A little known theory debunking the pyramids and 'farce' on mars

I heard this when I was interviewing Stan Deyo.
At The time i didnt think much of it (didnt understand it really)
I pretty much believed the David Flynn version of the story, and have for a while now.

I think I understood Hoagland was not to be trusted (does anyone?)
but this was the scientific bit I really wanted to know about.

let me know what you all think.



here is the pdf
standeyo.com...

I know the common question for me was, the "geometry" in cydonia.

and I wanted to ask the astute members here if Im alone in thinking some of these anchor points are a bit arbitrary?

www.enterprisemission.com...
www.fortunecity.com...

Cydonia


I was suckered into buying his VHS tape many years ago when he advertised as Exclusive NASA video at the end and his "UN" disclosure of Mars "CITY" blah blah fool me once...


My verdict is still out on the face on Mars but as for the rest I have read seen and heard so much about Cydonia that it got a point where now all I see are rocks.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
it got a point where now all I see are rocks.

That is more than likely because it is all rocks.

Mars was obviously completely decimated in the past, the chances of a civilization developing millions of years ago is highly highly unlikely.

Single celled or slightly complex organism's on the other hand are a completely different story.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Have you seen the face without the shadows in the right place? It's just a random rock formation. Nothing interesting in the least.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...
for anyone who has never seen it this is an excellent review of the cydonia face evidence, and it is very intelligent and well thought out IMO. i happen to agree that the Cydonia face was just a scheme to kep the pipes open for money to flow in. the evidence in this report at the very least shows that image manipulation has been done with regards to this area, the mesa that move and what not. nothing new here, but i think it is relative, especially if you have never seen this report, check it out.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Have you seen the face without the shadows in the right place? It's just a random rock formation. Nothing interesting in the least.

Yes

I still think it's possible for something to be there

Originally posted by Dermo



Mars was obviously completely decimated in the past, the chances of a civilization developing millions of years ago is highly highly unlikely.

Single celled or slightly complex organism's on the other hand are a completely different story.

I agree

I dont believe there was a " MARTIAN " race more likely
a base if anything at all from an Alien race that traveled here to our solar system for scientific study of our development or mining resources anything is possible

But as far as a race evolving on Mars I find that highly unlikely.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Sure, but there's no evidence to that effect yet.

The jury is still 'out' on this for me. But if the op's contention is that a planetoid-sized geode crashed on mars I would have to insist that the theory be backed up with examples. There must be other similar impacts we can compare, or was there only one geode-style asteroid in our solar system?

Crystalline structures should shatter and pulverize under such tremendous force, unless these are metallic crystal structures. The data for either argument seems inconclusive. I wish we could trust NASA/DOD to simply reveal everything we learn, instead of treating the public like some kind of children who can't be trusted to know, lest we lose interest in the mundane, or panic at the possibilities.

As far as people 'lying' or 'dis-informing' or simply 'cashing in' on anomalies, I suppose that is as likely as anything else for the moment.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The jury is still 'out' on this for me. But if the op's contention is that a planetoid-sized geode crashed on mars I would have to insist that the theory be backed up with examples. There must be other similar impacts we can compare, or was there only one geode-style asteroid in our solar system?

Crystalline structures should shatter and pulverize under such tremendous force, unless these are metallic crystal structures. The data for either argument seems inconclusive. I wish we could trust NASA/DOD to simply reveal everything we learn, instead of treating the public like some kind of children who can't be trusted to know, lest we lose interest in the mundane, or panic at the possibilities.

As far as people 'lying' or 'dis-informing' or simply 'cashing in' on anomalies, I suppose that is as likely as anything else for the moment.

As far as examples i think that area (not just cydonia) has a lot of these (pyramids)

As far as the geodes breaking apart, I dont know the geological consistency or anything, but he did say that the impact was slow due to it being the result of being in orbit (along with the dust) and that orbit decayed.
so it would have been as soft of a landing as could be expected if that is the case.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Amenti]

There's a few things that don't jive with the theory as posited.

1- If there was no atmosphere on Mars when it was struck by the planetoid, how did the red dust spread entirely, if not uniformly, over the surface of the entire planet?

2- If there was an atmosphere on Mars? Where is it now? If it was destroyed by the planetoid impact, please answer #1.

3- Given the facts as proposed by the theory, crystals should have been visible to any Mars mission that came within at least 500 miles of the "impact cone". NASA must be hiding that data? (Because it's easier to believe that than it didn't exist in the first place, I guess)

4- It's worth noting that few "I know what happened on Mars!" profiteers involve new evidence in their rantings. How come only Viking images are used and not more recent and INFINITELY BETTER QUALITY ESA images? The Mars Express images of Cydonia are simply amazing. I see angular shapes covered in regular old red Mars dust, but not "crystals".

5- Why does erosion of the landscape figure so poorly into this theory? Mars does have weather, you know.

This is just another theory that picks and chooses data to use like a crank Bible scholar trying to find proof that the Bible says anything they want it to.

reply to post by cogburn


I was wondering about the lack of references to ESA images myself.

I suspected that perhaps ESA holds some kind of publication rights? I don't know for sure. Do you know if they copyright their images? That could be one reason the financially-motivated don't use them..., eats into profits.

First:
as far as the atmosphere I dont know of any scientist that thinks there is no atmosphere on mars....the moon maby


reply to post by Maxmars


I dont know about copyright issues, but If they are good I would have used them, I drew my sources of video and pictures from four sources.

one: from stan deyos pdf

two: from nasas website (did a search for "cydonia") and saved a few images.

three: google image search, using various phrases

four: from youtube videos

So i guess what Im saying is if they weren't there I didnt find them, obviously the better the pic the better.

reply to post by cogburn


I just re-read your post, I missed a few things I see.

I did use ESA images.

I think the main reason there is a debate is because a lot of the scattered debris doesnt fit into regular geological formations, it is indeed an anomoly, that is why I think it has been a area of interest.

Im not sure that the crystal thing is that important really, it could be whatever geological formations inside of a planetoid. the interesting thing is the angle the scattered debris, the "cone""gash' the "plate" etc
this theory was part of a book written way before those new pics came out so
he probably was trying to explain as much as possible with the images he had.

again, who said there is no atmosphere