The Face and Humanoid in Cydonia.
Angel Garcia
and related Art in there:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
There is link in there to a shorter version in juicy Spanish
(by Sr. Esteban, associated to UNIAM) so that the big bomb of
the new discovery can become well known in all America and the
World.
The puzzle which the last image from MOC of MGS set up was terrible!.
With a very bad angle it capted the 'Face' which was looking ugly:
certainly had 'nostrils' but depicted as 'broken nose' with
horrendously looking 'big mouth'. Such disastrous image was taken
by skeptics (who don't know a word about math) as proof of non-ETI
in Cydonia (Mars). We, researchers deeply involved, took it merely
as either improper correction for the 'bad' angle (Lahoz an others)
or as really heavily eroded 'sculpture' due to some big impact from
meteorite.
Neither of these were good assessments. It turns out that 'The Face'
is currently nearly as fresh as the original some 0.3 million years
ago. The correct explanation is definitively that the martians were
(and are?) far advanced than us. Their Fine-Art techniques for
such Monuments to be seen by spacecrafts: for economy reasons
to say the least They 'yuxtapose' several Art-characters in one
single Monument (Humanoid) and they use the solar shadows to
generate images which HAVE to be seen in both 'Positive' (or normal)
AND 'Negative' as it is the case with 'The Face'. So there are
TWO completely different images carried by the Monument 'Face'.
The 'normal' as well depicted-interpreted by Kynthia and other
excellent artists AND the 'negative' (when light comes from East as
in MOC's frame) which has been already magnificently interpreted by
artist Mr. Shuming here in Toronto.
Of course thousands and millions of various new drawings-interpretations
and sculptures will follow in forthcoming years because such 'Face'
speaks very loud about our martian ancestry. What does it say
artistically speaking in its Double-facet?
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Cydonia and index of book "TETET-98: Generacion del Hombre en Marte" by Prof.
Dr. D.G. Lahoz (leader on ETI and Cosmogony) can be studied at URL:
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887 ***************************
Richard Smith
wrote:
Angel - Thanks for such an amusing post, for a moment there I thought
you were being serious!!
Richard Smith
A Birdwatching Guide to the Dee Estuary
www.deeestuary.co.uk
ange...@my-deja.com
MORE NEWS. Logically we looked to the NEGATIVE of the 'Fortress'
as taken-released in may-2000 by MSSS/NASA. And voila!: Dr. Lahoz
instantly said that, of course, such strange image which looks AND IS
totally different from the Viking one (taken with sun-light of
late afternoon) has to be 'read' also in NEGATIVE-only because it is
taken in morning-hours. Here goes our preliminary analysis of so
complex structure:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/FORTNEG.GIF
Artists who want to divulge their drawings-interpretation without
any copy-right nor strings attached can send me their works via
ordinary mail (not e-mail which does not work) or setting it in an
URL for me to copy it and publish it (if Dr. Lahoz judges it
appropriate). No mockeries, please. We are touching something SACRED!.
> Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
> Cydonia and index of book "TETET-98: Generacion del Hombre en Marte"
by Prof.
> Dr. D.G. Lahoz (leader on ETI and Cosmogony) can be studied at URL:
> http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887 ***************************
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ange...@my-deja.com
Vincent Dipietro is an excellent engineer and the grand pioneer
from whom the saga of deciphering Cydonia started. He and Molenaar
found the frame 70A13 (in buried archives of NASA) with the best
resolution for the 'Face' (Viking-1976) until the recent (apr-1998)
of MGS. So Dipietro gave his opinion (apr-14-1998) about the new
MOC's image:
http://www.mufor.org/dipietro2.html
and he correctly says in there that (to him) it does not look as a
FACE.. but denies alegations of not bein artificial on grounds of
several caveats (bad angle, light from South-East, etc.) which do
not replicate the conditions of the Viking.
That is an honest and scientific assesment (which was implicitly
accepted by Dr. Lahoz in TETET-98) and so both claimed that more
images were needed to decide the true Art in the Face.
That is by now over!. We know by now what is the Art in there! (above
URL). But (with Dipietro) we still badly need more images from MOC
replicating the sun-from-West of the Viking to CONFIRM the first
Viking-imaging of such divine 'FACE'.
> MORE NEWS. Logically we looked to the NEGATIVE of the 'Fortress'
> as taken-released in may-2000 by MSSS/NASA. And voila!: Dr. Lahoz
> instantly said that, of course, such strange image which looks AND IS
> totally different from the Viking one (taken with sun-light of
> late afternoon) has to be 'read' also in NEGATIVE-only because it is
> taken in morning-hours. Here goes our preliminary anacomplex
structure:
> http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/FORTNEG.GIF
OK. But what about the much claimed GEOMETRY in 'Fortress'?. Is it
all gone in the NEGATIVE? Where is Phobos-Deimos in such NEGATIVE of
Monument now.. since TETET-96 showed that 'Fortress' is MAINLY the
description of the grand martian saga of capturing a pair of asteroids?
The answer is that Cydonia is a very COMPACT Document and uses a
Monument for several logic fibers. Truly the 'Fortress' will be
probably the MOST difficult one to fully be deciphered.. because it
contains a mixture of Art and Mathematics. That was already clear in
the POSITIVE of Viking (with sun-light from West): a 'lioness' framed
by two straight walls (see TETET-96 and also an excellent Artistic
interpretation by Kynthia in latest editions of Hoagland's book).
The "straight walls" at angle 'beta' are there in the POSITIVE only
of afternoon hours. Now in above Negative of morning hours we see
two rough arcs of circles which, Lahoz says, depict 'geometrically'
the shape and MASS of Phobos and Deimos. So this negative still is
a mixture of Art and geometry; which add complication to its complete
interpretation. Martian civilization as depicted in 'Fortress' evolved
in Mars and in Phobos-Deimos.
>> Angel Garcia, secretary of UNIAM. His proof of ETI in
John Rehling
In article <8roksd$5en$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
ange...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8rmo6p$pif$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Angel Garcia) wrote:
Hopefully, for a dissenting opinion, we'll get to hear what Angel
Garcia has to say about this.
-JAR
--
Nothing can be said in favor of tobacco.
-Ashley Montague
Angel Garcia
> > That's the title of a new Webpage about the famous 'Face on Mars'
> > and related Art in there:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
> >
> > There is link in there to a shorter version in juicy Spanish
> > (by Sr. Esteban, associated to UNIAM) so that the big bomb of
> > the new discovery can become well known in all America and the
> > World.
For conscientious research-artists and Art-critics here goes our
most recent analysis of the 'Face':
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/facema.gif
We found in Dr. Malin's Webpage related to FACE their own enhancements
and projections EVEN in NEGATIVE already!. Why they did not catch the
idea?... probably because it is really beyond our current capabilities
to produce 'sculptures' with content both in positive an in negative.
Yet for a Superior civilization it is very logical to do so and we have to
'learn' from Them. Spacecraft-photos are like flat-paintings due to
solar shadows: no more than that when small areas prevent stereoscopic
views (as the Face and Fortress). Thus it is much more efficient to
use both types of shadows (matutine and vespertine: one in negative
the other in positive) than to build a realistic 'sculpture' which
would yield only one positive image (as we terrestrials usually do).
After all 'information' is what is freely given in Cydonia and what
those Monuments look-like in the ground-level is totally irrelevant
when they are intended for spacecraft-view. Using Kant's ideas: the
'reality' (noumena) of those Monuments we cannot get it (from spacecraft
views) and only what 'appears to be' (phenomena) after solar shadows
matters to us. Thus They give us two types of 'phenomena' by using
the positive and the negative.
---------
Vincent Dipietro is an excellent engineer and the grand pioneer
from whom the saga of deciphering Cydonia started. He and Molenaar
found the frame 70A13 (in buried archives of NASA) with the best
resolution for the 'Face' (Viking-1976) until the recent (apr-1998)
of MGS. So Dipietro gave his opinion (apr-14-1998) about the new
MOC's image:
http://www.mufor.org/dipietro2.html
and he correctly says in there that (to him) it does not look as a
FACE.. but denies alegations of not bein artificial on grounds of
...............
With above insight we must tell to Dipietro, Carlotto and everybody
else that NOTHING better than above negative are we going to get in
morning-hours. Thus their expectations of a tridimensional sculpture
as an ordinary terrestrial one (of ancient Greece, say) are NOT correct.
The 'Face on Mars' is a sophisticated sculpture of a type NEVER seen
on Earth: truly Superior ETI Who knows what spacecraft-views can
get and consequently gives as much information as possible. Something
beyond our childish expectations of a totally symmetric frontal-view
sculpture of a Face. It is NOT this childish thing!: something superior,
with much more refined divine-Art.
-----
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Bob May
the "Face" on Mars. I see faces and figures all the time on my
ceiling's tiles and the changing shading from the sun's light causes
the faces to move even! Guess that the aliens have been at work on my
ceiling to send me messages, including such faces as Bugs Bunny and
others. One of the faces that I see regularly is that of Abe Lincon -
why would an alien put that on my ceiling? I really need to know!
--
Bob May
Remember that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, not what
you think that you told them!
Bob May
Angel Garcia
> The thing I find interesting is how easy it is to see such things as
> the "Face" on Mars. I see faces and figures all the time on my
> ceiling's tiles and the changing shading from the sun's light causes
> the faces to move even! Guess that the aliens have been at work on my
> ceiling to send me messages, including such faces as Bugs Bunny and
> others. One of the faces that I see regularly is that of Abe Lincon -
> why would an alien put that on my ceiling? I really need to know!
> --
I had a coworker in a warehouse during a period of between-jobs who
was usually with very happy and friendly face; except when he was confindent
and confessed to me his drunk states: then his hace used to turn to
very serious and dramatic (and honest with wrinkles of terror in it)
because he used to see 'devils' in the bare wall: alive and jumping up
and down up to the ceiling with horns and tails... he used to end
such confessions with soft voice and cross signs over his body as if
promising not to get drunk again.
I believe him because I have seen the poor state of a 'drunk' in deep
trouble. Clearly human mind is capable of generating 'visions' (good
or bad ones)... although I honestly never experienced such states because
I never drink at all nor ever took any drugs of these. Thus even when I
realize that some shadows in the ceiling or tiles look rougly as 'faces'
never see them as moving or changing.
Some of us are good at math or Art while others are good at technical
jobs or sports. No one is competent in every discipline of the list; and we
have to complement one to each other in order to build a body of current
HUMAN KNOWLEDGE which is sound and permanent.
Regarding the Face on Mars such much desired 'wisdom' of understanding It
is finished; and it came from the current leader on ETI at Cydonia, Dr.
DG Lahoz, who not for no reason spent 33 years studying and passing exams
in an extensive variety of disciplines from Humanities and Science;
hundreds of teachers and professors and mentors shaped his brain to
be prepared for the current task at Cydonia.
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Angel Garcia
....
> realize that some shadows in the ceiling or tiles look rougly as 'faces'
> never see them as moving or changing.
> Some of us are good at math or Art while others are good at technical
> jobs or sports. No one is competent in every discipline of the list; and we
> have to complement one to each other in order to build a body of current
> HUMAN KNOWLEDGE which is sound and permanent.
> Regarding the Face on Mars such much desired 'wisdom' of understanding It
> is finished; and it came from the current leader on ETI at Cydonia, Dr.
> DG Lahoz, who not for no reason spent 33 years studying and passing exams
> in an extensive variety of disciplines from Humanities and Science;
> hundreds of teachers and professors and mentors shaped his brain to
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/facema.gif
Regarding the 'Fortress' the task of deciphering it will take much
longer for sure. Possibly it is the most sophisticated of all
cydonian Monuments because SURELY, Lahoz says, contains MIXTURE of Art
and pure Mathematics and Astronomy. These two connected pair of ARCS
and straight lines belong to the later and are NOT easy to understand:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/FORTNEG.GIF
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Michael L. Cunningham
> I had a coworker in a warehouse during a period of between-jobs who
> was usually with very happy and friendly face; except when he was confindent
> and confessed to me his drunk states: then his hace used to turn to
> very serious and dramatic (and honest with wrinkles of terror in it)
> because he used to see 'devils' in the bare wall: alive and jumping up
> and down up to the ceiling with horns and tails... he used to end
> such confessions with soft voice and cross signs over his body as if
> promising not to get drunk again.
> I believe him because I have seen the poor state of a 'drunk' in deep
> trouble. Clearly human mind is capable of generating 'visions' (good
> or bad ones)... although I honestly never experienced such states because
> I never drink at all nor ever took any drugs of these.
Basically what you're saying is...
...one shouldn't drink and observe Mars at the same time. You'll see
things that really don't exist in fact.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
e-mail: boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
geron
<bob...@nethere.com> wrote:
> The thing I find interesting is how easy it is to see such things as
> the "Face" on Mars. I see faces and figures all the time on my
> ceiling's tiles and the changing shading from the sun's light causes
> the faces to move even! Guess that the aliens have been at work on my
> ceiling to send me messages, including such faces as Bugs Bunny and
> others. One of the faces that I see regularly is that of Abe Lincon -
> why would an alien put that on my ceiling? I really need to know!
> --
> Bob May
There is one other race in the universe which would look humanoid to us,
but it's in an average-sized spiral, slightly smaller than ours, in the
100 million LY vicinity of Quasar 3C 345, so I doubt whether they had
anything to do with the "Face" on Mars.
Oh and I almost forgot, they would only 'look' humanoid, because that
wouldn't be their 'face' that you would be recognizing as something
familiar.. <grin>
Geron
geron
But I'm sure they would think that our appearance was very odd too! being
that it was so coincidentally yet only superficially, similar to theirs.
Geron
ange...@my-deja.com
ge...@hotmail.com (geron) wrote:
> In article <su6m3n8...@corp.supernews.com>, "Bob May"
> <bob...@nethere.com> wrote:
>
> > The thing I find interesting is how easy it is to see such things as
> > the "Face" on Mars.
.....
> Oh and I almost forgot, they would only 'look' humanoid, because that
> wouldn't be their 'face' that you would be recognizing as something
> familiar.. <grin>
>
> But I'm sure they would think that our appearance was very odd too!
> being
> that it was so coincidentally yet only superficially, similar to
> theirs.
These type of mockeries just kick me in my guts. Yes, like poor people
the insane, the imbeciles and other mental psychos.. will always be
with us. What's the matter? don't everybody sees the 'Face on Mars'
impoluted and far GREATER (in the apr-1998 last image) than in the
old one of Viking?:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
I have divided it in 3 portions: now it is easy to load and the
'contrasts' of the negative become fast in the screen.
Let me explain a bit because we ALL were defeated by the martian
Artists. Sure we ALL were expecting a new photo-positive by MOC
to be either a better view of the same as Viking or a fiasco.
The 'fiasco' alternative was only expected by extremely
incompetent skeptics who lack the intelligence to ponder probabilities
in the already well known (revealed by Cydonia)
conundrums and majestic 'drawings' via computer lines of basic
Geometry.
Then the image came from MOC and voila... nor one nor the other!.
Not a 'fiasco' because the general symmetry of the triple base in
which the 'Face' is set up WAS there and some vague idea about a
'distorted' Face was also seen and appreciated by everybody.
However it was NOT the Face that we expected and indeed conscientious
researchers as Dipietro, Carlotto, Lahoz and many others HAD to put
forward their interpretation of such fact. This las one, Lahoz,
wrote a book by dec-1998 in which some comments about the bad-angle
of the caption gave him excuse to simply 'ignore' such horrendous
Face-image. Carlotto deared to try a 'match' between the new and old
Face.. but he only could conclude that such Face was very badly
distorted or eroded by wind and meteors.
ONLY NOW we found the answer to such puzzle.. and listen you
incompetent and vociferous skeptics!. The answer is SIMPLE (now that
we found it). Photos are flat like paintings and only the lines
and shadows matter! Sometimes the positive is used as to describe
a house or a human Face in your photo-album AND sometimes we use the
NEGATIVE as it is done in medical cases to see the bones or lungs.
Was not a NEGATVE the first Roentgen image of the hand?.
Now: the Martian Artist describes the evolution of Human Species in
MARS starting in the West: with HPP, Marla and Scholaris and Sitma
(see my URL) then comes the 'line of History' at about 1/3 of
the Museum starting from West. Such LINE is crucial and marks what
happened at martian SURFACE (West side) and what happened BELOW the
SURFACE (East side); and to be clear such LINE cuts the ideograph
'Twistfa' which SAYS SO (see my URL).
Just in the East side of that LINE is 'Fortress' (the saga of
capturing a pair of asteroids to serve as space-stations) and then
'The Face' to describe the sagg of martian destruction of terrestrial
dinosaurs (-65 Ma, used as time-unot) and farther in the East the
fundamental Monument "Humanoid" to describe the relatively recent
martian saga of 'creating' Homo Sapiens on Earth.
The surviving martians are THERE for about 1 full million of
million years (1 Ga) and THEY are our creators-manipulators. They
'reveal' themselves to us SLOWLY but consistently: fist as the
Religion Legislators... is it not the 10 Commandments the fist thing
that every child has to learn at kindergarten before he starts to
mock of his parents?.
Currently we are youngsters by their standards and so they show to us
Cydonia. And the "FACE" is their depiction of THEMSELVES: the typical
martian Homo Sapiens Martis who looks identical to us; but to show
such FACE in a comprehensive manner they use BOTH the positive photo
when 'sun is in West' (namely when They were GREAT and ACTIVE as to
conquer the solar system (Viking's image); and the 'negative' photo
when 'sun is in East' (MOC's image) to represent 'the Martian' already
very old, sleeping or dead with Face tilted to East... because as
above explained the time for their History runs from WEST towards
EAST. Lahoz hints that it could be that the 'FACE' is a prodigious
sculpture which shows MANY facets: one for each pair (or so) hours
when sun runs from West towards East; and slowly LOOKS more and
more 'tilted' towards East as if getting older. And then when
sun is already inthe East side (morning hours) the FACE has to be
loooked in the 'negative'; as if with X-rays deep inside the martian
subsurface... getting really old and wise and don't saying much.
That is the MEANING of the Fine-Art in the Face... and who does not
see a wonderful OLD Face in above URL is... un palurdo (clear and
Spanish).
Angel Garcia, secretary of UNIAM.
Phlip
> The 'fiasco' alternative was only expected by extremely
> incompetent skeptics who lack the intelligence to ponder probabilities
> in the already well known (revealed by Cydonia)
> conundrums and majestic 'drawings' via computer lines of basic
> Geometry.
You know, if you switch a TV to an unused channel and stare fixedly at the
static, you can eventually see rotating cubes and cylinders and such. Try
it!
--
Phlip
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
Michael L. Cunningham
> These type of mockeries just kick me in my guts...
You've been drinking again.
geron
> In article <geron-12100...@lc0489.zianet.com>,
> ge...@hotmail.com (geron) wrote:
> > In article <su6m3n8...@corp.supernews.com>, "Bob May"
> > <bob...@nethere.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The thing I find interesting is how easy it is to see such things as
> > > the "Face" on Mars.
> ......
> .....
> > Oh and I almost forgot, they would only 'look' humanoid, because that
> > wouldn't be their 'face' that you would be recognizing as something
> > familiar.. <grin>
> >
> > But I'm sure they would think that our appearance was very odd too!
> > being
> > that it was so coincidentally yet only superficially, similar to
> > theirs.
>
>
> These type of mockeries just kick me in my guts.
Mockery? Those psuedo-humanoids are really angry now! At this moment,
they're converting all the dwarfs in there operating area into the energy
and materials needed to build an armada. They'll be here within 8 billion
years (Earth time), they've calculated that they have enough time to reach
us and blast our planet (and Mars) apart, before Sol incinerates it. Why
they think that we'll still be here, I don't know. 'Maybe they can't
imagine how fragile and spurious a species -like we'll probably turn out
to be. :((
Geron
Richard Smith
>> Oh and I almost forgot, they would only 'look' humanoid, because that
>> wouldn't be their 'face' that you would be recognizing as something
>> familiar.. <grin>
>>
>> But I'm sure they would think that our appearance was very odd too!
>> being
>> that it was so coincidentally yet only superficially, similar to
>> theirs.
>
>
>These type of mockeries just kick me in my guts. Yes, like poor people
>the insane, the imbeciles and other mental psychos.. will always be
>with us. What's the matter? don't everybody sees the 'Face on Mars'
>impoluted and far GREATER (in the apr-1998 last image) than in the
>old one of Viking?:
Angel - haven't you got the message yet. Everybody DON'T sees (sic)
the 'Face on Mars'!! Only a few crack-pots, fantasisers and wishful
thinkers such as yourself.
geron
> In article <geron-12100...@lc0489.zianet.com>,
> ge...@hotmail.com (geron) wrote:
> > In article <su6m3n8...@corp.supernews.com>, "Bob May"
> > <bob...@nethere.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The thing I find interesting is how easy it is to see such things as
> > > the "Face" on Mars.
> ......
> .....
> > Oh and I almost forgot, they would only 'look' humanoid, because that
> > wouldn't be their 'face' that you would be recognizing as something
> > familiar.. <grin>
> >
> > But I'm sure they would think that our appearance was very odd too!
> > being
> > that it was so coincidentally yet only superficially, similar to
> > theirs.
>
>
> These type of mockeries just kick me in my guts.
Mockery? Those psuedo-humanoids are really angry now! At this moment,
they're converting all the dwarfs in their operating area into the energy
and materials needed to build an armada. They'll be here within 8 billion
years (Earth time), they've calculated that they have enough time to reach
us and blast our planet (and Mars) apart, before Sol incinerates it.
Now, why they think that we'll still be here, I don't know. 'Maybe they can't
Angel Garcia
> Angel said:
>> What's the matter? don't everybody see the 'Face on Mars'
>>impoluted and far GREATER (in the apr-1998 last image) than in the
>>old one of Viking?:
>
> the 'Face on Mars'!! Only a few crack-pots, fantasisers and wishful
> thinkers such as yourself.
Long time, Richard. We are not in a hurry. Although Fine-Art is sort
of a quasi-divine discipline in which not who whishes but only who has the
'gift' can prosper, almost all intelligent individuals can make good
progress in Art-critique; and that is sufficient to assess the 'Face'.
Thus very soon EVERYBODY will appreciate the big difference between
a meaningless set of shadows, as in 'positive' of MOC's image, and
the grandeur and perfection of Abstract-Art in the 'negative' of the
same:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
It is peculiar of children to dismiss abstract-Art and stick only to
the obvious beauty of a nice picture of mom and dad. Even myself,
already well aged, have difficulty in evaluating great Art-works
as 'Geopoliticus' of Dali in which an almost macabre deminude lady
points to a child about the dozen or so faces in the global, distorted,
map of the World. Clearly the 'Face on Mars' in its complete rendition
by the negative of MOC is far more beautiful and 'intelligible' than
ANY of those 12 in Dali's painting.
That is to say that one has to grow in Art-critique to be able to
appreciate those values. Somebody said that an 'archeologist' should
be in charge of assessing Monuments in Cydonia.. I have my reserves about
such claim, but Dr. Lahoz got a mark 10 (over 10) in final exam of
Archeology back when he was student in Humanities. So if Lahoz says that
the MOC's image (the negative) is PERFECT in its proportions and
abstract-content, who is going to declare the opposite?
We are very lucky that 'The Face' is still in good condition and not
already totally smashed by meteoritic impacts as has been guessed until
now by good authors as Carlotto. Van Flandern is more eclectic and
closer to the truth in his current assessment of conclusive artificiality
... because he instinctively (and wisely) sticks to the NEGATIVE as
the good source of the MOC's image: his only error is in assuming
that the Viking and MOC images represent the same intended 'Face'.
That is NOT the case: we have (at least) TWO DIFFERENT intended
portraits of martian human FACE; one for sun-light from West (in the
positive only) and another, quite different, from East (in the
negative, only). And that is FINAL by now, Lahoz says.
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Phlip
> Long time, Richard. We are not in a hurry. Although Fine-Art is sort
> of a quasi-divine discipline in which not who whishes but only who has the
> 'gift' can prosper, almost all intelligent individuals can make good
> progress in Art-critique; and that is sufficient to assess the 'Face'.
Isn't there also a mountain range looking like Kermit the Frog?
That would be /really/ prescient of those ancient aliens!
(BTW "because everyone disagrees with me" is _not_ a valid proof of a
scientific concept! Witness sci.math's regulars...)
Angel Garcia
> "Angel Garcia" escribió:
>
>> Long time, Richard. We are not in a hurry. Although Fine-Art is sort
>> of a quasi-divine discipline in which not who whishes but only who has the
>> 'gift' can prosper, almost all intelligent individuals can make good
>> progress in Art-critique; and that is sufficient to assess the 'Face'.
>
> Isn't there also a mountain range looking like Kermit the Frog?
Yes. There is such thing and a few have written about it. I personally
do not think by now that it is intentionally any martian 'drawing'
representing ANY frog (and much less likely the 'Kermit' one). It
is just one of those many cases in which by accident a 'mountain range'
looks as sor of 'defective' frog. Defective because its rear legs
look badly distorted and not like 'froggy' at all. But who knows?
> That would be /really/ prescient of those ancient aliens!
>
> (BTW "because everyone disagrees with me" is _not_ a valid proof of a
> scientific concept! Witness sci.math's regulars...)
Those ancient aliens are REAL, indeed, or all our 'revealed'
Religions would be a 'fake' against overwhelming evidence of REAL
Miracles and Real UFO's mathematically predicted: the tremendous one
at 'noon' of 13-oct-1917 in Fatima (Portugal) whitnessed by some
70 thousand people who went to the 'meeting' with these 'aliens'
(our forefathers in Mars, jovian moons, etc.). Watch the constant
visions-apparitions of Virgin Mary (more than 2000 years old) Who acts
as messenger of God.
Touching the Kermit frog I would not flatly deny the possibility of
correlation between those mountain-ranges in Mars and a set of
children's shows on Earth. I just don't know about it, but God certainly
loves children so much as to be able to make such outrageous correlations
a possibility.
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Phlip
> Those ancient aliens ... Religions ... visions-apparitions ...
messenger of God.
If you learned to accept these "visions" as carrying valid & powerful
messages individually to _you_, you would learn better than to seek
validation in some ancient wise alien or deity who somehow predicted your
personal existence. If you then saw the universe as a tableau of messages
directed personally and uniquely to you, then you'd learn that the author of
their salient content is your own inner self.
This is a much more empowering ideal than giving elaborate names & histories
to the messaging apparatus.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?JaneRoberts
Angel Garcia
> "Angel Garcia" escribió:
>
>> Those ancient aliens ... Religions ... visions-apparitions ...
> messenger of God.
>
> If you learned to accept these "visions" as carrying valid & powerful
> messages individually to _you_, you would learn better than to seek
> validation in some ancient wise alien or deity who somehow predicted your
> personal existence.
But there is nothing wrong being catholic because currently it is probably
the most austere religion (morally speaking). Millions of saint priests
and nuns who have released their most inner instincts of sex and procreation
in exclusive Honor of God. It ain't easy.. I can tell you; and they are not
idiot fanatics either.
It seems that I have touched your weak fiber because you retort to
messages to me... me? Fatima spoke loudly and objectively to all the
world and YOU included. There are a few extant pictures of that HISTORIC
event when photography was in its infancy. There is no prediction of
my existence by any deity as far as I can collect... just a regular
litle guy who speaks out always the truth as I understand it.
> If you then saw the universe as a tableau of messages
> directed personally and uniquely to you, then you'd learn that the author of
> their salient content is your own inner self.
Bah. From whom did you learn such 'piscoanalitic' garbage?. One has to
be clever enough to discern what it is from what other nuts tell you what
it is. Sure there are meaningless dreams, but most certainly there are also
genuinely real visions and apparitions. There is a booklet about 'scientific'
validation of the SIX current visionaries in Medjugorje that anybody skeptic
as yourself HAS to read.. or just look to the old videos of such mamouth
apparitions: six different children starting every motion 'in trance' with
absolute synchronicity up to beter than 1/3 of a second.
Me? no, I am not catholic anymore nor jewish nor muslim nor follower of any
particular Religion in the list. Just I follow ALL of them in their
'revealed' essence discerning what is right froms what it is liturgy and
manerisms... personally I follow the moral preached by Jesus Christ and,
of course, never have abandoned my respect and love for Virgin Mary.
Let's turn the page.
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Cyberia
"One has to be clever enough to discern what it is from what other nuts tell
you what it is." - Angel Garcia
--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?
Angel Garcia
> Priceless quote ...
>
> "One has to be clever enough to discern what it is from what other nuts tell
> you what it is." - Angel Garcia
Hi, Cyberia. Glad that you found some priceless quote.
But you guys follow me like domesticated rabbits diverting attention
from the main issue:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
There are a well set of pictures in there and all you are avoiding any
real comment about them as if scared to death... well what is it so
dangerous about a human Face with closed eyes? can all you not (and nuts)
discern by yourselves? I bet that if the martians had put the Monalisa in
there you still would say the same: NOTHING !
I just read minutes ago the Dipietro's comment in the Laura.. show about
the MOC's image "Face". And I find lamentable his insistence in the
'bad angle' caption (45 deg. instead of the ~90 deg. for regular
orthonormal caption). That is by now totally obsolete! and honestly
we also thought the same way until above URL. But NO!, NO!: Martian
Artist was extremely clever and knew about good and bad angles of
caption; so He decided to make SCULPTURE which projected flat (FLAT)
images into spacecraft's camera. In this way correction for bad angle
is TRIVIAL: see how easily I have done it in the LAST image of above
URL (at its PART-III). I just took the original (already in
NEGATIVE) from Malin's site with that very bad angle of ~45 deg.
and using my cheap 'Alchemy' image-software I scaled that truly original
by 50% in the verticals leaving 100% the narrow horizontals; a TRIVIAL
trick that anybody can repeat... and one gets (since a FLAT image is
by design supposed to be seen) the quasi-orthonormal view: rounded
craters nearby which act as 'control'.
Thus, Dipietro, please do not scare anymore to those poor hardworkers
at JPL. Tell them that DOES NOT MATTER too much the 'bad angle' because
we can easily correct for it... and once we have done it, voila,
follow the lead of Van Flandern sticking to NEGATIVE in morning hours
and to POSITIVE in afternoon-hours. So that at ANY time of the
day the MGS captions (no matter which bad angle they have to use) will
be useful and PERFECT (thanks to the master job done by the martians in
that precious mensa).
Yes, JPL, rise the 'leg of the dog', as if to piss in a tree, as much
as you need to get again to the 'FACE' and give us quickly new images:
they are going to be ALL of them excellent as so far they are.
--
Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at
Phlip
histories
> to the messaging apparatus.
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?JaneRoberts
This be my witness.
I apologize for trying to tell him to believe in himself above all these
entities spying on our reality.
Richard Smith
>There are a well set of pictures in there and all you are avoiding any
>real comment about them as if scared to death... well what is it so
>dangerous about a human Face with closed eyes?
What is there to comment about? So we have some rocks, craters etc.
which if you try really hard looks vaguely like a face. To jump from
that and start talking about Martian artists etc. is plainly
ridiculous.
JCA
Angel Garcia
> I just read minutes ago the Dipietro's comment in the Laura.. show about
> the MOC's image "Face". And I find lamentable his insistence in the
> 'bad angle' caption (45 deg. instead of the ~90 deg. for regular
> orthonormal caption). That is by now totally obsolete! and honestly
> we also thought the same way until above URL. But NO!, NO!: Martian
> Artist was extremely clever and knew about good and bad angles of
> caption; so He decided to make SCULPTURE which projected flat (FLAT)
> images into spacecraft's camera. In this way correction for bad angle
> is TRIVIAL: see how easily I have done it in the LAST image of above
> URL (at its PART-III). I just took the original (already in
> NEGATIVE) from Malin's site with that very bad angle of ~45 deg.
> and using my cheap 'Alchemy' image-software I scaled that truly original
> by 50% in the verticals leaving 100% the narrow horizontals; a TRIVIAL
> trick that anybody can repeat... and one gets (since a FLAT image is
> by design supposed to be seen) the quasi-orthonormal view: rounded
> craters nearby which act as 'control'.
The problem of correcting for orthonormal view of a 3-dimensional
object as a sculpture is obviously of IMPOSSIBLE solution when one
does not know the real altitudes. But in the case of the 'Face' which
is seen FROM SPACECRAFTS (at 'infinite' distance) such problem has
trivial solution because it can be handled not as a 'sculpture' but
merely as a FLAT painting on the ground. Thus all worries expressed by
Dipietro, Carlotto and Lahoz were really unfounded... just excusses
to dismiss an image which they could not understand a priori and was not
matching the idea which they had of the 'Face' after the Viking.
Once it is understood that the NEGATIVE AND ONLY THE NEGATIVE has to be
used in morning-hours captions, then everything becomes clear and
the correction to orthonormality is trivial as above explained.
> Thus, Dipietro, please do not scare anymore to those poor hardworkers
> at JPL/MSSS. Tell them that DOES NOT MATTER too much the 'bad angle'
> because
> we can easily correct for it... and once we have done it, voila,
> follow the lead of Van Flandern sticking to NEGATIVE in morning hours
> and to POSITIVE in afternoon-hours. So that at ANY time of the
> day the MGS captions (no matter which bad angle they have to use) will
> be useful and PERFECT (thanks to the master job done by the martians in
> that precious mensa).
"MASTER JOB" which we never had seen on Earth nor could possibly
dream about it, given our 'primitive' standards of using only the
'positive' for Art-objects.
Therefore what it was a 'blame' to the poor condition of the "Face",
turns out to be much MORE than a confirmation of the obvious
artificiality that we had already observed from the nearly equal
images 35A72 and 70A13 of Viking. "MORE" because now we see TWO different
(both PERFECT) views or paintings of the 'human martian FACE': one
with long hair, the other 'in state' wrapped in a shroud as brilliantly
embellised by Mr. Shuming in above URL.
> Yes, JPL, rise the 'leg of the dog', as if to piss in a tree, as much
> as you need to get again to the 'FACE' and give us quickly new images:
> they are going to be ALL of them excellent as so far they are.
I will explain a bit the elementary mechanics to 'rise the leg of the
doggy MGS spacecraft' without use of any microgram of fuel and only
just a few wats*hour of solar energy. Of course JPL knows very well
how to do it... but some students in here probably need clarification.
Richard Smith
wrote:
> You are obviously joking are you?
>
Angel is deadly serious. He really believes all this nonsense. You
have to admire him for his persistence! I've been subscribing to this
newsgroup for well three years and he has never waivered in his belief
in the face and it's "Martian creators". This is despite much mockery
and flaming - as you can probably imagine.
Bob May
ignores the responses to the human brain on the results of chance.
For example, I have a textured ceiling in my home. The texture is
totally random as it is applied in a manner that doesn't generate
patterns. The amazing thing is that when I inspect the ceiling, I see
various figures and faces. Remember that this is a totally random
arrangement of hills and valleys in the texture.
The question for all of you who believe that the Face on Mars is an
artifact of aliens, etc. have to prove to me that the faces that I see
were put there intentionally by someone. I might note to you that I
was the one who put the surface up there and the scale of the faces,
etc. are on the wrong scale to be able to have ben done by the
equipment used.
Angel Garcia
> Angel Garcia (bp...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> ....
>> from the main issue:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
> ...
>
> turns out to be much MORE than a confirmation of the obvious
> artificiality that we had already observed from the nearly equal
> images 35A72 and 70A13 of Viking. "MORE" because now we see TWO different
> (both PERFECT) views or paintings of the 'human martian FACE': one
> with long hair, the other 'in state' wrapped in a shroud as brilliantly
> embellised by Mr. Shuming in above URL.
>
URL is the very last one in there (due to the Malin's team which has
indeed advanced significantly in such tricky business of manipulating
the raw data since apr-1998). One can see the details at the 'chin'
with its "symphysis mandibulae" as it were an anatomy picture.
>> Yes, JPL, rise the 'leg of the dog', as if to piss in a tree, as much
>> as you need to get again to the 'FACE' and give us quickly new images:
>> they are going to be ALL of them excellent as so far they are.
>
> I will explain a bit the elementary mechanics to 'rise the leg of the
> doggy MGS spacecraft' without use of any microgram of fuel and only
> just a few wats*hour of solar energy. Of course JPL knows very well
> how to do it... but some students in here probably need clarification.
OK. The orbiting spacecraft can be considered as moving in an
inertial frame in 'free space' without any external force nor torque.
a) in such situation any change of velocity (and associated 'linear
momentum') requires necessarily a net FORCE which can only be generated
by 'reaction' due to jet of gas (precious fuel inside the spacecraft).
Thus it is impossible to change the total 'linear momentum' without
spending precious fuel.
b) However it is possible to turn an 'angle' the whole spacecraft without
spending any gas-fuel. How?. Principle of 'consevation of angular momentum'.
If one sits on a 'turning' chair at rest with a bycicle wheel in hands
(axis pointing vertically) he will remain at rest (inertia law). If now
he starts to spin the wheel (internal to his system) such wheel INCREASES
'angular momentum' in amount J = I*a (with I= inertia moment of the
wheel and a= final angular velocity of such wheel); but the 'whole
system of sitting-person plus wheel' cannot CHANGE its total 'angular
momentum' and consequently the sitting-person has to start to rotate in
opposite sense to that of the wheel with angular velocity b. Such that
the 'angular momentum' gained by the wheel (J above) is exactlly
cancelled by the 'angular momentum' of the sitting-person ( J' = I'*b).
c) Now if the wheel is stoped with the hands then also the rotation of
the 'chair' has to stop; and voila one has turned an 'angle' G which
is as large as desired by waiting time while rotating.
d) the MGS has among others a spinning wheel with axis along the
'linear velocity vector'. Such wheel is at rest, but if with little motor
driven by solar-energy from the panels such internal little wheel is
starting to 'spin' then the whole spacecraft starts to spin also in
opposite sense (as in above example). Stoping after a while the wheel
makes to stop also the rotation of the spacecraft and, voila, it has
already turned a net angle in free space. 0 angular momentum at
the begining of operation and 0 angular-momentum at end of operation,
but it has rotated a desired angle in the inertial frame of free space.
Eric Crew
<bob...@nethere.com> writes
you think "this is a face". You know from other evidence there is a body
attached to it. The "face" on your weird ceiling does not have any other
evidence to show that it is an artifact unless a Leonardo da Vinci or
some other character is known to have put it there.
The "face" on Mars might be a natural feature, but other evidence
strongly suggests there is convincing indication that it represents a
face and head symbolic of the planet Mars, clearly shown in the Viking
images. My website is also one and there are many other published
matters indicating intelligent extra-terrestrial activity. Think a bit
more and read a lot more Bob and you May see this is quite a reasonable
position for the intelligent scientific Crew.
Please, no more infantile half-baked comments, blessed Bob.
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk
--
Eric Crew
Eric Crew
<ric...@deeestuary.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>
>have to admire him for his persistence! I've been subscribing to this
>newsgroup for well three years and he has never waivered in his belief
>in the face and it's "Martian creators". This is despite much mockery
>and flaming - as you can probably imagine.
>Richard Smith
>A Birdwatching Guide to the Dee Estuary
>www.deeestuary.co.uk
Some of it may be nonsense, but not all, Richard. Lots of things in
science have been regarded as nonsence, but are now generally accepted.
Look out for the UFOs flying over the Dee Estuary. You may see one, one
day.
By the way "it's" means "it is", not "its".
geron
<bob...@nethere.com> wrote:
> To say that the Face is an artifact of something and has to be totally
> ignores the responses to the human brain on the results of chance.
> For example, I have a textured ceiling in my home. The texture is
> totally random as it is applied in a manner that doesn't generate
> patterns. The amazing thing is that when I inspect the ceiling, I see
> various figures and faces. Remember that this is a totally random
> arrangement of hills and valleys in the texture.
> The question for all of you who believe that the Face on Mars is an
> artifact of aliens, etc. have to prove to me that the faces that I see
> were put there intentionally by someone. I might note to you that I
> was the one who put the surface up there and the scale of the faces,
> etc. are on the wrong scale to be able to have ben done by the
> equipment used.
>
> --
> Bob May
Of course, (we think) we see patterns everywhere. We don't smell or hear
so well as other animals. Our brains give disproportionate space and
energy to 'perceiving' various useful patterns, especially face
recognition, because of its huge survival value.
Baby humans can't adeptly 'smell' their parents, but they develop the
ability to recognize their faces and then their moods, very early on.
This breakthrough is foundational for much of later development.
'Just imagine what artifically fashioned 'artifacts' we'll soon discover
among the ice cracks of Europa!! I can't wait! <g>
Geron
John Rehling
> The "face" on Mars might be a natural feature, but other evidence
> strongly suggests there is convincing indication that it represents a
> face and head symbolic of the planet Mars
evidence(suggests(convincing(indication(represents(symbolic-of(x))))))
How can anyone argue with facts like that?
It turns out that even that watered-down version is not up to snuff.
Not only do the Viking-generated maps show that Eric's Jupiter object
does not exist:
http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/help/compare.gif
(west is up)
... but the MGS release of last week also had a picture of the same
area ...
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/mediummaps/M07/M0705790.jpg
(north is up; center of image 8.19W, 39.30N)
The lower left of both images linked above show the same area where
Eric claims that there is a circular structure 44km across. Now images
from two different campaigns (Viking, MGS) show that there is no such
object. The chances that the new data will get Eric to remove his head
from the sand are not good.
> Please, no more infantile half-baked comments, blessed Bob.
How ironic that you take a bullying tone with Bob when you consider
pleas that you merely act honestly to be bullying to you.
Why do you have time to weakly assault Bob, but not time to visit:
http://www-pdsimage.wr.usgs.gov/PDS/public/explorer/html/marsadvc.htm
OR
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/mediummaps/M07/M0705790.jpg
-JAR
--
Don't meet trouble halfway. It is quite capable of making the entire
journey.
-Bob Edwards
Richard Smith
>>have to admire him for his persistence! I've been subscribing to this
>>newsgroup for well three years and he has never waivered in his belief
>>in the face and it's "Martian creators". This is despite much mockery
>>and flaming - as you can probably imagine.
>>Richard Smith
>>A Birdwatching Guide to the Dee Estuary
>>www.deeestuary.co.uk
>
>Some of it may be nonsense, but not all, Richard. Lots of things in
>science have been regarded as nonsence, but are now generally accepted.
Angel is talking science?? I thought it was some kind of a pseudo
religous fantasy.
>Look out for the UFOs flying over the Dee Estuary. You may see one, one
>day.
I might see a flying object which I can't identify, very likely indeed
I would have thought. Is that of some significance?
>
>By the way "it's" means "it is", not "its".
Yes, thanks for the lecture. I'm well aware of the difference, it was
just a typo. Some of us do make them from time to time. :)
>--
>Eric Crew
Bob May
how they came to be. Every one of them is an attempt to "explain" why
certain things happen. Everything that I have seen about the Face on
Mars tends to indicate to me that you are trying to assign a "alien
life" intended design to that one image. I am refuting that by
refering to the numerous images that I can conjure up on my ceiling by
a close inspection of the shadows on it. You have a happenstance
arrangement of hills and shadows (go explain Old Man Mountian up there
in Vermont (?) for one) and you are trying to assign something to it
which really isn't. I myself have seen too many UFOs of various kinds
to believe that the Face on Mars is anything but a collection of rocks
juxtaposed in just the right way to cause the brain to assign a "face"
descriptor to it.
BTW, Robert May is my name. It's not a moniker. You can probably
find 2 or more people of that name in any city of more than 1 million.
Eric Crew
<reh...@cs.indiana.edu> writes
I have answered this in Solar System Discoveries.
--
Eric Crew
Eric Crew
<ric...@deeestuary.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>Angel is deadly serious. He really believes all this nonsense. You
>>>have to admire him for his persistence! I've been subscribing to this
>>>newsgroup for well three years and he has never waivered in his belief
>>>in the face and it's "Martian creators". This is despite much mockery
>>>and flaming - as you can probably imagine.
>>>Richard Smith
>>>A Birdwatching Guide to the Dee Estuary
>>>www.deeestuary.co.uk
>>
>>Some of it may be nonsense, but not all, Richard. Lots of things in
>>science have been regarded as nonsence, but are now generally accepted.
>
>Angel is talking science?? I thought it was some kind of a pseudo
>religous fantasy.
>
>>Look out for the UFOs flying over the Dee Estuary. You may see one, one
>>day.
>
>I might see a flying object which I can't identify, very likely indeed
>I would have thought. Is that of some significance?
>>
>>By the way "it's" means "it is", not "its".
>
>Yes, thanks for the lecture. I'm well aware of the difference, it was
>just a typo. Some of us do make them from time to time. :)
>
>>--
>>Eric Crew
>
>Richard Smith
>A Birdwatching Guide to the Dee Estuary
>www.deeestuary.co.uk
I wrote that lots of things in science have been regarded as nonsense.
What you think about Angel is another matter. I did not state it is
science. Beware of jumping to conclusions.
I pointed out your 'greengrocer's apostrophe' typo in passing, for your
benefit. It just looks illiterate. It was not a lecture.
--
Eric Crew
Eric Crew
<bob...@nethere.com> writes
Bob, or Robert, it May enlighten you.
--
Eric Crew
Richard Smith
>I wrote that lots of things in science have been regarded as nonsense.
>What you think about Angel is another matter. I did not state it is
>science. Beware of jumping to conclusions.
I'm somewhat amused that peolple who believe in somewhat 'whacky'
theories (as regarded by established science) always come out with
*lots of things in science have been regarded as nonsense* or similar
quote. Often mentioning Galilleo as a good example. Of course you are
quite right, but for every Galileo there are always hundreds of
theories and ideas regarded as nonsense at the time, and which turned
out to be nonsense.
>I pointed out your 'greengrocer's apostrophe' typo in passing, for your
>benefit. It just looks illiterate. It was not a lecture.
Yes, thanks - but it isn't netiquette to point out minor typo or
spelling mistakes. As I said - we all make them from time to time,
although as I haven't a spell checker on my news reader I probably
make more mistakes than most!!
Gregory L. Hansen
Richard Smith <ric...@deeestuary.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm somewhat amused that peolple who believe in somewhat 'whacky'
>theories (as regarded by established science) always come out with
>*lots of things in science have been regarded as nonsense* or similar
>quote. Often mentioning Galilleo as a good example. Of course you are
>quite right, but for every Galileo there are always hundreds of
>theories and ideas regarded as nonsense at the time, and which turned
>out to be nonsense.
Just because the scientific community disagrees with you doesn't mean
you're right. Or another way I've seen it said, "They laughed at Galileo.
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
--
"Jugo de naranja, loco con pulpa!"
Richard Smith
L. Hansen) wrote:
Thanks Greg - my point exactly.
CLVANCIL
>I wrote that lots of things in science have been regarded as nonsense.
>What you think about Angel is another matter. I did not state it is
>science. Beware of jumping to conclusions.
>
>I pointed out your 'greengrocer's apostrophe' typo in passing, for your
>benefit. It just looks illiterate. It was not a lecture.
>--
Eric, your paper is not science, either. You are unwilling or unable to search
the sites John has on numerous times presented to you. You don't defend to the
charges you don't adjust your argument when show false. It is not science!
BTW, Galileo was a scientist because he did science. Angel and your believes
both fall inside religion.
Chris Vancil
"When fate closes a door go in through a window."
Member NSS, The Mars Society and The Moon Society
http://hometown.aol.com/CLVANCIL/
John Rehling
Is that a web page, a hand bill, or what?
I covered the usual route from the link you always give to your web
page, and down the text to where you describe the Jupiter object, and
the dishonest claims are all still there, from the false reports of
accuracy, to the measurements that don't gibe with your picture, to
the bogus Jupiter object.
-JAR
--
A pun is the lowest form of humor -- when you don't think of it first.
-Oscar Levant
Angel Garcia
> Eric Crew wrote:
>
>>I wrote that lots of things in science have been regarded as nonsense.
>>What you think about Angel is another matter. I did not state it is
>>science. Beware of jumping to conclusions.
If what I write in sci.math and sci.physics and sci.astro were not science
I could be blamed for medling with science without qualifications; as it is
no scientist that I can mention has ever said ANYTHING disproving my
claims in here during 3 years plus. True that most scientists close their
mouth so far in order not putting their foot on the keyboard; either they
are very prudent and cautious or simply follow the ancient proberb:
"QUI TACET CONSENTIRI VIDETUR"
Only unqualified children and children-like adults seem to utter idiocies
without content against what they don't like or go against common
prejudices among scientists; the darwinian and atheist claim that H.
Sapiens evolved on Earth without ETI input being the most salient item
in this context.
> Eric, your paper is not science..
That is a correct statement. It never was standard science because failed
to quote and mention previous well known research in that field. By now
it is a ridiculous Webpage with a few gross errors which put it in the
domain of garbage.
> BTW, Galileo was a scientist because he did science. Angel and your believes
> both fall inside religion.
Angel's claims deeply touch RELIGION indeed: they vindicate Religion as
a scientific Discipline from now on. Religion without ETI was meaningless
and unscientific: a mere Act of Faith based on anecdotal claims of Miracles
and Prophecies. Now it is quite different: Von Daeniken's theory of
Religions being DICTATED on Earth by extraterrestrials driving UFO's was
the first correct theory in that context. By now it becomes an obvious
matter of SCIENCE thanks to the series TETET-92 to -98 for genuine
scientists (mathematicians, cartographers, etc.) and finally an obvious
matter of FACT for everybody else who is not mentally impaired thanks to
the masterful Fine-Art (in duplicate) which the 'Face' shows:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
John Rehling
> science I could be blamed for medling with science without
> qualifications; as it is no scientist that I can mention has ever
> said ANYTHING disproving my claims in here during 3 years plus.
Those two statements do nothing to assert that what you do is science.
If someone said, "Love is beauty", scientists could also not disprove
that. That fact certainly doesn't make delivering that opinion
science.
-JAR
--
We cannot gamble with anything so sacred as money.
-William McKinley
Angel Garcia
>> If what I write in sci.math and sci.physics and sci.astro were not
>> science I could be blamed for medling with science without
>> qualifications; as it is no scientist that I can mention has ever
>> said ANYTHING disproving my claims in here during 3 years plus.
>
>
> If someone said, "Love is beauty", scientists could also not disprove
> that. That fact certainly doesn't make delivering that opinion
> science.
True. But I don't say things irrelevant to science as heavy as that.
For mathematicians I wrote:
http://www.interlog.com/~uniam/deb.txt (51 requests in 20 current days)
for physicists: /jul99.text (38 requests ...)
/oct99.txt (56 ...
/nov99.txt (40 ...
for astronomers: /aug00.txt (43...
etc. I did publish the first septsector compass with only 10 hinged rods,
which is a FIRST in math. History worldwide... it is buried in one of those
dozens of /montxx.txt
How come you did not complain about any of my error-typos in that aug00.txt
that is now so popular? Sure I can excuse you of not understanding the
math.-proof of existence of ETI at cydonia as conclusively given in
/UNAF.GIF which almost literally says
that it would take "centuries for our experts and facilities to duplicate
or produce equivalent results" (paraphrase)
It is constantly requested every month many times since around 1996 and
NOBODY has ever said a word about it. Good mathematicians are very sober
in praising but very picky and pushy when it comes to find errors
in published items.
Face it: you are a student with some knowledge seemingly about geo.
but when you started to meddle with Cosmogony you made a fool of yourself
to later partly and cowardly 'feel sorry' in so bad spanish that I could
not answer... that saved you of much more harsh bad fame in the recent
/sep00.txt
But in our current context about the FACE... forget your ego and say:
is it not beautiful Abstract-Art and complete in its DOUBLE facet?:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face2.html
Eric Crew
<reh...@cs.indiana.edu> writes
>> I have answered this in Solar System Discoveries.
>
>Is that a web page, a hand bill, or what?
>
>I covered the usual route from the link you always give to your web
>page, and down the text to where you describe the Jupiter object, and
>the dishonest claims are all still there, from the false reports of
>accuracy, to the measurements that don't gibe with your picture, to
>the bogus Jupiter object.
>-JAR
As you know, JAR, I refer to my alt.sci.planetary posting under the
heading Solar System Discoveries. See the first item.
--
Eric Crew
John Rehling
> I refer to my alt.sci.planetary posting under the heading Solar
> System Discoveries.
How would someone who sees the URL for your page and reads the content
of that page be aware of the important disclaimers in your
alt.sci.planetary posting?
Also, note that that posting was made before the MGS images of where
your Jupiter object is supposed to be were released.
The MGS images, like the Viking images, show no such object.
Do you really believe that a reader should believe that both the
Viking images and the MGS image are in error?
-JAR
--
Let advertisers spend the same amount of money improving their product
that they do on advertising and they won't have to advertise it.
-Will Rogers
CLVANCIL
>If what I write in sci.math and sci.physics and sci.astro were not science
>I could be blamed for medling with science without qualifications; as it is
>no scientist that I can mention has ever said ANYTHING disproving my
>claims in here during 3 years plus. True that most scientists close their
>mouth so far in order not putting their foot on the keyboard; either they
>are very prudent and cautious or simply follow the ancient proberb:
>
> "QUI TACET CONSENTIRI VIDETUR"
>Only unqualified children and children-like adults seem to utter idiocies
>without content against what they don't like or go against common
>prejudices among scientists; the darwinian and atheist claim that H.
>Sapiens evolved on Earth without ETI input being the most salient item
>in this context.
Hum...you are forgetful...I quote just a couple...
Forum: sci.math
Thread: Last issue TETET. Silvertooth Effect.
Message 2 of 3
Subject: Re: Last issue TETET. Silvertooth Effect.
Date: 12/27/1999
Author: Paul B. Andersen <paul.b....@hia.no>
Why are you posting this religious stuff in the SCI groups?
Paul
Forum: sci.math
Thread: Last issue TETET. Silvertooth Effect.
Message 3 of 3
Subject: Re: Last issue TETET. Silvertooth Effect.
Date: 12/27/1999
Author: ande452 <and...@attglobal.net>
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> Why are you posting this religious stuff in the SCI groups?
>
I don't think that he knows the difference.
John Anderson
...END
It is true you do not know if Paul and John are scientists, but neither can you
claim they are not. Besides this is unrelated to the question of your
activities being science or not. By the way, these are only two of many
complaints of a lack of science in your posts.
(I wrote, CV)
>> Eric, your paper is not science..
>
> That is a correct statement. It never was standard science because failed
>to quote and mention previous well known research in that field. By now
>it is a ridiculous Webpage with a few gross errors which put it in the
>domain of garbage.
>
A lack of truth is what should "disqualify" Eric's paper not a lack of
references! Gees, just a few weeks ago you were say how wonderful Crew's
"discovery " was! What change your mind? Surely not the lack of science!
Angel Garcia
> Angel Garcia wrote:
>
>>If what I write in sci.math and sci.physics and sci.astro were not science
>>I could be blamed for medling with science without qualifications; as it is
>>no scientist that I can mention has ever said ANYTHING disproving my
>>claims in here during 3 years plus. True that most scientists close their
>>mouth so far in order not putting their foot on the keyboard; either they
>>are very prudent and cautious or simply follow the ancient proberb:
>>
>> "QUI TACET CONSENTIRI VIDETUR"
>>Only unqualified children and children-like adults seem to utter idiocies
>>without content against what they don't like or go against common
>>prejudices among scientists; the darwinian and atheist claim that H.
>>Sapiens evolved on Earth without ETI input being the most salient item
>>in this context.
>
> Hum...you are forgetful...I quote just a couple...
> (I wrote, CV)
>>> Eric, your paper is not science..
>>
>> That is a correct statement. It never was standard science because failed
>>to quote and mention previous well known research in that field. By now
>>it is a ridiculous Webpage with a few gross errors which put it in the
>>domain of garbage.
>>
>
> A lack of truth is what should "disqualify" Eric's paper not a lack of
> references! Gees, just a few weeks ago you were say how wonderful Crew's
> "discovery " was! What change your mind? Surely not the lack of science!
> Chris Vancil
And I repeat: Crew's discovery is wonderful!: it is prised in TETET-99 by
Dr. Lahoz as 'News' in the long track of deciphering Cydonia. Actually
I don't know of anybody else except UNIAM who has prised Crew's work.
More than that: somebody in the RAS community made an explicit mockery
of Crew by sending him a FALSE 'collage' with a huge round mark as
if representing Jupiter in Crew's schema: idiots without conscience are
present everywhere, even within venerable institutions as RAS (assuming
that such anecdote about the 'collage' which Eric divulges ad nauseam is
correct).
But hold it. Eric is also a writer of garbage: an unconscious individual
who pretends to discover the 'wheel' without mentioning 'canadian tyre'.
What kind of science is that? He finds an atom-gram about Cydonia WITHOUT
any new Monument at all and starts to proclaim his finding as unique and
calling Angel as if 'garbage'. He has NOT read anything about the matter
and has NOT the foggiest idea about what he is talking about. It is us
in Cydonia who saw that his discovery is a COSMOGONIC fiber in which
not Tholus but the 3 Tholus play a fundamental role in representing
Venus. Introduction in:
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Network/1679/face.html
People is telling him to erase his idiocy about that 'collage' which is
obviously false and he does not care. The mark CLO at LECTIO which is
the most fundamental Mark in the whole Museum and was named X mark in
"Complete Atlas... jan-1998" prior to his discovery, he insists that
may be is a mark to display knowledge of 'atomic physics' by those
'infantile martians' (as he implies). Eric does not distinguish between the
sublime and the ridiculous and is so full of himself as to discard everything
that Lahoz has published in 8 books about Cydonia. That is what makes
his paper a non 'standard science' and puts it into the 'domain of
garbage'.
NOBODY can undeerstand a word about Cydonia without passing through the
mathematical diagrams as published in TETET-92 up to TETET-98, I say;
and who ignores them as Eric is an incompetent: nothing as a conscientious
scientist who has to pin-point any error in them before ignoring them.
David M Harland
David M Harland
Michael Varney
"David M Harland" <dm.ha...@cableol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3A0EFB...@cableol.co.uk...
> Hey Crew, you sure is fixated.
A white man's attempt at Ebonics.