Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Did NASA Carve up the Face on Mars?

I think the tubes look like ice.  I never saw these "trees from above" images before but if these pictures were taken from a satellite orbiting Mars, they sure do look like the same structures seen from earth orbit!

So, I suppose the obvious theory is now that the asteroid belt is the remnants of a planet that was blown up, that Mars orbited it, an inhabitable moon, that a civilization lived on Mars, but had its atmosphere blown away by the blast.  The Martians all came to earth to start new anew which is why we have no signs of early development leading up to civilization on Earth.

Simple really. Wouldn't it be amazing if someday research in our solar system might actually prove it? 

If my survival could be guaranteed on Mars for 30 years,  I would make the proposed one-way colony trip.  Would you?




( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 6th, 2010 07:53 am (UTC)
As a child I dreamt that I went to Mars in a flimsy rocket, barely more than a tin box. It was a powerful dream, I was very aware of the fact that it was a one way trip and also greatly elated, as one can only be in dreams, at the thought of going there, as if it was my destiny to do so. I don't know what books or what films influenced me back then, but even decades afterwards I still feel pretty strongly about Mars, and I guess I'd take up any chance at all to get there.
The theory that we or our civilization stem from Martians, who fled a cataclysm that made their planet uninhabitable, is nice, but aren't we ourselves the greatest argument against it? We have become the greatest factor of danger to life on earth; wouldn't they, having just lost their planet, have made sure that we, their descendants, kept earth as safe as possible from harm?
Dec. 6th, 2010 03:34 pm (UTC)
Yes, and that brings up the question as to why we would NOT KNOW we were Martians? Surely such an epic success in our culture would be preserved in our history? Having no such history suggests that, if Martians did arrive here, they established only an Atlantis-like colony, that ultimately failed, perhaps destroyed by hominid "Christmas shoppers" like us?

"Shoppers," above referring to our strong need for acquisition. As for "Christmas" and hidden histories, I am sure Augustine (even with his huge opus CITY OF GOD) knew much more than he told.

The interesting thing about Egyptian "technology" in this context, is, it almost seems to me, that it is rather like s crude attempt at duplicating what might be expected to be seen in an alien city of advanced technology, here reduced to stone monuments without power sources. Why did Earthlings suddenly start building pyramids at roughly the same time-period in places as far away from each other as Asia, South America, India, Egypt? Surely there is no pyramid-bulding gene (here Leslie says: Gene is an excellent mason, and don't call me Shirley!)? Such bad answers to that very serious question seem to be the only kind of answers we have so far.

Another note about Forbidden Planet: what anthropomorphic hubris for us humans to imagine that the Krell MUST have had "monsters from the id" too! Thus, it is a movie far more about human vanity than about alien culture, isn't it? No wonder science has such a tough time-- we see only our own face in everything.
Dec. 8th, 2010 08:40 am (UTC)
Like agent Mulder, I want to believe. But I have grown very disillusioned with time. I've come to appreciate the simpler explanations. Not that I think they are better in themselves, or that rational explanations are more satisfactory, but at least, simple ones are harder to mystify. I used to think that von Däniken's interpretation of the engraving on Pacal's tomb was brilliant. But then you realize that von Däniken was thinking of 60’s-Apollo-style capsules and how absurd it would be for an advanced race to travel through space in such backward crafts. Von Däniken was absurd even before we learned to decipher Mayan writing and found out what Pacal’s tomb really was about.
Pyramids were built during a time span of thousands of years, starting at different times in different parts of the world and with different, even if related, purposes. Surely, there is no pyramid gene, not even an architectural “naturality” for pyramids, but I suppose, if you are going to build really huge structures, pyramids and cones are the way to go, even in our age of sophisticated materials.
We (western civilization) have been drawn to Egypt since the beginning. We’ve been putting Egyptian myth, and aesthetics into our culture for centuries and centuries. If Egyptian lore smacks of wisdom, it is because we have taken care over the ages, to link any wisdom of ours with Egyptian sources. If Egypt looks futuristic to us, then it is because we have made our visions of the future look like Egypt; look at metropolis with its pyramidal and palm leafed buildings, look at art deco, but also look at the Egyptian crazes of the farther past, in the Napoleonic era for example.
I’m not saying “there is a perfectly rational explanation for all of this”. On the contrary, I think that many rational, so called “explanations” are even the weakest of all options. But I’m also not buying on a pure coolness base anymore either, even though I want the universe to be a really cool place. If things don’t make sense, then let them at least be simple.
Maybe it’s as simple as John Crowley proposes in Aegypt:
“once, the world was not as it has since become”
Dec. 8th, 2010 04:05 pm (UTC)
Yes, I don't buy any individual theory per-se so long as it remains unproven. I don't even have a joculum-like sense of why certain theories must go nowhere by default. But I was never a Von Daniken fan, even though I agree that the Nazca plains, as art anyway, seem usefully observed only from orbit. But perhaps their true purpose will eventually become known? I'm pretty sure the real answer won't be revealed by Richard Hoagland either!

It just irks me that scientists seem so unimaginative in their willingness to try to prove ANY sort of speculative theory whatsoever! Scientific knowledge progresses by very small pieces of verifiability that often don't go anywhere or connect with anything else. Even these small particles, aka "proto-facts," are often proven wrong later, yet they manage to "lock" inquiry in place for years, impeding progress. I always laugh whenever I hear the words "this discovery opens up a whole new..." No, not at all, it was always open-- but nobody was looking. It's ironic that science progresses mostly by accidents, botched experiments, and the work of true loonies.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Cydonia photo: ESA

This is the journal of David Ross
Your thoughts are welcome here

Latest Month

June 2017
Powered by LiveJournal.com