Friday, January 25, 2008





Since the "little man" on Mars isn't going away, I figure I might as well point you toward some items of interest:

Binnall of America asks the "tough" questions . . .

. . . while William Michael Mott points out that the rocks surrounding the dubious humanoid are considerably more engaging than the subject of the media circus itself.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's not Bigfoot. That is clearly a classical bearded Jesus.

wmmott said...

Here's the link:

http://www.mottimorphic.com/Martian_Boogie.html

Interesting updates at the bottom of the page...

Mac said...

OK, so far candidates include

a.) Jesus

b.) Bigfoot

c.) a mermaid

Am I forgetting anyone?

wmmott said...

Xenu? John Carter?

Anonymous said...

Mac, I can't believe how defensive you have gotten. If you show an interest in this figure, do you think people would discount your beliefs about Cydonia as "just another crazy idea of his"? Do you not have enough curiousity to wish that the rover would take a closer look?
I know that visuals play tricks on us. The Clarke trees proves that, but is being open to the idea that this figure was carved by hand any more looney than thinking there might be a giant faced carved on a mesa on Mars? They are both solidly in the same camp. I do not know if the figure is an illusion or real. I do not know if the face is real. I do know that I hope they are, and I would love to investigate before I discount anything.

Stan

w said...

The object is obviously humanoid. The resemblance is not superficial. It appears to set on and be part of a carved pedestal of stone, with raised relief blocks along the side and a rounded top. But many say that this is just coincidence, that "human-looking" forms can be found by an eager eye seeking patterns. Given the nature of the weather on Mars, could such a well-formed simulacrum, with outstretched arm and hand, torso, neck and head, really come about purely by chance? Could such a well-formed shape be carved purely by the blind caprice of wind-driven sand?

What did I say? This reads something very like my post on your original thread on this subject. And all I got for my trouble was your curt dismissal, "It's not a statue either."

BTW, I wasn't saying it IS a statue. I was saying two things: 1) The original story was stupid because it did not even recognize this as a POSSIBILITY but seemed to be doing a tease on the idea that it looked like some like of live "Martian." And 2) Whatever it is, simulacrum or no, it does at least LOOK one hell of a lot more like a statue than MOST simulacra (ones I've seen, anyway).

There's really no way of telling at this point what the object actually is. I'm only arguing against dismissing it out of hand as a possible artifact. We simply can't say whether it is or no. And also, BTW, mockery is not a form of logical argument.

Michael Mott also presents some other interesting shots. And then there is that corkscrew green-and-pink worm-thingie in the lower right corner....

Anonymous said...

Mac--

You forgot Jim Morrison.

Mac said...

Stan--

I'm not being "defensive"; I'm just being realistic.

At *best*, the "Martian" is only a partial likeness (of the infinitely spurious "profile" variety). We see one arm. One mass that may or not be a head. No legs (unless you really squint).

Mac said...

And also, BTW, mockery is not a form of logical argument.

"Mockery," huh? And where, pray tell, have I mocked anyone? I've approached this honestly, attempting to point out why I think this feature fails to pass muster as a potential archaeological relic.

At the same time I've enjoyed stepping back and laughing at the whole spectacle (as has Mott, with his suggestion that we might be looking at Xenu or John Carter).

W.M. Bear said...

Also, Mac (since I can't seem to leave it alone) can you answer me this?

You seem very amenable to at least the POSSIBILITY that mega-scale formations on Mars like the famous Face and possibly the so-called "City" with its pyramids are artificial, am I right? In fact, one thing I especially like about "Martian Apocalypse" is your refusal to dogmatize either way.

On the other hand, frankly, you do seem hostile (I have to say) to the notion that ANYTHING, any object, in the Rover pix, might conceivably also be artificial. (And I say this from past comments by you as well as the current mini-tempest over this particular picture.)

So my question is this (and challenge, if you want to look at it that way). Considering that it is at least a POSSIBILITY that mega-scale formations such as the Face are artificial, what does this imply? For one, it would seem to imply that there was, at some point, in some form, some sort of "ancient civilization" on Mars that left mega-scale monuments. Now, if they left artifacts of this size, isn't it also at least POSSIBLE that this civilization left artifacts on a smaller scale as well, and that some of these may be showing up in the Rover pix?

W.M. Bear said...

"Mockery," huh? And where, pray tell, have I mocked anyone? I've approached this honestly, attempting to point out why I think this feature fails to pass muster as a potential archaeological relic.

EXHIBIT A

OK, so far candidates include

a.) Jesus

b.) Bigfoot

c.) a mermaid

Am I forgetting anyone?


Apologies if I'm wrong about this being an attempt to divert serious discussion of this whole issue.

Mac said...

WMB--

You seem very amenable to at least the POSSIBILITY that mega-scale formations on Mars like the famous Face and possibly the so-called "City" with its pyramids are artificial, am I right?

Right. Between the D&M Pyramid, the Mound Geometry Hypothesis, the Face (and others), I think there's a reasonable argument for intelligent intervention.

On the other hand, frankly, you do seem hostile (I have to say) to the notion that ANYTHING, any object, in the Rover pix, might conceivably also be artificial.

"Hostile"? That depends on your definition. I'm extremely skeptical. Could we have seen incredibly aged pieces of artificial debris in various rover pictures? It's possible -- but my sincere hunch is that we haven't.

Now, if they left artifacts of this size, isn't it also at least POSSIBLE that this civilization left artifacts on a smaller scale as well, and that some of these may be showing up in the Rover pix?

I must concede that it's absolutely possible. But the question isn't whether it's "possible"; it's whether we've seen any compelling evidence of it.

Mac said...

WMB--

Re. your "Exhibit A":

I was attempting to demonstrate the myriad subjective impressions reported by those who've taken a look at the feature in question. I wasn't being sarcastic or antagonistic; I was simply trying to point out that, for a feature being hailed (by some) as convincing evidence of Martian archaeology, no one seems able to arrive at a consensus about what, exactly, we're looking at -- which is exactly what one might expect from examining a small rock.

W.M. Bear said...

Thanks, Mac, for the very detailed responses. I do sincerely appreciate your taking the time to reply to my rather insistent questioning.

We'll just have to disagree about what the Rover pix seem to have turned up. I'll only conclude by saying that I'm hard put to believe that some of the things I've seen in these pix AREN'T artificial.

And the fact that people can't agree on WHAT some of these things are does not seem to me to necessarily imply that they can't be artificial. Keep in mind that we would be trying to identify artifacts from the detritus of a civilization both totally alien to ours and one that has been extinct for at least millions and possibly billions of years. (Plus my sense is that archeologists often argue over what and whether something is artificial on Earth and, if so, what exactly it represents.)

Anonymous said...

зеленый лазер
электрошокер
товары мини камеры
товары народного потребления