A Conversation for A Pyramid on Mars
Jamie of the Portacabin Started conversation Nov 15, 2002
I apologise in advance for this but I feel I must voice the opinion that this article is not all that it could have been. The information supplied on the D&M Pyramid is VERY limited indeed - I have read whole books on the subject and I think to condense it down to just three short paragraphs is very narrow-minded. The researcher has not even bothered to give so much as a passing mention to the vast amount of mathematical work that has been done in an attempt to prove that the pyramid is a deliberate construction. Whether you believe it to be real or not, this work is still interesting.
Furthermore, the D&M Pyramid has not been definitively proved to be a naturally occuring structure, despite compelling evidence from the Global Surveyor that supports this viewpoint. There is still room for doubt, and the final sweeping statement that 'They were revealed to be nothing more than naturally occurring mountains. Mankind, or at least a small part of it, had been fooled by the natural ability to recognise order in chaos, even when there is none' suggests, incorrectly, that the matter has been laid to rest. I have been away from h2g2 for some time, but last time I checked this opinionated style of writing was actively discouraged.
Finally, no effort has been made to make reference to the vast range of books or websites on this topic, which represent both the 'natural structure' camp and the 'artificial structure' camp. Surely many people reading this entry would be interested to read further into the topic?
To sum up my views; this entry comprises too much opinion given as fact and very little actual information. No offence intended to the researcher in question - I am criticising the entry and not you yourself, but I am quite surprised that this entry has made it into the main body of the Guide.
The Sandwich Maker Posted Nov 15, 2002
Oh for Gods sake lighten up!
This person has obviously done their best to provide an interesting article about Mars, which I found, personally, very interesting. There is no need to go and shoot him down for silly little details! You try writing something like that!
PS: How long DID it take you, writer?
Gnomon - time to move on Posted Nov 15, 2002
Nah, I think the "artificial construction" stuff is a load of old codswallop and I certainly wouldn't give it more than a few paragraphs in an Edited Entry. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is an artificial construction. All that mathematical stuff was the sort that any high school student could make up and anybody competent at maths could show to to be drivel.
If you make a ludicrous claim that the pyramid is artificial, it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove it.
Etheriel Posted Nov 17, 2002
I'm sorry but i do agree with Jamie ... it is an interesting article but anything that goes into the guide should not be so opinionated. With a subject like this it is important that the writer stays impartial, provides the facts, and allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. If you thought the theories concerning pyramids on mars was 'ludicrous' and a 'load of olds codswallop' then maybe you should have titled the article 'opinion against pyramids on mars' or not written the article at all. Sorry to be a drag, and sincerely no offence, that's just my opinion
Gnomon - time to move on Posted Nov 18, 2002
My reply in posting 3 above could be described as opinionated, but the Entry itself is not.
There is no evidence that there is any artificial construction on Mars. That's not an opinion. People have written books based on one bad photograph taken in the 70's. This photo was digitally enhanced by NASA before being released. This led to several features appearing on the photo which do not actually exist. All the theories are based on these features.
The newer pictures taken recently are much more detailed. They show categorically that the pyramid and the face are just mountains.
Zebedee (still Pool God after all these years) Posted Dec 12, 2002
That aside, surely the intended spirit of the site (Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, anyone?) should leave an entry on the only planet current researchers are ever likely to reach open to a little intrigue and whimsy? You've just killed the Martian tourist trade after all.....
And don't forget, photographs can be faked
Gnomon - time to move on Posted Dec 12, 2002
There's plenty of things worth seeing on Mars as it is, without inventing new ones. There's the biggest mountain in the solar system, for one thing!
Key: Complain about this post