Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Perhaps I should post this on my soon-to-be-resurrected Cydonian Imperative site, but for now it's going here:

Link deleted by the editor. --Mac

Avian geoglyph or natural formation? I'm going with the latter, but maybe a closer look is in order.
Posted by at

9 comments:

Mac said...

I've gotta admit that I kind of like the Ancient Toltec Sorcerers Hypothesis ;-)

I'm working on a new Cydonian Imperative post re. a most interesting object not far from Cydonia...

http://www.mactonnies.com/cydonia.html

11:23 PM
Anonymous said...

you're kidding, right?

11:58 PM
Mac said...

you're kidding, right?

I said I *liked* the Toltec "hypothesis," not that I agreed with it!

12:02 AM
Carol Maltby said...

For some issues I raised about Parrotopia in one of the original threads on Anomalous Mars in 2002, see a couple of postings I did here:

http://anomalyhunters.com/cgi-bin/marsbbs/webbbsarch1_config.pl/noframes/read/438

Sometimes it's useful to see what arguments didn't make it into the final paper.

The search function is not picking up any of my postings from the archives of that period for some reason. I would think there would be a hundred or so. I haven't posted there in the past couple of years, as I was becoming increasingly frustrated with the gap developing between the dominant perspectives there and my own criteria for Mars anomalies.

I hope Starjim will be able to upload diagrams that are referenced there -- or are they just invisible to my browser?

One really thorny problem with this feature is that I was just not able then or now to find much useful information on the web on parrot anatomy. You can't just throw around terms and not show what they would look like on a real parrot. That requires too much uncritical trust.

As I posted at the time, George Haas had done a sketch of the alleged parrot. He did not mention that his veterinarian expert was actually his wife, and I don't think his argument is improved by my having to point that out. She had done her identification from his drawing, and his drawing at the time showed a foot that was definitely not that of a parrot.

Some basic information like scale, resolution and camera angle is not given in the article. Lots of verbosity doesn't make up for lack of such basic information.

Carol Maltby

6:57 PM
Anonymous said...

no i meant "you're kidding" about even taking that pile-of-sand-as-birdy-totem seriously for a second.

7:06 PM
Carol Maltby said...

The article is articulate, richly detailed, and offers a great many points to bolster its argument. Whether it does indeed successfully support its contentions is something we won't all necessarily agree on.

But to just ignore all of that with a blanket refusal to critique its claims in detail shows a willful ignorance. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and sneering "Can't hear you. I'm not hearing you."

If you are not interested in having a civil conversation about planetary SETI, perhaps there are other forums where you would have conversations more to your liking.

10:08 PM
Mac said...

If you are not interested in having a civil conversation about planetary SETI, perhaps there are other forums where you would have conversations more to your liking.

Ditto. Try looking up "epistemology."

I'm sure there's a "commenters anonymous" somewhere that would be glad to have you.

11:19 PM
Anonymous said...

hey my pile of mashed potatoes look just like elvis. i should write a book and sell it.

11:25 PM
Anonymous said...

i mean, doesn't ridiculous nonsense like a mound of sand that happens to look like donald duck, and the silly mirror images in that moron Haas' book "Cydonia Codex" tell you anything about the intelligence level of this stuff?

11:51 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)