dad

[Perelandra]

[compared2what?]

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.

But Max....As I'm sure you know, there are quite a few mathematicians who have done that work (in response to Hoagland) and been utterly unimpressed by it.

Due to their recognition that if you just draw a certain number of intersecting lines between a certain number of topographical features on a photograph, you'll create a certain number of angles, from which it's very easy to infer tetrahedrons in spheres, and patterns involving constant numbers and ratios and so forth and so on.

I mean, there are web pages demonstrating exactly that all over the internet. Do none of them decrease your rock-solid faith in the significance of this particular example of that phenomenon at all?