T or E

<i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />I hope that it will be ok to interject and do some "multitasking" here because I too would like to see how the current train of thought (re: dating and the EPH) develops.

Well, Neil, you are being very polite. I dragged your subject off track with my unending tirade against radiometric dating. Will simply start a new thread and leave your subject alone.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This whole process of radiometric dating is based on silly and unproven assumptions.

One could examine these things and reasonably "prove" that these incidents happened at the same time, but one cannot establish an absolute date.

Of course, if our Sun is creating isotopes heavier than hydrogen, as claimed by mainstream nuclear fusion theory, then the current radiometric dating method becomes even sillier. [Gregg]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A guy has to pick his battles. I can't be worried about what caused the extinction of the dinasaurs, or exactly when. But I am extremely interested in whether those faces on Mars were made before 65 Ma or before 3.2 Ma. As Gregg inferred, it would make a big difference in any human "transfer species" theory. What were these alien ancestors doing all that time--and where were they doing it?

In Ch.11 of DM, Tom gave a hundred or so reasons why the EPH was viable, and at the time he thought the explosion of P-V was consistent with the 3.2 Ma date. But based on the Yucatan dating and other things, he later changed that to 65 Ma, with another, much smaller explosion at 3.2 Ma. But this change creates certain complications.

I think it can be clearly shown that the faces and other possible artifacts we have been looking at are all outside the perimeter of the EPH "bombardment zone." I will stick my neck out here to say it's very reasonable to assume they were all created before the P-V explosion, whenever that was.

Neil

Another system of strange looking gullies has been noticed by Rich. I had seen the context image for it, but didn't know about the hi-res image untill he showed me recently. This "backward E" (when north oriented) has similarities to the features we have been looking at in this post, namely clean sloped walls and flat bottoms. It is located around two degrees north and east of the T or E.

The "backbone" of this E, seen only in the context image (S0602204), is the most interesting because it is the only other gully we've seen in this area that compares with the "T or E" in size, and judging from the shadows, also in depth. The others, including the branch we show you here in high-res, (S0602203), are around 1/4th of that size or smaller. Here are some croppings of S0602203.







Here's the context image S0602204.



Do these images add to, or subtract from the possible artificiality of the T or E? The short answer is that we don't have enough information to know. My son Tom thinks they may all be uncovered lava tubes. Still the original T has some interesting differences which we have discussed. One is that it seems to be the only "gully" that <i>cuts across </i>the apparent lava veins instead of being contiguous with them, as seen in the other gullies. Though actually, M0303753, posted earlier, also shows gullies cutting across apparent veins.

But as far as appearences go, this new "E" looks as anomolous as the original T or E.

Neil

<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>
<br />I think it can be clearly shown that the faces and other possible artifacts we have been looking at are all outside the perimeter of the EPH "bombardment zone." I will stick my neck out here to say it's very reasonable to assume they were all created before the P-V explosion, whenever that was.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My best current chronology indicates that artifacts had to be created between the two explosions, with the explosion at 3,2 mya ending the builder's civilization. This is based on the pole shift data. The big (90-degree) pole shift must have been caused by the V explosion. The smaller (45-degree) pole shift was probably caused by the C explosion. This scenario is also consistent with radiometric dating of meteorites. See metaresearch.org/solar system/eph/ephrevised/ephrevised.asp for further details. -|Tom|-

Hey Tom,

If Mars' pole shifted 45 degrees during the small C explosion 65mya, what, if anything, would likely have happened to Planet V as a result of that explosion? And how likely is it that Planet V had a civilization back then? Or how likely is it that any civilization it might have had back then could have survived 61.8 million years, until the planet itself exploded?

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />If Mars' pole shifted 45 degrees during the small C explosion 65mya, what, if anything, would likely have happened to Planet V as a result of that explosion? And how likely is it that Planet V had a civilization back then? Or how likely is it that any civilization it might have had back then could have survived 61.8 million years, until the planet itself exploded?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sorry, I should have added dates. Planet V exploded 65 mya, leaving its two moons (Mars & Body C) in mutual orbit until the latter exploded 3.2 mya. The hypothetical civilization that left artifacts on its moon (Mars) inhabited Body C and probably evolved there after the Planet V explosion, following the same pattern of evolution usually attributed to Earth. Meteorite studies indicate that Body C must have been relatively Earth-like. Planet V was probably a gas giant, uninhabitable.

Does that now make more sense? -|Tom|-