Crowned Face noses

[<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
But I think a Sitchin type model is more plausible than, say an ancient hi-tech earthlings scenario, who traveled to Mars, that I think you are suggesting[Neil]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Neil,

Been out of circulation. I have inadvertently misrepresented my position. I agree that the Sitchin model is far more likely. I am not drawing any distinction between humans and ETs.

If the faces are artificial then this is a moderate problem for conventional religion. It would be "upsetting" and "disturbing" but doesn't require absolute abandonment of the religion. Simply an expansion of it from a child like view to a more adult view.

The consequence for strict Darwinism is far worse. It blows it right out of the water. Our evolutionary theory basis is that all life originated on Earth and evolved through random mutations.

The faces, if real, not only place life originating elsewhere but also indicate it being spread by an intelligent species.

Books have been written on the issue of our colonizing and terraforming (seeding life) Mars. This is not viewed as being fantastically impossible but simply diificult.

Why couldn't Earth have been purposely seeded with life forms? The only mental problem for mainstream scientists about this idea is the "not invented here" syndrome.

Mainstream science appears to be far more provincial than conventional religion.

Life may have originated on the EPH planet but could have just as well been brought to our solar system from another system. This seems impossible because of our very limited knowledge of energy propulsion and our very short lifespans. Given a true, nuclear powered propulsion system or gravitational "sail" - and a much longer lifespan, such a voyage makes economic sense.

In my engineering, we design for a 30 year lifespan of capital equipment. This is because a human must have a return of investment of 30 years, given an adult lifespan of about 50 years.

What does one invest in if one's lifespan is 100,000 years? I ask this question because of the pyramids at Giza, Eqypt.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">rush: This is my first post on this section. I wonder how, using the scientific method, you guys can conclude that such features in those images are not natural (non-artificials). In other words, what makes you believe so strongly in the hypothesis of artificiality?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have my personal opinion on whether what I am seeing is artificial or not, but I try to leave my personal opinion in its proper place. Personally, I don't think researchers need to make any conclusions at this point. I think of this more as a fact-gathering stage, in which we are searching for features that have characteristics which are artificially suggestive. Then we can show what we find to others for their feedback, and search for ways to test our theories.

Just because something is artificially suggestive, does not mean that it is. The simplest artificially suggestive feature may be nothing more than a rectangularly shaped depression, for instance. It is not uncommon for earth archealogists to search by air, for rectangular depressions in the ground to find sites to dig for evidence of ancient civilizations. Of course, it is possible for abiotic geological forces to produce such shapes. So, we have to say the rectangular depression is merely suggestive of artificiality, and not conclusive proof.

With respect to the crown face feature, we can attempt to describe why the feature is or is not suggestive of artificial or intelligent design. I've tried to show some of those reasons on my website, as Greg Orme has on his. None of it is conclusive, but certainly helpful as we find additional facts in the search to support or disprove our points of view.

Specifically on this topic, the crown face feature suggests artificiality or intelligent design (in my view) in that it contains inclusions of other faces within its composition, including a profile view of itself. The crown face is also an inclusion within a larger face ("Barbara," discovered by Neil DeRosa). There are also other recognizable shapes on the cliff nearby (bird shapes). I think an intelligent mind might design an art object to include this kind of complexity that would be less likely to occur by chance simply by the action of abiotic geology. For these reasons, and others, I rank the crown face feature very high on my list of discoveries on Mars that are suggestive (but not conclusive proof) of artificiality.

Originally posted by Gregg <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree that the Sitchin model is far more likely. I am not drawing any distinction between humans and ETs.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is an interesting topic. It's sci-fi speculation now but when/ if artificiality for Mars is proven that all changes. At that time, the fantastical becomes believable.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the faces are artificial then this is a moderate problem for conventional religion. It would be "upsetting" and "disturbing" but doesn't require absolute abandonment of the religion. Simply an expansion of it from a child like view to a more adult view.

The consequence for strict Darwinism is far worse. It blows it right out of the water. Our evolutionary theory basis is that all life originated on Earth and evolved through random mutations.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I once discussed this with a business associate who is a fundamentalist Christian. He said something surprising. He said it would be easier for him to believe that we were made by ETs than to accept the idea that it's "all chance" as the Darwinists believe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Books have been written on the issue of our colonizing and terraforming (seeding life) Mars. This is not viewed as being fantastically impossible but simply difficult.

Why couldn't Earth have been purposely seeded with life forms? The only mental problem for mainstream scientists about this idea is the "not invented here" syndrome.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Zubrin's proposed methods of colonizing Mars using conventional (even 19th century) engineering practices is a case in point.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mainstream science appears to be far more provincial than conventional religion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I've long believed that the present-day scientific/government complex bears many similarities to the medieval church in its prohibition of serious innovative thought.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Life may have originated on the EPH planet but could have just as well been brought to our solar system from another system. This seems impossible because of our very limited knowledge of energy propulsion and our very short lifespans. Given a true, nuclear powered propulsion system or gravitational "sail" - and a much longer lifespan, such a voyage makes economic sense.

In my engineering, we design for a 30 year lifespan of capital equipment. This is because a human must have a return of investment of 30 years, given an adult lifespan of about 50 years.

What does one invest in if one's lifespan is 100,000 years? I ask this question because of the pyramids at Giza, Eqypt.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

"Conventional wisdom" sometimes reminds me of the movie "Ants." Except for the Woody Allen ant, it was incomprehensible for the average ant or ant scientist to believe there was anything up there beyond the blades of grass. [Neil]