From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:51:32 +0100
Archived: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:15:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Surprise! Water On Mars


>From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 05:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: Surprise! Water On Mars

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:49:25 -0300
>>Subject: Re: Surprise! Water On Mars

>>Not to be a smart ass but the original canal was shortened from
>>the Italian word canali first coined by Giovanni Schiaparelli.
>>It
>>means means channels but was shortened to the English canals.

<snip>

>Mr. Ledger, there is a reason you might discern for why, where I
>could, I place quotation marks around "canals". This was not my
>choice of label but that of most prominant astronomers of the
>19th century who even went so far as to chart and map those
>"canals".

>You have any idea why they did this? They did this because the
>view of what they saw in their day was constant. Aberrations,
>be they mirages or "optical illusions" are not.

James Horak gives the impression that there was once an expert
consensus in favour of artificial canals, that observations of
these by "most prominent astronomers" were a "constant" of the
era, and that the lack of consternation today about the
mysterious disappearance of these features can only be explained
by a conspiracy of "deception" and "denial" on the part of modern
astronomers . Mr Horak also criticises Don for an "unwillingness
to examine history and utilise scientific tools", and enjoins us
all to "research before [we] feel obliged to comment."

So I have done some research. The following is a summary of the
history of the vanishing canali as it is represented to us by
Horak's "bogus science world" of "side-stepping crabs". I trust
he will find here something of interest to "throw in their lying
faces".

The word "canale" was first used in 1859 by the astronomer
Secchi, not to describe anything geometrical or artificial but to
describe the major feature today called Syrtis Major.
Schiaparelli's original 1878 map of his own "canali" likewise
shows nothing geometrical or artificial looking, rather it shows
a spaghetti of snaking curved channels separating what he thought
were large islands at the edge of the vast southern ocean on Mars
(BTW, should we be asking where those huge oceans disappeared to
in a few decades?). Schiaparelli believed that his canali were
natural features.

When the word canali was translated to English as "canals"
Schiaparrelli apparently didn't publicly protest. Why, if he only
drew natural features? Firstly because an English "canal" was not
and is not necessarily a geometrical artifice any more than is an
Italian "canale" (it can just mean "waterway", and the human body
contains several "canals" for example), and secondly because it
was not until Flamarrion's popular writing in 1892 and then
Lowell's observations from about 1894 that the notion of
mathematically-straight engineered waterways gained currency, so
there was initially nothing to protest about.

The first observer to see what he thought were straight-line
features was an assistant to the Earl of Rosse, called Charles
Burton. But his maps did not match Schiaparelli's and he is said
to have put about the idea that they were magical features
created by Martian sorcerers to assist in casting spells (that
from his Wikipedia entry - anyone know more about him?). Almost
all of the consistent observations of artificial-seeming canals
came years later from Lowell and Lowell's staff at his own
observatory. Schiaparelli himself thought that Lowell was a
victim of his own imagination. Burton eventually doubted his own
early belief in the lines.

It was certainly not the case that Lowell's network of straight
lines was seen by "most prominent astronomers". Several observers
in Europe and the US made observations in 1886 that seemed to
support Schiaparelli, but few placed any credence in Lowell's
canals. Many more astronomers tried to see any linear features
and failed, including influential names such as Antoniadi, Hale,
Barnard, Hall, Maunder etc and it was shown by experiment (Evans
& Maunder) that such features might be caused by optical
illusion. By about the turn of century canal fever was waning and
the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica summed up the authoritative
consensus saying that claims of artificial canals were
implausible.

Observers such as Barnard had described seeing hints of lines
that broke up into more ragged natural features with better
resolution and better seeing conditions. And as later telescopic
and spacecraft observations revealed the Martian surface in
increasing detail, the same thing happened. The origin of the
canals was revealed in the natural mottling of blobs and streaks,
seen through the wavering atmosphere of earth and joined by the
pattern-seeking minds of humans into a web of illusory
allignments. And that's how the canals disappeared.

So, there in a nutshell we have the revisionist hoax cooked up by
lying astronomers.

And now I would like to hear about Mr Horak's research. Perhaps
he would tell us the real history, taking a little time to
justify his sources and to ensure of course that none of them are
lying scientists.


Martin Shough




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/