PDA

View Full Version : D&M Pyramid...where are the debunkers?



roidspop
2002-Jul-24, 03:09 AM
Our opposite numbers out in cyberspace enjoy 'anomalies', as we've all noticed.

Here's one that's not so much fun; if you run a simple search for information about the so-called "D&M Pyramid" on Mars, you will find masses of fringish prating and virtually nothing from the scientific community. Where are the planetologists, the geologists? Where, for crying out loud, is NASA, which should be coming in loud and strong on this issue? The net seethes with wild speculation about this feature, but it is hard to find sober, careful analysis of the geology of the object.

To the geologists out there; do you know of any similar features on the earth? What morphology can you suggest for this thing?

For anybody; what sites have you encountered that do a good job of deflating these claims for this object being an artifact?

Phobos
2002-Jul-24, 08:53 AM
Claims for artificiality of the D&M pyramid tend to follow one of two lines. Either they claim that the object looks artificial, or that it seems artificial based upon geometric relationships.

A good example of the types of speculation about the D&M pyramid can be found on van fladern's metaresearch website (use this link (http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/asom/artifact_html/default.htm)) - click on 15,50, 51 & 52 for his claims.

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/asom/artifact_html/slide52.jpg

Interestingly, on Richard Hoagland's site he disputes that the writing is on the pyramid - he claims that the writing was added by a NASA researcher.

Richard Hoagland's explanation (http://www.enterprisemission.com/sequel.htm)

This would seem more logical than roman characters on an object on Mars, but if true this does not necessarily confirm his conclusion that the researcher was proving that NASA images are being altered (there are many other ways this could have happened).

However the apparent characters got onto the officially released D&M pyramid photographs it does seem to show that to avoid accusations of tampering the images should be broadcasted back to Earth without encryption.

Personally I believe the object looks like a natural formation, but I do not know enough about how well the geometric claims have been analysed (I suspect that the measurements used have a fairly large margin for error which may strongly affect such claims).

With regards to the possibility of artificiality I would rather wait for an analysis of whatever evidence becomes available rather than pre-suppose a position on either side of the argument (to me a sceptic/debunker is a very similar animal to a hb).

Phobos


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-07-24 05:08 ]</font>

europaslayer
2002-Jul-24, 10:02 AM
My view of the whole sh-bang...

Roidspop wrote:"For anybody; what sites have you encountered that do a good job of deflating these claims for this object being an artifact?"

You mean This? (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep2.jpg)

Link to original Mars Odessy image (http://themis.la.asu.edu/fullimages/20020413a.jpg)

Although I find this object interesting, I in no way find it spectacular enoungh to call it any ype of artifact that demonstrates andy amount of symatry. Although the official comment has been rather muted on this (which it realy shouldn't be considering the amount of attention this object/landform/pseudo-artifact recives it should be de-bunked by NASA as soon as possible, why let this drag on? But thgen again if you debunk one, you have to de-bunk them all, and that may occupy all 17,000 or so NASA employes plus the staff at JPL etc.

Although it looked like an interetsing object under Vikings resolution, the New odessy pics are rather anti-climactic for those claiming any artificiality. This series of shots demonstrates the fact that these do not appear in the least to be anything artificial (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep4.jpg). Now there are going to be those atht argue that it is not that it should look artificial, but that the Math, specificly the geometry checks out, well, I submit this drawing of the so called geometry that Dic Hoagland pasted on his web-site.
Link here (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep14.jpg) In a chaotic jumble of arbitary lines he does more to damage his cuase than anything, The underlying symetry (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/hyper/cyd-geom.jpg) that Dick Hoagland and his co-horts speak of simply does not exist, the geomtry in fact is quite jumbled and seemingly incoherent. He even rotates the image to make it look like the actual supposed point (an arrowhead shaped ridge of windswept deposited material likely conforming to local in patterns and cuased in part by the mountain blocking the winds at it's highest point, thus blocking the spread of material, much like an object blocks a light source to produce a shadow on a surface) like the point is pointed along a specific (northward) axis and it is in fact not even pointed at any of the so called "Monuments" at all, therefore screwing with his preious geometry of the whole Cydonia site just a little more.

The sidea of the so called D&M pyrmid are no different thgan some of the other features that have been sighted on the martian surface.
This (http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/mediummaps/M07/M0705631.jpg), how about This (http://www.alanbaughman.com/marsanomalies/images/Mars_T.jpg) (Note this image has been looked over thouroghly and is simply a trick of light ans shadow hiding the true Assymetry of the feature) and finally This (http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/mediummaps/M0300580.jpg). The last image shown is actually a cluster of small mesa's like the so called face only more erroded into the very rough arrowhead shape that exists on the D&M, the darness of the features is due to the relativly low albedo of the material, likely exposed rock, which reflects much less light than the fine sand covering most of the martian surface. The darkness on these figures is also partly due to the angle of the sun, which was at about a 45 degree angle relative to that area of the planet nearest I can tell. These and other similar features all are similar to the D&M, although these have not been so punced on as there is not a so called face anywhere near these areas, much less a "fortress."

This right here (http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/jpegmaps/M0400334.jpg) is anotehr example of a so called pyrimidal structure, although it seems symetrical, under closer resolution it is not only likely less symetrical, but is also very windswept being on a plain like it is, The wind would take minor dofferentiations in the directions the face of the mountain is oriented and under certain circumstances may amplfify those, making the divisions seem more crisp than they actually are.

It should also be noted as I draw to an apparent close that the resolution on the Global Surveyor is only 1/5 as good as that of the MGS, more similar to viking levels of resolution (viking being like something around 50 M per pixel and Odessy being about 20 m per/pixel, with MGS being 1.5m/Per/Pixel, however with the advent of much more moderne and accurate processing techniques, the image that may be extrapolated may be cleaer than under normal enhancement proceadures. However Enterprisemission regularly over magnifies an object, turning what might be a pixel, into an entire city or more, I believe the same may be true of the viking image of the D&M, over magnification to a certain point that made the D&M seem much more symetrical than it actually is. I do not belive this is the case in the new Global surveyor images as the lack of symetry speaks for itself without magnification at all.

I belive that these "Anomalist's" are dragging their feet with the D&M, they want this to be true so badly that they will claim it is something that it is not. I think we are safe to assume that this is a wind blown feature That happens tobear a very slight resemblence to something that could be artificial but that does not bear out when the Geometry is evaluated (I've never seen a five sided pyrimid with only two, maybe three defined (not well defined) faces to it).

Note (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/sheep8.jpg) how they explain the assymetry with the entire structural collapse of a a wall, and how a series of non-rgualr, non-symetrical and out of plce formatiosn can be considered a retaining wall? Also note the explosive exit wound; D&M pyrimid stubles after being shot, "It's an exit wound." The pyrimid replies. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

As with anything in Science, nothing is impossible, however the idea of this being alien is about as likely as A brand new Lamborghini will Quantum tunnel into my driveway tonight. Okay, maybe not that small a chance, but somwhere around there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

-Mark.

roidspop
2002-Jul-24, 11:24 PM
Thanks for those excellent images and your analysis, europaslayer. To this I would add a site I found which goes into the supposed mathematical underpinnings of the "pyramid". (It's so seldom that you see a crank site with any math in it at all that it's rather unsporting of anybody to take the argument apart.)

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html

One thing I hope to see posted somewhere is an image of a similar feature on the Earth; one of the standing claims these folks make is that the uniqueness of the object in the whole solar system marks it as being artificial. The obvious error that is made is that symmetry and uniqueness imply artificiality. What symmetry? And, my left big toe is pretty unique, but hardly artificial.

I do think it's decent of NASA not to exploit this hysteria for all it's worth and lobby hard for a series of missions devoted strictly to "exploring" the "mysterious anomalies" on Mars...although they really ought to! There was Heinlein's story about the "Man Who Sold the Moon"; NASA wouldn't even have to 'seed' Mars...Hoagland et al have already done it for them.

Rift
2002-Jul-24, 11:58 PM
Well Rod, I was going to post that article from Dr. Greenberg, but you already beat me to it...

Greenberg apparently, like me, can't stand Hoagland. He's exposed the lie that Hoagland is the one that came up with the "oceans on europa" hypothesis. He's been exchanging letters with Bara, and it is hilarious to read... http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/EB.html

beskeptical
2002-Jul-25, 07:28 AM
On 2002-07-24 19:24, roidspop wrote:
One thing I hope to see posted somewhere is an image of a similar feature on the Earth; one of the standing claims these folks make is that the uniqueness of the object in the whole solar system marks it as being artificial. The obvious error that is made is that symmetry and uniqueness imply artificiality. What symmetry? And, my left big toe is pretty unique, but hardly artificial.

The landscape on Venus is pretty 'unique' and presumed natural. I think we can expect to find lots of planetary features that are not present on Earth. After all, the Earth is a sample size of one in a Universe with how many planets?

Rift
2002-Jul-25, 10:03 AM
Hoagland is going on about the D&M again...

http://www.enterprisemission.com/dayIR.htm