amplified," "something made visible above the noise," etc. Here it does NOT
mean "something added!"
Dipietro and Molenaar's SPIT algorithm was not, strictly speaking, an
"enhancement technique" at all. It was an "anti-aliasing (sp?) technique"; it
merely "smoothed the edges" between pixels (picture elements -- the "dots")
making up the computer image. True "enhancement" removes noise, stretches
contrast, corrects geometric distortions, etc. It ultimately redistributes
what data is available, so the human eye can SEE that data easier (like "false
color" )! What Carlotto has done, in contrast (another pun . . .) to D&M, is
truly apply a range of these state-of-the-art enhancement techniques to these
images - - all carefully described in the Applied Optics piece. I KNOW that
when you see the new images from the Mars Mission ("new" only in the sense of
the techniques applied to these, now, 13-year old data tapes), you'll be amazed
at what you see. And realize why Erol and I think continuing arguments about
the "symmetry" of our friend here slightly miss the point. -- Dick
#194235 reply to #194200
Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Dick,
Science is more than numbers and measurements. You have not left any room for
interpretation, nor evaluation of your conclusions. Imagine if I were to claim
that the mere existence of some 10,000 unexplained UFO reports over 40 yare subject to review, not my interpretation.
Bottom line: What percentage of possibility do you think there is that your
measurements are all correct, yet the "monuments" are still naturally formed?
I'll say it again, I'm impressed enough with your work to be willing to DEMAND
further research and more openness on the matter from NASA, but only becld
depend on the results of that series of independent replications, as to my next
decisions re "naturalness").
Over the years I've spent on this (six very intensive ones, as of now), as long
as we were dealing with "soft" data ("faces," approximate geometric
"alignments," etc.) I carefully maintained the appropriate "open mind" re the
ultimate interpretation of Cydonia -- believing that we would indeed need to
wait for high-res Mars Observer images, before we clarified the situation.
Then Torun, a geomorphologist, cartographer and geographer with Defense
Mapping, began in late 1988 *independently* testing my "relationship model,
established in "Monuments" as a "what would constitute 'ultimate proof' for or
against the Intelligence Hypothesis" (because he thought my assertion of
bilateral symmetry in the D&M "absurd" -- his word!). To his amazement, nay
shock -- he found my assertion was correct: the D&M is bilaterally symmetric,
and is "aimed" directly at the "face." Further, he extended those initial
observations, and discovered that the object possessed extraordinary internal
symmetry, mathematical elegance (the front is exactly a third of a circle), and
REDUNDANT geometric "constants" difficult to rationalize in any manner other
than potentially deliberate. Morphologically, after a broad survey of a lot of
other Viking images and geological regimes, and an assessment of realistic
processes and "weathering agents" proposed by the Viking geologists for other
surface features, he concluded that both mathematically and geomorphologically,
Dt: 06-Sep-89
(Cont'd from previous message)
What really got me, however, was not "just" the mathematical elegence Torun
found within the D&M. It was the fact that he discovered, completely
independently, a *second* example of a curious "coincidence" I included in
"Monuments" as a "throw away" on the very back of the book: that the tangent of
the (then) approximate lshington, from a total stranger currently working with Defense Mapping,
who has found -- not only additional apparent constants "encoded" in the D&M --
but good ol' "e/pi" itself!
Redundancy. A possible (note I still say "possible") signal (see #194254 et
al) !
No, Jim, I could maintain a fascade, a political "front" on this, and I guess
make a lot of people feel easier. Only, I have leveled with everyone all the
way along. When it was uncertain, I said so. Now, we have something VERY
specific that can easily be tested: *dozen*s of repeats, across the entire
"complex," of these two numbers and other specifically related constants
-together, alone, inverted, and even multiplied. These multiple redundancies
BEG TO BE INVESTIGATED. If they hold up, this "signal" is telling us NOW --
not in three years -- that Cydonia is real. And that should *insure* that we
get those vital images! -- Dick
#194208 reply to #194199
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dick,
I object to your criteria in answer to the question about what would
convince you Cydonia was natural. You have surely heard of numerology (the
attachment of special significance to certain numbers). And you must know the
difference between *a priori* and *ad hoc*.
Consider a randomly-generated set of millions of dots on a large, flat
surface. If you specify IN ADVANCE (a priori) some special pattern, such as 24
dots forming a nearly perfect square with 6 dots per side, the chances are very
slight that it will occur by chance in a random pattern. So if you find chance.
So if you are searching for a 24-dot square, and find instead two sets of
four triangles, each making a perfect square, that is NOT significant, because
some improbable things MUST happen purely by chance. Finding a rationale for
this pattern after you have found it is *ad hoc* (after the fact), and
convinces only those who have not dealt with large random sets before.
I have asked for any *a priori* significance to the measurements you cite,
and received unconvincing answers. If is not reasonable for us to accept your
measurements, replicated or not, as proof of anything unless they have *a
priori* significance. This is the main stumbling block between us over your
whole "measurements" approach to proving artificiality. It is also why I said
symmetry in the face WOULD be convincing, because it is *a priori* significant.
--- Tom
#194215 reply to #194208
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Tom, Although I have NOT dealt with large random number bases, I do agree 100%
that * some * of these patterns could be, as you put it, * ad hoc *. However,
as you yourself have pointed out, the face (even half a face) is * a priori *.
Given the fact that a line drawn from the "city center" (which DOES look
artificial) to the cliff (which DOES look artifi that not represent * a priori * ? Given the
fact that there is an object in the immediate vicinity of the face which DOES
LOOK like a pyramid, would that not represent * f a site with similar
"objects" are "relationships" be solely considere d to be * ad hoc * ? Marty
#194318 reply to #194215
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Marty,
objects? What about lying on the arc of a circle, lying at a perfect right
angle, or at an angle of 40.97 degrees, etc, etc. Do you see the problem?
Since you mention objects here on Earth, I agree there is a lot to be
intrigued by among the pyramids and other artifacts. But if there is any
significance at all to the latitude (40.97 degrees) of the D&M pyramid on Mars,
and if there is any Earth connection, then WHY isn't there something
significant at that latitude on Earth??? That would be truly "a priori",
provided you don't open up the field of "something significant" to include more
than major ancient structures of possible ET origin. --- Tom
#194331 reply to #194318
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Tom,
*a priori* and *ad hoc* are fine when you're dealing with a mathematical
puzzle. What we have here, however, is something that "looks" very suspicious.
There is simply NO PRECEDENT for calculating odds for the possibility that
these may be or may not be ET artifacts. How many advanced civilizations have
arisen in the galaxy during the past 4 billion years? How many are "humanoid?"
How many engage in monument building? What do they consider important;
geometry, art, faces, etc? Until we have answers to those questions, it will
simply be impossible to apply any "known formulander thousands of atmospheres of
pressure in ocean trenches; "advanced life forms" which breathe Hydrogen
Sulfide. Almost everything we "knew" about the planets and their moons has
been proven wrong. I vividly remember a statement made by a planetary
scientist regarding the riverbeds on Mars , "We considered every conceivable
liquid, including champagne, before finally deciding that the only possible
answer was vast amounts of liquid water." The "impossible" has already happened
too many times in the recent past to justify throwing this out just because it
in too incredible to be real.
I think there is a temptation to view the two sides in this issue as: THOSE
WHO ARE CONVINCED (ARTIFICIAL) * VS * THOSE WHO ARE CONVINCED (NATURAL.) I see
it in another context: THOSE WHO WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH * VS * THOSE WHO
ARE CONVINCED...and finding out the truth demands further investigation by Mars
Observer.
Marty
#194349 reply to #194331
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Marty,
I completely concur with your thoughts in #194331.
Did I say something which made you think I would not be? --- Tom
#194401 reply to #194349
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 08-Sep-89
priori* and *ad hoc*
depend on the level of knowledge of the person (persons) attempting to
"interpret" a message? A quick example AND PLEASE let me know if I'm off base
here: We (20th century) unearth a large million , in fact, there is a message) was left as opposed to a message
based on something we understand, should be a yardstick for determining if
there is actually a message. If there is a "pattern," it should be certainly
be considered "suggestivur example of the periodic table of the elements is a good one. But
wouldn't we be disappointed if such a table from ET's with interplanetary
capability stopped at 106 or sooner (i.e. told us nothing we didn't already
know). I would then immediately suspect that the gold disk was a fraud. But if
it does go to higher elements, that's something we can use and verify.
Of course you are right that ET messages may come in strange packages,
perhaps intended for us and perhaps not. We already know, from thinking about
our own attempts at communication, how difficult it is to imagine what would be
meaningful to ET life. I agree, quite generally, that we shouldn't ignore
patterns, but should study them.
Nonetheless, patterns of dots, lines, angles, ratios, etc. are all
suspect, because these very things can, and MUST, arise naturally. I honestly
do not see a way that a few examples of simple, "special" patterns, whatever
they are, can argue for the artificiality of Cydonia. Given that
artificiality, then everything about the site becomes interesting. But just
because the ET architects find e/pi angles aesthetically pleasing does not
imply they are part of a message.
I certainly agree that Cydonia is a remarkable phenomenon, and should be
#194420 reply to #194415
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Tom, Your comment "an unusual set of natural features" makes MASA's refusal to
"commit itself" even more suspicious. This also brings to memory a discussion
I had with one of the planetary Geologists at the USGS. He stated "this is
nothing more than an example of bizarre geology." Now, if I had been really
quick on my toes, I would have commented, "well, you're a geologist aren't you?
Why are you opposed to photographing something that you, yourself, describe as
'bizarre?"
If NASA really has a problem lending "credibility" to Hoagland and the other
researchers, why don't they just agree to takes more pictures because it
"bizarre geology?"
Marty
#194254 reply to #194208
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Tom,
I believe that part of the problem we are having, on this very crucial aspect
of our work, lies in semantics: precisely how does one define "a priori" and
"ad hoc." Let me give an example from the "standard" SETI community, then pick
up ( if the 37 lines permit!) on your own example -- the "million random
points" (any cousin to George Bush's "thousand points" . . .?).
SETI has been looking for The Signal for precisely thirty years, now. A LOT of
people, over those years, have debated exactly wavailable specturm will look like true "white noise," the *real* signal will
look exactly like the Galactic background! -- until a proper "decoding
algorithm" is applied. [Since we can't be expected to know what that decoding
algorithm is, say these guys, the "real" signals will be "from aliens TO
aliens" (who already have the code), which we'll merely intercept by accident.
And so on.] If you flew through the beam of Voyager 2's telemetry and dage.)
#194255 reply to #194254
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
(Cont'd from last message)
I've always been a bit suspicious of these arguments. Trying to "crawl inside
the psychology of aliens" to me has always seemed both hopeless . . . and
somewhat chauvanistic. The true "signal," I have come to suspect (after you
finally find it -- the hard part!), must contain WITHIN ITSELF ITS OWN "A
PRIORI" DEFINITION THAT IT IS A SIGNAL. That's the only way it COULD work --
in a Universe of almost infinite possibilities and combinations, where each
"unique" reasoning about "a priori" must be based on the individual receiver's
experience, awareness, and level of intelligence (or, just as bad, the
"sender's" "guesstimates" of same).
What I'm saying is that, to be totally "universal," the "senders" could make
NO ASSUMPTIONS regarding "a priori." The "signal" would have to do its own
defining. And the only way I could see that it could do that, would be if it
was SELF-REFERENTIAL. Like "intelligence" itself.
So, how would this work in practice? You're at your radio telescope,
attentively scanning the skies, looking for an intelligent signal that (so our
physics say) is going to be far down "in the noise" (simple distance andan "intelligent signal,"
against all that other "hash?" Must it give you "pi" before you accept it? A
prime number? A raster scan of Vanna White?
No. All it has to do is REPEAT something -- anything! "Noise" IS random. It
will not repeat (at least, not within a highly limited "search space" and
time).
But a true signal will instantly be recognizable BY ITS SIMPLE REPETITION of
"the signal" -- regardless of WHAT that signal "thinks" it's important to
communicate. It's the *redundancy* which immediately lifts it "out of the
noise of randomness." (And if you're thinking of the "pulsar problem," that's
NOT the kind of simple "time repetition" I'm describing. The precise PATTERN
must replicate. -- More)
#194257 reply to #194255
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
(Continued from last message).
There is a real difference between "a priori" and "arbitrary." If we have "a
priori" defined our "sige combinations of
those SAME FEW DOTS. To insist at that point that "only the square could be
significant" would be highly arbitrary. The trianges, by their redundancy,
become the "carrier" for "the signal"; the redundant mathematics the
"modulation" of that carrier -- the actual information.
What we have found, Tom, is the equivalent of the "highly-redundant triaconstants amid these highly limited combinations (to repeated three sig. figure
accuracy), that has us convinced we're "on to something."
I would be the first to "throw away" our possible "first-cut" at a MEANING
(what "they" might have intended by this pattern). That there is now an
intelligent PATTERN there -- "a message," which has defined itself by its
*extreme* redundancy -- I will defend quite strenuously. And I insist that
others actually examine what we have discovered and then either replicate or
refute the *measurements*, BEFORE they criticize our logic and results -- "a
priori." -- Dick
#194261 reply to #194257
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Tom,
The computer "ate" a vital line in my third message. it was supposed to read
". . . I would totally agree that finding the triangle -- while intriguing --
is not particularly significant-(the *exact* ratios of the angles of that triangle, their trig functions, and
their radian measure) occurred twice
. . three times . . . ten times . . ."
Dick
#194262 reply to #194261
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 06-Sep-89
Tom,
OK, let's try one more time! (Georgia, doesn't the system like capitols for
emphasis?) The line is supposed to read
". . . I would totally agree that finding the triangle -- while intriguing --
mes . . . ten times . . ."
Dick
#194319 reply to #194257
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Dick,
If your other compelling measurements and relationships are like TAN
(latitude) = e/pi, I'll pass when it comes to replication of your calculations,
because "a priori" I don't attach any significance to that sort of coincidence.
But perhaps we are reaching the point where I need to know more detail
before I can fairly criticize or support your finding that you already have
enough evidence to conclude that the Cydonia objects are artificial, other than
through the artificial appearance.
I have been through the exercise of finding an amazing conclusion after
lengthy calculations (the breakup of the asteroidal planet); and then having
the frustration that others who don't repeat the calculations, but only hear my
description about how compelling they are, can never appreciate first hand to
what extent they are "air tight" vs. having "loopholes" or subject to
interpretation or experimenter bias. So I can emphathize with your
frustration.
So, what is the single most important single thing you would like someone
to replicate, and what raw materials would that someone have to possess to
begin? If you make the task better defined and a little less formidable, you
may get some volunteers (maybe even me). --- Tom
#194431 reply to #194319
Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Tom: The single most could examine would be the alignments between the "monuments"
themselves. This would NOT involve a search for numbers with an
abstract significance, but for whole angles such as 60, 90, &
120 deg., and for these and other angles that appear in more than
one place. This investigation would not be analogous to
he aforementioned sightline intersection point.
- This bisected 120 deg. angle matches the geometry of
the "front" of the D&M.
- The City Square to Cliff(lower) to Tholus angle is 85.3
deg., matching the sides of the D&M.
- The Cliff(lower) to Tholus to D&M angle is 90 deg.
These simple alignments, *combined with* the
geomorphology of each object, should support the contention that
nature may not have been wholly responsible for their existence.
I suggest that you get the original orthographic negs or
prints from NSSDC at Goddard and mosaic them. You'll need frames
35A72, 35A73, and 35A74. You might get some hostile comments
from the folks at NSSDC, but probably not. After all, who could
reasonably object to your wanting to find out for yourself?<grin-- Erol
#194454 reply to #194431
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Thanks, Erol. I'll order them Monday. --- Tom
#194463 reply to #194431
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Tom,
Erol and I debated a bit re how extensive to make our response to your request.
We decided to begin with the "basics" that Erol has now outlined in his note:
low): the main problem we've had all along is the
quality of the data itself. Geometric measurements must be made on
orthographic rectifications of the original images. But JPL only produced
*one* set of such "rectified images" (at least, that I've ever seen), and . . .
the image quality is lousy!; features are grossly over-exposed, or are
essentially black. So, even recognition of "control points" for accurate
measurement is difficult. For this reason, we've made very large blow-ups, in
several different scales, to assist in reducing simple identification
confusion. And we've constantly crosscompared features between the NASA
"orthos" and our own "Carlotto *rectilinear* enhancements" -- which really pull
all the original imaging data from these tapes, and show features in *exquisite
detail*, but are geometrically useless. You might ask "Why haven't you produced
our own computerized orthographic mosaics?" The answer is: it's extremely
difficult to do that *outside* of NASA.
The geometric corrections must be derived from the latest navigation data
from the Viking spacecraft, which -- when we tried to get it -- we were
informed "that tape has been erased, as we (NASA) had no further need for it."
This was in 1986. So, we've had to live with "doing it by hand." Some way to
do science, eh? BTW: when Mert Davies (at RAND) offered to check our
measurements, he asked US for a set of decent rectilinear prints "because my
JPL copies are so bad." Interesting buraucratic system we've established here,
for "independent testingFm: Eric Haas 73320,2553
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 07-Sep-89
The CIS message limit is approximately 2000 characters, or 96 lines,
whichever comes first.
#194395 reply to #194374
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Eric,
Then why does it truncate my messages after only 37 lines (sometimes after
32!)?
I'm setting line length to 80 characters (so it will fit on a normal screen).
Tips? Hints?
Dick
#194423 reply to #194395
Fm: Mark.Y 71340,276
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Richard, each message can be approximately 2700 characters, but CompuServe adds
its own overhead, like an extra byte or two between words, so usually one can
count on only about 2500 characters, or about 33 lines. CompuServe has
truncated my messages with only 31 full lines (79 characters each), and it has
allowed 37 lines through when there were many blank and very short lines.
I use TAPCIS on a PC clone, and it warns that I may be exceeding the message
length when I get to 30 lines.
#194461 reply to #194395
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 09-Sep-89
If you were to completely fill 25 lines with 80 characters each, you
would reach the 2000 character limit, and your message would be truncated.
Since your lines are rarely 80 characters long (due to word wrap) and you leave
I would hardly say that was the "*one latitude*". 23.78, 26.63, 30.09,
40.42, 49.13, 49.58, 59.91, 63.37 and 65.75, 66.22 all have similar
relationships with e, pi and trigonometic functions. In fact, 40.42 and 49.58
probably would have served even better, as they are e/pi radians from the pole
and the equator, respectively.
#194326 reply to #194237
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Eric,
I was referring to the *Tan* of 40.87 = e/pi = 0.865, as being the significant
trig function of that "one latitude." While it is perfectly true that other
trig functions, representing this same ratio (0.865), apply equally to some of
the other latitudes you mention (which opens up the interesting thought: what's
at THOSE latitudes on Mars . . . which we simply haven't had the resources to
examine!), Erol and I maintain that there is a "unique significance" to the Tan
of 40.87. For one thing, it alone seems to derive the "19.5 degree latitude
predictions" (details in the paper) -- which demonstrably contain something
"going on" at that latitude (in fact, the "biggest somethings" -- the Hawaiian
Caldera, Olympus Mons, the Great Red Spot, and now the Great Dark Spot,
Remember too that, every scientific inquiry has started out as a simple
catalogue of PATTERNS -- long before the physical reasons for those patterns
became "obvious." It becomes a "science" when, from the original pattern and a
good theory (or mathematical model) you can PREDICT the next part of the
pattern. We did that successfully with Neptune. Which, in any "normal"
inquiry should make makentially significant, because that angle is to be found on the D&M pyramid
when viewed vertically (as it would be from space). The angle is formed by the
west ground-level edge and the edge that points from the apex towards the city
square.
While I was impressed by the repeated expression of e/pi in many
locations, I was especially intrigued by its expression by three totally
different methods: the ratio between angles, the trig. functions of angles, and
the aforementioned radian measure. What makes these three methods significant
(beyond redundancy) is the fact that they are not dependent upon the system of
mathematics used by the observer. Just as our hypothetical architects could
not assume what method of analysis would first be applied, they also could not
possibly assume that an observer of Cydonia would count in the decimal system
(base 10) or use a 360 degree system for denoting angles. The methods by which
I believe these numbers are expressed are independent of such assumptions.
(continued in reply)
#194372 reply to #194370
Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
Dt: 07-Sep-89
Your list of "significant latitudes" would reduce the odds that thappearance of possible architectures on one of them is deliberate, but this
requires the additional assumption that these latitudes are equally
significant. The latitude of 40.868 deg. affords a good oppurtunity tots through the
aforementioned corner facing the city square AND the upslope terminus of the
"flat thing" on the front (towards the face). This representation of both the
e/pi and (sqrt 3)/2 latitude requires not only that the D&M have a certain
latitude, but also a certain shape, size, and orientation. Why not reprarguments as to
why that particular latitude was better than any of the others.
#194396 reply to #194376
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Eric,
I'm sad to note your last statement. It's makes it obvious that a serious
discussion of what IS (as opposed to what ISN'T) is not possible between us. At
best, you're inferring we're "deluded," and under ANY circumstances would
continue our "delusion." At worst, that we're deliberately misrepresenting the
data as we've found it. Either "scenario" effectively prevents further serious
discussion. Impuning motives (or competence) is NOT a productive aid to
discovering the truth -- in any scientific investigation. Independently
testing mathematical assertions against the "source data" (in this case, by
simply making about half a dozen measurements on the actual NASA orthographic
Cydonia imagery -- available from the National Space Science data Center) would
be.
Dick
#194430 reply to #194396
Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 08-Sep-89
Eric:
ed Dr. Carlotto to
analyse the fractal geometry of Viking imagery and develop an
automated method that would flag landforms that are most unlike
the surrounding terrain. Using his method on Cydonia, the face
and city give the strongest signal of abnormality. This
technique could be used to scan all the Viking (and later Mars
Observer) imagery looking for objects to study in detail.
Of course this same technique could be applied to digital
imagery of ANY planetary surface to look for unusual landforms
that are of purely geological interest.
Erol.
#194458 reply to #194396
Fm: Ralph C. Henderson 72707,3357
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Eric has not accussed you of misrepresenting data, but of misrepresenting
science. Finding coincidental equalities between trigonometry functions of
constants and the latitude of your "city" is not scientific investigation--it's
just number-juggling. What's sad to note is the false scientific gloss you're
putting on these ideas.
ilar
physical processes (there may even be a similar process behind the hot spot
that created the Hawaiian chain), but the fact that you found a method that
yeilded a similar latitude proves nothing. There are plenty of mathematical
functions, and an astronomical number of ways to put them together. A little
juggling was bound to produce something.
-RCH-
#194462 reply to #194396
Fm: Eric Haas 73320,2553
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 09-Sep-89
I think you may be reading too much into my last statement. I simply
think you've fallen victim to the all too common tendancy of humans to find
meaning in meaningless coincidences. It is true, that at this point, you will
find it very difficult (but not impossible) to convince me that there is any
meaning to the location of the Cydonia face and other objects. If, however,
you were to convince me that the face itself is artificial (at this point, a
much easier task), I would be much more willing to entertain ideas about the
possible numerical meanings of its location.
#194465 reply to #194462
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 09-Sep-89
Eric,
Sorry if I'm a bit touchy on this point, but I'm just slightly tired of
endless, redundant criticisms -- which never seem to get beyond the "this is
why it CAN'T be real" stage. There is one singu
substance of what we thought we'd found. His reaction, like yours, was: "Well,
ANY number of points can be connected to give any *ad hoc* "meaning" to a
landcape." (Sound slightly familiar . . .?) Anyway, a day went by . . . and
then the phone rang. It was the physics guy again. His voice was definitely
strained. He said, "You know those relationships you said you'd found? Well,
last night I took out a bunch of old Viking prints I'd been given some tndom Martian rocks. That's why I know we're "on
to something." Science is NOT endless criticism; its doing the damn
measurements. They're not hard (well, not THAT hard, see #194431 and my
follow -on) Just mind-boggling. -- Dick
#194572 reply to #194465
Fm: Ralph C. Henderson 72707,3357
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 11-Sep-89
Science involves proving that the relationships you've found exist apart from
your rationalizion of them; you or others must make predictions based on your
theories, and see if they pan out.
The "physics guy" gave up after one day? Haven't _you_ put a lot more time and
thought into it than that? Also, your motivation is much better than his
was--you believed that there was a real message, while he was sure there
wasn't.
Besides, what was it that "didn't work" for him? If he picked another print
and tried to find the same numbers you came up with, he had the technique
backwards. Aren't most of these relationships found by thinking about what
things might be suggested by the numbers? There's a world full of things to
draw on, and the human mind is rabid about finding patterns.
I think you'd see the point if you'd ever read one of the "pyramidology" books.
One fellow had stumbled onto the notion that changes in the passageways of the
Great Pyramid of Giza symbolized the future history of the world, with so many
inches of passageway equalling so many years. The author was able to "p(including the world wars), but his ability to
predict post-publication events was quite poor. He did not fabricate anything;
the markings and changes in the passageways were quite real, but his reasoning
was only rationalization. It can become quite a trap--the more determined and
imaginative a person is, the more relationships they are able to see,
meaningful or not.
-RCH-
#194499 reply to #194462
Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364
To: Eric Haas 73320,2553
Dt: 10-Sep-89
I would like to offer a few quotations that offer informed opinion on the
differences (or lack thereof) between ad hoc and a priori, and related issues.
These quotations are sec
"It is the theory which decides what we can observe."
"Even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the
interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices. The prejudice ... (sic)
consists in the faith that facts by themselves can and should yield scientific
knowledge without free conceptual construction."
-Albert Einstein
"We ourselves introduce that order and regularity in the appearance which we
entitle 'nature.' We could never find them in appearances had we not
ourselves, by the nature of our own mind, originally set them there."
"The POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIENCE is, then, that which gives objective reality to
all our A PRIORI cognitions."
-Immanuel Kant
(more)
#194500 reply to #194499
Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364
To: Stan Tenen 75015,364
Dt: 10-Sep-89
(Relevant quotations, continued)
"Quantities like length, duration, mass, force, etc. have no absolute
significance; their values will depend on the mesh-system to which they are
referred.... (sic) There is no fundamental mesh-system..."
"Mind filters out matter from the meaningless jumble of qualities, as the prism
filters out the colours of the rainbow from the chaotic pulsations of white
light."
-Arthur Eddington
I believe that there is only one a priori fundamental indication of
consciousness - self-reference. Meaningful redundancy coupled with indications
of self-knowledge or self-awareness in the physical record, regardless of the
class or type of data, is a unique quality of coference (within the Cydonia complex) of the D&M
pyramid to the face and to and among the other odd and prominent features at
Cydonia, the repetition of the same angles between different features, the
internal symmetry of the D&M pyramid as shown by sight-lines to the other
forms, the exact E-W alicy and self-reference would still be sufficient.
I agree that this is not absolute proof. Coincidence is possible and new data
must be obtained by a return visit with either much higher resolution imaging,
a remote rover, pickup and return of samples, or, of course, a humanned visit.
However, it is not likely, in my opinion, that the currently available hard
data - the angular alignments - will change. We already know these alignments
to 3 and 4 or more significant figures and I can't see what adding more
significant figures could add.
In spite of the enhancement techniques, I am not convinced that the face is
fully symmetrical. But I don't see how that matters. Even if there is only half
a face; even if the whole face is nothing but "a trick of light and shadow,"
that will not change the redundant, symmetrical, and self-referential
alignments. For me, the great mystery would be IF the Cydonia complex were
ultimately found to be natural, because that would require an explanation of
how - short of redundant coincidences - Mars could "know" where its prominent
(by Mars' standards ???) features are.
I do find the fractal analysis intriguing, but I don't have enough experience
with this tool to have developed a sense of perspective in its use.
One final quotation (reference lost):
"The logic of a theory must stem from an inner coherence, not because external
evidence makes it the most logical over other theories." - Albert Einstein
I hope this helps to season the discussion.
Stan
o #194501
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Stan Tenen 75015,364
Dt: 10-Sep-89
Stan, I must disagree with you assertion that should the "face" turn out to be
natural, Cydonia would still be interesting! It certainly would not be of any
further interest to me. The "face" IS THE CENTERPIECE OF CYDONIA. It is the
whole reason this issue reply to #194508
Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 10-Sep-89
I meant, if it turns out that the face is natural, but that the complex is not,
after we have examined new data, then that would be the greater mystery. While
it is true that the presence of what looks like a face started this
investigation, and while it is very unlikely, given the context of the
alignments of the other forms, that the face is natural, I still find the
alignments themselves - from the data we have - a much more compelling
indication of conscious intent than the face itself.
I am not attempting to dismiss the face. It is just that given the low
resolution of the face, I find the high resolution of the alignments, by
comparison, more likely not to change with new data.
For example, it appears to me that the landforms at Cydonia were artificially
modified, but were initially chosen from the natural landforms available. The
forms are very large and would have been very expensive to make if they were
all entirely artificial. Even the face may/might have been adapted from a
conveniently placed and formed natural feature which might not have been
sufficiently symmetrical to start with for it to have been shaped into a
completely symmetrical face. It is not even obvious to me that the face ought
to be symmetrical. Real faces are not entirely symmetrical and artistic
lly carries information, not the symmetrical and redundant
carrier itself. I believe that the presence of static symmetry may not be as
strong an indication of consciousness as slight asymmetry. Moslem geometric
patterns always include a defect or an asymmetrical component because, among
other reasons, perfect order is considered to be the province of God and not
appropriate for man's view of reality which is always "defective". The face
may be more than a weathered rock and still not be symmetrical. (more)
#194525 reply to #194524
Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364
To: Stan Tenen 75015,364
Dt: 10-Sep-89
A closer look at Cydonia will improve the precision of our view of the face
significantly, but it is not likely to improve our knowledge of the alignments
between the forms to any significant degree.
I am prepared to find that the face is not entirely symmetrical even after we
find that the Cydonia complex is actually artificial. As for absolute proof:
It would be beyond doubt an artificial complex if we were to find a map, chart,
or illustration of the complex or the face inscribed/written/drawn on the face
or on another object at Cydonia. That would be the ultimate proof of conscious
design based on my a priori requirement of self-reference - even if the face
were completely asymmetrill NOT "go away." While it is true that the
existing imagery reveals it is not "perfectly" symmetric (neither, in fact, is
any "face"; just look in the mirror!), the small differences we see (and they
are small) are easily explainable in terms of selective erosion. The
prevailing winds at Cydonia -- as charted by the published global
meteorological models developed from the Viking surface observations,
uncomplicated by any "oceans" -reveal a long (millenia-long) pattern of
seasonal-dependence of compassdirection. In other words, the right side (as
you look at it) should b
Additional factors are: the "photometric function" of the surface. Light in
both existing high-res images is falling across the curved "cheek" on the right
at a significant angle, on a surface which strongly absorbs at low incident
lighting angles (because it is composed of myriad little dust particles, each
of casting a shadow on the next particle, at low angles). This can explain the
rest of the *apparent* differences between the right and left side.
But, most important to me, is the simple fact that the "Face" is an INTEGRAL
part of the geometry and specific relationships we've found on the Cydonia
landscape. One line -- the line that precisely bisects the 120 degree front
angle of the D&M Pyramid -- crosses the "face" at three critical points: the
lower left "corner," the "teardrop" (just below the left "eye"), and at the
upper "forehead" where the "face" literally ends. These *three* points (on
that ONE line) in turn provide specific, redundant, angular relationships with
three other objects. No, Marty, the "face" will not disappear -- leaving just
the mathematical relationships (like the Cheshire Cat <grin>). The *two* are
inextricably linked. -- Dick
#194204 reply to #194143
Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dick,
I haven't the slightest inclination to backd by this very important point.
How can I get copies of your 11x14 pictures and enhancements, as described
in your second paragraph to Michael. And how can I get SOURCE information
about times and spacecraft location when these frames were taken, so I can be
absolutely certain there is no mistake about this? It is too easy for a print
to get reversed, and too important a matter to tolerate any chance of human
error. --- Tom
#194207 reply to #194204
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Tom, I am sure that Richard will also reply to your message, but I thought an
opinion from someone who has the enhanced enlargements may also be in order.
There are only two ** known ** photographs of the face. One was taken at low
sun angle (10 degrees) and the other was taken at high sun angle (30 degrees).
In both photographs the right side is in shadow. Even in the low sun angle
photo, it is possible to see what appears to be a "right edge" of the face.
The high angle "stretch-contrast" Carlotto enhancement (which also distorts the
image) clearly shows **some symmetry** with the left side. It does not show
the visual detail of the left side, this (right) side not being "filled-in"
with data. Still, it ** tends ** to confirm rather than to ** disprove ** the
"artificial hypothesis," at least in my mind.
Obviously what we need are more AND BETTER photographs!!! Marty
frames,
including made-to-order enlargements from those frames, are indeed available
from the Mars Mission (see message to Darrell Green re "Mars Mission Order
Form," # 194206). As to source information on the initial imaging parameters (
frame number, spacecraft distance from Mars, lighting azimuth, lighting angle
to zenith, etc.), all these data are on the "data blocks" that accompany each
e IS a "second frame" with lighting at almost 30
degrees to the surface, which TOTALLY reveals the so-called "shadowed side."
And under Carlotto's algorithms, it's a beaut!
I am aware of (and possess) at least one lower resolution, "morning shot" of
the "face" (frame 753A33). As it was taken about five times higher than the
two previous frames, its resolution is about 5 times lower. But, as I noted
earlier, it's facinating for the detail it reveals regarding the left "eyebrow"
region of the "face" at opposite lighting -- particularly when compared to both
a "deliberately-degraded 35A72," and to Carlotto's 3-D computerized "face"
model, the latter "lit" from the same "morning" angle. All three images show
IDENTICAL DETAIL in this "eyebrow" region -- which is pretty impressive,
considering that three different data sources being compared. I prepared an
illustrated comparison of this effect years ago, but it "strayed." I'll try to
find it -- or recreat it, if you're interested. -- Dick
#193997 reply to #193982
Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
OK, Richard:
I am looking for total bisymmetry in the "face." I've heard that Carlotto has
shown some rudimentary bisymmetry through some sort of computer enhancement,
but I have yet to see it. I would also like to see an objective skeptical
treatment of Carlotto's work in this area. As with any anomalistic claim, I
tend to wait for the skeptics' answer; if it is specious, or smacks of a priori
rejection, I am inclined to sympathise more with the claimant. This is how I
came to become an advocate of serious UFO research.
Now that I've answered y.Y 71340,276
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Richard, I am 60% persuaded that the Face and Pyramids are probably artificial.
I have read _Monuments of Mars_ and it left me tphotographs and ranging data.
#194049 reply to #193982
Fm: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Richard, This may sound like a simple answer but I think Mars Observer really
will decide "once and for all." We have, for example, a photograph of only one
side of the face. The "face" IS the centerpiece of Cydonia. If the "hidden
side" (even at Viking level resolution) shows nothing, I think this whole issue
will be settled. No copouts like "The Martians only built half a face." If,
on the other hand, the hidden side shows the same symmetry and detail as the
sunlit side, "just let someone suggest that we don't investigate or take higher
resolution photographs!!!!!!"
This brings up another point: As you stated in your book, NASA "secretly" took
another photo of the face 35 days after the first photo. It will probably
never be known whether this was the result of "normal mapping" or if there was
a conscious decision to do so. If they actually "made the decision," then it
would be safe to assume that they also took a "third" photograph of the hidden
side. If "that side" showed NOTHING, they could have used it to "disprove" all
of this "nonsense" (their choice of words, not mine.)
Note: beginning of this paragraph: I didn't mean they secretly took the second
photo, only that they never mentioned to the preDt: 03-Sep-89
Dick,
The Cydonia observations/measurements/predictions are extremely interesting
and clearly warrant further examination by Observer, etc. My attention,
however, keeps being drown back to another region on Mars referred to as
Utopia, an area which is far away from Cydonia but in a similar latitude.
DiPietro, Molenaar and Brandenburg, in their book "Unusual Mars Surface
Features" (4th edition) point out two "faces" in the region. One of the faces
looks remarkably similar to the Cydonia face, with its "characteristic" hair
(helmet?). It is shown with comparisons to the Cydonia face on page 102 (Fig.
63) of their book. I would think it would be possible to do some kind of
computerized comparisons between the two faces. If indeed similarities proved
to be significantly "beyond chance", that would be supporting evidence for
artificallity.
There are other intriguing features in Utopia, which you point out in your
book "Monuments" (Fig 22) --a "Runway" complex, etc. One particular feature
that caught my eye but was not specifically referred to is something that looks
like a complete "humanoid body". This is just inside the right edge of Fig. 22
in your book. The "head" is about one third the distance from the top of the
figure and has the "characteristic" appearance of the Cydonia face (most
distinguishable feature is the "hair". ). A "right arm" is stretched outportions resemble that of a
human. When I pointed this out to my wife, she immediately saw still another
"face" within the torso. I'm curious if you or anyone else has noticed te additional significant information gathered there,
especially if certain mathematical relationships (similar to Cydonia?) could be
found. In any case, shouldn't there be some encouragement for Observer to look
city. Although I haven't even spoken to any
"geology experts" about this, I feel they would explain this by some kind of
local faulting.
I think what had made Cydonia the center of attention is that here we have five
or six "bizarre looking" objects...all of which are very "DIFFERENT" from each
other. That makes them much harder to explain through weathering or geology
than the other "interesting" areas.
Marty Arant
PS Yes, I do see a "face." It "looks" interesting, but I don't think it has
anywhere near the symmetry or "relief" that the face in Cydonia has.
#194101 reply to #194088
Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
To: Martin Arant <s7> 71270,1311
Dt: 03-Sep-89
Ok. Some questions which have probably already been answered, but I'm {
forgetful.
1) Who is the publisher of "Monuments"?
2) How can I obtain higher resolution photos (as opposed to halftones or
whatever you see in magazines and, I suppose, the book) of the region in
question?
#194144 reply to #194101
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
Dt: 04-Sep-89
Mike,
In answer to your questions: 1) "Monuments" is published by North Atlantic
Books, Berkeley, CA. Its' available in Waldonbooks (even accessible here on
CIS, I believe), B. Dalton, Crown, and a lot of major independents, anywhere in
t that way, it's
signed, and the on-going research gets a percentage of the cover price).
2) The highest resolution photos are also available (as actual hard-copy 11 X
14 prints of 35A72, 70A11, and 70A13), with individual 11 X 14 enlargements of
the key features (high atical
"overlays."
Does that help? -- Dick
P.S. There's also, just out (Sept 1), an "updated audio 'docu-drama' of the
book" (NOT just someone reading "Monuments!") -- with illustrations, mosaics
and a map included in the "bookpac" containing the cassette. Also called "The
Monuments of Mars," and available like the book.
#194193 reply to #194144
Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Yes, but how can one get the photos you describe?
#194203 reply to #194193
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Mike,
To order the 11 X 14 enhanced full-frame images, and detailed enlargements of
the Cydonia objects (or any of the other items discussed in previous messages
-like "Monuments," the new audio-version of same, the Mars Mission Newsletter,
the NASA-Goddard video, etc.), simply send a U.S Mail note requesting a list of
what's available to: The Mars Mission, P.O. Box 981, Wytheville, VA 24382.
You'll get a free issue of the "Mars Mission News" and an enclosed order form
by return mail, detailing everything we have -- with ilustrations. If you have
a PC (and you must, or you wouldn't be reading this <grin>!), simply call the
Mars Mission BBS (703) 228-7822, and enter "Files." Follow the "prompts" from
there to get to "RESOURCES" -- the file-name under which a detailed printout of
what we have available is entered. There is also an order form filed there,
which when printed out, filled out, and mailed to us (with check), will get you
anything we have.
Hope this helps.
Dick
#194201 reply to #194144
Fm: Darrell Green 72406,1736
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Dick, if I wanted to purchase a copy of "Monuments" directly from The Mars
Mission, how much money should be sent? :dg
#194206 reply to #194201
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Darrell Green 72406,1736
Dt: 05-Sep-89
Darrell,
Please see message #194203: my response to Mike on a similar question. Also,
I've copied the Mars Mission BBS "Order Form" below. Detailed descriptions of
these items are available by calling (703) 228-7822, and following the
