Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

Tripp · 2002-09-23 13:19:30

In outlining the purpose of this section Adrian Wrote

Let me first say that it is not the policy of New Mars or its parent organization, the Mars Society International, to pursue investigations into intelligent alien life of the Cydonia variety. We do not believe that there is a conspiracy to cover it up, and we believe that discussion of such topics is not useful due to insufficient evidence and a complete lack of usage of the scientific method.

I am puzzled by the phrase "intelligent life of the Cydonia variety". Is this refering to claims of "relict" features overall, claims of ANY intelligent engineering relict or current, or extrapolations of a vague resemblances of features, such as a a face, to be actuall indended creations and thereby asserting intelligent design? In Truth "intelligent life of the Cydonia variety" is only a phrase intended to jaundice any such evidence and provide a blanket and 'understood" dismissal.

I do not believe Mars has any evidence of "works of art" or caricatures.

I do no speculate on conspiracies. I only deal in reasonably ascertained evidences without extrolation thereof to extreme conclusions.

I do not believe Mars has any "domes" or "cities".

I do believe a handful of images of Mars shows definatively and conclusively that there are artificial engineerings on Mars surface with these engineerings showing a current and immediate presence as well as indicating a strong liklihood of much larger subsurface engineerings.

The evidence is not at all "inconclusive" and is in fact indicated in a compelling fashion by not only primary image evidences associated with delineation of the primary feature itself but also the support of secondary and tertiary evidences more remote from that feature's defining details.

While assertions of vague resemblances amounting to de facto "proof" of artificiality does not employ the "scientific method", merely ruling out and aprior excluding the evidence of artificial engineerings as "insufficient evidence" is itself dismissing the "scientific method" and amounts to prejudicial exclusion of the possibility without consideration of that evidence. Merely declaring there is "insufficient evidence" when not even referencing a specific consideration demonstrates a refusal to employ even the first step of that "scientific method", this being objective observation and analysis without apriori expectations dictating what is allowed to be present.

http://pub39.ezboard.com/fhuntforplanet … =14.topic]Candor Chasma: Evidence of A Current Presence

Thomas "Tripp" McCann
Professional Geologist

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-24 07:14:46

Hi again Tripp!
With all due respect, I think this is where you and I part company.
Some of your pictures of what appears to be liquid on the Martian surface, together with others I've seen at the Enterprise Mission site, look compellingly like real lakes and ponds. And there is evidence that briny water could persist as a liquid in certain places on Mars when the conditions are right.
But, with the best will in the world, your pictures of supposedly artificial structures in Candor Chasma don't convince me.
They could conceivably be what you say they are, but even though I looked long and hard, I couldn't persuade myself they were anything but poor resolution shots of natural terrain.
The only picture which made me sit up and blink was the one you call "The Port". There is an angular-looking structure there with a circular shadow on it, and it looks artificial. But I remember thinking the same thing about the so-called "Fort" at Cydonia until higher resolution images showed it wasn't an unfinished or damaged pyramid after all. It was just a shapeless mound with an impact crater on it.

At the risk of sounding rude, which I promise you I don't mean to be, I genuinely find it difficult to understand how you can believe so firmly in something so unconvincing. I, personally, would need far better evidence than this in order to believe in alien industrial activity in Valles Marineris.

Tripp · 2002-09-24 10:51:29

Hello Shaun,

You wrote :

, I genuinely find it difficult to understand how you can believe so firmly in something so unconvincing.

I dont believe in something "unconvincing". I believe in someting so convincing it boggles the mind. Perhaps if you do not find it convincing, you yourself have not adequately considered the image detail and failed to garner a real appeciation for the overall natural topography and terrain. This is convincing not only for the overall macro evidence and major abrupt deviations from normal topographic contour and morphology, but also due to the evidences conveyed in the finer salient image detail. Also as I wrote in preceeding post:

The evidence is not at all "inconclusive" and is in fact indicated in a compelling fashion by not only primary image evidences associated with delineation of the primary feature itself but also the support of secondary and tertiary evidences more remote from that feature's defining details.

Only *ONE* example of this is what I present as the "PORT". While such a rectilinear structure with an abrupt albedo change to a stark, sharp circle centered within that geometric structure is itself startling, the "culvert" to its immedated right giviing off a clearly visible fluid flow is even more stunning. This fluid flaw is is confirmed by details all along its course down the cliff and ending up dispersing in lobate reflective patterns on the talus debris field.
Mars doesnt do that typically..and not originating from a "U" shaped clearly artificial culvert.

While the specific details of these features would change in a higher resulution image, the nature of these feature interrelationships will not change. These interrelationships *ARE* what remove these from subjective opinion to objective and supported determinations. Also this is not like the Viking image of the "face" or any feature in Cydonia.: every one of those features in Cydonia is asserted to be artificial only from vague resemblances and very rough approximations of geometric tructures.. all the while discounting (and ignoring) how these can and do occure in nature and ARE INDICATEd as natural in the very same Cydonia images themselves! In this image of Candor Chasma, AB1-08405, we are looking at a scale, 4.59 meters per pixel, , which is not a scale ideal for finding fugitives in Afghanistan but more than sufficient to discern the details of these large features on Mars

Additionally, in reaching my conclusions, i spent weeks reading the entire image and interpreting the terrain; gaing an thorough appreciation for what is NORMAL before I began to delineate was was a deviation from that normalcy. Often Times merely looking at the cropped features in tight image enhancements one loses the perspective of these features in the overall surriounding terrain.

Beyond that.. simply put.. do you truly see no detail in this feature that is not stunning?

"Tech Structure:
In the approximate center of the image Area Of Concern there is a feature labeled "Tech Structure' or Technical Structure. This Tech Structure feature is somewhat elongate and its northeastern end has a whiter albedo clearly delineating two parallel features which appear to be metallic rails catching the sunlight. The southwest end of the tech structure appears to be at a higher elevation and giving off thin, wispy semitransparent smoke which trails off in a west northwest direction. This "Tech Structure" has evident tracks on both its eastern and western sides, showing the structure itself has had to be circumnavigated. From: http://users.snip.net/~marsunearthed/tr … ure]Candor Chasma: "Tracked Area & Bunker"

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-26 02:11:47

Tripp, I'd honestly love to say I can see 'stunning' evidence of artificiality in that picture, but I can't!
Certainly, some things look out of the ordinary, but the detail seems blurry and the objects could as easily be natural formations, in my opinion.

But I'm not a born debunker! The 'glass worms' of Mars look mighty suspicious to me, and their NASA designation as sand-dunes seems preposterous. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.
The Face and other anomalies at Cydonia are still on my list for future clarification, too.
I refuse to dismiss awkward evidence until I'm satisfied personally that an adequate explanation has been provided.

In the face (sorry! ) of a strong reluctance in the human psyche to rethink fondly-held views, even among scientists, it is crucial that we all keep an open mind.

Palomar · 2002-09-26 14:19:23

Tripp, I'd honestly love to say I can see 'stunning' evidence of artificiality in that picture, but I can't!
Certainly, some things look out of the ordinary, but the detail seems blurry and the objects could as easily be natural formations, in my opinion.
But I'm not a born debunker! The 'glass worms' of Mars look mighty suspicious to me, and their NASA designation as sand-dunes seems preposterous. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.
The Face and other anomalies at Cydonia are still on my list for future clarification, too.
I refuse to dismiss awkward evidence until I'm satisfied personally that an adequate explanation has been provided.
In the face (sorry! ) of a strong reluctance in the human psyche to rethink fondly-held views, even among scientists, it is crucial that we all keep an open mind.

*I'm with Shaun on this one. I checked out your web site, Tripp. No offense intended, but I'm highly skeptical as well. We'll find out for sure once humans land on Mars, or in the event any robots on the surface do further and extensive work; however, I'm holding out for the humans.

--Cindy

Tripp · 2002-09-26 14:33:17

Sean,

Well I think i do a reasonably good job of delineating and describing what is etra-ordinary and explaining why these features are not common nor even merely aberant topography.

You wrote " Certainly, some things look out of the ordinary, but the detail seems blurry and the objects could as easily be natural formations, in my opinion."

Indeed there are blurry and blurred features. Beyond this being a satellite image and as such subject to atmospheric conditions there are features that are clearly generating this blurriness through discharge of exhaust or smoke. One such example is my image above of the "Tech Structure". This featuer is an arupt deviation from the valley floor seen as a abrupt sharp vertical rise with lineations seperating this feature from the floor and indicating even an under shadowing.

Maybe this would be a productive exchange: What specific features don't you "see" or are you unable to recognize and clearly artificial in nature?

I agree with you on the Tubes .. and my long standing presentation on these tubes shows NASA is either lying or incompetent in their Dune analyses, with this analysis even conflicting with NASA/JPL's own initial evaluation.
http://www.zechariasitchin.com/discussi … pic=6]Mars Tubes -- Not a "Trick of Light & Shadow"

It does not take a "rocket scientist" to rocognize that given these details so proximally associatived with the "Tubes" that these forms are not mere "dune trains".

The "Tube Vents"

Addtionally I demonstrate through detail that these "Tubes" have a distinct feature associated with them and at times immediately proximal to the tube lengths themselves. This feature which i refer to as http://www.sentientstorm.com/p/tubes/tube_paths.jpg]"vents" are surface terminations of subsurface or near surface tube paths(Image LINK).

Elsewhere in what is my preliminary discussion of the Mars "Tubes", I outline why these features must be artificial in nature and even propose an entirely novel, wholly original (and profoundly supported by detail) theory as to the purpose of these tubes whch clearly excludes these as being used for water conveyance or any sort of transportation, given salient and coherent image evidences.

http://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed/ … .html]Mars UnEarthed Presentation: The "TUBES"

In brief, my belief of the purpose if these "Tubes" is for the discemination of heated geothermal gases so as to prevent formation of extreme thermoclinal temperature gradients which would otherwise result in thermoclinal cyclonic storms. These thermoclinal cyclonic storms are prevalent on Mars and seen in scales ranging from localized measurments made by Pathfinder's instrument boom to dustdevils and on a global scale to Mars enveloping dust storms.

Incidentally, since the April 2001 imaging of the so-called "face" and subsequent imagings of Cydonia I have seen only powerfully compelling evidences that these features are thoroughly natural in origin.

Cindy Wrote:

"*I'm with Shaun on this one. I checked out your web site, Tripp. No offense intended, but I'm highly skeptical as well. "

But, Cindy, are you skeptical of the details I enumerate and delineate or skeptical of the conclusions indicated by these details? If you were skeptical of the details then would be encouraged to challenge these in discussion by referencing these directly. However merely being skeptical of these evidences because they transgress our foundationary paradigms is not a reasonalbe cause to dismiss. Beyond this, there are highly compelling evidences here on Earth from both archaeology and our recorded ancient past that affirm these conclusions and make them more, dare I say, "reasonable".

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-27 19:57:35

Just a brief note, Tripp, to say I'm not ignoring your post. I want to look carefully at it when I get a good stretch of time to do it in.
As you've realised, the subject does interest me. Catch ya later!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-01 03:03:26

Hi again Tripp!
I spent some more time going over those pictures and I'm still having a lot of trouble seeing what you see in them. ???

To respond in detail to all of the points you make about artificiality would take hundreds of words, I think. But it may tell you something about my thought processes on this issue if I make a few brief comments on some of the features in the images.

I stared at what you firmly believe to be large vehicles for some time. Even though I was trying to see what you see, I simply couldn't discern anything vehicle-like. You go so far as to mention wheels, but I perceived nothing even vaguely like a wheel.
What you describe as tracks made by the vehicles, seem to start and stop in what are, for the most part, random positions. One of the sets of 'tracks' appears to go up an almost vertical rock face, if I'm interpreting things correctly.

You may protest that one of the sets of 'tracks' ends at the perimeter of the building with the roof and beam supports. This is not helpful from my point of view because I would never have imagined there was a building there in the first place! The 'roof' you have outlined is, to me, a huge stretch of the imagination, and the 'beam supports' would require an almost religious faith for me to believe in them.

The 'bunker' does look like concentric rings in a step pattern. Unlike you, I found it hard to say what they could be because of the poor image detail. But, though I can lay no claim to expertise in geology beyond what I gleaned in highschool classes, the idea of parallel terminal moraines left by advancing and retreating glaciers springs to mind.

I guess you'll tear your hair out when I confess I couldn't even make out the U-shaped culvert(! ). And I would never have picked out the 'waterfall' without your assistance. Even WITH your assistance, I can't honestly say it looks like a waterfall to me.

What you describe as possibly a layer of snow, could indeed be snow. But I have serious doubts, given the present climatic conditions in the Mariner Valley. Considering the likelihood that the valley was submerged in salt water, off and on, for perhaps millions of years, A confusing array of evaporites such as sodium chloride (salt) might be a more reasonable explanation.

As I have said, I am not a 'born-again debunker' determined to pooh-pooh anything and everything that doesn't fit today's paradigm, but I really cannot agree with you about these images. I am virtually certain that a 100% increase in resolution would show your artificial structures to be purely natural.
Remember, I would be happy to be proven wrong on this!

SRAM · 2006-08-17 22:57:25

Tripp, I'd honestly love to say I can see 'stunning' evidence of artificiality in that picture, but I can't!
Certainly, some things look out of the ordinary, but the detail seems blurry and the objects could as easily be natural formations, in my opinion.
But I'm not a born debunker! The 'glass worms' of Mars look mighty suspicious to me, and their NASA designation as sand-dunes seems preposterous. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.
The Face and other anomalies at Cydonia are still on my list for future clarification, too.
I refuse to dismiss awkward evidence until I'm satisfied personally that an adequate explanation has been provided.
In the face (sorry! ) of a strong reluctance in the human psyche to rethink fondly-held views, even among scientists, it is crucial that we all keep an open mind.

*I'm with Shaun on this one. I checked out your web site, Tripp. No offense intended, but I'm highly skeptical as well. We'll find out for sure once humans land on Mars, or in the event any robots on the surface do further and extensive work; however, I'm holding out for the humans.
--Cindy

You will not find out anything.

Classified ABOVE TOP SECRET.

SRAM

SRAM · 2006-08-17 23:06:50

There are two types of sheep.

Those that just follow the herd and those that just believe what they have heard.

SRAM

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-23 13:19:30

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#2 2002-09-24 07:14:46

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#3 2002-09-24 10:51:29

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#4 2002-09-26 02:11:47

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#5 2002-09-26 14:19:23

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#6 2002-09-26 14:33:17

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#7 2002-09-27 19:57:35

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#8 2002-10-01 03:03:26

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#9 2006-08-17 22:57:25

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

#10 2006-08-17 23:06:50

Re: Candor Chasma - Evidence of Current Presence - Relict? No. current & Immediate

Board footer