It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Martian Pyramid proof of ancestry. (imho)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I hope im not revisiting a previous episode on ATS over this picture. if so please link me so i can see the diverse opinions always plentiful here.

If you DO NOT think this looks like a pyramid, please don't say just that, at least give me a little somethin









[Edit: Understood!]

[Mod Edit: Removed all caps. Please see General ATS discussion etiquette 5). Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 23/1/08 by JAK]

[edit on 23-1-2008 by eerieleary]




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Just about everything is wrong with your drawn in pyramid. It clearly doesnt match the Martian feature. If I squint and turn my head 57 degrees to the left I can see a smaller pyramid and a 5 sided pyramid, but not your large pyramid.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   
ok so i got a little carried away on the scale. so is this a llittle more reasonable?





which it rises some 2500 feet above the plain below. -dark mission


Cydonia



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Looks like a natural feature shaped by erosion - primarily that of wind.

Certainly not the weirdest thing I've seen claimed on Mars, google "cydonia parrot" if you want some real fun.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
Looks like a natural feature shaped by erosion - primarily that of wind.

I am not familiar with the wind patterns on Mars, have to check into that. Assuming wind was a factor, it would take equal amounts from at least two different directions at different times eroding into a perfect pyramid corner. I have never seen this form of wind erosion on any of our geolical formations. Sand dunes are a perfect example, there are no angles on the sides, only on top. IMO, wind has caused erosion but was not what created the angles on the side.



Certainly not the weirdest thing I've seen claimed on Mars, google "cydonia parrot" if you want some real fun.


Googled it without much luck. All I found was a The Parrot Glyph at Nazca, Peru. Three quarters of the way down the page, here is this the same one?

Whilst reading through, this page I found some good information and a very strong point I firmly agree with, and was what I was trying to imply by simply stating "dont just say it doesn't look like a pyramid, give me something." Which I am not ungratified with my responses. I am new here and I understand the quick interpretations, nevertheless, this is still a valid point:

This is an excellent insight into how certain individuals in the anomaly and planetary science communities will nit pick endlessly and go to great lengths to debunk any researchers delving into this particular area of Mars anomaly research, attacking such proposals with a vehemence unseen since the McCarthy era. And yet some of these same individuals will support the notion of a great carven face at Cydonia. The logic behind such duplicitousness escapes us.

What species of parrot or bird it represents is hardly an issue. And most likely Martian Birdies would exhibit some differences from their terrestrial ilk when applying Lowell's "interplanetary comparison". However, we can definitely state that it is definitely not attributable to pareidolia. It exists and was created to signify some cultural significance to ancient man. It is not unreasonable to assume the same for the Martian geoglyphs. Our knowledge of ancient terrestrial societies was garnered chiefly from studying similar ancient artifacts and the same process of observation and hypothesis should apply to the Martian geoglyphs. Scientific method is not malleable on a case by case basis and those utilizing such double standards should be heartily discouraged.


I also learned a new word, pariedola, and how delicate it is. IMO, the D&M Pyramid doesn't qualify because I do not see this to be of natural form.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by eerieleary]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join