Faces from the Chasmas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However it is unlikely that hypothetical aliens by chance or design would consistently build artifacts that were indistinguishable from natural terrain. There would be no point in it other than for camouflage in which case we likely do not know if there are artifacts there or not. [Gorme]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree with this however it may be misleading. It is quite possible that the builders, if they were very few in numbers and had a compelling reason to create a record of human faces, would use a minimalist technique as I have described previously. This would save manpower and resourses and still accomplish their goal. I believe I have given several hints as to how this could have been done. It usually involved transforming a natural landform by tweaking it just enough to suit their needs. This method can (and has by me) be demonstrated vis--vis the Cydonia face (as well as other possible faces). It is apparently not a mega-monument in the sense of being a huge building or superstructure made to look like a face. It is (if artificial) a stone carving, made by altering a mesa which probably started out with dimensions similar to those it has now. Anyone familiar with earth art knows that there are innumerable styles in art, and that what I am describing is not unprecedented in art history. [Neil]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gorme: So something that geologists say is impossible from what they know is a reasonable criteria for artificiality. Unknown processes is not sufficient, the process must be impossible like rivers running uphill, dunes forming in patterns that the wind cannot do on Earth, faults in angles that cannot occur on Earth, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The problem with trying to negate nature to prove artificiality is twofold:

First, I have come to believe that almost any form can be created by nature. Pipe shapes can be lava tubes, arches and bridges can form by nature through erosional processes, octagonal columns can be created by nature (i.e. Giant's causeway), circles by meteoric cratering or sink holes, pitted lines by glacial moraines, square shapes by fracturing processes, tiny balls by volcanic action (lapuli), hair-like threads by volcanic action or even by certain minerals, everything from snake-shapes to shapes that look like human statues can form from volcanic flows. So, there is a never ending list of shapes that natural geology can create.

Second, there are differences in Mars geology, so everything else goes into the category of unknown or not yet to be explained by Mars' unique geological history. For instance, would eons of the sublimation of ice, as the vapor travels up a hill, ~possibly~ create a pattern resembling what looks like a river running uphill? Is it ~possible~ that dune patterns that might form in unusual ways when volcanic action takes place under permafrost, or when wind forces erode at the hardened dunes themselves? The first resort will be to say that there is natural process or a combination of natural forces in play that we simply have explained yet. As jrich says, nature really is full of surprises.

That's why I think ranking candidates is the best we can do for now, because I think all features can be explained as ~possibly~ occuring by natural forces (expecially, if we are dealing with minimal alteration to landforms as Neil explains in his post). Although, if you can find something that falls outside of the possible categories for nature, I will be extremely happy to see it. I just can't conceive of any shape or feature that some geologist will not be able to describe as ~possibly~ natural.

Oops...typo. I meant to say: "...The first resort will be to say that there is natural process or a combination of natural forces in play that we simply have -not- explained yet."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />The problem with trying to negate nature to prove artificiality is twofold:

First, I have come to believe that almost any form can be created by nature. ...............

Second, there are differences in Mars geology, so everything else goes into the category of unknown or not yet to be explained by Mars' unique geological history.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">marsrocks, notwithstanding your objections (they are good ones), the more I think about it, the more I can see what gorme is getting at. By attempting to negate the natural origins explanations in the geological papers he mentions (assuming one could find one on the subject of their own personal interest - or possible artifact), one would be taking on the mainstream on their "own turf" so to speak.

They wouldn't be able to dismiss it out of hand with a "there's no artifacts on Mars" argument. It would be more palatable to them. Plus, it would be more straightforward than a strictly statistical approach.

That's an interesting idea. I didn't get it at first.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gorme: So something that geologists say is impossible from what they know is a reasonable criteria for artificiality. Unknown processes is not sufficient, the process must be impossible like rivers running uphill, dunes forming in patterns that the wind cannot do on Earth, faults in angles that cannot occur on Earth, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The problem with trying to negate nature to prove artificiality is twofold:

First, I have come to believe that almost any form can be created by nature. Pipe shapes can be lava tubes, arches and bridges can form by nature through erosional processes, octagonal columns can be created by nature (i.e. Giant's causeway), circles by meteoric cratering or sink holes, pitted lines by glacial moraines, square shapes by fracturing processes, tiny balls by volcanic action (lapuli), hair-like threads by volcanic action or even by certain minerals, everything from snake-shapes to shapes that look like human statues can form from volcanic flows. So, there is a never ending list of shapes that natural geology can create.

Second, there are differences in Mars geology, so everything else goes into the category of unknown or not yet to be explained by Mars' unique geological history. For instance, would eons of the sublimation of ice, as the vapor travels up a hill, ~possibly~ create a pattern resembling what looks like a river running uphill? Is it ~possible~ that dune patterns that might form in unusual ways when volcanic action takes place under permafrost, or when wind forces erode at the hardened dunes themselves? The first resort will be to say that there is natural process or a combination of natural forces in play that we simply have explained yet. As jrich says, nature really is full of surprises.

That's why I think ranking candidates is the best we can do for now, because I think all features can be explained as ~possibly~ occuring by natural forces (expecially, if we are dealing with minimal alteration to landforms as Neil explains in his post). Although, if you can find something that falls outside of the possible categories for nature, I will be extremely happy to see it. I just can't conceive of any shape or feature that some geologist will not be able to describe as ~possibly~ natural.

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

Martian geology is very similar to that on Earth, because when much of Earth was formed it was inhospitable to life as well. The uphill river is a good example, because I used that analogy to show the Martian spiders could not be flows of water as they run up and down hills even sideways without regard for the direction of gravity. Some geologists did try and argue this was something special to Mars but it is impossible.

If you find something inexplicable to geologists you might find something artificial or something novel geologically. The latter is interesting because you could even publish a paper on it or show people on a geologist forum. I had some of my images in a peer reviewed paper for example on CO2 avalanches looking like water made ravines.

If you try and falsify the natural explanations you come up with something interesting to science even if it is not artificial.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />The problem with trying to negate nature to prove artificiality is twofold:

First, I have come to believe that almost any form can be created by nature. ...............

Second, there are differences in Mars geology, so everything else goes into the category of unknown or not yet to be explained by Mars' unique geological history.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">marsrocks, notwithstanding your objections (they are good ones), the more I think about it, the more I can see what gorme is getting at. By attempting to negate the natural origins explanations in the geological papers he mentions (assuming one could find one on the subject of their own personal interest - or possible artifact), one would be taking on the mainstream on their "own turf" so to speak.

They wouldn't be able to dismiss it out of hand with a "there's no artifacts on Mars" argument. It would be more palatable to them. Plus, it would be more straightforward than a strictly statistical approach.

That's an interesting idea. I didn't get it at first.

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

Yes, if there is no natural explanation you are most of the way to proposing artificiality. When you get something like a face or building like structure and it contains elements not explainable naturally it is a stronger case.

Quite often researchers look at thousands of images and find unusual formations they call anomalies, and often they are unusual geological processes. For example I found a series of unusually shaped volcanoes and geologists say they must have been formed underwater, which fits with Amazonis being a former ocean.

Falsifying geology also helps you to understand what chance you have to prove artificiality. To me many formations on Mars have lots of evidence for artificiality in the sense that natural processes cannot form them. The craterface for example:

[url] www.ultor.org/M0401833.htm [/url]



This is not so impressive if you argue how artificial it looks. When you falsify natural processes it is a much different story. For this to form naturally the crater would have to form so as to join onto the hill nearly perfectly with rounded edges. If you imagine this occuring from a meteor impact and an eroded hill from a volcano it is probably impossible for them to join this way from coincidence. It somewhat looks like a face and torso, so it may have been built like this.

Another area near what I call the angel:

[url] www.ultor.org/circlec.htm [/url]



This is near some artificial looking objects. It may be a dam created from a crater. I think Tom van Flandern agrees with me on this, but this probably cannot occur naturally. The crater is not circular or elliptical so a shock wave cannot form it. Also one side is well formed and the other is much thicker and rougher in shape but a shock wave cannot form one side of a crater differently, especially rougher and larger. Other craters in the area are not larger on one side. Also on the smoother half the walls of the crater are well rounded not like a standard crater. Further down the page there is a second crater also artificial looking.

The second crater has flat topped walls which cannot occur naturally, at least I haven't seen one anywhere else on Mars. It is also an irregular shape and inside seems to be the same elevation as outside rather than like a normal crater.

Nearby there are various marks which look like someone surveyed to build a third dam like this:

[url] www.ultor.org/two/circle.htm [/url]

It is unusual some many point to a tangent of a perfect circle and divide the circle up like this. So the area has two craters arguably impossible form naturally, marks pointing to making a third dam, as well as artificial looking wall like structures and a face like image on a hill. The face itself is weaker evidence because it cannot be falsified, but the geology of the craters is next to impossible. The statistical argument of forming the third dam is weaker because it relies on something being unusual rather than falsified however it is very unusual and points to an unusual shape of a perfect circle, which should not occur except with a crater here.