Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

Palomar · 2004-03-24 15:17:42

*Please note that I've given *-2-* options for the other beings traveling through the Solar System scenario; if that is along your line of thought on the matter, please pick the one which most closely resembles your musings.

This poll inspired by the thread in the "Life on Mars" folder begun by "SpiritofOpportunity," and the recent talk of Cydonian features there.

Thanks...I look forward to your feedback.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-24 15:46:40

Other. Of course.

Humanity is far older, and more travelled than we currently understand. We built them.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-24 15:54:31

Alright, I'll bite. I have to say that the most plausible explanation seems to be "trick of light and shadow" or odd natural geography. Or areography, I suppose.

But if some evidence of alien (or ancient advanced human) involvement were to arise I'd certainly be willing to stop brandishing Occam's Razor long enough to examine such evidence.

But so far everytime I ask for it I get a heaping mound of bulldung wrapped in grainy photos.

Or maybe I'll just claim that I built them! And there's Weapons of Mass Destruction in 'em too! Hey Dubya, come and get 'em!

clark · 2004-03-24 15:57:36

I stand corrected.

Cobra Commander is far older, and more travelled than we currently understand.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-03-24 18:10:01

Ah, the human imagination is a powerful thing indeed. It can make us see bunnies in clouds, monsters in shadows, canals on Mars, alternate universes and realms, and, apparently, evidence of civilizations on Mars. Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, the one thing it can't do is make any of this stuff real.

If you believe in "the face" as being built by intelligent Martians, you must be equally willing, IMHO, to believe that every monster in your room you saw as a child was real. Or maybe I'm being to harsh.

Gennaro · 2004-03-25 20:32:57

Hey, Marineris. Well I'll admit that looks a little like ruins (more than a km a side, but anyway). Yet have you noticed the spherical outline obviously continuing all the way around?

I'm no geologist but hasn't it struck you that this could be a partially covered crater?

The strange fractured impact rim looks like broken glass or ice. Have no idea what geological process could create such a pattern but I would begin by trying to find that one out. You know where this photo is from?

Side note: if ever some sort of intelligence was present on the Mars surface in the past (not very likely), we can at least be certain that it wasn't from there. The geological history of the planet precludes such a thing.
Maybe tentacled slime monsters from Delta Pavonis passing through?

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-26 00:09:12

:;):
Hi Gen,
Actually its a Mariner 9 shot I believe. In my book 'A Travellers Guide...' there are better close up shots, and your right, those walls are 3 kilometers on a side. And yes, that's an 86 kilometer eroded impact crater it sits upon, partially buried under sediments. There's a fascinating explanation in the book; "...radial and concentric fractures produce these patterns of rectalinear ridges... a partial exhumation of a previously buried structure...(crater)" , similar examples of which can be found on our moon.

It's a great red herring though, don't you think? I think it beats 'the face' any day!
:laugh:

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-26 00:20:11

Thanks, Cindy, for the chance to revisit this old favourite.
Having looked at many pictures of the Face and the nearby peaks, the Face still intrigues me but the peaks don't look artificial when seen in detail. This immediately causes problems for the "martian ruins" advocates because the Face is always presented as one of several artificial structures in the Cydonia area.
I admit the peaks looked like pyramids in the low resolution Viking shots, indeed one of them looked very much like an unfinished or partially demolished pyramid, but the MGS pictures convinced me that they were merely angular natural features.
In addition, the supposedly mathematically significant layout of the peaks has been shown by qualified mathematicians to be an unsustainable hypothesis. The positions of the high points of the peaks have been approximated to suit the angles and ratios required by the hypothesis. I've studied a treatise on this subject and I'm satisfied that, if the purported martian builders were trying to leave us important mathematical information at Cydonia, they stuffed it up pretty badly!

The Face itself, on the other hand, has not only withstood the test of higher resolution with some dignity, it has satisfied a prediction of the chief artificiality guru, Richard Hoagland. While many were predicting that a better photo of the Face would reveal bilateral symmetry (the Face's left side in Viking shots was too heavily shadowed to see detail), Hoagland instead predicted that the left side would be leonine in appearance, reflecting a long-standing association here on Earth between man and lion.
I was astounded when the MGS photos taken in 2001 actually showed exactly that. The right side of the Face still looks plausibly anthropoid but the left side is unnervingly like the left side of a lion's face.

It's one thing for the illuminated side of a mesa on Mars to look vaguely like half a simian face, in poor resolution, but when it still looks simian in high resolution, while confirming a prediction that the other half will be leonine, that makes me sit up and take notice!

So does that mean I think a space-faring civilisation, say 500,000 years ago, aware of the blossoming intelligence of apes on the terrestrial continent of Africa and knowing the lion was (and is) the principle land predator there, carved a likeness of both into a large mesa on Mars? No, not necessarily.
Does it mean I think the Face is just a trick of light and shadow wrought by nature? No, not necessarily.

The fact is I just don't know what to think and I answered Cindy's poll accordingly.
The fact that I regard the Face at Cydonia as being alone in its potential for artificiality, surrounded not by pyramids but just natural formations, speaks against artificiality. But to my mind, that argument isn't conclusive. Why couldn't an alien civilisation have left just one enormous artifact behind them to tell us they'd been there?

The Face could still very easily be a natural phenomenon and that's still the best explanation for it. In fact, I'm 90-something percent sure that's what it'll turn out to be.
But there's definitely enough doubt there, having seen the MGS pictures, to keep me scratching my head.

[Incidentally, I think NASA's ham-fisted attempt to put the Face speculation to rest with that inappropriate MOLA image, was disgraceful. MOLA's vertical resolution was excellent but its lateral resolution was appalling. To publish a picture using that totally inadequate lateral resolution, in order to 'prove' the Face was a featureless mesa, was unworthy of a scientific institution. That action served only to bolster the fringe claims of a cover up.]

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-26 00:47:21

...Why couldn't an alien civilisation have left just one enormous artifact behind them to tell us they'd been there?...

...cause that would just be too Kubrick! (ian?) (or was it Arthur C?)

Hi Shaun,
Your point concerning the hastiness of judgement on the face... is taken.
I most humbley stand corrected. Thanks for that one. :;):

Palomar · 2004-03-26 07:19:26

The fact is I just don't know what to think and I answered Cindy's poll accordingly.
The fact that I regard the Face at Cydonia as being alone in its potential for artificiality, surrounded not by pyramids but just natural formations, speaks against artificiality. But to my mind, that argument isn't conclusive. Why couldn't an alien civilisation have left just one enormous artifact behind them to tell us they'd been there?
The Face could still very easily be a natural phenomenon and that's still the best explanation for it. In fact, I'm 90-something percent sure that's what it'll turn out to be.
But there's definitely enough doubt there, having seen the MGS pictures, to keep me scratching my head.

*This is essentially how I view the matter, although I admit Shaun seems to have done a bit more thorough research in regards to the topic than I have.

It was once doubted that mankind could exist beneath our feet, i.e. on the other side of a globe.

I don't think it is impossible that perhaps an alien civilization may have passed through our Solar System aeons ago, perhaps leaving a "calling card" on Mars. How old is our own species? I'm not adequately brushed up on my evolutionary timeline (sorry). I know it's been asked, "Then why wouldn't they have come and built something on Earth?" Well, why should they have built something on Earth instead?

I'm -not- saying I do "believe" this is so. Likely this ISN'T the situation at all. But I have considered it.

What's the phrase Shaun sometimes quotes regarding mysteries, with a proper name involved?; I can't recall it but I wish I could quote it right now.

--Cindy

Adrian · 2004-03-26 08:11:37

While I can sympathise with those who are willing to keep an open mind about the Face on Mars - even though I don't think it looks anything like a face - I feel that people haven't thought through the natural consequences of the Face being of intelligent origin.

If the Face was created by aliens, the list of difficult questions this raises is literally endless. Why did they make it? If they wanted to leave a calling card, why not do it on Earth? Why not on the Moon? Where have they gone, and where did they come from? If they had such high technology, why not throw a satellite into Earth orbit and leave it there for a few million years? Why make a face? Why not a binary message in primes? When did they make it? If they wanted it to last, surely they should have made it from more durable material. It just makes absolutely no sense at all. I would hope that if there *were* ETs that landed on Mars, they'd have more brains than this.

Quite apart from this, so what if Hoaglund makes one correct prediction among his dozens or hundreds of incorrect ones? What does it mean if one side of the face looks like a lion? And surely it was simply a safe bet to predict that the face would be asymmetric rather than symmetric given that that's a more likely finding, artificial or natural?

I find the whole thing absurd and to be a waste of time. Here we are, talking about something that at low resolutions looks like a face on Mars (just like countless other natural formations in the universe, given our brain's preference for recognising faces) when there are so many other wonderful things to think about, like the *real* possibility of extant microbial life on Mars. The face on Mars is just another example of lazy thinking and an undisprovable hypothesis.

I'm sorry to go on like this, as a scientist it irks me to see people chasing after ghosts and misunderstanding the scientific method :realllymad: . In fact, I started - and then deleted - a rant about the misconceptions of what 'science' is but then decided for the better. This is why I don't like talking about the face on Mars :bars2:

Edited By Adrian on 1080310419

Palomar · 2004-03-26 08:21:06

*Geez, Adrian...chill out, willya? :;):

Adrian: "While I can sympathise with those who are willing to keep an open mind about the Face on Mars - even though I don't think it looks anything like a face - I feel that people haven't thought through the natural consequences of the Face being of intelligent origin.

If the Face was created by aliens, the list of difficult questions this raises is literally endless."

*I agree. But evolution and creation also, for me, raises literally endless questions. "How could it all have 'just happened'?" "If there is a God, where did he/she/it come from?" -- (those just for starters) -- I don't often tangle with the "endless questions" topics myself, but I don't always run from them either (not implying you do, btw).

Adrian: "Quite apart from this, so what if Hoaglund makes one correct prediction among his dozens or hundreds of incorrect ones?"

*I personally don't care about Hoaglund, don't read at his web site or his material, etc. My musings don't reflect from Hoaglund at all. To me, this isn't about Hoaglund.

Adrian: "I find the whole thing absurd and to be a waste of time. Here we are, talking about something that at low resolutions looks like a face on Mars (just like countless other natural formations in the universe, given our brain's preference for recognising faces) when there are so many other wonderful things to think about, like the *real* possibility of extant microbial life on Mars.

*We're doing that quite a bit in other threads, aren't we?

Adrian: "The face on Mars is just another example of lazy thinking and an undisprovable hypothesis."

*Well, it's not a favorite topic of mine (I seldom chime in about it, and I believe this is the first time I've started a thread about it); however, I disagree with your statements directly above.

I haven't taken any of this personally, so don't worry. I'm just surprised at the intensity of your reply.

I don't think saying "I don't know" is unhealthy or unwise, etc., if it's a genuine statement. I think it's honest, when applied genuinely.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-26 10:43:40

If aliens, of any origin, built a face on Mars, why would they make it look human? Why would they make it look like a lion? They would be aliens, from different worlds, with different animals, with a different history- their symbols and meanings and connections to ideas would differ from us. Their perception would be different, at least on some level.

Now, trying to figure out why an alien would do something like this is trying to figure out the intentions of God. Good luck. That said, perhaps they merely wanted us to find these things when we were capable of finding them. a certain level of sophitication or technology to understand, first. Put something on Earth, or in orbit, and maybe we start worshiping the beeping thingy in the sky... It's fun to imagine, but come on, it's all a fantasy (like aliens are talking all around us, but we're listening to AM, and they are on FM).

If there is something though, and we can see some human significance to it, then I stand by my earlier belief, Cobra Commander did it.

Perhaps we are all the decendents of interstellar Quakers, who came to Earth to get away from that fast-paced alien life style. So our forebears came to earth, left a few markers for posterity (and to warn any passin aliens to sod off), and then burned their ships on landing. Hey, why not? :laugh:

Adrian · 2004-03-26 12:08:44

Thank you for your civil reply Cindy I did write an intense post, I know, but I treat the Face as one of the more obvious and serious manifestations of 'bad science' as it were. I'm certainly not attacking you or Shaun (or anyone else here) with what I said, because I know that when you say 'I don't know if they were made by aliens' you mean it in the sense that 'I don't know, but I find it highly unlikely.'

Which is basically the way I see it. If we drove up a rover to the Face and saw a metal door with a light on, I would be more than happy to admit defeat. I find that incredibly unlikely though. The problem with those who unrelentingly state that the Face *is* artificial is that they don't understand the requirement for extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims; if you want to say that the Face was built by aliens, it's not enough to say, 'Well, it looks artificial', you have to prove it, and I don't feel that there is anything approaching the kind of proof to take their claims seriously.

There is a deeper issue here though, to do with the nature of science and evidence and where you draw the line when you say, 'I don't know'. Take the example of Sagan's old chestnut, the invisible fire-breathing dragon in his garage. Imagine Sagan tells you, I have a dragon in my garage. You walk in and have a look around, and see no dragon. Ah, says Sagan, but it's invisible. OK, you say, but there's nothing showing up on my infra-red camera.

Sagan quickly replies, 'That's because it's invisible to IR radiation as well.' This seems rather unlikely to say the least, but you let it pass. So you get out a spraycan and spray the entire garage, hoping that you'll paint the dragon. Or you throw a net around the place, or wave a stick around. No dice - it's just not there. Sagan sagely informs you that the dragon is noncorporeal, or perhaps it just doesn't visit very often. At that point you leave from exasperation.

From time to time, Sagan shows you 'evidence' of the dragon - footprints, or piles of soot, or saliva, or fuzzy photographs, all of which are easily faked and do not represent conclusive proof.

Now, you *could* say, perhaps there really is an invisible, non-corporeal fire-breathing dragon in Sagan's garage. You could say, 'I don't know.' Or you could say, 'No, there's no dragon there. There is no ambiguity here. Show me some real proof and then I might believe you.'

And that is the way I treat the Face - I could say, 'I don't know,' but I feel that the evidence is so miniscule that aliens made it that it doesn't even *deserve* an 'I don't know'. There is no ambiguity with the Face; all I can see is an unusual rock formation that triggered our hyper-sensitive face-recognition areas in our brains. There are no radio transmissions coming from it, no radioactive sources, no evidence of artificial materials, no movement, no activity. The evidence to the contrary is such that I can happily make my mind up about the issue.

clark · 2004-03-26 12:17:11

Prove rainbows exsist to a blind man.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 12:32:33

Oliver Morton's blog about methane in the Marsian atmosphere is a bit more real and potentially "earth"-shaking.

Adrian · 2004-03-26 14:05:25

Clark, it'd be a tough job. Almost as hard as explaining what red looks like More of a philosophical question than anything else.

Rxke · 2004-03-26 14:22:03

Prove rainbows exsist to a blind man.

Easy, with some electronics... And some explaining of physics.

Build a device that, when pointed to differently coloured things, emits a different sound. Now given the fact the blind man knows about the sun, because he can feel the warmth...

Explain him about radiation, how we feel IR, see colours... Wich he can's, like we can't see, say U.V. But we have gizmo's that allow us to do that, so we know it's not a wld theory, but something that you can prove...

Now gve him the device, let him play with it: point it to the sun, a certain sound. Now give him a flashlight and a prism. let him test his gizmo on the flashlight, and then put the prim in front of it, it gives off another sound. Explain him how that works.
He can double check in 'the wild' after a rainy period, when the sun is out, just tell him how much degrees he has to turn opposed to the sun, and aim his device... etc etc.

In essence it's exactly the same thing we do with other stuff *we* can't sense with our 5 senses, like radioactivity etc.
Give a man a 'interpreting device' and some phisics schooling and he will not believe, no, he will *know* it exists.

clark · 2004-03-26 14:25:59

More of a philosophical question than anything else.

But that's the point, and to put the situation into some perspective.

By your own criteria, you would be unable to prove something that you yourself know exsists. But since you are unable to prove it by your own critera (to the blind man), the rainbows would never exsist. So do they?

Now, back up to this face on Mars deal. You're the blind man, demanding proof that something exsists which you can't see. You feel confident in your beliefs becuase you are at least endowed with the same faculties by which those who claim to see this face posess.

I mean, I see no rainbows, I see no face. I don't believe there is one. Yet there are some who say they see it. They call for closer inspection to prove their claims. It would be a bit like telling the blind man, "hey, I know you don't see it, but feel the water- feel the sunlight on your hand. These two experiences combine to form a rainbow, even if you can't see it."

It's how I kind of look at God- maybe some people do talk to the big guy. Maybe some people are endowed with a sense I lack, and therfore are able to 'see' god. I don't know, yet I try to entertain the notion, if for no other reason than I just may be the blind man. Or, of course, maybe they are blind.

There's no way to know for sure unless we look some more. Send people to Mars to find out. Would that be such a bad proposition?

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-26 15:38:06

There is a deeper issue here though, to do with the nature of science and evidence and where you draw the line when you say, 'I don't know'.

Hi Adrian,
I just love your Sagan analogy. Wonderful!
Just a brief addition; In retrospect the person would realize he waisted an incredible amount of time and effort trying to prove the existance/or not, of the dragon. Especially if he had been led down this road before by other pseudo hoaxes. It wasn't a waste ofcourse if this was his first attempt.
But at some point we must move on - our energies and time are too precious to entertain yet another 'likely' possibility of something unprovable.

( ...personally I think that Shaun was just wanting to set me straight using my own criteria...but of course, I can't prove that... :;):
No offense Shaun, your the greatest! :up:

Byron · 2004-03-27 07:28:06

And that is the way I treat the Face - I could say, 'I don't know,' but I feel that the evidence is so miniscule that aliens made it that it doesn't even *deserve* an 'I don't know'. There is no ambiguity with the Face; all I can see is an unusual rock formation that triggered our hyper-sensitive face-recognition areas in our brains. There are no radio transmissions coming from it, no radioactive sources, no evidence of artificial materials, no movement, no activity. The evidence to the contrary is such that I can happily make my mind up about the issue.

I'm with you on this one, Adrian...to me, I just see a funny-shaped mesa in those photos...and nothing more. Although I'm all for diversity of opinion, when it comes to science, it's time to put the imagination hat away and focus on the things that actually matter, like the recent discovery of methane in the Martian atmosphere by the Express orbiter. I'd much rather be focusing my time and energy on real, measureable science instead of chasing after the "maybe's", like Cydonia.

Clark, you mentioned why don't we send people to Mars to find out...I tell you one thing, if we dedicated one of our early human missions to study a geological feature just to satisfy the interests of a particular non-scientific interest group here on Earth, I'm gonna be *highly* upset. If we ever get people to Mars, I want them to be digging for microbes and surveying the shorelines of ancient seas, not crawling around a stupid rock outcropping.

B

Rxke · 2004-03-27 07:35:43

when it comes to science, it's time to put the imagination hat away and focus on the things that actually matter,

I know what you mean, but can't help myself pointing out that science *does* require quite a bit of imagination, heehee...

~Eternal~ · 2004-03-27 11:02:40

MAYBE other beings traveling through Solar System built them

It could be a trickery of speed and shadows but It could aslo very well be that an Ancient race once toured our Solar System and wanted to leave a message behind.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-28 23:36:58

Yes, thanks Adrian for reminding me of Carl Sagan's garage-dwelling dragon! I'm a great admirer of Dr. Sagan's logical clarity of thought and have some of his books on my bookshelf at home.
I've never really gone along with his "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" maxim, though. I tend to think you should have a process in place which is capable of detecting and dismissing unsustainable hypotheses, regardless of how ordinary or extraordinary they may be. Even if a new idea or purported discovery is absolutely mind-numbing in its ramifications, your standard regime of analysis should be able to determine its validity, or otherwise, in the usual way. If you have room to set the proof-bar higher because some new hypothesis is revolutionary, then to my mind the bar simply wasn't high enough to begin with.

For the record, I am well aware of Richard Hoagland's shortcomings and I do not place him in the same category as Carl Sagan by any stretch of the imagination. The great majority of what he preaches very definitely fails, miserably, to clear my standard proof-bar!
And I certainly don't waste a lot of my time reading up on all his intricate notions.

Adrian, I believe I understand your frustration with the whole Cydonia thing and, to a very large extent, I share your exasperation with it. Unless we send a landing party right up to the Face, drill into it and find nothing but rock, it will be nigh on impossible to convince the 'believers' that it's just a mesa. Such is the difficulty of proving a negative.
As I've said, I don't classify myself as a 'believer', but even I will never really know for sure in my own mind that the Face is definitely natural until just such a landing party is organised!

Does that mean I want to divert resources to such a mission right now? Definitely not! The chance that the Face could be artificial is so small as to relegate its investigation to a very low position on my list of priorities. (But the feint lingering doubts I still entertain mean that, unlike you, I haven't been able to remove it entirely from that list! )
I, too, am much more interested in the small amounts of methane reported to have been found in the martian atmosphere. As most of you here know, I've argued for some time that Mars has a biosphere, though probably no more than a microbial one. I base this argument on various lines of evidence; most prominently the reality of impact transfer of crustal material from Earth to Mars, and vice versa, and the work of Dr. Gil Levin, of Viking Labeled Release fame.
Now that water, even if only transient water, is a likely constituent of martian soils, I'm more convinced than ever that there is life also. One of the biggest problems I've had is with the lack of tell-tale metabolites of carbon-based life, such as methane. Hence the interest in the latest data on what is an energetically unstable gas in the presence of oxygen, and which shouldn't exist in martian air unless it is being constantly replenished by some process - possibly a biological process.

Just before I stop rambling here, I note that questions were raised about why an alien race would place a giant carving on Mars but not the Moon or Earth. Just to exasperate Adrian further ( :;): ), I could respond by saying how do we know there isn't a carving somewhere on Luna or hidden in the jungles of South America? And what if there is a 'stealth' observation satellite, invisible to radar, orbiting at a Lagrange point somewhere close to Earth?
Sorry! I'm just playing devil's advocate for the lunatic fringe.
But, having said that, I don't dismiss these scenarios as being out of the question and I'm prepared to examine any and all evidence that may point to the reality of any of them. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to dismiss as impossible the idea that an alien race might have visited our star system in the past. I don't find this to be a particularly extraordinary idea at all and I think it certainly shouldn't require extraordinary evidence to make it worthy of investigation.

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-29 13:30:35

Unless we send a landing party right up to the Face, drill into it and find nothing but rock, it will be nigh on impossible to convince the 'believers' that it's just a mesa.

I'm sure it will end up a future tourist attraction anyway. " ...and up ahead on the left is the infamous 'face'. A strangely shaped mesa which, back in the late 20th Century, created a controversy that...."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-24 15:17:42

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#2 2004-03-24 15:46:40

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#3 2004-03-24 15:54:31

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#4 2004-03-24 15:57:36

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#5 2004-03-24 18:10:01

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#6 2004-03-25 20:32:57

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#7 2004-03-26 00:09:12

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#8 2004-03-26 00:20:11

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#9 2004-03-26 00:47:21

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#10 2004-03-26 07:19:26

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#11 2004-03-26 08:11:37

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#12 2004-03-26 08:21:06

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#13 2004-03-26 10:43:40

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#14 2004-03-26 12:08:44

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#15 2004-03-26 12:17:11

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#16 2004-03-26 12:32:33

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#17 2004-03-26 14:05:25

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#18 2004-03-26 14:22:03

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#19 2004-03-26 14:25:59

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#20 2004-03-26 15:38:06

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#21 2004-03-27 07:28:06

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#22 2004-03-27 07:35:43

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#23 2004-03-27 11:02:40

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#24 2004-03-28 23:36:58

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#25 2004-03-29 13:30:35

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

Board footer