|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
another what if?
"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message ... As far as the so called alien artifacts near the "face" of Mars, my interpretation is that they are erosional features produced by joints or faults. If you can believe that the "artifacts on Mars" people are mistaking natural features for artificial ones, why can you not believe you are doing the same thing? Yes I agree, it is a ridiculous statement written solely to provoke serious discussion. Hardly---as I pointed out in my initial response. P.S.: If the objects on Eros and Phobos are indeed alien artifacts, in my opinion they may have been abandoned millions of years ago. That's a big "if". RM |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
another what if?
Ron Miller wrote: "Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message ... As far as the so called alien artifacts near the "face" of Mars, my interpretation is that they are erosional features produced by joints or faults. If you can believe that the "artifacts on Mars" people are mistaking natural features for artificial ones, why can you not believe you are doing the same thing? The word "believe" is misused here. When you take a flight from Los Angeles to the East Coast or to London, as you look down while West of the Rockies, you may see erosional features similar to the ones on the images of Mars near "the face". As a geologist I recognize the similarity and it is natural for me to conclude that similar wind (perhaps water) action produced these forms. On Eros there is no atmosphere, no wind no erosion short of occasional impacts by objects creating craters. Explaining some of the objects seen on images of Eros becomes more difficult. Yes I agree, it is a ridiculous statement written solely to provoke serious discussion. Hardly---as I pointed out in my initial response. P.S.: If the objects on Eros and Phobos are indeed alien artifacts, in my opinion they may have been abandoned millions of years ago. That's a big "if". RM |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
another what if?
Ron Miller wrote: "Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message ... Ron Miller wrote: They look like rocks to me. They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, you know. I agree with you that I cannot absolutely prove that they are not rocks. However, there are several aspects of these objects that make them VERY unusual. Fist the mounds. 1. they appear to be circular (the image that disappeared showed this best) 2. They have no sharp edges (unlike most of the other boulders on Eros) 3. There appears to be an overhang around the circular boundary (again, this showed better on the disappeared image) 4. The slopes appear to be those of a knoll. You use the word "appear" in three of your four points and "most of" in the fourth. This all awfully subjective. What you are saying is: "Because these objects 'appear' to be different from 'most of' the other rocks and boulders, they must be artificial." This is quite a leap from such little evidence. Please do not imply conclusions that I do NOT make. You say "Because these objects....they must be artificial." Please point out where I say "they must be artificial". All I say is that the images call for further investigation or something to that effect. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
another what if?
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:18:16 GMT, Zdenek Jizba
typed: [snip] Was my behavior improper? You judge. From what you described, it sounds like there were slight problem with the news server and not with you. Every now and then, I have problem getting to the newsgroup even though everything else worked. I know it's not just me because the tdsnet.* hierarchy (only available to tds.net users & not connected to public news server) remains active and other tds.net users have reported problem getting to the rest of the newsgroup. Next time you have problem connecting with the news server, bug the reps. -- All viruses and spams are automatically removed by my ISP before reaching my inbox. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
another what if?
"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message ... On Eros there is no atmosphere, no wind no erosion short of occasional impacts by objects creating craters. Explaining some of the objects seen on images of Eros becomes more difficult. There doesn't appear yet to be anything to explain. You seem to be a little ambivalent about the "strangeness" of the rocks. I'll copy part of our earlier correspondence below. You will recall that I criticized your use of so many qualifiers. Not only is the "mysteriousness" of the boulders utterly subjective, but you don't seem to be very sure yourself of just how strange. You've done nothing at all to suggest that they are anything other than ordinary boulders. I agree with you that I cannot absolutely prove that they are not rocks. However, there are several aspects of these objects that make them VERY unusual. Fist the mounds. 1. they appear to be circular (the image that disappeared showed this best) 2. They have no sharp edges (unlike most of the other boulders on Eros) 3. There appears to be an overhang around the circular boundary (again, this showed better on the disappeared image) 4. The slopes appear to be those of a knoll. You use the word "appear" in three of your four points and "most of" in the fourth. This all awfully subjective. What you are saying is: "Because these objects 'appear' to be different from 'most of' the other rocks and boulders, they must be artificial." This is quite a leap from such little evidence. As to the object with a sharp peak, 1. The aspect ratio (height divided by base radius) appears to be too high. Its emplacement would have to have been from a vertical impact. Otherwise I would expect it to fall on its side. 2. The shape is quite unusual sort of like an off center pyramid Again, a lot of subjectivity: "appears to be", "I would expect", "would have been" . . . (and why would an "off center pyramid" be "quite unusual"? Nature is full of examples of approximations. "Quite unusual" would, I think, be a mathematically perfect pyramid, if anything). I hope this may explain to you my inability to accept them a natural objects. No, it doesn't. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
another what if?
Ron Miller wrote:
"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message ... You use the word "appear" in three of your four points and "most of" in the fourth. This all awfully subjective. What you are saying is: "Because these objects 'appear' to be different from 'most of' the other rocks and boulders, they must be artificial." This is quite a leap from such little evidence. Please do not imply conclusions that I do NOT make. You say "Because these objects....they must be artificial." Please point out where I say "they must be artificial". All I say is that the images call for further investigation or something to that effect. Fair enough...but you do say they are "VERY unusual" (your emphasis), which is a contention you have not supported. As I mentioned, all of the mysterious aspects of these rocks are wholly subjective. I should point out, though, that you do ask this question in your posting of 7/6: "If the objects on Eros and Phobos are indeed alien artifacts...", so it is pretty obvious that you have been considering the possibility. RM True enough. I would also like to advise the readers of this thread that you and I have NOT conspired together in the sense that you ask me tough questions so that I can respond in a way that facilitates the reader's understanding of the problems discussed here. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
another what if?
During a perfect moment of peace at Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:18:16 GMT,
Zdenek Jizba interrupted with: The server was not down because I continued to receive e-mail I'd just like to point out that E-Mail and News are quite a bit different. A news server can be down the tubes but this would not affect E-Mail or web pages. Look up the differences between smtp, nntp and http. If you are using different telco's are you using different ISP's as well. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|