posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:34 AM
reply to post by WHOS READY
Sure, I recognise some similarities, but no identical features other than the number of sides this object appears to have. Further than that would be
impossible to say. Although there is one thing I have to point out. The Cydonian artifact you are comparing to the Pentagon building is not of a
geometricaly perfect shape. It has irregular angles involved with it, something one cannot reasonably equate with the Pentagon.
Another thing you have to consider is that the Pentagon was obviously a man made structure, put together in this age of man. But mankind has had a
long time to be influenced by the amazing geometry of nature, of geology in particular. Leonardo Da Vinci was a man of science as well as a man of
art, an expert in form and function as well as design and beauty. Many who have looked upon the stars in wonder, at thier patterns and shapes have
also been architects and engineers , and it stands to reason that should you find a shape you see in nature pleasing, you might replicate it in your
art or work of creation.
Why then is this obvious possibility overlooked when people cite the similarities of shapes in architecture and art, to things found in the natural
world? There was a thread here a little while ago about some bird shapped artifact from ancient South American history, which a fellow made a flying
replica of. People were shouting about the idea of the artifact being proof of alien spaceships, a vital token on the balance of evidence for the
ancient astronaught. They believed that because it flew, that was proof of some underlying alien genius behind its design... Logicaly speaking
however, that argument is weak. Birds fly naturaly, and if a man who makes model jet planes, cannot make a bird shapped model aircraft, then perhaps
he is not a good enough engineer. Seems to me that a confluence of engineering ability , and the natural shape of a bird comming together to produce a
flying craft, is not proof of anything but the genius of creation, and the genius of mankind. It specificaly cannot prove the existance of, or add
weight to the argument for, ancient astronaughts. Saying that it can, is a leap of faith, not of science, and that is exaclty how I feel about the
issue of Cydonia. Its a matter of faith for some, which should be a matter of desire for proof instead.