|
|
|
||||||||
|
For those who have been checking this page hoping to find something new, I am starting up again. I have been busy the past year. For one thing, I finally got to partially fulfill a youthful dream about being a college teacher. I am part time instructor of World History at a college near my home. I enjoyed that much, but it kept me busy.
While I have been away, I have kept up extensively with the latest news on Mars. There has been a lot happening in that area.
Anyway, enough about the preliminaries and now to give my thoughts on the latest photos of the face.
I am reminded of the scenario of April, 1998. Then we had a photo that JPL had held on to for hours before releasing. Now we have a scenario where they held the photo for six weeks! You can make up your mind for yourself what the reason might have been for the delay.
Admittedly, the photos, at first glance, appear to be of a natural feature. JPL was quick to say so. Yet we must ask, why did they not release the photo of the face without comment and let us decide for ourself what we think? It appears they are determined to make up our mind for us.
Before I go further, I want to ask some questions about artificial structures. If we are digging a foundation for a building and we make a mound of dirt in the process, is the mound artificial? Or is it natural because it lacks a reguarl shape that is expected of artificial features? Just because the mound has no definate fore and looks natural does not mean it is so. When we are evaluating a landform for artificiality, we have to ask ourselves: what level of completion did the builders achieve before they had to stop the project? Any construction endeaver goes through a period of chaos.
Next we have to consider the amount of damage a structure has undergone since work was stopped on it. It is obvious that Mars has undergone an extensive amount of damage in its history.
We must also consider that we do not know for sure what the builders were constructing. Would craters ever be formed artificially? Yes, as a result of bombing. Also, during World War II, the Gemans painted craters on their runways to make them look damaged so the allies would not bomb the runways. If Mars had experienced war late in its history, (Mars was the god of war), might not the inhabitants have not painted or constructed craters to fool the enemy and keep their area from being further bombed?
We have to know three things in deciding artificiality: What were the designers building, how far had they progressed in their work, and how much damage the artifact has undergone since the start of the building. Right now, we do not know any of these things about Mars.
Before I give my conclusion on the latest photo on the face (as of May, 2001), there are a couplemore points I would like to make. For a feature to be artificial, it does not have to be a face. All we need is evidence of regularity that is missing in natural features. The face sits on a mesa that has remarkably regularity in its curves. That fact alone speaks for artificiality. Most people do not realize that all we need to prove artificiality is one feature that is too regular in shape to be natural.
Secondly, how can we determine that something is not artificial? It cannot be done. Any mound, hill, crater, ridge, or other feature might have been designed -- no matter how irregular the appearance. We would therefore never be able to guess the artificiality of such feature based on photos taken from a satellite flying miles overhead. People who say the face at Cydonia is natural cannot prove theri claims. For all we know, what we are seeing was deliberately designed and has undergone no significant damage.
It is my conclusion that we are where we were this time three years ago. We cannot be sure the photo we are now seeing has not been tampered with. After all, where are the nostrils that appeared in the mostly erased 1998 photo? Were they covered by a dust storm? Or were they a trick of light and shadow?
No one will change his mind as a result of the photo fo Cydonia released May 24, 2001. Those who believe in a cover-up and a conspiracy will be even more convinced. Those who think the feature is natural now have more ammunition for their view. Those who believe in artificiality will also find more support for their opinions.
My personal view is that we could be seeing a face if we allow for extesive damage. If Mars underwent a war and a global flood, what we see in Cydonia could be the result of these catastrophes. If we use a little imagination and tried to reconstruct what might have been before the war, flood, and subsequent dust storms, we could easily construct a perfect face from the mesa at Cydonia. Start with a face, bombard it with missiles, and throw an ocean of water on it, and you might get what we are now seeing.
As for the feline feature, I have no problem with that, though I do not believe that explanation is necessary. If there was a time in the past when humans were half human and half spirit being (fallen angel), it should not surprise us that the face would be one thing on one side and something else on the other.
Keep researching.
|
||
| page created with Easy Designer |