Is the Face on Mars artificial? Odds are Billions to 1 YES

reply to post by ArMaP


Thank you for your reply. As to your first point, I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. As an example; the Egyptian pyramids did not just suddenly come into existance. The stone used to build them must have been quarried from probably one, or perhaps two, locations at the most. So where are the tell tale signs of this? likewise, if "The Face" were carved out of an existing geologic feature, then where was all the excess material dumped? Some sort of geologic annomally near by should be able to corroborate the theory that there was a massive construction project under way at some point. I don't care if the evidence is under a few thousand years of dust, it seems counterintuitive that this sort of evidense could be so easily hid. I presume that most trained geoligists would agree with me. I believe one of the satellites orbiting Mars has the ability to exray deep below the crust of Mars in great detail??

That leads to a point that I should make. Any theory that is to be taken seriously must be accompanied by meaningful predictions. For example; the Egyptian pyramids were built from blocks of indiginous stone (theory) therefore, we should be able to find at least one location from which the stone was cut (prediction). If we never had found these "quarries", then our theory, and any consequential pedictions, would have to change.

Having brought this up; it would seem productive to make predictions about the face on Mars, that if proved correct, would lend a great deal more credit to the theory that the "The Face" on Mars is an artificial construction.

As to your second point; I might agree if this structure were as small as a house or even a Super Wallmart, but in fact, the Face is many times larger than just about anything man has ever built (The Great Wall of China?). So I think it would be safe to assume that any walls, girders, foundation, bullwarks, posts and possibly tunnels would match the scale of the face. I would predict then that any of the items listed above would easily exceed, in either hight, width or length the 22 cm per pixal resolution.

I could extrapolate much further, but I hope this is sufficient. The more I think of it the more I am persuaded that if this line of investigation is followed dilligently, and as unbiased as possible, we could come to some solid conclusions. (I hope you're reading this Richard C. Hoagland).

Thank you.

reply to post by brdgerstmann


Could someone explain to me what the ats and bts point system to the left of the post is all about. Thank you.

Originally posted by brdgerstmann
As an example; the Egyptian pyramids did not just suddenly come into existance. The stone used to build them must have been quarried from probably one, or perhaps two, locations at the most. So where are the tell tale signs of this? likewise, if "The Face" were carved out of an existing geologic feature, then where was all the excess material dumped?

That is why I did not wrote about the stones used on the pyramids, it was almost a test to see if you would notice it.

Yes, that is a good distinction between the pyramids and the face on Mars, we know (and I suppose it's visible from space) from where the stones came, while there is not any sign of any source of material for the face (in the case it would have been built) or signs of excess of material removed from it (in the case it would have been carved).

So I think it would be safe to assume that any walls, girders, foundation, bullwarks, posts and possibly tunnels would match the scale of the face. I would predict then that any of the items listed above would easily exceed, in either hight, width or length the 22 cm per pixal resolution.

I suppose you are right, after all the "face" is 2.6km long and 1.9 km wide.

Also, archaeologists use aerial and satellite photos to help them look for clues of buried structures, many things are only visible from above.


On a different note...

Welcome to ATS, brdgerstmann!

Judging by your posting style you may become an important asset on ATS, we need people with that kind of ability to explain thought processes behind theories, many people do not understand it completely.

As you are a new member I suggest visiting the ATS handbook, it explains all (unless it has been left behind by the constant updates of the forum, like the "Way Above Top Secret award") you need to know to use ATS and BTS.

Thank you for the warm welcome ArMaP.