New THEMIS image of D&M Pyramid

Dana,

Analysis of the Themis Cydonia image is still on-going, but is turning up a few interesting features not seen previously.

Our first commentary on all new science results normally appears either in the quarterly Meta Research Bulletin (usually in our regular feature "Meta Science in the News"); or else in our EME Notes. Both are on a subscription basis. Repeat postings of articles in the Bulletin are normally not made to the web site for a minimum of two years, and some never appear, to ensure that paid subscribers and Members who financially support our research receive a benefit for that support.

It is obviously always problematic for our Board of Directors to decide what should be posted on the web site and what should be sent only to Members. We have no wish to withhold interesting science from anyone. However, an organization such as ours that has chosen to challenge mainstream paradigms where that is deserved cannot expect funding from mainstream sources. So when you, the public, stop supporting us, our research and reporting will cease also.

You are welcome to comment on our policies and input suggestions on how we can make better decisions about how to run this organization, recognizing the constraints imposed by the need to survive if the research is to continue. Best wishes. -|Tom|-

<font face='Arial'></font id='Arial'>

Thanks Dr. Van Flandern for responding to my post.
I've been following the investigation of Cydonia ever
since I first saw the press conference given by NASA
in 1976 explaining the 'Face' (Viking image(35A72)) was
only a trick of light and shadow. NASA's position has
changed very little since that time despite evidence to
the contrary.

I realize the need to collect compensation for work done
in a field where mainstream science is not interested, is
critical to the investigation. Otherwise no research would
get done. The problem with this approach is critics claim
the only people who are interested in this subject are just
promoting these ideas to sell books and videos. How can you
as a scientist ever get the mainstream science community to
accept the idea that some formations on the Moon or Mars are artificial when, like the Church authorities who refused to
look through Galileo's telescope, won't even look at the data?

The mainstream is not a single entity, but is made up of many thousands of individuals. The evidence in hand is already convincing to many of them, but they still would be taking a career eisk to say so publicly. Once the evidence reaches a "critical mass", that will no longer be the case, and the numerous people already convinced by the evidence will be free to speak their minds. The paradigm will change swiftly.

That's the good news. The bad news is that science always acts as if paradigm shifts are incremental advances to existing theories, to maintain the illusion that the progress of science is always forward. In the past, that normally means that at some point, what we already know about Mars will be "surprisingly discovered" by someone else at some future time, and then officially recognized. Anyone who claims to have already known was just "making a lucky guess based on (by definition) unpersuasive evidence". Such is the nature of human behavior. -|Tom|-