Like the face on Mars that wasn’t really a face, the so-called pyramids on Mars aren’t really artificially-made structures. I have friends who would insist they are, but I’ve never bought into the idea. Astronomer Stuart Robbins, the voice behind the PseudoAstronomy podcast, will tell you why you shouldn’t, either.
Those Pyramids on Mars
Heiser says the pyramids on Mars are just “star dunes” which form in star like shapes on Earth. Big problem, they don’t look like star dunes. http://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrTccek_0NTZTEAuCUPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw–?_adv_prop=image&fr=yhs-Elex-elex_22find&sz=all&va=star+dunes&hspart=Elex&hsimp=yhs-elex_22find much more twisty and so forth than the pyramids on Mars, whether D&M or any of the other ones. Sure these may not be as fine as the ones in Egypt, but they are not star dune slop jobs either. Not nearly.
Heiser probably has his own agenda in grasping at this straw, and no, The Face DIDN’T go away, it just looks more messy (photo fraud or war action since earlier shot?) it is still obviously facelike. The faces on Earth are side facing not upward and are in fractured rock faces and though fracturing is in The Face there is none in the barrier all around it.
A Possible history of Life on Mars by Christine Erikson on amazon kindle discusses an Earth origin scenario for all intelligent life off Earth. This being something Heiser doesn’t seem to have thought of, he is thrown back on the assumption God didn’t create life elsewhere. But God didn’t have to create life elsewhere, for life to have migrated elsewhere if pre Flood or even a later civilization were space faring.
Yes, I do have an agenda. It’s real complicated: produce real data that proves your proposition. In this case, the order of things that needs proving is also complicated:
1. There are intelligent ETs.
2. Intelligent ETs once inhabited Mars (at the relevant locations).
3. The pyramids on Mars are unnatural.
All three of those combined would be adequate to coherently argue your proposition. Unfortunately, you have no data for any of them. Questions are not data. Wishes aren’t data (even if they’re cool).
Exactly. It’s interesting and fun to fascinate about, but until we have archaeologists and geologists with boots on the ground, they are just that: fascinations. How would we know we aren’t just seeing what is in our own imagination? Imagination serves one purpose, to investigate, that’s it. No special claims beyond that are needed at this point. The ‘alternative community’ needs much more self-critical analysis, something that the Academy, at its best, provides and be much more tentative about its claims. Even with those who like to speculate, how does that even remotely move the ball intellectually forward other than possible the need to do what I stated above: an interest to inquire ?
Just saw this new book on Amazon. http://amzn.com/1494762366
Amazing how believer’s would just take Hoagland and Redfern’s information and run with it as fact.
*correction:
how does that even remotely move the ball intellectually forward other than possibly the need to do what I stated above: an interest to inquire ?