Was the Cydonia Region of Mars Designed by Some Sort of Intelligence?

That was fantastic!

It should be required watching for anyone that wants to support or refute an unusual claim. I especially welcomed your neutral approach to the problem. That is sadly absent from so many investigators on both sides of an opinion these days.

You video is well done and your argument is compelling and likely accurate. The face on Mars is compelling in its own right, but trying to tie in other random features just distorts truth.

I think it is entirely possible life did and perhaps in some way does exist now on Mars but I have yet to find any real compelling evidence of intelligent life on Mars. That said, a part of me still believes an ancient race from Mars (westerners.....Atlantean's as it were), came down here to Earth and took the planet over from the Lumerian's (Native....dark skinned). But that's just me.

Did someone miss something?

I don't want to come across like an ass..but didn't the hype about Cydonia die MANY years ago when MGS (I think) actually imaged the entire region and beamed images down, for everyone on the internet live to see.

I just cannot for the life of it see how anyone would STILL believe in "the face" or "the pyramids"...I mean what ELSE can be done than sending probes up there and image the area high in detail? Just puzzled since this debunking seems like..20 years too late. (I just looked it up to double check, it was 1996 so I am pretty close there)

originally posted by: funbox
im interested to know how the edges remain immune ..

I didn't say immune, I said "less changed".

>>
The face on Mars is compelling
>>

It was "compelling" before 1996, alright, I was quite into it too. But now the idea of an artificial face on Mars is as compelling to me as the thread of a "soup bowl" on Mars which looks amazingly similar to three rocks.

I still want to see EVIDENCE of something undeniable artificial on Mars, be it structures, "buildings", artifacts or pyramids. Since we can literally explore Mars from a computer now using high-res images...I haven't seen any one structure which would undeniable look like it was "martian-made", unless their skills being pyramid builders etc. REALLY sucked : )

It is my firm opinion that looking at images (being it from here on Earth or Mars or whoever)..in case there is an artificial structure, there should not be a NEED to look more than once to decide whether it's artificial or natural. Even after millions or so years. I am pretty sure that we would see the remains of cities or pyramids - if there ARE some anywhere on Mars. They would not resemble natural structures, they would look artificial beyond a doubt.

If you need to look twice, three times or more even to discern whether it might be artificial, chances are it's not.

a reply to: wildespace

the point im trying to make is that any artificial structure given back to the wild .. so to speak .. ends up looking a bit chaotic.. so to be proving one thing or another from pictures from above of a landscape that's a cooking pot of forces , and with an unknown amount of time passing between environments that where potentially life/civilisation friendly

seems like an act of redundancy measuring the angles now, 10 out of ten for presentation , very clearly spoken an all , yet I cant help but think the time would have been better spent inventing a time machine and going for a gander through the ages

funBox


a reply to: ArMaP

I know Im sorry , but you still didn't say why ? maybe the edges were like the tops of the pyramids and capped with gold at some point , and then later on some less civilised archaeologists came and tatted it all away for there own devices
Ron seal?

funBox

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: ArMaP

im interested to know how the edges remain immune .. im also interested to know how they would be immune to accreation , . but lets stick with the erosion shall we

that fine grade shotblasting winds.. a conservative million years would be enough to alter any rockface and adjoining edge

maybe there's a bunch of blue-it archaeologists down there , keeping things tidy

funBox

Maybe all the softer material was eroded away and a more granitelike protrusion from the crust is all that remains.

a reply to: astrostu

-DELETED- by poster

a reply to: TinfoilTP

either way what were seeing now is climate art , shame they didn't send a rover down really , an interesting area


funBox

Interesting video. Like Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

The didn't cover the "Face On Mars" much. Here's a high resolution 3D pan around the face. You decide, natural or artificial?

originally posted by: funbox
I know Im sorry , but you still didn't say why ?

Because the stronger erosion follows gravity, and gravity doesn't move things sideways.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Did someone miss something?

I don't want to come across like an ass..but didn't the hype about Cydonia die MANY years ago when MGS (I think) actually imaged the entire region and beamed images down, for everyone on the internet live to see.

I just cannot for the life of it see how anyone would STILL believe in "the face" or "the pyramids"...I mean what ELSE can be done than sending probes up there and image the area high in detail? Just puzzled since this debunking seems like..20 years too late. (I just looked it up to double check, it was 1996 so I am pretty close there)

No you didn't miss anything. There were images that seemed to show there was no face on mars but there were actually very few and still are very few images of this entire area. And some of those images were controversial. Nothing's truly been debunked yet. There's still more investigating that needs to be done here. Again, nothing has been conclusively debunked here.

Great job Stu!

I will admit that, based on the title, I didn't watch the video until after I read what it was about from other posters

Please, make/post more.

TD

originally posted by: eManym
How he was hired by NASA as a consultant is beyond my understanding.

What makes you think Hoaxland was ever hired by NASA?

"I still want to see EVIDENCE of something undeniable artificial on Mars, be it structures, "buildings", artifacts or pyramids. Since we can literally explore Mars from a computer now using high-res images...I haven't seen any one structure which would undeniable look like it was "martian-made", unless their skills being pyramid builders etc. REALLY sucked : ) "


What about this files.abovetopsecret.com...


Or this

a reply to: funbox

a conservative million years would be enough to alter any rockface and adjoining edge

You are thinking in Earth terms. Things have changed a lot slower on Mars since it lost most of its atmosphere. The "sand" is less than dust and a 100 mph wind on Mars' surface carries much less force than a 100 mph wind on Earth's surface. A million years of erosion on Mars ain't much.

The dust grains are microns in diameter, cigarette-smoke size. Imagine blowing smoke at a rock; nothing is really going to happen," Bell continues. "But blow smoke at a rock for a billion years? Dust and sand grains can carve canyons out of mountains--that's a new thing for geology."

Discover, June 2014.

In any case, those "edges" are not very edgy but I guess you can keep thinking they are artificial structures. You'll need to stretch your timeframe though.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: eManym
How he was hired by NASA as a consultant is beyond my understanding.

What makes you think Hoaxland was ever hired by NASA?

This whole "working for NASA" myth was pulled out of a far more prosaic event: at the time, NASA were inviting various speakers to present lectures for the NASA employees, and Hoagland was one of the people invited to speak. At the time, I guess, he seemed like a genuine and passionate space enthusiast.

www.gpposner.com...

The Lewis center "brings in speakers on a variety of topics of interest as an employee perk. [...] Hoagland was invited to the center by our director as a guest for the day based on an employee's recommendation that he would have an interesting subject." She added that no NASA scientist had ever expressed to her a belief in Hoagland's theories about Mars.

a reply to: Phage

indeed , im frothing at the mouth thinking how artificial they look , its like a foam party in there , not very pleasant ill tell you , and as I re-read my posts , the froth keeps on coming

a million or a billion years , you think that the conditions changed overnight? a possibility if cataclysmic events happened , but im seeing a curve upwards to a thinner atmosphere , don't ask me why , maybe its all this foam.. , but I would think erosive quality's of the wind have been a variable .. and you didn't mention the sunlight or temperatures fluctuating so rapidly between day and night.. all contributing factosr to atomic structures trying to stick together

lets have a butchers at Nasa's timeframe



ahh yes *foam foam foam and more foam

ill try to stop thinking how artificial they look when the micro-sand stops destroying there acute angles

your last post was riddled with doublethink , sorry I had to take the piss

funBox

a reply to: astrostu

Excellent work, star, flag and kudos

a reply to: funbox

ill try to stop thinking how artificial they look when the micro-sand stops

Yeah, well. Rocks can look like animals to some people. Can't they?