The "catbox" Face?

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:

Contrary to various allegations, I'm not here to play "hint & deny" sematical games.

Hint:

The "pile o rocks" that is "the face" also strikes me as too symmetrical (with parallel lines) to be of natural causes, which might suggest artificiality.

If "the face" doesn't strike you as natural, then there's not too many options left to it's origins, in your opinion, is there?

Denial:

in no way do I think artificiality is proven

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.

Just because I think something "might suggest artificiality" does not mean I think it is proven.

:-?

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

Just because I think something "might suggest artificiality" does not mean I think it is proven.

Deja-vu all over again.

[A.DIM]

Tofu:

Thanks for your efforts, but I have to say that without your diagrams overlaid I don't find it to be a convincing example.

[N C More]

Tofu:

Thanks for your efforts, but I have to say that without your diagrams overlaid I don't find it to be a convincing example.

I'm not Tofu but can I chime in here...I don't find Hoagland's math and diagrams re Cydonia to be convincing examples either. Therefore, I conclude that the Grand Canyon and Cydonia are both of geological origin.

[Outcast]

Tofu:

Thanks for your efforts, but I have to say that without your diagrams overlaid I don't find it to be a convincing example.

I'm not Tofu but can I chime in here...I don't find Hoagland's math and diagrams re Cydonia to be convincing examples either. Therefore, I conclude that the Grand Canyon and Cydonia are both of geological origin.

at least they're more convincing than tofu's "examples".
and who said that Cydonia isnt of geological origin?

[Outcast]

And, we already know for certain that the so-called face is a "pile of rocks." "we" do? how's we? is "we" you and the rest of the "experts" around here or maybe others equaly opinionated out there who for the sake of debunking assume that their opinions are apriori correct?last time i checked (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502647#502647) there were no certainties.Knock off the rhetoric Outcast. "We" is most of this board including the BA.

excuse me? theres no rethoric here. do you understand why i put "experts" in quotes? because i do not see any experts here and i've seen no geological explanation for those features. i've seen a Nasa geologist though, who contrary to ALL of you has studied the area, speaking about a formation which he cant readily explain. but those uncertainties from Nasa's own specialists hasnt stop the "skeptics" from claming that "we know for certain".


The second flyby of Cydonia put the myth of artificiality to rest. End of story. You do know about the second images of Cydonia don't you?

i know more about Mars than i really cared to know. i spent at least a couple of years dredging up pictures at the JPL online archives in search of "artificiality". besides i dont think the story has ended. i reserve my judgement on this issue because i've seen other interesting places on Mars that hint at artificiality.


Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical.

where's the cherry picking? that is just silly. besides i certainly would like for you to show me where are those "frequent" doubts that i cast on Nasa, untill then i'll just take that as an attempt at character assassination. from what i remember i believe this is the first time im discussing Cydonia around here, so lets see who is really hypocritical.
besides that was not a quote, it was all that the Nasa geologist had to say about that particular formation.


Outside of engaging in crude attempts at attacking members here

=D>
like if that little comment about me casting doubts on Nasa you posted above wanst a crude attempt at attacking a member. do you realize im also a member here, hummm? besides, i defend my opinions while stating that they are my opinions, the pseudo "experts" i was refering to defend their opinions while stating them as fact. do you understand the difference?


More empty rhetoric from you Outcast. Fram actually posted this to A.DIM, but the shoe fits you perfectly as well.

you know whats rethoric? rethoric is going around in circles (throwing ad hominen and strawmen around) and failing to tackle the issues. A.dim was right in bringing this question to the table, whether you like it or not the responsibles for the Mars imaging project were not forthright in a number of issues.

deal with it:
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm

[R.A.F.]

I wouldn't expect an answer from Archer17 for about a week or so...he's vacationing (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=506699#506699).

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

you know whats rethoric? rethoric is going around in circles (throwing ad hominen and strawmen around) and failing to tackle the issues.

You're certainly the right person to explain this to the rest of us.


deal with it:
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm

Deal with what? This?

1. It is a natural landform given its unusual appearance by the very alien and only partially-understood erosive and weathering processes on Mars, possibly unique to Cydonia.

2. It is an intentional representation of what is perhaps a very alien face that has been subjected to erosive forces for what was certainly a period of time greater than five hundred million years.

Yes, a face so alien it doesn't even look like a face and even if it happened to be natural, it was still very alien ](*,)

[A.DIM]

Heh... Deja Vu...


A.DIM wrote:

Contrary to various allegations, I'm not here to play "hint & deny" sematical games.

Hint:

The "pile o rocks" that is "the face" also strikes me as too symmetrical (with parallel lines) to be of natural causes, which might suggest artificiality.

If "the face" doesn't strike you as natural, then there's not too many options left to it's origins, in your opinion, is there?


Denial:

in no way do I think artificiality is proven


Considering that I made such a "denial" statement (disclaimer?) in my OP and the others only a page ago, I find myself revisiting and wondering what was the real intent of your post here?
I'm sorry, V-GER, but I feel like it was a cut and paste attack on my character.
Am I wrong?

[A.DIM]

And, we already know for certain that the so-called face is a "pile of rocks." "we" do? how's we? is "we" you and the rest of the "experts" around here or maybe others equaly opinionated out there who for the sake of debunking assume that their opinions are apriori correct?last time i checked (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502647#502647) there were no certainties.Knock off the rhetoric Outcast. "We" is most of this board including the BA.

excuse me? theres no rethoric here. do you understand why i put "experts" in quotes? because i do not see any experts here and i've seen no geological explanation for those features. i've seen a Nasa geologist though, who contrary to ALL of you has studied the area, speaking about a formation which he cant readily explain. but those uncertainties from Nasa's own specialists hasnt stop the "skeptics" from claming that "we know for certain".


The second flyby of Cydonia put the myth of artificiality to rest. End of story. You do know about the second images of Cydonia don't you?

i know more about Mars than i really cared to know. i spent at least a couple of years dredging up pictures at the JPL online archives in search of "artificiality". besides i dont think the story has ended. i reserve my judgement on this issue because i've seen other interesting places on Mars that hint at artificiality.


Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical.

where's the cherry picking? that is just silly. besides i certainly would like for you to show me where are those "frequent" doubts that i cast on Nasa, untill then i'll just take that as an attempt at character assassination. from what i remember i believe this is the first time im discussing Cydonia around here, so lets see who is really hypocritical.
besides that was not a quote, it was all that the Nasa geologist had to say about that particular formation.


Outside of engaging in crude attempts at attacking members here

=D>
like if that little comment about me casting doubts on Nasa you posted above wanst a crude attempt at attacking a member. do you realize im also a member here, hummm? besides, i defend my opinions while stating that they are my opinions, the pseudo "experts" i was refering to defend their opinions while stating them as fact. do you understand the difference?


More empty rhetoric from you Outcast. Fram actually posted this to A.DIM, but the shoe fits you perfectly as well.

you know whats rethoric? rethoric is going around in circles (throwing ad hominen and strawmen around) and failing to tackle the issues. A.dim was right in bringing this question to the table, whether you like it or not the responsibles for the Mars imaging project were not forthright in a number of issues.

deal with it:
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm

Excellent post, Outcast, your points are most valid.

Although, I'm sorry it always comes to this; Twice now, Archer felt the need to chime in on posts addressed to others in order to make some point about how the "shoe fits." You know, pointing out all our "rhetoric," "cherry picking," "shoehorning" "tricks" and whatever else?
He's quite good at it.


We "woowoos," we're all alike. :wink:

[A.DIM]

Tofu:

Thanks for your efforts, but I have to say that without your diagrams overlaid I don't find it to be a convincing example.

I'm not Tofu but can I chime in here...I don't find Hoagland's math and diagrams re Cydonia to be convincing examples either. Therefore, I conclude that the Grand Canyon and Cydonia are both of geological origin.

I'm not Hoagland but let me add that I don't find his math and diagrams convincing enough either(though, I actually have read very little about him), but nonetheless am nearing a conclusion that NASA, whether unwittingly, incompetently or whatever other excuse, has effectively succeeded in convincing many that "the face" has been "proven" to be of natural processes, which, in my mind, flies in the face of critical, even scientific, thinking.


Again, I remain skeptical.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

I find myself revisiting and wondering what was the real intent of your post here?

The real intent of my post was to show what is meant by hint and deny semantics. If you don't see that, then you don't. Not everything is a covert, personal attack on your character A.DIM, you're not that important.


I'm sorry, V-GER, but I feel like it was a cut and paste attack on my character

You and Outcast might as well stop the -attack on my character-accusations, you're not going to get anyone banned.


Am I wrong?

Yes you are.

[N C More]

Again, I remain skeptical.

Well, skeptical is always good. However, a great deal of science deals with probability. It's just far, far more probable that Cydonia is of geological origin. Hey, I'd like to see some geologists put "boots on the ground" at Cydonia as well. I'm very, very doubtful that they would find ruins of some ancient alien city, though. We know that geological activity can result in some pretty interesting formations...we do not know that aliens have ever built cities on Mars (or anywhere else for that matter).

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:

I find myself revisiting and wondering what was the real intent of your post here?

The real intent of my post was to show what is meant by hint and deny semantics. If you don't see that, then you don't. Not everything is a covert, personal attack on your character A.DIM, you're not that important.

Indeed, and yet I find you picking, choosing, and reordering my words in an attempt to make some point about "what is meant" by accusations concerning my "methods."
And I don't think it was very covert, rather, it was a blatant disregard for a perfectly clear statement of my position on the issue.
But you're not alone; my "methods," not Fleming's arguments, have been the focus of several posters' imput here.
Anyone having read the OP will recognize this.



I'm sorry, V-GER, but I feel like it was a cut and paste attack on my character

You and Outcast might as well stop the -attack on my character-accusations, you're not going to get anyone banned.

I'd rather not see anyone get banned.

You post how you see fit, V-GER, but I'm rather certain that history shows I attack no one.


Am I wrong?

Yes you are.[/quote]

On some things, yes, but on this?
I'm skeptical.

[R.A.F.]

Actually, A.DIM, I wanted you to address the following...so I'll post it again...



..."skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

Biased opinions??? And just who has these "biased opinions". Those who (after looking at the HIRES images) have determined that there is no reason to assume that the "face" is anything other than a "pile of rocks", or those who (ignoring the HIRES images, and with NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER) have determined that what they are looking at "somehow" indicates artificiality???

...and I'll repeat...just who has biased opinions??

[algorithms]

Actually all opinions are "biased" in some way or another. The question is whether or not those biases are derived from facts or fantasy.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

Indeed, and yet I find you picking, choosing, and reordering my words in an attempt to make some point about "what is meant" by accusations concerning my "methods."

Great, now I'm picking and choosing. Perhaps I am but not in a way that
I have left out anything that would contradict what I had quoted. You make it sound like I was making up your quotes.

As for reordering your words? You can't be serious. Please give example,
this is quite a serious charge. I too, remain skeptical.

[Superluminal]

I think that for the average man on the street, Mars is turning out to be a pretty boring place. If NASA had any evidence of artificiality, they would at least release it to the public slowly to get the people interested again. Also, think of what would happen if NASA went to congress waving the Face of Mars around, and demanding billion of $ for a special mission. The mission arrives and finds a pile of rocks.

When I first read "Monuments of Mars", back when it first came out, I wanted to believe. I believe most of the people on this BB would like it if intellegent life were found on Mars. But the evidence just isn't there.

[PhantomWolf]

The silly thing however is the idea that NASA would actually cover up such things. Most scientists would be over the moon (if you'll forgive the pun) to prove the existance of alien intelligence. NASA's budget would suddenly soar if they could show some evidence of artifical structure on Mars. They could get the budget to put a geological (areological?) team on the surface within the decade rather then perhaps getting one in another 20+ years. Even if they thought there was a possiblility a of something artifical they could get the entire programme fully funded and going at top speed. Hiding the evidence would be dumbest thing of all time to do because at the moment the only ones that actually care about Mars are the scientists. One of the only ways to really get the public interested is to have something like sending a team to study what seemed like an artifical structure, but since they haven't found anything, they can't.

[V-GER]

Phantom wolf wrote:

Hiding the evidence would be dumbest thing of all time to do because at the moment the only ones that actually care about Mars are the scientists.

Exactly, and whatever they would be hiding would eventually be exposed.
So what would be the point?

[N C More]

Phantom wolf wrote:

Hiding the evidence would be dumbest thing of all time to do because at the moment the only ones that actually care about Mars are the scientists.

Exactly, and whatever they would be hiding would eventually be exposed.
So what would be the point?

Well, it depends upon how you look at things. *Puts on conspiracy mode, places tin foil beanie on head* If one is to believe the conspiracy theorists, "they" want to keep the population in the dark about ET because there has been some sort of cosmic "sell out" of humanity to the aliens by the people in power. If everyone actually "knew" about this, humanity would revolt against the "shadow government" exposing the whole conspiracy! So, any evidence of ET must be suppressed at all cost.

Now, this is what I've been told, not saying that it makes any sense, mind you. This is just what I've gleaned from a few trips to sites with a more "creative" ambiance.

[PhantomWolf]

Well I must admit that wasn't one I have heard. Usually it's that they re trying to get their budgets extended by pushing for more probes etc. I'd say that isn't working becuse they're having to cancel probes due to budget cuts. Perhaps they need to "find" something suspious. ;)

[V-GER]

N C More wrote:
Well, it depends upon how you look at things. *Puts on conspiracy mode, places tin foil beanie on head* If one is to believe the conspiracy theorists, "they" want to keep the population in the dark about ET because there has been some sort of cosmic "sell out" of humanity to the aliens by the people in power. If everyone actually "knew" about this, humanity would revolt against the "shadow government" exposing the whole conspiracy! So, any evidence of ET must be suppressed at all cost.

Now, this is what I've been told, not saying that it makes any sense, mind you. This is just what I've gleaned from a few trips to sites with a more "creative" ambiance.

Mulder was right! :P

[N C More]

Mulder was right! :P

Oh My Gosh! :o That is the premise for the X-Files!

Which leads us to the burning question; Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? 8-[

[V-GER]

N C More wrote:

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?

Since TPTB control both, I'd guess art imitates life... :-k

[Outcast]

You and Outcast might as well stop the -attack on my character-accusations, you're not going to get anyone banned.

excuse me? i do not give a damn if you get banned or not. untill mr. Plait say that im not entitled to defend myself from frankly misleading false accusations and obvious attempts at character assassination like the one you did below i'll call you and anyone else on their bunk.


Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical

by the way, hows the effort going of providing evidence for such a serious accusation?

[Outcast]

Excellent post, Outcast, your points are most valid.

Although, I'm sorry it always comes to this; Twice now, Archer felt the need to chime in on posts addressed to others in order to make some point about how the "shoe fits." You know, pointing out all our "rhetoric," "cherry picking," "shoehorning" "tricks" and whatever else?
He's quite good at it.


We "woowoos," we're all alike. :wink:

thank you A.dim.

and you're right in pointing out the fact that eleven pages later no one has yet addressed Fleming's arguments nor aknowlledged that the "cat box face" image was indeed a rushed out debunking job with no credibility.

such a lack of scientific objectivity...

[R.A.F.]

You and Outcast might as well stop the -attack on my character-accusations, you're not going to get anyone banned.

excuse me? i do not give a damn if you get banned or not. untill mr. Plait say that im not entitled to defend myself from frankly misleading false accusations and obvious attempts at character assassination like the one you did below i'll call you and anyone else on their bunk.


Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical

by the way, hows the effort going of providing evidence for such a serious accusation?


As others have pointed out, you seem to be cherry-picking your NASA statements, A.DIM. That's a big no-no.

So A.DIM "cherry picks" but you don't. Is that what you're trying to say?


...nor aknowlledged that the "cat box face" image was indeed a rushed out debunking job with no credibility.

The "cat box face" is irrelevant. There exist higher resolution images which show the area BETTER than the "cat box" image, yet by your own words you "choose" to ignore the HIRES images...

...and that's a perfect example of "cherry picking" evidence, OUTCAST...

Talk about having "no credibility". [-X

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

...obvious attempts at character assassination like the one you did below

There you go again, accusing others of attacking your character.
And if by -character assassination attempts below- you meant this?:


Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical

it was not made by me so I've no idea what evidence of what accusations
you expect me to provide...

Outcast wrote:

eleven pages later no one has yet addressed Fleming's arguments


Ok, I'll play: THEY'RE RUBBISH!!!!


nor aknowlledged that the "cat box face" image was indeed a rushed out debunking job with no credibility.

How could we acknowledge something we don't agree upon? Unless of course you expect others to accept your opinion as de facto truth. =;

[A.DIM]

#-o

Oh man... I was finished here, but it is something like this...





You and Outcast might as well stop the -attack on my character-accusations, you're not going to get anyone banned.

excuse me? i do not give a damn if you get banned or not. untill mr. Plait say that im not entitled to defend myself from frankly misleading false accusations and obvious attempts at character assassination like the one you did below i'll call you and anyone else on their bunk.


Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical

by the way, hows the effort going of providing evidence for such a serious accusation?


As others have pointed out, you seem to be cherry-picking your NASA statements, A.DIM. That's a big no-no.

So A.DIM "cherry picks" but you don't. Is that what you're trying to say?

.... that frustrates me so.

RAF, the BA asked me "so which is it?" at the end of his statement "quoted" above. Why leave that out?

First, I don't think Phil is convinced that I've done what others have "pointed out." Careful reading of this thread, keeping the OP in mind, shows it to be an attack on a person or persons rather than the topic or issues regarding Fleming's arguments.
I'm awaiting his reply.

Second, did you "choose" to leave that few words out in order to "appeal to authority" in some way? As if the BA matter of factly is stating that I "pick & choose?"
Is that what you're trying to say?
IIRC, I've seen you make similar statements and that's why I ask.


RAF, I chose to start this thread regarding the "catbox."
I picked Fleming's arguments as reasonably agreeable.
I've no doubt that in your mind I was wrong from the start; after all, you were one of the first in line, railing against the "hoaglands" of the world.

Sorry, but I perceive your posts in this matter as wholly subjective opinions tossed around as Fact.
I'll agree the HIRES images are better, but I disagree that they "proved" it to be of natural origin, as you suggest.

I still think NASA has acted peculiarly regarding Cydonia and "the face," whether through incompetence, mistake or whatever, and no one here has profered anything to convince me otherwise.

No matter, I'm finished for awhile.

[R.A.F.]

No matter, I'm finished for awhile.

...and you still haven't answered this post...



..."skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

Biased opinions??? And just who has these "biased opinions"? Those who (after looking at the HIRES images) have determined that there is no reason to assume that the "face" is anything other than a "pile of rocks", or those who (ignoring the HIRES images, and with NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER) have determined that what they are looking at "somehow" indicates artificiality???

This will be the 3rd time I've asked this...your lack of response speaks volumes...

So go ahead, A.DIM, go away "for awhile"...take your time...I'll still be here asking the same question...:)

[N C More]

While we're on the subject of unanswered questions...How about mine back here? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=505404#505404)

Why can't the face (and the rest of Cydonia as well) be considered to be of geological origin? In other words, what makes geological origin not possible as a cause for these formations? I'm waiting as well.

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:

...obvious attempts at character assassination like the one you did below

There you go again, accusing others of attacking your character.
And if by -character assassination attempts below- you meant this?:


Dredging up (cherry-picking) citations from NASA, an agency that you and A.DIM frequently cast doubt on, doesn't make sense and makes you come across as hypocritical

it was not made by me so I've no idea what evidence of what accusations
you expect me to provide...


you're absolutely right, that was Archer's comment. sorry about that, its the problem of having ones mind set up on work and then trying to find the time for a quick reply.



Outcast wrote:

eleven pages later no one has yet addressed Fleming's arguments


Ok, I'll play: THEY'RE RUBBISH!!!!


have you double checked Flemmings work? can you prove that the JPL folks did use the correct mola data? can you prove that they didnt botch up the face photo by the indiscriminate and reckless use of unnecessary high pass filtering and distortion? can you prove that Flemmings assertions are incorrect? untill you do, your opinion on this counts next to nothing.




nor aknowlledged that the "cat box face" image was indeed a rushed out debunking job with no credibility.

How could we acknowledge something we don't agree upon? Unless of course you expect others to accept your opinion as de facto truth. =;

no i dont expect anyone to take my opinions as truth, that is a highly distorted interpretation of my words. you dont even need to agree with the idea of artificiality in Cydonia to recognize that the "cat box face" is a filtered, highly distorted image with no argumentative or scientific value.

the reason for the presentation of that image and the false mola data as "proof" that the face could not possibly be a face is in my opinion an obvious rushed debunking effort. you might disagree with my conclusion but if you cannot see the obvious distortion of the data then you're not being objective.

[Outcast]

While we're on the subject of unanswered questions...How about mine back here? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=505404#505404)

Why can't the face (and the rest of Cydonia as well) be considered to be of geological origin? In other words, what makes geological origin not possible as a cause for these formations? I'm waiting as well.

if you allow me to give an answer to that.

i have to say that despite some formations appearing symmetrical and the presence of other anomalies at Cydonia (for example: geologist Dr. Terry Martin questioned the strangeness of how some "boulders" ended up on top of the face and other formations in the JPL conference, which by itself was a strange comment) i find no absolute reason why the whole place cannot be of geological origin. there are even those that while defending the artificiality hypothisis also believe that the area might have been transformed from previous natural features and later returned to a somewhat ambiguous shape due to erosion, this is also a position i could skepticaly support.

yes, the face can be considered of geological origin, its symmetrical base can be considered to have been created by erosional elements. i've read before that apparently that area was an ancient sea bed and there appears to be some evidence that the Cydonia "city" is based in a shore line, but im not sure about this info.

now, i must say that, in my opinion, this is not the problem with this issue. i see a problem when those that speculate over possible anomalies on an unknown, extraterrestrial area are greeted with false matter of factly assertions that there cannot be artificiality plainly because of the geological element. sorry, to me that remains a highly subjective and unobjective view of this question.

some years ago i found this just to the west of the face. i dont know if there are recent images from this area that clearly show what it is but to me it still remains an odd thing with nothing resembling it for several miles in every direction (that i remember). i present this image as just another of those unreferenced anomalies i cited (i can try my old links and try to show you some more, if so desired):

http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/mars/ufo.jpg

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

can you prove that the JPL folks did use the correct mola data? can you prove that they didnt botch up the face photo by the indiscriminate and reckless use of unnecessary high pass filtering and distortion? can you prove that Flemmings assertions are incorrect? untill you do, your opinion on this counts next to nothing.

You see, this is what's wrong here. It's not me that needs to prove these things. It's the same as if I claimed the earth was flat and when you would object, I'd ask you to prove me wrong, for instance: "have you walked aroung it?" And as for my opinion counting next to nothing? all I can say is that your arrogance has no comparison.


no i dont expect anyone to take my opinions as truth, that is a highly distorted interpretation of my words. you dont even need to agree with the idea of artificiality in Cydonia to recognize that the "cat box face" is a filtered, highly distorted image with no argumentative or scientific value.

This just gets worse doesn't it? I suppose Fleming's just bursting with scientic value?


As for the mystery image, I'd say it's nothing more than a crater and as such, not very unique as far as formations go.... see here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/glassworm.html) (the part about dome vs. crater)


and A.DIM, please go right ahead and take five but I'm still waiting
for you to point out where I reordered your words.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

First, I don't think Phil is convinced that I've done what others have "pointed out." Careful reading of this thread, keeping the OP in mind, shows it to be an attack on a person or persons rather than the topic or issues regarding Fleming's arguments.
I'm awaiting his reply.

Just how can you cope with all these attacks on your character?!? ](*,)

[A.DIM]

No matter, I'm finished for awhile.

...and you still haven't answered this post...



..."skeptics" continue to make matter-of-fact statements that the most recent images have "proven" it to be a mere "pile o rocks."

I disagree with such biased opinions in the name of "debunkery."

Biased opinions??? And just who has these "biased opinions"? Those who (after looking at the HIRES images) have determined that there is no reason to assume that the "face" is anything other than a "pile of rocks", or those who (ignoring the HIRES images, and with NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER) have determined that what they are looking at "somehow" indicates artificiality???

This will be the 3rd time I've asked this...your lack of response speaks volumes...

So go ahead, A.DIM, go away "for awhile"...take your time...I'll still be here asking the same question...:)

RAF, do you not read most of what I post?
It seems once again you've overlooked relevant points or statements made in order to remark something like "speaks volumes."

I'll reiterate: "Sorry, but I perceive your posts in this matter as wholly subjective opinions tossed around as Fact.
I'll agree the HIRES images are better, but I disagree that they "proved" it to be of natural origin, as you suggest."
(my bold)

Does this not answer you question?

Good, because I'd like to see your explanation for why you chose to quote the BA in such fashion before, and then me again here, picking parts of posts to make some remark while in turn ignoring various questions posed, points made or answers given.

I'll suggest then, that your apparent lack of careful reading here has lead you to "asking the same question;" this too, "speaks volumes."

[A.DIM]

While we're on the subject of unanswered questions...How about mine back here? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=505404#505404)

Why can't the face (and the rest of Cydonia as well) be considered to be of geological origin? In other words, what makes geological origin not possible as a cause for these formations? I'm waiting as well.

I've never said it couldn't be of geological origin, NC More.
That's very possible.
I've just not seen anything terrestrial, naturally occuring, that looks like "the face." Nor have I seen anything like the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium or even the D&M pyramid.
It remains unproven either way in my mind.

[A.DIM]

...
and A.DIM, please go right ahead and take five but I'm still waiting
for you to point out where I reordered your words.

V-GER your "hint & deny" post showed a blatant disregard for what I stated in the OP; a snippet from one post and then a snippet from another, in such an order, to show me and others "what was meant" by someone else's post?

Harrumph!



And you'd have me accept your "IT'S RUBBISH!" explanation to Fleming's arguments?

The guy is an engineer who worked with NASA's JSC, V-GER.
Unless you can show me that Fleming is out to "sell books" or reap personal gain by "smearing NASA," I'll remain much more inclined to accept his arguments than such "rubbish" of yours.


I do believe we're finished here.

Until next time....

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

Nor have I seen anything like the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium or even the D&M pyramid.

Just by calling them pyramids instead of say pyramid-like, you suggest artificiality.


V-GER your "hint & deny" post showed a blatant disregard for what I stated in the OP; a snippet from one post and then a snippet from another, in such an order, to show me and others "what was meant" by someone else's post?

Harrumph!

Harrumph to you too, and yet, you fail to show me where I reordered your
words. And there was nothing wrong with the order of my quotes. They clearly show where you hint artificiality and then deny it.


The guy is an engineer who worked with NASA's JSC, V-GER.

That must have been during one of their peculiar behaviour periods.

Once again you pick and choose when to use Nasa as a validator to your position.

[N C More]

While we're on the subject of unanswered questions...How about mine back here? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=505404#505404)

Why can't the face (and the rest of Cydonia as well) be considered to be of geological origin? In other words, what makes geological origin not possible as a cause for these formations? I'm waiting as well.

I've never said it couldn't be of geological origin, NC More.
That's very possible.
I've just not seen anything terrestrial, naturally occuring, that looks like "the face." Nor have I seen anything like the tetrahedral pyramids of Elysium or even the D&M pyramid.

Ok, so it's possible that what we see at Cydonia could be of geological origin but it doesn't look exactly like what we see on Earth. Does this basically sum up your reasoning?

Now, contrary to some people's opinions, science isn't about what we want to think but rather about probability and evidence. Mars isn't Earth and therefore probably has some unique geology, this is very likely to be true. However, the geological explanation for Cydonia isn't really that much of a stretch and I don't see that vast numbers of geologists are questioning this explanation.

The hypothesis that these formations are artificial structures built by some alien race is far less probable and I can see very little evidence for the support of this hypothesis. Frankly, I'd find it far (very far) more interesting if there was really good evidence for the claims of artificiality. Actually, I think that the vast majority of scientists would be ecstatic if the evidence was leading toward artificiality. Once again, it isn't about what we want but rather about probability and evidence.

[N C More]

now, i must say that, in my opinion, this is not the problem with this issue. i see a problem when those that speculate over possible anomalies on an unknown, extraterrestrial area are greeted with false matter of factly assertions that there cannot be artificiality plainly because of the geological element. sorry, to me that remains a highly subjective and unobjective view of this question...

We already know that geological forces can cause interesting formations. We do not know if there ever were races of ETs who built structures on Mars. The probability factor just isn't in favor of artificial origin. Add this to the glaring lack of physical evidence (*creative math* just doesn't cut it) and the most objective point of view on this issue actually is that we're looking at geological formations.

[Archer17]

I see things haven't changed too much since I've been away. :wink: Anyway, in response to some posts aimed in my direction (I'll break it up into two posts):
So the Cydonia issue is "dead" in your mind?Yes.
To me, it remains as one of the most geologically interesting places on that planet; regardless of your Sitchin associations.I'm not the one that constantly espouses that quack. I bring up Sitchin here (he promotes Martian artificiality among other things, does he not?) to allow those readers unfamiliar with your belief-system to have a feel for why you think the way you do. It does explain a lot.
And so instead of addressing what Fleming says, you made your Sitchin associations and spent time pointing out my "tricks."
That strikes me as a sort of ad hominem. You know, attacking the person rather than the issue?I point out the flaws in your shtick A.DIM. Fleming isn't here and if you invoke him and do the 'innuendo thing,' you'll face the music.
What I did, Archer, and you know it, is say that Fleming's arguments are well reasoned and lend validity to the idea that NASA's own behavior toward the subject has perpetuated the conspiracy theories. I readily admitted that I allow the ETH, but in no way do I think artificiality is proven. I asked if I'm wrong to agree.
And what did I get?..heh .. explaining what you really mean again? Like I said before, if you stopped the games you wouldn't need to explain yourself ad infinitum.
..Need a hint? I know exactly what you are doing here A.DIM and another hint is probably the last thing we need from you.
What is your take on the Fleming's argument?I don't believe that NASA is engaged in subterfuge regarding artificiality on Mars and Fleming's name is used by those that either outright support or "lend validity" to such subterfuge... suppressedscience.net and you being two examples. It all comes down to: either NASA is "hiding" something or they are not. I don't believe they are. End of story.
You mentioned that it is only an issue within "woowoo cirlces," no?
Are you suggesting that yet another scientist associated with NASA has gone "woowoo?"I'm glad you posted this A.DIM. I've addressed your posting tactics in the past and this one snippet perfectly illustrates much of what I'm talking about. Let's start with "yet another scientist" (bolding mine). Are you implying that there's some kind of exodus involving scientists "gone woo woo?" I wonder. :wink: You trawl the internet looking for things like this Fleming citation (net-mining), use a "scientist associated with NASA" (appeal to authority) to hide behind while making your own innuendos, and then attempt to twist my meaning of "woo woo" out of context (semantical games). Regarding "woo woo," many people have woo woo beliefs of one kind or another, but it's not an either/or proposition. Heiser is an example. His beliefs doesn't negate everything the man contributed and things are not as black and white as you imply by simply saying someone has "gone woo woo." Fleming's thoughts on this issue is woo if he's shoveling NASA subterfuge as is your thoughts on Sitchin (I'm still not sure where you stand with this Cydonia issue since you constantly deny your own innuendos). That's not to say I think everything you and Mr. Fleming believe in is necessarily woo. See the distinction between my meaning and yours?
..Although, I'm sorry it always comes to this; Twice now, Archer felt the need to chime in on posts addressed to others in order to make some point about how the "shoe fits." You know, pointing out all our "rhetoric," "cherry picking," "shoehorning" "tricks" and whatever else?
He's quite good at it.Thank you, I couldn't do it without your help A.DIM. :wink:
We "woowoos," we're all alike. :wink: :roll:

Edited once to remove a double-word.

[Archer17]

..excuse me? theres no rethoric here. do you understand why i put "experts" in quotes? because i do not see any experts here and i've seen no geological explanation for those features. i've seen a Nasa geologist though, who contrary to ALL of you has studied the area, speaking about a formation which he cant readily explain. but those uncertainties from Nasa's own specialists hasnt stop the "skeptics" from claming that "we know for certain".That bothers you huh? We should all walk around in a fog of "suspended judgement" about something that's been shown not to be an artificial construct, eh? Not me.
i know more about Mars than i really cared to know. i spent at least a couple of years dredging up pictures at the JPL online archives in search of "artificiality". besides i dont think the story has ended. i reserve my judgement on this issue because i've seen other interesting places on Mars that hint at artificiality."Hint?" Don't you mean "lends validity?" :wink:
where's the cherry picking? that is just silly. besides i certainly would like for you to show me where are those "frequent" doubts that i cast on Nasa, untill then i'll just take that as an attempt at character assassination. from what i remember i believe this is the first time im discussing Cydonia around here, so lets see who is really hypocritical.
besides that was not a quote, it was all that the Nasa geologist had to say about that particular formation.Where's the cherry-picking? #-o Want some photographic evidence of cherry-picking Outcast? How does you posting the '76 Viking image when there were others of better resolution available grab ya? Regarding "character assasination," remember this? (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502647&sid=9ad026fd11e26fa6a6984c8 1e0e814b6#502647) I also don't see why this being the "first time" you discussed Cydonia has anything to do with anything.
like if that little comment about me casting doubts on Nasa you posted above wanst a crude attempt at attacking a member. do you realize im also a member here, hummm? besides, i defend my opinions while stating that they are my opinions, the pseudo "experts" i was refering to defend their opinions while stating them as fact. do you understand the difference?I don't think you'll get anywhere with that lame "character assasination" stuff Outcast. If I wanted to attack your character, you'd know it. I do attack your ideas, innuendos, and implications and the manner in which you attempt to certify them and will continue to do so. I also understand the real difference between opinion and fact and don't even need to use rhetorical words like "pseudo" when I say that the difference between you and me is that I'm not afraid to believe in and state my opinions as fact when it comes down to things like woo woo innuendos of Martian artificiality and NASA subterfuge.
you know whats rethoric? rethoric is going around in circles (throwing ad hominen and strawmen around) and failing to tackle the issues. A.dim was right in bringing this question to the table, whether you like it or not the responsibles for the Mars imaging project were not forthright in a number of issues. :-k Casting doubt on NASA Outcast? I thought you didn't do that. BTW, what issues didn't I tackle? I don't agree with Fleming nor subscribe to the "NASA lies" and lame "to-scale" symmetry provided by you and A.DIM and have addressed the semantical games. Did I leave anything out?
deal with it:
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htmheh .. V-GER stole my thunder here. Is this an example of "non-silly" cherry-picking/net-mining Outcast?

[Archer17]

now, i must say that, in my opinion, this is not the problem with this issue. i see a problem when those that speculate over possible anomalies on an unknown, extraterrestrial area are greeted with false matter of factly assertions that there cannot be artificiality plainly because of the geological element. sorry, to me that remains a highly subjective and unobjective view of this question...

We already know that geological forces can cause interesting formations. We do not know if there ever were races of ETs who built structures on Mars. The probability factor just isn't in favor of artificial origin. Add this to the glaring lack of physical evidence (*creative math* just doesn't cut it) and the most objective point of view on this issue actually is that we're looking at geological formations.Well put. I'd like to add that those that hint at NASA shenanigans overlook the fact that Martian exploration isn't confined to U.S. initiatives alone. NASA and/or the PTB wouldn't be doing themselves any favors with a cover up campaign that would ultimately be exposed by foreign space agencies anyway.

The simple fact of the matter is one will always find "anomalies" when poring over images of any terrain long enough, and while not all of them can be explained at the drop of a hat, this is due more to insufficient data than anything else. We've had past posters point out such "anomalies" on the lunar surface and most with even a passing interest in astronomy are familiar with the bizarre-looking moon Iapetus .. but just because something looks peculiar, does that mean we have to "suspend judgment" regarding it's potential artificiality? Why would we? It's not like ET is known to have had a presence in our solar system, let alone in the vicinity of those "anomalies." To dismiss natural causes to the degree in which one is expected to "suspend judgment" when, as N C More pointed out, "We already know that geological forces can cause interesting formations," coupled with the fact that there's no evidence of an ET presence anywhere, is not an example of "objective thinking." Quite the opposite in fact.

[Outcast]

..excuse me? theres no rethoric here. do you understand why i put "experts" in quotes? because i do not see any experts here and i've seen no geological explanation for those features. i've seen a Nasa geologist though, who contrary to ALL of you has studied the area, speaking about a formation which he cant readily explain. but those uncertainties from Nasa's own specialists hasnt stop the "skeptics" from claming that "we know for certain".That bothers you huh? We should all walk around in a fog of "suspended judgement" about something that's been shown not to be an artificial construct, eh? Not me.

what bothers me is people throwing opinion as fact. besides, the artificial hypothesis can only really be put to rest when investigations are done on the ground. remote sensing is a great tool for scoping possible artificial elements from a high altitude, but only the archeological work on the ground can prove it either way.



i know more about Mars than i really cared to know. i spent at least a couple of years dredging up pictures at the JPL online archives in search of "artificiality". besides i dont think the story has ended. i reserve my judgement on this issue because i've seen other interesting places on Mars that hint at artificiality."Hint?" Don't you mean "lends validity?"

no, i mean sugests artificiality.



where's the cherry picking? that is just silly. besides i certainly would like for you to show me where are those "frequent" doubts that i cast on Nasa, untill then i'll just take that as an attempt at character assassination. from what i remember i believe this is the first time im discussing Cydonia around here, so lets see who is really hypocritical.
besides that was not a quote, it was all that the Nasa geologist had to say about that particular formation.Where's the cherry-picking? #-o Want some photographic evidence of cherry-picking Outcast?

no, i want YOU to show me where are those FREQUENT doubts that i cast on NASA. let me help you though: there are none, there never were and the sole purpose of your post was to cast doubt on my person.


How does you posting the '76 Viking image when there were others of better resolution available grab ya?

??

here's a reminder of what i posted:


do i think they're artificial? not really. i personaly found a couple of formations in Mars images that look similar to the face and there are other mountainous formations that look pyramidal in other places. allthough i've never seen a place where all of these strange erosion patterns fell all in the same place and at so close distance to eachother. still, doesnt mean they're artificial, but it gives one a pause for thought.

now i'll tell you what bothers me with all of this debunking nonsense, is that anyone can and should be skeptical of a claim of hundreds of meters high and wide artificial structures in another planet, but that is no reason to withhold data from enquiry and study, distort information, appeal to ridicule and/or authority, publish unscientific opinionated based rebuttals, pretend that geometrical and symmetrical patterns even if naturaly occuring are not there, and a host of other nonsense.

then i posted the image as a reminder of the possibilities. its still a great looking image but apparently you've grown a distaste for it (??). i hope you realize that that is your own personal problem. if this is suposed to be an example of my cherry picking then its just way too nonsensical and reckons of an almost freudian interpretation.


Regarding "character assasination," remember this? (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502647&sid=9ad026fd11e26fa6a6984c8 1e0e814b6#502647)

so apparently you object to my use of the word "clue"? maybe if i changed it to "doesnt have a comprehensive understanding of the area involved" would be more appealing... sorry, but to me this is just a question of semantics. as far as i know there isnt a clear understanding of the processes involved in the formation of the "face" and what i found particularly interesting is the mentioning of "strangeness" and the idea that the Latitude would be comfortable for the living of a "creature".


I also don't see why this being the "first time" you discussed Cydonia has anything to do with anything.

you dont? i thought that those suposed frequent doubts i cast at NASA, per your own insinuation, would probably be related to such a controversial subject as Cydonia. but you tell me, you're the one making the insinuations.



like if that little comment about me casting doubts on Nasa you posted above wanst a crude attempt at attacking a member. do you realize im also a member here, hummm? besides, i defend my opinions while stating that they are my opinions, the pseudo "experts" i was refering to defend their opinions while stating them as fact. do you understand the difference?I don't think you'll get anywhere with that lame "character assasination" stuff Outcast. If I wanted to attack your character, you'd know it.

you know, lame is accusing people of doing things one has never seen them doing. besides that little remark of yours was an obvious character assassination attempt. untill you drop your accusation and aknowlledge the disingenuousness of your assertion i'll continue to call you on your bunk.


I also understand the real difference between opinion and fact and don't even need to use rhetorical words like "pseudo" when I say that the difference between you and me is that I'm not afraid to believe in and state my opinions as fact when it comes down to things like woo woo innuendos of Martian artificiality and NASA subterfuge.

you do? hardly... look, you just used an innuendo ("woo woo") and rhetorical speech in a sentence that was suposed to imply thats what i do. im not convinced you really know the difference between opinion and fact, but hey, that is just my opinion anyway.



you know whats rethoric? rethoric is going around in circles (throwing ad hominen and strawmen around) and failing to tackle the issues. A.dim was right in bringing this question to the table, whether you like it or not the responsibles for the Mars imaging project were not forthright in a number of issues. :-k Casting doubt on NASA Outcast? I thought you didn't do that.

playing games, are we? here read this again: "the responsibles for the Mars imaging project were not forthright in a number of issues"

this has been shown here:
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm

Fleming's work on this issue presents evidence of misconduct, if you do not "agree" with it then please do show where is his data at fault. flatly stating that you do not "agree" does not constitute evidence that Flemming's data is at fault nor does anyother ad hominen attack like those being thrown his way.

[Outcast]

now, i must say that, in my opinion, this is not the problem with this issue. i see a problem when those that speculate over possible anomalies on an unknown, extraterrestrial area are greeted with false matter of factly assertions that there cannot be artificiality plainly because of the geological element. sorry, to me that remains a highly subjective and unobjective view of this question...

We already know that geological forces can cause interesting formations. We do not know if there ever were races of ETs who built structures on Mars. The probability factor just isn't in favor of artificial origin. Add this to the glaring lack of physical evidence (*creative math* just doesn't cut it) and the most objective point of view on this issue actually is that we're looking at geological formations.Well put. I'd like to add that those that hint at NASA shenanigans overlook the fact that Martian exploration isn't confined to U.S. initiatives alone. NASA and/or the PTB wouldn't be doing themselves any favors with a cover up campaign that would ultimately be exposed by foreign space agencies anyway.

really? so maybe you can point me to the high resolution images of the Cydonia area taken by those other agencies (and i mean a resolution from 5mpp to 1mpp). i'd sure be interested in seeing that area from a different set of lenses.

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:

can you prove that the JPL folks did use the correct mola data? can you prove that they didnt botch up the face photo by the indiscriminate and reckless use of unnecessary high pass filtering and distortion? can you prove that Flemmings assertions are incorrect? untill you do, your opinion on this counts next to nothing.

You see, this is what's wrong here. It's not me that needs to prove these things. It's the same as if I claimed the earth was flat and when you would object, I'd ask you to prove me wrong, for instance: "have you walked aroung it?" And as for my opinion counting next to nothing? all I can say is that your arrogance has no comparison.

excuse me, are you pretending to turn the tables on this issue? i thought that the act of making allegations without presenting any evidence was the trait of the "believers", apparently not. Flemming is the one presenting the evidence in case you didnt notice, i happen to agree with him because i've been involved with the search for artificiality on Mars and the whole controversy from the start. besides that, i've seen noone proving that his data is at fault.


This just gets worse doesn't it? I suppose Fleming's just bursting with scientic value?

he IS a scientist in charge of scientific work, didnt you know? is that insinuation supposed to be a personal attack? can you prove that Flemming's work is at fault with anything else besides insinuations?

[Archer17]

Outcast - We can engage in our mutual admiration ad nauseum but there's no benefit to it. I will continue to address your posts when I feel you are misrepresenting the facts and innuendos of personal attacks won't help you here.

Regarding my assertion that you cast doubt on NASA, I'll point out the same thing you seemed to ignore in my last post and thanks to you it's even in quotation marks:
..playing games, are we? here read this again: "the responsibles for the Mars imaging project were not forthright in a number of issues"(bolding mine) Can't have it both ways Outcast. I'm not the one playing games.

Regarding Fleming:
Fleming's work on this issue presents evidence of misconduct, if you do not "agree" with it then please do show where is his data at fault. flatly stating that you do not "agree" does not constitute evidence that Flemming's data is at fault nor does anyother ad hominen attack like those being thrown his way. Wow, I go from not addressing the issue to "ad hominem attacks" on Fleming. :roll: Here's the thing Outcast and read this very carefully: I don't agree with Fleming. Since A.DIM saw fit to invoke him, it's up to you or A.DIM to legitimize what he believes. To me citing him is just a lame appeal to authority and since Fleming's not here anyway .. guess what? You and A.DIM got the ball .. Got it? Now either back up what you believe without hiding behind someone else or cut bait. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims or "hints" here.

[Archer17]

now, i must say that, in my opinion, this is not the problem with this issue. i see a problem when those that speculate over possible anomalies on an unknown, extraterrestrial area are greeted with false matter of factly assertions that there cannot be artificiality plainly because of the geological element. sorry, to me that remains a highly subjective and unobjective view of this question...

We already know that geological forces can cause interesting formations. We do not know if there ever were races of ETs who built structures on Mars. The probability factor just isn't in favor of artificial origin. Add this to the glaring lack of physical evidence (*creative math* just doesn't cut it) and the most objective point of view on this issue actually is that we're looking at geological formations.Well put. I'd like to add that those that hint at NASA shenanigans overlook the fact that Martian exploration isn't confined to U.S. initiatives alone. NASA and/or the PTB wouldn't be doing themselves any favors with a cover up campaign that would ultimately be exposed by foreign space agencies anyway.

really? so maybe you can point me to the high resolution images of the Cydonia area taken by those other agencies (and i mean a resolution from 5mpp to 1mpp). i'd sure be interested in seeing that area from a different set of lenses. I think you missed my gist here Outcast. I'll quote and highlight it for you:
NASA and/or the PTB wouldn't be doing themselves any favors with a cover up campaign that would ultimately be exposed by foreign space agencies anyway.What that means Outcast is that such cover-up shenanigans would blow up in our face eventually. Asking me to provide current images from agencies like the ESA doesn't exactly negate my point, you see?

[Archer17]

Outcast wrote:

can you prove that the JPL folks did use the correct mola data? can you prove that they didnt botch up the face photo by the indiscriminate and reckless use of unnecessary high pass filtering and distortion? can you prove that Flemmings assertions are incorrect? untill you do, your opinion on this counts next to nothing.

You see, this is what's wrong here. It's not me that needs to prove these things. It's the same as if I claimed the earth was flat and when you would object, I'd ask you to prove me wrong, for instance: "have you walked aroung it?" And as for my opinion counting next to nothing? all I can say is that your arrogance has no comparison.

excuse me, are you pretending to turn the tables on this issue? i thought that the act of making allegations without presenting any evidence was the trait of the "believers", apparently not. Flemming is the one presenting the evidence in case you didnt notice, i happen to agree with him because i've been involved with the search for artificiality on Mars and the whole controversy from the start. besides that, i've seen noone proving that his data is at fault.


This just gets worse doesn't it? I suppose Fleming's just bursting with scientic value?

he IS a scientist in charge of scientific work, didnt you know? is that insinuation supposed to be a personal attack? can you prove that Flemming's work is at fault with anything else besides insinuations?You missed V-GER's gist as well. The onus is on you and A.DIM to legitimize the opinion of this 'appeal to authority' (Fleming), not the other way around. Trying to shift the burden of proof won't cut it here.

[Maksutov]

C'mon, Archer17, be nice to Outcast and A.DIM.

That's the least you can do for two posters who continue to lose "face" here. :wink:


Meanwhile, keep both barrels blasting away! Antiscience types scurrying for cover are always fun to watch! :D

[N C More]

Meanwhile, keep both barrels blasting away! Antiscience types scurrying for cover are always fun to watch! :D

Now, now, Archer and Mak, I actually do think we need to "be nice". Where does this continual "blasting" really get us? It doesn't seem to be moving the discussion to a more reasonable position. Ok, maybe it's fun to watch but frankly, I'm puzzled beyond belief here.

So, here's my question to Outcast, A.DIM and any other Hoagland "face supporters" around here:

Why do you find the position that Cydonia is the remains of an ET city to be more reasonable than that Cydonia is of geological origin?

Perhaps it's more appealing to think that Cydonia is artificial but that's not my question. I want to know how you all have come to a conclusion that (as far as I can see) just isn't backed up by much of anything definitive? You seem to be intelligent people, capable of understanding exactly what is being said to you, yet you continue to take this position? Puzzles the heck outta me! :-?

[Mellow]

Why do you find the position that Cydonia is the remains of an ET city to be more reasonable than that Cydonia is of geological origin?

You know, that's always been my question. Let's not assume either hypothosis (spelling?) but consider what is more probable....

[R.A.F.]

So, here's my question to Outcast, A.DIM and any other Hoagland "face supporters" around here:

Why do you find the position that Cydonia is the remains of an ET city to be more reasonable than that Cydonia is of geological origin?

I personally believe that both Outcast and A.DIM have been more influenced by this (http://www.sitchin.com/mars.htm) than by any actual objective study they might have undertaken.

Of course, that's just my opinion...

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

i've been involved with the search for artificiality on Mars and the whole controversy from the start

Exactly how have you been involved Outcast? With Enterprise Mission?
I mean anyone with internet access and even the slightest interest in these matters can boast they are involved in the search for martian artificiality.

[Archer17]

Meanwhile, keep both barrels blasting away! Antiscience types scurrying for cover are always fun to watch! :D

Now, now, Archer and Mak, I actually do think we need to "be nice". Where does this continual "blasting" really get us? It doesn't seem to be moving the discussion to a more reasonable position. Ok, maybe it's fun to watch but frankly, I'm puzzled beyond belief here...I have been pretty "nice" despite the games and rhetoric from A.DIM and Outcast here. My POV is simple. There is no real evidence for artificiality on Mars. We all saw the '76 Viking images and it did look like something out of Startgate SG1, but the follow-up images laid that to rest. As far as I'm concerned, "end of story." Now A.DIM and Outcast might be bothered that I (and some others) have "made up our minds" about Cydonia, but that's the way it is and it shouldn't even be an issue. The onus is on them to try to keep this myth alive if that's their take on it. Lecturing me and others on "pseudo-skepticism," or alluding to personal attacks every time they read something they don't like is not going to work here. Nor is obvious appeals to authority where they wave people like Fleming around like a banner. Now both A.DIM and Outcast have conceded that they "allow" the possibility that Cydonia is not artificial, so what's the issue? IMO it's about the "skeptical" mindset exhibited by me and some others who refuse to "suspend judgment" on the issue of Martian artificiality and this resulting ideological sidebar is not even relevant.

This board is an extension of the Bad Astronomy web site, one that is based on addressing astronomical mis-conceptions and to have two of it's members attempt to lecture us on how we should think about something like Martian artificiality just ain't gonna happen. If they want to keep this dead issue alive that's their right .. but if they try to do it here publicly I'll continue to address it, and despite what Outcast and A.DIM believe, their tactics are fair game.

[Wolverine]

Seeing how this thread has progressed makes me even more appreciative of Phil's efforts debunking this sort of nonsense. While I'd love news of artificial structures existing anywhere in our solar system, there's simply zero empirical evidence suggesting any such thing. Any and all possible shoehorning won't change that.

[N C More]

...While I'd love news of artificial structures existing anywhere in our solar system, there's simply zero empirical evidence suggesting any such thing. Any and all possible shoehorning won't change that.

Exactly! We'd all just love it if there was good evidence of artificial structures on Mars. It's disappointing but, *face it*, the "face" is a mesa and the "city" of Cydonia is a result of geological activity as well. Frequently, the truth isn't as entertaining as we'd like it to be. :( Sad but true.

[Gillianren]

okay, I have one question I would like answered re: NASA coverup.

if NASA was going to take the time to cover up the "face," why did they release the initial picture?

note that this is not character assassination. this is not ducking any issues. this is the single most obvious question about the whole controversy. if you cannot provide a logical answer to that question, the rest of your argument falls apart, if, as you claim to be saying, your argument is that NASA is covering things up.

further note that this question does not presuppose artificiality or lack thereof. it's a perfectly straightforward question. if you cannot answer it, the rest of your argument is totally irrelevant.

[Superluminal]

Of course the explanation for that is that NASA released the pictures and claimed "trick of light and shadows". That way when the "truth" eventually trickles out, people will be able to deal with it that way, than if NASA just came out, BAM intellagent life on Mars.

And I think there may be a little bit of logic to that way of thinking. I remember showing the face to a friend in college. I jokingly said, "Hey look what they found on Mars." They really seemed a little freaked, and then relieved when I explained that NASA says its a trick of light and shadow.

[Gillianren]

but that doesn't make sense. "trick of light and shadows," fine, but the first picture looked like a face to everyone. they had to assume it would, especially if it really was a face. Mr. Logic says that a true cover-up would mean never showing the picture, not showing the picture with an explanation. what I want is an explanation of why covering up the "face" would entail releasing its picture at all.

[Superluminal]

Well, since when does anything have to make sense to the woo-woos?

[Gullible Jones]

Okay, I just have to say...

Catbox? What catbox? At high res, it just looks like a very lumpy mesa...

[Nereid]

Okay, I just have to say...

Catbox? What catbox? At high res, it just looks like a very lumpy mesa... =D> =D>
And, after 13 pages, we're still at it! :o

[Laguna]

Okay, I just have to say...

Catbox? What catbox? At high res, it just looks like a very lumpy mesa... =D> =D>
And, after 13 pages, we're still at it! :o
And on Page 125 you will be still on it.

[Gillianren]

Well, since when does anything have to make sense to the woo-woos?

ah, but we're not asking this for the benefit of the woo-woos. if they cannot provide a logical answer to that one question, we should all know enough to no longer waste time on them, because (character assassination approaching) they're beyond help.

[Maksutov]

Okay, I just have to say...

Catbox? What catbox? At high res, it just looks like a very lumpy mesa... =D> =D>
And, after 13 pages, we're still at it! :o
And on Page 125 you will be still on it.
Actually, page 125 is reserved for the reluctant cosmologist, now long gone from here, but probably still jerrymandering somewhere in cyberspace. 8)

[Outcast]

Outcast - We can engage in our mutual admiration ad nauseum but there's no benefit to it. I will continue to address your posts when I feel you are misrepresenting the facts and innuendos of personal attacks won't help you here.

and you should if you feel you should, im not asking for you to agree with me. its obvious we stand on different ground in a lot of subjects. the point is i dont like insinuations and innuendos. a "woowoo" or a "hoagland" thrown into a sentence addressed at my opinions is obviously intended to cast a biased light onto my person. that is desingenious, allthough expectable from self appointed debunkers like yourself. i hope you realize that i'll not let you go by with such low tricks.


Regarding my assertion that you cast doubt on NASA, I'll point out the same thing you seemed to ignore in my last post and thanks to you it's even in quotation marks:

you assertion was that i frequently cast doubts at NASA, which is an interesting accusation since i've never discussed the "face" or anyother NASA issue in this forum. you do realize thats what you said, dont you?
i believe you're so enthralled by your own debunking speech that you dont even realize your use of mischief just to prove yourself right.


Wow, I go from not addressing the issue to "ad hominem attacks" on Fleming.

call it character assassination, because thats exactly what has been happening in here since the first post.


Here's the thing Outcast and read this very carefully: I don't agree with Fleming.

i dont care. if you do not "agree" and do not present the work that contradict Flemming's then its a problem of opinion, if its a problem of opinion then do not state yours as fact.


Since A.DIM saw fit to invoke him, it's up to you or A.DIM to legitimize what he believes.

what Flemming "believes" is expounded in the provided links. Flemming's work and evidence was provided in this thread to legitimize the opening comments, which questioned NASA's behaviour during the Cydonia artificial hypothisis investigation. our work is done, if you do not "agree" then that is your problem and it IS NOT fact. if you want to contradict Flemming then at least do it by showing where is arguments are at loss.


To me citing him is just a lame appeal to authority and since Fleming's not here anyway .. guess what? You and A.DIM got the ball .. Got it?

again, what was "cited" was not opinion, it was work and evidence. got it?
lame is pretending to debunk the available evidence by the misuse of opinionated arguments and nothing else.


Now either back up what you believe without hiding behind someone else or cut bait. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims or "hints" here.

either you dont seem to understand the evidence presented or you're desingeneously trying to divert the question. you ARE making a claim, you claim that Flemming's work and the evidence presented is wrong without backing up your claims. go it?

[Outcast]

As for the mystery image, I'd say it's nothing more than a crater and as such, not very unique as far as formations go.... see here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/glassworm.html) (the part about dome vs. crater)

a crater humm?
apparently it is not a crater, when we realize the direction from which like is coming and compare with other craters in the area, and in my opinion it is quite unique. like i said, this feature is to the west of the face:

http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/mars/face2.jpg

by the way, the above image is from the high resolution THEMIS imager, the face still looks like a face. how about that?

[Outcast]

now, i must say that, in my opinion, this is not the problem with this issue. i see a problem when those that speculate over possible anomalies on an unknown, extraterrestrial area are greeted with false matter of factly assertions that there cannot be artificiality plainly because of the geological element. sorry, to me that remains a highly subjective and unobjective view of this question...

We already know that geological forces can cause interesting formations. We do not know if there ever were races of ETs who built structures on Mars. The probability factor just isn't in favor of artificial origin. Add this to the glaring lack of physical evidence (*creative math* just doesn't cut it) and the most objective point of view on this issue actually is that we're looking at geological formations.Well put. I'd like to add that those that hint at NASA shenanigans overlook the fact that Martian exploration isn't confined to U.S. initiatives alone. NASA and/or the PTB wouldn't be doing themselves any favors with a cover up campaign that would ultimately be exposed by foreign space agencies anyway.

really? so maybe you can point me to the high resolution images of the Cydonia area taken by those other agencies (and i mean a resolution from 5mpp to 1mpp). i'd sure be interested in seeing that area from a different set of lenses. I think you missed my gist here Outcast. I'll quote and highlight it for you:
NASA and/or the PTB wouldn't be doing themselves any favors with a cover up campaign that would ultimately be exposed by foreign space agencies anyway.What that means Outcast is that such cover-up shenanigans would blow up in our face eventually. Asking me to provide current images from agencies like the ESA doesn't exactly negate my point, you see?

good thing that you put that "eventually" in there.
sure, asking for current images from ESA (which obviously is the only candidate available untill now) does not negate your point but i really thought you would present whatever ESA has available. i personaly only know of one ESA image of the Cydonia area but it is not high resolution and they failed to comply with their promise of providing images for that general area:


When will Mars Express HRSC take pictures of the so-called ‘face’ in the Cydonia region?
ESA’s Mars Express orbiter was not in a suitable position to collect images of Cydonia area until late in 2004. Until then, Mars Express could observe closely only southern latitude features. Planetary scientists are interested in Cydonia because it is part of the boundary between highland and lowland areas, and it was planned to map this boundary area during October 2004.
Mars Express did cover this area during orbit 262 but it was not possible to obtain images of high enough quality due to factors such as the swath width at that location, atmospheric distortion and poor resolution. Now, the highland/lowland boundary will be covered in January to February 2005.

now, im not saying there is a conspiracy at work here but they sure are fueling the conspiracy theorists.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

call it character assassination

For the umpteen time...


that is desingenious, allthough expectable from self appointed debunkers like yourself

Hmm, that sounds almost like a personal attack on Archer, Outcast. :-k


the point is i dont like insinuations and innuendos

Yet you go on and say things like this:


now, im not saying there is a conspiracy at work here but they sure are fueling the conspiracy theorists.

As for the "face", again...:


by the way, the above image is from the high resolution THEMIS imager, the face still looks like a face. how about that?

Do you have a link? I went through all 864 themis images I could find on Nasa's web site and found only these mentions of the "face":

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA04100

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03905

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03768

Besides, why would you bring up the "face" again, since you yourself said that you didn't really believe it was artificial?

And if that mystery formation of yours isn't a crater, maybe it's a hill. What ever the case, it doesn't look artificial to me at all.

[jt-3d]

Dude, it's been 'enhanced'. Odd that said enhancment also added black dots for eyes and a mouth when clearly none exist in the original (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA03768_modest.jpg).

[Laser Jock]

Imagine if we found something like this (http://home.earthlink.net/~colorado_hiking3/West_Spanish_Pk/aDscf02.jpg) on Mars. It would surely be thought to be an ancient wall for a city or something. Of course it is all a natural rock formation. I've seen this feature first-hand. It's impressive, but clearly natural. Another picture (http://home.earthlink.net/~colorado_hiking3/West_Spanish_Pk/aDscf03.jpg); there are several in the area. A third picture. (http://home.earthlink.net/~colorado_hiking3/West_Spanish_Pk/aDscf01.jpg) Link to all pictures and explanation. (http://home.earthlink.net/~colorado_hiking3/West_Spanish_Pk/West_Spanish_Pk.htm)

[N C More]

I've come to the conclusion that all this is *more* than just a discussion of an interesting feature on Mars. It seems to me to be:

1) A conflict involving personalities on this bulletin board.

2) Questions regarding the truthful or deceptive nature of NASA.

3) A general defense for Mr. Hoagland's ideas about Mars.

Just my opinion, this all seems to be a bit more than simply debate about a unique Martian land form. Perhaps this is why we can't seem to get anywhere with the discussion?

[Archer17]

its obvious we stand on different ground in a lot of subjects. the point is i dont like insinuations and innuendos. a "woowoo" or a "hoagland" thrown into a sentence addressed at my opinions is obviously intended to cast a biased light onto my person. that is desingenious, allthough expectable from self appointed debunkers like yourself. i hope you realize that i'll not let you go by with such low tricks.Balderdash. I attack your spiel regarding Mars and NASA and if the subject of Cydonia comes up, "woo woo" and Hoagland are relevant. Attempting to constantly morph my posts into an attack on you instead of making a better case for your opinion is what this thread has degenerated into.
you assertion was that i frequently cast doubts at NASA, which is an interesting accusation since i've never discussed the "face" or anyother NASA issue in this forum. you do realize thats what you said, dont you?
i believe you're so enthralled by your own debunking speech that you dont even realize your use of mischief just to prove yourself right.You do frequently cast doubts on NASA and other facets of the "mainstream" Outcast. It's what you do. It's what you need to do. How else could you promote nonsense like artificiality on Mars, flying saucers, the pyramid/ancient astronaut corollary, and Sitchin on this board?
if you do not "agree" and do not present the work that contradict Flemming's then its a problem of opinion, if its a problem of opinion then do not state yours as fact.I'm not "suspending judgement" to prop up your beliefs Outcast. To me my opinion is fact until proven otherwise and it's up to you to make your own case instead of worrying about the degree in which I believe something.
what Flemming "believes" is expounded in the provided links. Flemming's work and evidence was provided in this thread to legitimize the opening comments, which questioned NASA's behaviour during the Cydonia artificial hypothisis investigation. our work is done, if you do not "agree" then that is your problem and it IS NOT fact. if you want to contradict Flemming then at least do it by showing where is arguments are at loss."Our work is done?!?" If digging yourself a hole is what you mean by "work", I'll agree with you. You keep missing the boat here Outcast.. the burden of proof is on you to legitimize what Fleming opines. You also would be better served if you didn't play games. See what I bolded in your quote? So spare me the constant denials about casting doubt on NASA.
again, what was "cited" was not opinion, it was work and evidence. got it?
lame is pretending to debunk the available evidence by the misuse of opinionated arguments and nothing elseBut I don't "get it" Outcast. There is no hard evidence of NASA shenanigans (an implication you continue to deny making), just lame shoe-horning of an appeal to authority (Fleming). "Misuse of opinionated arguements?!?" Is that supposed to make sense?
either you dont seem to understand the evidence presented or you're desingeneously trying to divert the question. you ARE making a claim, you claim that Flemming's work and the evidence presented is wrong without backing up your claims. go it?heh .. no. Shifting the burden of proof won't work Outcast, how many times do I have to say that? Want to know what I "claim?" I claim Cydonia is not artificial, NASA does not engage in hanky-panky, and Fleming's opinion has not been shown to be credible by you or A.DIM after 13 pages. I have a suggestion. Why don't you email Fleming and tell him to pay us a visit? Otherwise this thread will continue to go nowhere.

[Swift]

Good points NC. I would like to throw out one more.

I think part of the problem is that there are actually two different, but very closely related questions. The first is are the face and the other things artifical (yes/no)? The second is if there is enough doubt about the first question to further investigate the question. It seems to me that the one side is answering the first question maybe or unknown and the second question yes, and the other side is answering no and no.

[Nereid]

Good points NC. I would like to throw out one more.

I think part of the problem is that there are actually two different, but very closely related questions. The first is are the face and the other things artifical (yes/no)? The second is if there is enough doubt about the first question to further investigate the question. It seems to me that the one side is answering the first question maybe or unknown and the second question yes, and the other side is answering no and no.
There's more ...

For those in the 'first side', it seems to me the answer to "What is 'artificial'?" is "I really don't have any good criteria, other than gut feel" (I'm not sure 'the other side' has been asked to provide an answer ... I'm probably showing my ignorance though).

To hold a more 'sensible' discussion, why not work on establishing the difference between each side's means (methods, algorithms, criteria, ...) for coming to a Yes/No/maybe answer to that question (in general)?

[Archer17]

Good points NC. I would like to throw out one more.

I think part of the problem is that there are actually two different, but very closely related questions. The first is are the face and the other things artifical (yes/no)? The second is if there is enough doubt about the first question to further investigate the question. It seems to me that the one side is answering the first question maybe or unknown and the second question yes, and the other side is answering no and no.
There's more ...

For those in the 'first side', it seems to me the answer to "What is 'artificial'?" is "I really don't have any good criteria, other than gut feel" (I'm not sure 'the other side' has been asked to provide an answer ... I'm probably showing my ignorance though).

To hold a more 'sensible' discussion, why not work on establishing the difference between each side's means (methods, algorithms, criteria, ...) for coming to a Yes/No/maybe answer to that question (in general)?I base my POV primarily on the photographic evidence taken after the '76 Viking images. If this "discussion" were to occur in say, 1977, I'd be more receptive to "suspending judgment" regarding possible artificiality in the Cydonia region.

I also don't subscribe to the innuendos of NASA hanky-panky and in my first post here I briefly touched on (since expounded by Gillianren) the illogic of NASA releasing the '76 Viking images at all if NASA/PTB were intent on covering up potential artificiality. I later addressed the futility of such a cover-up when one factors in emerging foreign agencies like the ESA conducting their own Mars research. I'd like to think that NASA/PTB wouldn't be naive enough to assume this country would have exclusive hegemony in the field of planetary exploration ad infinitum.

What it boils down to is two different POV and a past history between some posters. The fact of the matter is there can not be satisfactory closure here no matter how many pages this thread expands to. So where do we go from here? Do one of us have to eventually end up "crossing the line" and get banned before the folly of keeping this thread alive with ideological bickering sets in? I've never walked away from a good debate before, but is this a "good debate?" The honest answer is no.

I'm finished here.

[Swift]

There's more ...

For those in the 'first side', it seems to me the answer to "What is 'artificial'?" is "I really don't have any good criteria, other than gut feel" (I'm not sure 'the other side' has been asked to provide an answer ... I'm probably showing my ignorance though).

To hold a more 'sensible' discussion, why not work on establishing the difference between each side's means (methods, algorithms, criteria, ...) for coming to a Yes/No/maybe answer to that question (in general)?
I personally don't think that any amount of photo analysis of pictures from orbit can ever prove that something is artifical. This picture (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/ISS003-ESC-5120_all.jpg) for example shows a NASA photo of the pyramids at Giza from orbit. Ok, you can see some square things, but does that prove they are artifical? As a kid I would find lots of weathered pointy rocks that I would swear were arrowheads. Is the rough shape proof? I would say no to both. The reason we know the pyramids are manmade isn't some photo from orbit, but from tons of evidence at the sites. I could have an archeologist look at one of my pointy rocks under a microscope and look for indications that they were "worked" (scratches, etc.) rather than naturally weathered. So we are stuck about Mars until someone can pay a visit.

IMHO, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, I believe the onus is on those trying to prove an artifical nature of these Martian features and as I said, no amount of photo processing is going to do that for me. If others think that we need to leave it an open question, or would like to petition NASA to make the face the first stop on a visit, I'm not going to convince them otherwise.

(edited to fix link)

[Outcast]

its obvious we stand on different ground in a lot of subjects. the point is i dont like insinuations and innuendos. a "woowoo" or a "hoagland" thrown into a sentence addressed at my opinions is obviously intended to cast a biased light onto my person. that is desingenious, allthough expectable from self appointed debunkers like yourself. i hope you realize that i'll not let you go by with such low tricks.Balderdash. I attack your spiel regarding Mars and NASA and if the subject of Cydonia comes up, "woo woo" and Hoagland are relevant.

actualy, woowoo and Hoagland are just strawmen that you, and others, use to ridicule the subject from the start. plain and simple. if there is any artificial construction, or the possibility for such, on Mars or especificaly in Cydonia, no serious investigator will now touch the subject because of the ridicule factor and peer pressure.
by the way, you do no such thing as attack the "spiel" of anyone, there is no spiel. what you do is continualy attack the persons who have differing opinions while pretending to debunk the whole issue with rethorical speech.


You do frequently cast doubts on NASA and other facets of the "mainstream" Outcast. It's what you do. It's what you need to do. How else could you promote nonsense like artificiality on Mars, flying saucers, the pyramid/ancient astronaut corollary, and Sitchin on this board?

oh, now you're pulling "other facets" of the mainstream that i suposedly also cast doubts upon. and what relevance does that have for this particular discussion? let me answer that: nothing.
by the way, i suggest you spare me your phsycological shenanigans.


I'm not "suspending judgement" to prop up your beliefs Outcast. To me my opinion is fact until proven otherwise and it's up to you to make your own case instead of worrying about the degree in which I believe something.

oh really? your opinion is fact to you. what a shining example of self confidence... i dont think you realize how ridiculous that sounds. good grief.


"Our work is done?!?" If digging yourself a hole is what you mean by "work", I'll agree with you. You keep missing the boat here Outcast.. the burden of proof is on you to legitimize what Fleming opines. You also would be better served if you didn't play games. See what I bolded in your quote? So spare me the constant denials about casting doubt on NASA.

no! you're the one missing the boat. you havent read Flemmings papers, have you? no you havent and you'll never read them. i know that because you made clear that your opinion is fact and your mind is made up. shut close. fine, whatever.

i'll just reiterate what we're dealing with here: the "cat box face" is a clearly filtered and distorted image with no scientific value, yet it was presented as debunking "evidence" number 1, an "unfortunate misstatement" as said by Carl Sagan, but that still doesnt shake the fact a scientific establishment used a clearly doctored image to divert public opinion. Flemming has also presented evidence that Nasa misused Mola data in an effort to reduce the size and shape of the "face" to an insignificant and featureless hill. they did this without providing or referencing the original data sets used for the work. Flemming later proved that the data sets were the wrong ones for the area in question.

these are facts, but facts that you simply dont like. if you keep dodging the relevant issues like that, you'll sooner or later get a distention or something.

[Nereid]

i'll just reiterate what we're dealing with here: the "cat box face"
Pretend I'm from Missouri - would you be kind enough to provide the context of your statement? I mean, where can I find it?
is a clearly filtered and distorted image with no scientific value,
Once we've all got the same thing in front of us, we can then all 'take a look', and I guess it will be very easy for you (or anyone) to show us how it is 'clearly filtered and distorted'.
yet it was presented as debunking "evidence" number 1,
Where? By whom?
Flemming has also presented evidence that Nasa misused Mola data in an effort to reduce the size and shape of the "face" to an insignificant and featureless hill.
What is the size and shape of the "face"? In km please!
these are facts,
Apologies if I missed an earlier presentation of these.

Unless and until we can establish a common basis, how can we have a discussion?

[Laguna]

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
Is this all the "data" provided by Flemming concerning the catbox face?
Or is there more?

Edited to insert second link

[Outcast]

There's more ...

For those in the 'first side', it seems to me the answer to "What is 'artificial'?" is "I really don't have any good criteria, other than gut feel" (I'm not sure 'the other side' has been asked to provide an answer ... I'm probably showing my ignorance though).

To hold a more 'sensible' discussion, why not work on establishing the difference between each side's means (methods, algorithms, criteria, ...) for coming to a Yes/No/maybe answer to that question (in general)?
I personally don't think that any amount of photo analysis of pictures from orbit can ever prove that something is artifical. This picture (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/ISS003-ESC-5120_all.jpg) for example shows a NASA photo of the pyramids at Giza from orbit. Ok, you can see some square things, but does that prove they are artifical?

i agree. there is no way to be 100% sure of artificiality without a visit in person to the place. but do not forget that archeologists do use remote sensing to scope possible artificial areas. of course, the older the area and the features observed, the more difficult it gets to secure the artificiality hypothesis.

now, imagine the following speculative scenario: we have no access to Cairo, we have no knowlledge of artificial constructions in the area and we supose the terrain to be natural formations. someone raises the possibility that at least two of the pyramidal formations are artificial and this causes some raucous in the public opinion, interest is raised but not for studying the geological nature of the area. then the responsibles for the geological survey of the area and the camera itself present the following highpass filtered image and dismiss the whole issue with a trick of light and shadow argument:

http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/mars/cairo_highpass.jpg

it seems to work, allthough some researchers still ask for better resolution images and an unbiased invertigation of the area, the public at large feels confidently that the experts have burried the subject. then a certain Hoagland comes around, a spiffy writer and well parlante, he imaginately draws a series of geometrical lines and connections between random points and ties it all up with an hyperdimensional, highly theoretical and unproven, hypothesis for the presence of those features on that particular place. after all, the "pyramids" are almost dead center in the equator. the experts claim that these arguments mean nothing and the mathematical irrelevancy of apparently random connections is pointed out.

allthough the "pyramids" are still there in the photos and there are even hints at possible connections between the formations, the whole subject fell into the pop culture and distastefull world of the "fringe".
serious investigators retreat from pursuing the matter, even if they recognize the potential, since they cannot convince anyother expert to look into the subject. ridicule is the argument killer. good job!

[Outcast]

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
Is this all the "data" provided by Flemming concerning the catbox face?
Or is there more?

Edited to insert second link

data in "quotes". how revealing.
heres more, if you're really "interested":

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n03/index.shtml
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n01/index.shtml
http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html

[jt-3d]

Let's also imagine that a sopwith camel pilot flies over the pyramids and snaps a grainy, high contrast picture of an interesting feature of some uniform structures. The picture is such low quality that no real determination can be made but R.A.F puts it on the back burner for later study.

Let's say 30 years later the pilot's son flies over the same place in his shiny Saber jet, with 30 year newer camera and snaps another shot of the same area. This time everybody can see that it's just some mountains and Egypt is actually uninhabited. Now most people would just say that's that and forget the whole thing.

However there are a few people who have figured out how to make money from saying that these 'mountains' are really 'pyramids' but by some alien race. Of course his followers will nod sagely thinking that only they few who have bought the book, are the truly enlightened. They would be known as the silly ones and should be ridiculed by the masses until they quit wasting their time with nonsence. It's a mesa. The first picture is, what we photgraphers refer to as, 'sucky'. Give up the old evidence in favor of the new and let's move on.

Speaking of pyramids, did you know that if you scroll down the Nile river, you can see more pyramids....I mean mountains?

the Pharoaha of rock and rolla! (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.976349,31.131735&spn=0.035175,0.057893& t=k&hl=en)

seen it (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cairo&ll=29.800507,31.208124&spn=0.035237,0 .057893&t=k&hl=en)

obvious ripoff of an idea (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cairo&ll=29.872215,31.216471&spn=0.017606,0 .028946&t=k&hl=en)

looks like an oopsy (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.898401,31.200013&spn=0.018527,0.030470& z=2&t=k&hl=en)

zoom in, it's stepped! (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cairo&ll=29.871090,31.216536&spn=0.034929,0 .057893&t=k&hl=en)

If nothing else came of this thread, I got to see some cool stuff but the 'face on Mars' is not one of them.

[Nereid]

What amazing stuff! :o
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
Is this all the "data" provided by Flemming concerning the catbox face?
Or is there more?
In the first one, it seems that Fleming worked from a .gif image file, rather than a .tiff one - anyone know why? And the websites seem to be undated, so are we reading stuff that's current, or stuff that's >~5 years' old?

But the most amazing things to me, on a first read of these sites, are:
* some folk have actually gone to the trouble of doing some real analyses, (apparently) using the real, source data (this is quite a contrast to what I'm used to) =D>
* where are the controls? what is being tested? I mean, all this effort on one or a half dozen landforms, but (apparently) no effort to check the extent to which these are representative (or not) of others, either on Mars or on Earth or on the Moon, ... Reminds me of Arp et al. #-o

[A.DIM]

So I emailed Fleming regarding our "discussion" here and he pointed out that what I've stated is as much as he would himself. There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.

And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories.

Thanks NASA! :D

[algorithms]

The so-called "catbox" image is much ado about nothing. And some folks here are grasping a straws at trying to make it into something.

Its really pretty simple. In response to the demands of "face" advocates like Mark Carlotto and Stanley McDaniel, NASA had committed to making the image of the feature available as soon as possible with as little processing as possible. In addition, since the spacecraft wasn't directly overhead it had to be turned to produce an oblique view through more atmosphere. And, the martian skies over Cydonia weren't exactly clear that day, so the image is obscured by the thin wisps of water vapor in the martian atmosphere. Finally, the image was taken very early on in the mission. Project scientists had not yet figured out how to optimize use of the MOC under a variety of conditions.

So when the image was first made public, it had not been properly processed. Combine that with the fact that it was not taken under the best of conditions and "voila!" you have the so-called "catbox." Just two hours later NASA released a better quality processed version that made the feature more understandable.

Of course, all of the hand-wringing by "face" fanatics grasping at straws to keep the fantasy alive became academic when the April, 2001 image became available. This image, taken under the best of circumstances directly overhead provides us with a clear and unequivocal view of a natural geologic feature that is more a butte than a "face." Since then, all but a few hardcore have accepted the reality planetary scientists figured out back in 1976 - its not a face, but a trick of light and shadow.

Frankly, its not NASA that is "acting pecurliarly" on this matter. Its people like Lan Fleming attempting to explain themselves and avoid simply admitting that they made a mistake.

[jt-3d]

Great post, algorithms. I fear however that it won't do any good. I think there have been two or three posts of equal calibre in this thread. Alas it has done no good. It's still nice to purge the old brain pan every now and then anyway.

Let's just try another tack...Ok, believe in the 1976 photo over the brand spanking new one, despite the new technoogy and the, well, obvious closeness of the new image. It's a mesa, a butte and damn pile of dirt in the middle of the martian desert. Get over it.

Am I supposed to keep an open mind? Until when? Until astronauts drill into it and find more dirt? Is NASA supposed to waste a Mars mission just to satisfy a few folks that refuse to see a pile of dirt for a pile of dirt? It's a pile of dirt. That's all, there are thousand of things more important to look at on Mars than that damn face in the sand. Forget it, it's dead and if I was in charge on NASA missions, I'd schedule a big fan to blow that peice on useless junk away.

Me, I'd head right for that big canyon. That's where the real science is. Face in the dirt...phhwweeff.

[R.A.F.]

Am I supposed to keep an open mind? Until when? Until astronauts drill into it and find more dirt? Is NASA supposed to waste a Mars mission just to satisfy a few folks that refuse to see a pile of dirt for a pile of dirt?

I wouldn't even mind a mission to the "face" if I thought for a minute that it would end the "artificialty speculation"...problem is that it wouldn't.

Those who believe would just "tweek" their theory, and continue to ignore any evidence that didn't agree with what they choose to believe.

[Laguna]

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
Is this all the "data" provided by Flemming concerning the catbox face?
Or is there more?

Edited to insert second link

data in "quotes". how revealing.
heres more, if you're really "interested":

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n03/index.shtml
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n01/index.shtml
http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html
Ok, i looked at these links. And yes! With an "open mind". Excuse the quotes but i don't like that expression very much.
Quite interesting, but:
this one: http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html
no data inside, just a man rantig about how stupid hose people at nasa are, heating up some arguments presented here: http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n01/index.shtml
Not much maths but a lot of words. When it comes to real calculations they are always lead to the goal they want to reach. Everything directing in an other direction is dismissed.
And that link: http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n03/index.shtml
is the most entertaining of all. The analysis of the STS-48 Shuttle video is great. It ist totaly clear, that NASA is right with its explanation but hey, who cares...
Also interesting the "new theories for the procession of the equinox"...

Sorry but newfrontiersinscience is a good alternative for GLP.

[Archer17]

You know Outcast, I was willing to walk away from this thread, but not under fire. Let's get something straight: I know we have a history. I find most of the woo woo things you promote to be as unscientific as they come and, whether you like it or not, I'll continue to rebut your ideas and the methods you employ to try to make them sound credible. If that's considered a personal attack by you, so be it. I've actually been measured in my responses to your constant provocative innuendos, not because I'm afraid to fight, but because addressing your spiel doesn't require it and is against the FAQ of this board at any rate. You want to fight? Sign up at FWIS (http://loresinger.com/FWIS/index.php?) where they have a no-holds barred flame-pit and I'll meet you there.
Regarding your post:
actualy, woowoo and Hoagland are just strawmen that you, and others, use to ridicule the subject from the start. plain and simple. if there is any artificial construction, or the possibility for such, on Mars or especificaly in Cydonia, no serious investigator will now touch the subject because of the ridicule factor and peer pressure."Woo woo" and Hoagland go hand in hand when it comes to the spiel of Martian artificiality. Calling them straw men is a non-sequitur. Without Hoagland, the Face and all other claims of Cydonian artificial structures wouldn't have been an issue. Blaming the lack of credibility for his claims on ridicule and peer-pressure, while ignoring the consequences to this woo woo claim by the follow-up images is refusing to face reality, plain and simple.
by the way, you do no such thing as attack the "spiel" of anyone, there is no spiel. what you do is continualy attack the persons who have differing opinions while pretending to debunk the whole issue with rethorical speech.More baseless rhetoric Outcast. If you think I'm attacking you, PM the BA.

You do frequently cast doubts on NASA and other facets of the "mainstream" Outcast. It's what you do. It's what you need to do. How else could you promote nonsense like artificiality on Mars, flying saucers, the pyramid/ancient astronaut corollary, and Sitchin on this board?oh, now you're pulling "other facets" of the mainstream that i suposedly also cast doubts upon. and what relevance does that have for this particular discussion? let me answer that: nothing.
by the way, i suggest you spare me your phsycological shenanigans.It's funny Outcast. You ask for examples of where you cast doubt on the mainstream and when I provide cited examples and mention that this tack has been a consistent part of what you bring to the BABB in general, you simply act like we can't read regarding the former and say the latter is irrelevant. If you don't like my answers, don't ask for examples. (BTW, I bold yet another example later).

I'm not "suspending judgement" to prop up your beliefs Outcast. To me my opinion is fact until proven otherwise and it's up to you to make your own case instead of worrying about the degree in which I believe something.oh really? your opinion is fact to you. what a shining example of self confidence... i dont think you realize how ridiculous that sounds. good grief.Actually you reveal a lot about yourself with this statement. Most people do have convictions, don't you? Isn't what people believe their opinion? Is the fact that I will tell people that there's no artificially at Cydonia or that NASA isn't covering up evidence really "ridiculous?" I don't think so. Do you believe in elves Outcast? I'd also tell people that elves don't exist and state it as fact. I base both statements on the fact that there's no real evidence for either myth. Do you "suspend judgment" on elves too? I think that if, in order for your arguments to be considered credible, everyone else must "suspend judgment" and avoid stating their own "convictions" as being factual, then your arguments are too weak.

"Our work is done?!?" If digging yourself a hole is what you mean by "work", I'll agree with you. You keep missing the boat here Outcast.. the burden of proof is on you to legitimize what Fleming opines. You also would be better served if you didn't play games. See what I bolded in your quote? So spare me the constant denials about casting doubt on NASA.no! you're the one missing the boat. you havent read Flemmings papers, have you? no you havent and you'll never read them. i know that because you made clear that your opinion is fact and your mind is made up. shut close. fine, whatever.I read what A.DIM linked to regarding Fleming and read two of Hoagland's Cydonia books so I know what's being proposed. I ain't buying it. I'd stick to trying to make something out of nothing as you attempt to do with Martian artificially instead of trying to tell me what I have read. Unlike you, I'm not swayed by what others write anyway. I've already stated my reasons for rejecting Martian artificiality and it has nothing to do with text.
i'll just reiterate what we're dealing with here: the "cat box face" is a clearly filtered and distorted image with no scientific value, yet it was presented as debunking "evidence" number 1, an "unfortunate misstatement" as said by Carl Sagan, but that still doesnt shake the fact a scientific establishment used a clearly doctored image to divert public opinion. Flemming has also presented evidence that Nasa misused Mola data in an effort to reduce the size and shape of the "face" to an insignificant and featureless hill. they did this without providing or referencing the original data sets used for the work. Flemming later proved that the data sets were the wrong ones for the area in question.I bolded another example of you casting doubt on NASA Outcast. Attempting to dismisses this as "psychological shenanigans" won't wash and doesn't help the credibility of your other arguments when you can't even own up to what you post. I am aware of what Fleming and some others allege but it's unsupported by fact. You also talk out of both sides of your mouth. You allude to hanky-panky, yet went on record that you doubt Cydonia is artificial. Why the NASA hanky-panky then? If you are going to talk about something appearing ridiculous, this contradiction by you shouldn't be overlooked.

Lastly, a few posts back you were asked to explain (and ignored the question), that if there was anything to Cydonian artificially and NASA didn't want us to know, why would they have released the '76 Viking "Face" in the first place? It's a valid question because it points out the major flaw in the argument of those that allude to NASA/PTB cover-ups.

Ignoring things might explain why you believe what you do, but it won't work here Outcast.

[Archer17]

So I emailed Fleming regarding our "discussion" here and he pointed out that what I've stated is as much as he would himself. There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.

And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories.

Thanks NASA! :DYou should have told Fleming to drop in. You agreeing with him or visa versa really doesn't mean anything and to imply that NASA is to blame for perpetuating artificiality/conspiracy theories is nonsense.

[Nereid]

There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.

And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories. The core part of the OP:
So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."
Seems there were TWO questions/issues in the OP:
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"

To address the first, don't we need to establish (hopefully objective) criteria by which "artificiality of origin" can be determined?

As to the second, well excuse me if I'm really in the slow class today, but:

a ) did NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?

b ) are Börner, Fleming, Outcast (?), A.DIM (?), et al. getting hot&bothered over a PR, or over 'the real McCoy' (is that the right expression?) - the actual data?

[A.DIM]

So I emailed Fleming regarding our "discussion" here and he pointed out that what I've stated is as much as he would himself. There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.

And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories.

Thanks NASA! :DYou should have told Fleming to drop in. You agreeing with him or visa versa really doesn't mean anything and to imply that NASA is to blame for perpetuating artificiality/conspiracy theories is nonsense.

Nonsense, Archer?
Had Soffen not lied about "another picture taken a few hours later" when he claimed "trick of light & shadow," and the second Viking pic not been "misfiled" to be rediscovered by D&M years later, and then the more recent shoddy "catbox" image release, conspiracy theorists would have little to work with. :-?

I did ask Fleming to join the discussion but he said it is apparent that some "skeptics" will see no NASA wrong doing whatsoever. I believe you are one of those "skeptics."
I know it doesn't "mean anything" to you, these are only my opinions.

[A.DIM]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.

In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion. :roll:

[Nereid]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.
ETH?

How did you get from "lifelike" and "Life IS out there" to "artificiality hypothesis"?

More basically, what is 'the artificiality hypothesis'??
In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.
Kinda begs the question, doesn't it, "what is 'intelligent life'?" And, why Mars?
And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion.
Perhaps I am a 'skeptic', perhaps not.

Irrespective of what I 'am', do you consider it good science to ask the kind of questions I've been asking so far?

[R.A.F.]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis.

ETH? Sure...but I just don't see any evidence to suggest that ET life is/has been here.


Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors.

But our space endeavors don't "presume" that said life is closeby.


Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.

Mars is very cold and very dry...hardly Earthlike.

"Massive amounts" of water? The way I've heard it described was a "shallow ocean".


In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

That's a mighty BIG if.


And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion.

Not at all...I just refuse to be "fooled" by ideas that don't have evidence to
"back them up"...that's all...

[A.DIM]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.
ETH?

ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis.


How did you get from "lifelike" and "Life IS out there" to "artificiality hypothesis"?

Where did I say "lifelike?"
I think you've confused some things here.


More basically, what is 'the artificiality hypothesis'??

Umm, the hypothesis that there are artificial structures on the surface of Mars. :-?



In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.
Kinda begs the question, doesn't it, "what is 'intelligent life'?" And, why Mars?

Mars for the few reasons I gave above. Then again, it is only my opinion.



And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion.
Perhaps I am a 'skeptic', perhaps not.

Irrespective of what I 'am', do you consider it good science to ask the kind of questions I've been asking so far?

Irrespective of it being "good science," I think asking questions of any sort is good. IMO, there are no "bad" questions.

[A.DIM]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis.

ETH? Sure...but I just don't see any evidence to suggest that ET life is/has been here.

Of course you don't, RAF.
Regardless if Mythology and Religion, and modern day eyewitnesses, attest to it.



Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors.

But our space endeavors don't "presume" that said life is closeby.

No?
Are humans not exploring Mars (closeby) in the search for it?



Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.

Mars is very cold and very dry...hardly Earthlike.

And so Mars has always been "very cold and very dry?"


"Massive amounts" of water? The way I've heard it described was a "shallow ocean".

I see.
Nonetheless, a "shallow ocean" on Mars is still a massive amount of water, no?



In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

That's a mighty BIG if.

Regardless if it's a size 18 "IF," Mars is still the place to look.



And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion.

Not at all...I just refuse to be "fooled" by ideas that don't have evidence to "back them up"...that's all...

I see.

[Van Rijn]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.


(1) I'm resistant to subjects that lack scientific evidence. Show me evidence, not innuendo. Links to "NASA lies" rants are not helpful. Honest papers by professional geologists and image analysis experts would be a start (the links I've looked at here were not terribly impressive).

(2) You are the one making the assumptions. I am not. I hope there is life "out there" but the reason we go is to look, not to assume.

(3) Assumptions about intelligent ET life on Mars or visiting earth are many steps beyond the possibility of microbial life elsewhere in the solar system.

(4) Mars may be the most "earth like" world in the solar system, but it isn't very earthlike. Evidence points to a very cold world with minimal atmosphere for billions of years, with limited liquid surface water for much of its history.



In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.


That's an assumption. Even if you make that assumption, what kind of chances do you think there are, given Martian conditions? 1 in a billion? 1 in a trillion?



And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion. :roll:

Given the lack of evidence, why are you surprised? :roll:

[Nereid]

ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis.
Thank you.

What is this hypothesis?

How did you get from "lifelike" and "Life IS out there" to "artificiality hypothesis"?
Where did I say "lifelike?"
I think you've confused some things here.
Er, here (my bold); I made the (false?) assumption that there is life on Earth (my bad):
I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.



In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.Kinda begs the question, doesn't it, "what is 'intelligent life'?" And, why Mars?Mars for the few reasons I gave above. Then again, it is only my opinion.
So, how do you get from "a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present" to "intelligent life"?
And again, I am asking only you.
Irrespective of it being "good science," I think asking questions of any sort is good. IMO, there are no "bad" questions.
Are you sure?

In any case, since this is the ATM section of the BA forum website, is there any good way to go about answering questions than an approach that is atune with "good science"?

[R.A.F.]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis.

ETH? Sure...but I just don't see any evidence to suggest that ET life is/has been here.

Of course you don't, RAF.
Regardless if Mythology and Religion, and modern day eyewitnesses, attest to it.

I require evidence that myths, religion, and eye witnesses can't provide.

[Van Rijn]

Sorry for the near duplication, R.A.F. I didn't read your entry until after I added mine. I think we're pretty much on the same page. :)

[A.DIM]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.


(1) I'm resistant to subjects that lack scientific evidence. Show me evidence, not innuendo. Links to "NASA lies" rants are not helpful. Honest papers by professional geologists and image analysis experts would be a start (the links I've looked at here were not terribly impressive).

And so Fleming being an engineer with Johnson Space Center isn't credible enough to consider?

Oh, that's right, he's yet another scientist who's gone "woowoo" or has an axe to grind with NASA, eh? :roll:


(2) You are the one making the assumptions. I am not. I hope there is life "out there" but the reason we go is to look, not to assume.

Sure, but every scientific experiment begins with assumption, right?


(3) Assumptions about intelligent ET life on Mars or visiting earth are many steps beyond the possibility of microbial life elsewhere in the solar system.

Indeed.
And of course we humans would more readily accept microbial life than intelligent life since it poses no threat to our species identity.


(4) Mars may be the most "earth like" world in the solar system, but it isn't very earthlike. Evidence points to a very cold world with minimal atmosphere for billions of years, with limited liquid surface water for much of its history.

The jury's still out on this.
I think it was only recent "evidence" that suggested as much, but OK.




In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

That's an assumption. Even if you make that assumption, what kind of chances do you think there are, given Martian conditions? 1 in a billion? 1 in a trillion?

Considering that there remains controversy over whether or not the methane is biologically produced, I'd say "given Martian conditions" is also an assumption.



And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion. :roll:

Given the lack of evidence, why are you surprised? :roll:

"Evidence," as it were, on many fronts, seems as subjective as anything else these days.
But no surprise, really, there's as much an industry of "debunking" as there is of pseudoscience.

[Archer17]

..Nonsense, Archer?
Had Soffen not lied about "another picture taken a few hours later" when he claimed "trick of light & shadow," and the second Viking pic not been "misfiled" to be rediscovered by D&M years later, and then the more recent shoddy "catbox" image release, conspiracy theorists would have little to work with. :-?It's funny A.DIM but you and those you cite fail to see the folly in such an argument and it's right there in front of you. If there was sufficient evidence of Martian artificiality to prompt NASA to be less than forthright, then the "incriminating" images simply would not have been released in the first place. While I can understand your need to discredit NASA, I'm surprised how little critical thought you and others of similar leanings put into your attempts to export that notion. The Face is not a Face, there's no evidence of artificially elsewhere on Mars, and your innuendos of NASA subterfuge is nonsense. End of story. You can invoke anybody as some kind of vindication but that obvious appeal to authority only works for those that can't think for themselves.
I did ask Fleming to join the discussion but he said it is apparent that some "skeptics" will see no NASA wrong doing whatsoever. I believe you are one of those "skeptics."
I know it doesn't "mean anything" to you, these are only my opinions.Actually giving your own opinions is a rarity for you A.DIM. We primarily get links, name-dropping, and innuendos instead.

[Archer17]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.

In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion. :roll:I don't think you ever will understand mainstream thinking A.DIM. That I don't find as unusual as your obsession that others believe in or "allow" the same things you do. We don't need to believe in much of what you do for starters. I have no "anti-Sitchin" I feel the need to peddle. I only post my thoughts on your woo woo beliefs and "allowances" when you try to qualify them as having merit. That goes for all the other stuff you have brought up over the years: artificiality on Mars, UFOs being space ships, and ancient astronauts. I do think there may be intelligent life on other planets, but that in itself is not a reason to believe in or "suspend judgement" on the other things I mentioned you bring up here. I would need to see irrefutable evidence for such things, not read someone's spin .. but like I said, I don't expect you to understand that.

[EvilBob]

Of course you don't, RAF.
Regardless if Mythology and Religion, and modern day eyewitnesses, attest to it. I have to assume you're being ironic, here. When Religion and Mythology require evidence to back up their extraordinary claims, I might see their claims as having some relevance to a scientific discussion.

"Evidence," as it were, on many fronts, seems as subjective as anything else these days.:o
What? Maybe this is the source of the conflict here. 'Evidence' is not subjective. It just is. Since the Hi-Res pictures of the 'Face' were taken, there is no evidence of artificiality at Cydonia.
I read Hoagland's book in 1997, without knowing who he was - I found it in my local library and thought the idea was intriguing. Starting from the few low-res Viking pictures, he had built up his entire hypothesis from this one object. I wasn't particularly sceptical at the time, and couldn't see any problems with the idea. Then I remembered the MGS and that there would probably be new pictures. I found this (http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/moc_5_24_01/face/index.html) picture...and realised that if the object that Hoagland thought was designed to draw attention to the area in reality looked so clearly non-artificial, the rest of his hypothesis was destroyed. The whole idea was built on the 'fact' that the face was artificially built to be a marker. It wasn't. That much is obvious from the photo. This was my first experience of having an idea that seemed compelling, and that I would have loved to be true, proved to be wrong. It's disappointing, but why hold on to a theory that's been exploded?

[A.DIM]

..Nonsense, Archer?
Had Soffen not lied about "another picture taken a few hours later" when he claimed "trick of light & shadow," and the second Viking pic not been "misfiled" to be rediscovered by D&M years later, and then the more recent shoddy "catbox" image release, conspiracy theorists would have little to work with. :-?It's funny A.DIM but you and those you cite fail to see the folly in such an argument and it's right there in front of you. If there was sufficient evidence of Martian artificiality to prompt NASA to be less than forthright, then the "incriminating" images simply would not have been released in the first place. While I can understand your need to discredit NASA, I'm surprised how little critical thought you and others of similar leanings put into your attempts to export that notion. The Face is not a Face, there's no evidence of artificially elsewhere on Mars, and your innuendos of NASA subterfuge is nonsense. End of story. You can invoke anybody as some kind of vindication but that obvious appeal to authority only works for those that can't think for themselves.


I did ask Fleming to join the discussion but he said it is apparent that some "skeptics" will see no NASA wrong doing whatsoever. I believe you are one of those "skeptics."
I know it doesn't "mean anything" to you, these are only my opinions.Actually giving your own opinions is a rarity for you A.DIM. We primarily get links, name-dropping, and innuendos instead.

Balderdash!

I've always said these are my opinions, Archer, nothing more.
The links and citations of experts are presented only to reinforce my opinions.
Oddly, all to often around here people ask for a reference, and yet, when I present something, I'm "cherrypicking, data mining, name dropping" and other such tripe.

It is YOU who acts as if I've tried to prove something, here or elsewhere.

And as far as innuendos: Are you suggesting above that I don't think for myself, Archer?

Would you also suggest that scientists do the same since they "namedrop" other scientists, in citation, to support their work?

And so links, citations of experts, and implications therein aren't valid enough for a bulletin board where people like you express opinions?

What a bunch of buncomb!
Go figure. :roll:

[A.DIM]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.

In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion. :roll:I don't think you ever will understand mainstream thinking A.DIM. That I don't find as unusual as your obsession that others believe in or "allow" the same things you do. We don't need to believe in much of what you do for starters. I have no "anti-Sitchin" I feel the need to peddle. I only post my thoughts on your woo woo beliefs and "allowances" when you try to qualify them as having merit. That goes for all the other stuff you have brought up over the years: artificiality on Mars, UFOs being space ships, and ancient astronauts. I do think there may be intelligent life on other planets, but that in itself is not a reason to believe in or "suspend judgement" on the other things I mentioned you bring up here. I would need to see irrefutable evidence for such things, not read someone's spin .. but like I said, I don't expect you to understand that.

I understand all too well, Archer.

I imagine it's a frightening prospect for most people to admit human beings aren't the apex of evolution without irrefutable evidence.

But don't misunderstand; I, too, need such evidence to proclaim "proven."

[A.DIM]

Of course you don't, RAF.
Regardless if Mythology and Religion, and modern day eyewitnesses, attest to it. I have to assume you're being ironic, here. When Religion and Mythology require evidence to back up their extraordinary claims, I might see their claims as having some relevance to a scientific discussion.

No irony, Bob.

Myths and Religion contain many historical facts, but most people stop short of acknowledging their accuracy due to the involvement of "the gods."



"Evidence," as it were, on many fronts, seems as subjective as anything else these days.:o
What? Maybe this is the source of the conflict here. 'Evidence' is not subjective. It just is. Since the Hi-Res pictures of the 'Face' were taken, there is no evidence of artificiality at Cydonia.
I read Hoagland's book in 1997, without knowing who he was - I found it in my local library and thought the idea was intriguing. Starting from the few low-res Viking pictures, he had built up his entire hypothesis from this one object. I wasn't particularly sceptical at the time, and couldn't see any problems with the idea. Then I remembered the MGS and that there would probably be new pictures. I found this (http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/moc_5_24_01/face/index.html) picture...and realised that if the object that Hoagland thought was designed to draw attention to the area in reality looked so clearly non-artificial, the rest of his hypothesis was destroyed. The whole idea was built on the 'fact' that the face was artificially built to be a marker. It wasn't. That much is obvious from the photo. This was my first experience of having an idea that seemed compelling, and that I would have loved to be true, proved to be wrong. It's disappointing, but why hold on to a theory that's been exploded?

Well, I've never read Hoagland and certainly am not relying on his ideas here.

And IMHO, "the face" is too symmetrical to be of geologic origin. Likewise the pyramids of Elysium are far from "clearly non artificial;" The D&M pyramid too.

The fact that Cydonia rests on an ancient "shoreline" and has produced these amazingly "natural" formations should warrant "extraordinary investigation" should it not?

You know, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" .... requires extraordinary investigation.
Have we seen such?
I think not.
Quite the contrary, and back to topic, NASA has seemingly ignored Cydonia while looking for microbial life in some craters elsewhere.
Nevermind that it was once a primary target; until "the face" pic was released, that is.

And as I touched on in another post above, more people are prepared to realize "microbial life" that poses no real threat to our species identity.

Now, consider intelligent beings, certainly more advanced than ourselves, and you better believe people are threatened, and perhaps none moreso than "scientists."
Especially in light of Myth & Religion.

[Archer17]

.. Balderdash!Like that term eh? I thought it was a rather catchy synonym when I introduced it.
I've always said these are my opinions, Archer, nothing more.
The links and citations of experts are presented only to reinforce my opinions.
Oddly, all to often around here people ask for a reference, and yet, when I present something, I'm "cherrypicking, data mining, name dropping" and other such tripe.I never asked you for a reference A.DIM and have yet to see where your "references" reinforced anything you posted. I prefer not to rely on inference by proxy myself and stand on my own two feet. In this thread all you and Outcast have done is use Fleming as an appeal to authority and hid behind him when we didn't buy what you two implied by association.
It is YOU who acts as if I've tried to prove something, here or elsewhere.I wish you would try to prove something for a change. Instead, all we get is a game of "connect the cherries" you pick.
And as far as innuendos: Are you suggesting above that I don't think for myself, Archer?Nice try A.DIM, but innuendos are your province. What I posted I stand by -- anyone who takes a controversial statement at face value just because of that person's background without an objective examination of the issues is not thinking for themselves. An objective examination of allegations of NASA subterfuge and claims of Martian artificiality will show there's no real evidence for either.
Would you also suggest that scientists do the same since they "namedrop" other scientists, in citation, to support their work?You don't do what real scientists do A.DIM. You just repeat the fringe opinions of others that support your opinion and use their status as an appeal to authority.
And so links, citations of experts, and implications therein aren't valid enough for a bulletin board where people like you express opinions?Depends on what you mean by "valid."
What a bunch of buncomb!I like "balderdash" better myself. :wink:

[Edited to fix a sentence and correct a spelling miscue]

[Archer17]

..I imagine it's a frightening prospect for most people to admit human beings aren't the apex of evolution without irrefutable evidence. Actually that's not it at all, at least with me. I think a lot of people need to feel that we are "special" in the grand scheme of things and many religious, woo woo beliefs reflect that. They need deities or an ET that interacts with us Earthlings. I don't. I feel we will continue to evolve all by ourselves, irrespective of hypothetical ET.

[algorithms]

A.DIM: I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.

In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion.

I don't think this has anything to do with "resistance to the ETH." The problem is that Mars is not a very good candidate for intelligent life. We know enough about the geophysical history of Mars to know for certain that we'll be damn lucky if we find evidence of extinct microbial life there.

Therein lies the problem.

Mars science is about much more than pretty pictures taken from orbitting spacecraft. Most folks who want to believe in ancient civilizations on Mars haven't clue about what this body of planetary science actually contains and precisely why it is physically impossible for Mars to have once been home to intelligent life.

Whatever hope Mars may have once held for the evolution of complex, multi-cellular organisms evaporated with the failure of global tectonism and the collapse of the planet's magnetic field four billion years ago. With that came the whittling away of the martian atmosphere, the subsequent dessication of the surface and the precipitous drop in planetary temperatures. These are not conditions which lend themselves well to the kind of biochemistry essential to the evolution of intelligent creatures.

[Gillianren]

A.DIM. Outcast. can you answer my question or not?

[Van Rijn]

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.


(1) I'm resistant to subjects that lack scientific evidence. Show me evidence, not innuendo. Links to "NASA lies" rants are not helpful. Honest papers by professional geologists and image analysis experts would be a start (the links I've looked at here were not terribly impressive).

And so Fleming being an engineer with Johnson Space Center isn't credible enough to consider?

Oh, that's right, he's yet another scientist who's gone "woowoo" or has an axe to grind with NASA, eh? :roll:


You said it. Let's see what he wrote:


The "Catbox" is undoubtedly the shoddiest piece of image processing work released in the 40-year history of the space program. Why did they do it? [snip]Unless JPL permitted complete incompetents to run loose in their lab, the only reasonable conclusion is that the MGS image was deliberately doctored for public consumption in order to kill public interest in the subject of planetary SETI in general and Cydonia in particular.[snip] Personal opinions can never justify sloppy and dishonest work. [snip]The Catbox was almost certainly a highly unethical (and highly successful) attempt to manipulate public opinion to serve someone's private agenda.

His comments indicate extremely biased opinions - not someone I would expect to produce a fair, objective report. I'm looking for technical reports written by scientists who are expert in the appropriate fields. What I found in the links you provided was lots of NASA bashing and unsupported assertions, not science.




(2) You are the one making the assumptions. I am not. I hope there is life "out there" but the reason we go is to look, not to assume.

Sure, but every scientific experiment begins with assumption, right?


No. Asking a question is not the same thing as making an assumption.




(3) Assumptions about intelligent ET life on Mars or visiting eartsh are many steps beyond the possibility of microbial life elsewhere in the solar system.

Indeed.
And of course we humans would more readily accept microbial life than intelligent life since it poses no threat to our species identity.


Irrelevent. Microbial life is far more common than complex life and can live in more extreme environments.




(4) Mars may be the most "earth like" world in the solar system, but it isn't very earthlike. Evidence points to a very cold world with minimal atmosphere for billions of years, with limited liquid surface water for much of its history.

The jury's still out on this.
I think it was only recent "evidence" that suggested as much, but OK.


Recent evidence actually improves the picture somewhat over what we had in the '70s. Mars is much further from the sun than the earth, therefore colder, and has little atmosphere. There isn't much wiggle room there.






In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.

That's an assumption. Even if you make that assumption, what kind of chances do you think there are, given Martian conditions? 1 in a billion? 1 in a trillion?

Considering that there remains controversy over whether or not the methane is biologically produced, I'd say "given Martian conditions" is also an assumption.


The existence of any kind of life on Mars has not been established. Based on what we know about life, microbial life just might be able to survive in Martian microclimates, but complex life could not. If you are talking about "life as we don't know it" then there is no reason to pick Mars over Jupiter, Venus, whatever.

In any event, you still need ... wait for it ... evidence.




And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion. :roll:

Given the lack of evidence, why are you surprised? :roll:

"Evidence," as it were, on many fronts, seems as subjective as anything else these days.
But no surprise, really, there's as much an industry of "debunking" as there is of pseudoscience.

In science there is no such thing as "subjective evidence." That's the point - I'm not interested in debunking this stuff, I'm just asking for some good, honest, objective evidence. I don't have an agenda, whether you want to believe that or not.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:

I did ask Fleming to join the discussion but he said it is apparent that some "skeptics" will see no NASA wrong doing whatsoever

My God, the man is psychic!


Regardless if Mythology and Religion, and modern day eyewitnesses, attest to it

As discussed before, ancient mythology is no more fact than modern day fiction is. Regardless of what you or Erich von Däniken says about it.

As for doctored images, Outcast: while I'm not holding my breath, I'm still waiting for a link to that THEMIS image you presented earlier.

[R.A.F.]

I require evidence that myths, religion, and eye witnesses can't provide.

I see that I made an error. :oops: What I meant to say was that myths, religion, and eye witnesses don't provide convincing evidence...not can't provide. :)


Sorry for the near duplication, R.A.F. I didn't read your entry until after I added mine. I think we're pretty much on the same page. :)

No worries...sorry not required :) There's "bound" to be some duplication of ideas.


A.DIM. Outcast. can you answer my question or not?

I see no need to continue this discussion until after A.DIM and Outcast answer Gillianren's question.

To save them the trouble of looking for it, I'll re-post it here...


okay, I have one question I would like answered re: NASA coverup.

if NASA was going to take the time to cover up the "face," why did they release the initial picture?

note that this is not character assassination. this is not ducking any issues. this is the single most obvious question about the whole controversy. if you cannot provide a logical answer to that question, the rest of your argument falls apart, if, as you claim to be saying, your argument is that NASA is covering things up.

further note that this question does not presuppose artificiality or lack thereof. it's a perfectly straightforward question. if you cannot answer it, the rest of your argument is totally irrelevant.

[algorithms]

A.DIM: And so Fleming being an engineer with Johnson Space Center isn't credible enough to consider?

Oh, that's right, he's yet another scientist who's gone "woowoo" or has an axe to grind with NASA, eh?

No. Mr. Fleming is not a "scientist." He's a computer systems specialist for a NASA subcontractor. I am certain he does a fine job at that. But he's not a scientist. His "catbox paper" contains no science. Its merely a rant about a picture that contradicts his preestablished beliefs.

I should note that Mr. Fleming also asserts that there are alien cities on the moon as well.

The term "woowoo" is aptly applied.

[N C More]

I should note that Mr. Fleming also asserts that there are alien cities on the moon as well.

The term "woowoo" is aptly applied.

Ah yes, cities on the moon. (http://www.cosmicparadigm.com/Cities_Found_on_the_Moon.html) Well, looky here, snip:


...Specialist for lunar studies Richard Hoagland says that NASA is still trying to alter photo materials before they are published in public catalogues and files. They do some retouching or are partially refocusing them while copying.

"Specialist for lunar studies" :o Then again, perhaps someone confused the word "looney" for "lunar"? Yeah, that has to be it.

[frogesque]

I haven't posted in this thread before mainly because I didn't want to give any satisfaction to Cydonia and 'Catbox' conspiracy theory proponents and any arguments for the case have already been admirably destroyed. I am however curious why this thread isn't in ATM.

Also the silence on Gillianren's question is deafening - come on guys - time it was answered.

[Fram]

Myths and Religion contain many historical facts, but most people stop short of acknowledging their accuracy due to the involvement of "the gods."

This horse has been beaten to death. Has anyone here said that some myths don't contain historical facts? No. I don't stop short on acknowledging their accuracy though, I disagree on it. You consider some myths to be 100 % accurate (after all, you can read them as a literal astronomical text), and I don't.


You know, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" .... requires extraordinary investigation.
Have we seen such?
I think not.

Um, no one is supposed to make extraordinary investigation because some one else makes extraordinary claims. If NASA made those claims (that Cydonia is artificial), they would be required to make such an investigation. In this case, they don't. They have already provided ample information to make most people convinced that Cydonia is as natural as the rest of Mars or the Moon. Don't try to shift the burden of proof, please.

Further, I'm also eagerly awaiting the answer to GillianRen's question.

[algorithms]

GILLIANREN:

okay, I have one question I would like answered re: NASA coverup.

if NASA was going to take the time to cover up the "face," why did they release the initial picture?

note that this is not character assassination. this is not ducking any issues. this is the single most obvious question about the whole controversy. if you cannot provide a logical answer to that question, the rest of your argument falls apart, if, as you claim to be saying, your argument is that NASA is covering things up.

further note that this question does not presuppose artificiality or lack thereof. it's a perfectly straightforward question. if you cannot answer it, the rest of your argument is totally irrelevant.

Face fanatics have an anwer for this. They'll tell you that the original Viking image was released by mistake. Then they'll claim the 1998 MGS "catbox" image release was designed to mislead the general public into complacency. In fact, that's precisely what Mr. Fleming is asserting. But, this doesn't explain the excellent April, 2001 image that even "face fans" acknowledge is an accurate and unmodified image of the feature. Instead, these gullible believers have come up with a whole host of other explanation to keep their myth alive. Some argue that we nuked the thing, while others still see a face, albeit a highly eroded one (a bad case of acne, I guess).

But the most amusing grasping for straws comes from those who use their home computers to slice and dice these images to create what they refer to as "split faces." These guys at http://the2001face.50megs.com/Cydonia/page10.html even assert that by creating digital "inkblots" they can prove that meso-Americans are from Mars.

Let's face it (sorry), belief in the "face" for these people is pretty much a religion and it doesn't matter what facts are presented, they will continue to squeeze logic and common sense beyond the bounds of rationality. The Mars "face" cultists are no different than the cargo cults that arose when western civilization brought airplanes to the remote islands of the South Pacific.

[R.A.F.]

...these gullible believers have come up with a whole host of other explanation to keep their myth alive.

A "slight" nitpick...I wouldn't call them explanations...I would call them excuses.

[algorithms]

R.A.F.: A "slight" nitpick...I wouldn't call them explanations...I would call them excuses.

I defer to your more accurate and exacting use of the English language. The term "explanation" does infer more credibility to these excuses than they deserve.

[Hans]

who'll have to carry the colors. Algorthim covered it very well - their is a religious need for some to keep the idea of the face and a Martian civilization alive - the only way to do that is create a fantastically complex conspiracy.

[Outcast]

What amazing stuff! :o
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html
Is this all the "data" provided by Flemming concerning the catbox face?
Or is there more?
In the first one, it seems that Fleming worked from a .gif image file, rather than a .tiff one - anyone know why? And the websites seem to be undated, so are we reading stuff that's current, or stuff that's >~5 years' old?


indeed amazing...

did you even read the content, and i mean READ the content of the "catbox" page? do you even understand what is being discussed in there?

i dont think you do or that you did. first, no .gif image was used and second if you check the JPL's source for the image you'll see that there is a .jpg available and a non working link (at least now) for a tiff file.

Flemming explains the process here:
"VGL enhancement (raw image was first processed using a LISP program to remove some of the vertical streaks caused by variations in the sensitivity of the MGS camera's CCD elements and reduced to 17.3% to match the size of the "Catbox". "

probably you just dont know that usualy the MGS raw images are presented in tiff and qed format, one of which was suposedly readily available in the JPL page.

besides, the reason why jpgs are presented in those pages is the same as a for anyother website in the internet: to save download time.

[Outcast]

frogesque wrote:

I haven't posted in this thread before mainly because I didn't want to give any satisfaction to Cydonia and 'Catbox' conspiracy theory proponents and any arguments for the case have already been admirably destroyed...

"admirably destroyed" =D>


Also the silence on Gillianren's question is deafening - come on guys - time it was answered.

the silence is defeaning? boy, you do have a trait for over statements... i didnt even see Gillianren's post, it was burried somewhere 3 or 4 pages back.

anyway...


okay, I have one question I would like answered re: NASA coverup.

if NASA was going to take the time to cover up the "face," why did they release the initial picture?


what NASA, more especificaly JPL, did was damage control. i dont think they ever thought they would pick up a face like formation in their Cydonia imaging, and at first, that single image didnt seem that important. as A.dim stated, the reason for these photos was aerial reconnaissance for possible landing areas.

if DiPietro, Molenaar and Carlotto didnt inspect the area and found the other unsuspected features, like the D&M pyramid for example (named after DiPietro and Molenaar), in close vicinity to the suposed face then the whole subject would have been buried much quicker. i've said this before, in my opinion, the important thing about Cydonia is not the "face" per se, but the fact that so many anomalous terrain features are present in the same area.

also an important aspect to keep in mind is the historical unfolding of the whole case:


The turning point came in 1993, when Professor Emeritus of Philosophy Stanley McDaniel made NASA's failure to acknowledge and act on the new evidence the subject of a scientific study of the sociology of science, titled "The McDaniel Report: On the Failure of Executive, Congressional and Scientific Responsibility in Investigating Possible Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars and in Setting Mission Priorities for NASA’s Mars Exploration Program". In his report, Professor McDaniel states:

"As my study of the work done by the independent investigators and NASA's response to their research continued, I became aware not only of the relatively high quality of the independent research, but also of glaring mistakes in the arguements used by NASA to reject this research. With each new NASA document I encountered, I became more and more appalled by the impossibly bad quality of the reasoning used. It grew more and more difficult to believe that educated scientists could engage in such faulty reasoning unless they were following some sort of hidden agenda aimed at suppressing the true nature of the data."

The McDaniel Report was instrumental in forcing NASA to re-image Cydonia using the Mars Global Surveyor in 1998. The pictures obtained by MGS strengthened the case for artificiality, but NASA did everything it could to discourage this conclusion. On April 6, 1998, only hours after the first new data on the formation for 22 years had been acquired, NASA released a doctored image to the mass media that had virtually all three dimensional information removed by inappropriate filtering and showed what seemed like scratches on a flat plain. This image has become known as the "catbox".
http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html

[Outcast]

Let's also imagine that a sopwith camel pilot flies over the pyramids and snaps a grainy, high contrast picture of an interesting feature of some uniform structures. The picture is such low quality that no real determination can be made but R.A.F puts it on the back burner for later study.

Let's say 30 years later the pilot's son flies over the same place in his shiny Saber jet, with 30 year newer camera and snaps another shot of the same area. This time everybody can see that it's just some mountains and Egypt is actually uninhabited. Now most people would just say that's that and forget the whole thing.

you know... the chinese pyramids look just like mountains, even in newer high resolution images. fortunately, not most of the people was skeptical of them and went to take a look in person. it turns out that many of these mountain/pyramids were in fact artificial constructions. thank goodness for open mindness.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

you know... the chinese pyramids look just like mountains, even in newer high resolution images. fortunately, not most of the people was skeptical of them and went to take a look in person. it turns out that many of these mountain/pyramids were in fact artificial constructions. thank goodness for open mindness.

So basically every hill and mountain on Mars is artificial until we actually go and have a look?

[01101001]

you know... the chinese pyramids look just like mountains, even in newer high resolution images. fortunately, not most of the people was skeptical of them and went to take a look in person. it turns out that many of these mountain/pyramids were in fact artificial constructions. thank goodness for open mindness.
What do you think the odds are of a pyramidal mountain in China turning out to be artificial are compared to the odds of a pyramidal mountain on Mars turning out to be artificial?

[Outcast]

You know Outcast, I was willing to walk away from this thread, but not under fire. Let's get something straight: I know we have a history.

oh, you're under fire? weird, i thought you were the one taking pot shots at me and A.dim. get one thing straight in you head my friend, we do not have a "history". your posts are filled with self aggrandizement, (ex: opinion as fact, an "history"??) but the fact is i've seen no science coming from you.


I find most of the woo woo things you promote to be as unscientific as they come and...

either you dont realize that inserting the "woo woo" in this sentence is character assassination or you're doing it purposefully. either way its highly desingenious of you but again, totaly expected. sad thing, this is your argumentation at its best.


whether you like it or not, I'll continue to rebut your ideas and the methods you employ to try to make them sound credible.

i dont need nor do i try to make my ideas sound credible, that is your distorted vision of those you do not agree with. besides, the credibility of what i post is supported by the credibility of my sources and by my own research. there isnt much more to it.


If that's considered a personal attack by you, so be it.

no, this is considered an attack by any discussion standards. just dont think i'll let your attacks slip through uncommented.


I've actually been measured in my responses to your constant provocative innuendos, not because I'm afraid to fight, but because addressing your spiel doesn't require it and is against the FAQ of this board at any rate.

=D>
you're certainly at least the king of rhethoric but certainly not of measured speech, im sure.
you accuse me of throwing innuendos and yet you keep constantly calling me a woowoo and stating that my opinions are spiel. it appears you have no moral for accusing me of such things while you keep doing the same.


You want to fight?

jeesus, you're self centered. i couldnt care less, besides you're sounding trolish by the minute. lighten up.


"Woo woo" and Hoagland go hand in hand when it comes to the spiel of Martian artificiality. Calling them straw men is a non-sequitur.

do you realize that the Cydonia artificial proposal came before Hoagland set his hands on the subject? if you dont understand the historical unfolding of this issue then do not make uninformed statements.


Without Hoagland, the Face and all other claims of Cydonian artificial structures wouldn't have been an issue. Blaming the lack of credibility for his claims on ridicule and peer-pressure, while ignoring the consequences to this woo woo claim by the follow-up images is refusing to face reality, plain and simple.

Hoagland is a science fiction writer. the people that initialy researched the Cydonia area are competent specialists, ranging from geologists to technical computer experts, some of them have even been subcontracted by NASA. your woowoo dismissals wont work in this case no matter how you twist the issue.




You do frequently cast doubts on NASA and other facets of the "mainstream" Outcast. It's what you do. It's what you need to do. How else could you promote nonsense like artificiality on Mars, flying saucers, the pyramid/ancient astronaut corollary, and Sitchin on this board?oh, now you're pulling "other facets" of the mainstream that i suposedly also cast doubts upon. and what relevance does that have for this particular discussion? let me answer that: nothing.
by the way, i suggest you spare me your phsycological shenanigans.It's funny Outcast. You ask for examples of where you cast doubt on the mainstream and when I provide cited examples and mention that this tack has been a consistent part of what you bring to the BABB in general, you simply act like we can't read regarding the former and say the latter is irrelevant.

you know whats funny? funny is the fact that you willingly misunderstand what im saying to you and you even twist your own statements as you go along. let me try this again: half way through this thread, where i had probably half a dozen posts on varied topics of the discussion, you claimed that i FREQUENTLY cast doubts at NASA. you obviously were not refering to this particular thread, so do not try to twist what you said! you were trying to infer that my presence in this forum has been rigged with overt attacks at NASA, which is not true.
i bet you went searching for the "NASA" word in all my posts at this forum and came back rather frustrated. that is the reason why you keep dodging my request to show my frequent attacks at NASA, this thread not withstanding. [-X


Actually you reveal a lot about yourself with this statement. Most people do have convictions, don't you? Isn't what people believe their opinion? Is the fact that I will tell people that there's no artificially at Cydonia or that NASA isn't covering up evidence really "ridiculous?" I don't think so.

would spare me the phsychological shenanigans?
besides, this has nothing to do with "convictions". my convinctions do not become fact just because they're convinctions and i've never stated that my opinions are fact, YOU DID. now, thats ridiculous!
telling people that you believe that there's no artificiallity at Cydonia given the available evidence is expressing an opinion, claiming its a fact is a falsehood.


Do you believe in elves Outcast? I'd also tell people that elves don't exist and state it as fact. I base both statements on the fact that there's no real evidence for either myth.

ok, now we're jumping from Mars to a redutio ad absurdum in one gentle stroke. nice touch... not. actually thats Socrates logic gimmick of the parallel analogies trick. but i'll play game, a possible answer to your question is in dr. Richard Thompson's book "Alien Identities".


Do you "suspend judgment" on elves too? I think that if, in order for your arguments to be considered credible, everyone else must "suspend judgment" and avoid stating their own "convictions" as being factual, then your arguments are too weak.

excuse me? do you really think that what you said above made any sense, if it did it must be some twisted logic im not aware of? #-o stating convictions as fact is a fallacy per se, that is my only argument regarding this issue.


I read what A.DIM linked to regarding Fleming and read two of Hoagland's Cydonia books so I know what's being proposed.

you've read two of Hoagland's Cydonia books? im only aware of one book by Hoagland addressing the Cydonia issue, care to tell us which is the other one?


Ignoring things might explain why you believe what you do, but it won't work here Outcast.

i believe you make too many assumptions, read my posts above for a simple explanation. ah, and im the one accused of pseudo science. sad...

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:

you know... the chinese pyramids look just like mountains, even in newer high resolution images. fortunately, not most of the people was skeptical of them and went to take a look in person. it turns out that many of these mountain/pyramids were in fact artificial constructions. thank goodness for open mindness.

So basically every hill and mountain on Mars is artificial until we actually go and have a look?

let me see... did i ever say that??
humm... no.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

let me see... did i ever say that??
humm... no.

Oh but I merely suggested a possibility that lends validity to the "you said so" -hypothesis.

[Outcast]

you know... the chinese pyramids look just like mountains, even in newer high resolution images. fortunately, not most of the people was skeptical of them and went to take a look in person. it turns out that many of these mountain/pyramids were in fact artificial constructions. thank goodness for open mindness.
What do you think the odds are of a pyramidal mountain in China turning out to be artificial are compared to the odds of a pyramidal mountain on Mars turning out to be artificial?

the odds are obviously not the same, and i never claimed them to be. Earth, having been inhabited by intelligent constructive beings for millenia has an aprori indication for possible artificial features. yet, i see two possibilities regarding Mars: the possibility that Mars could have once had an Earth like atmosphere supportive of life and the appearance of intelligent beings by natural evolution, or unnatural means, capable of transforming the terrain and building complex structures before the planet was stroke by catastrophe. the possibility that Mars was visited in its past by space faring beings, this also ties in with the ETH hypothesis and would help explain the UFO and extraterrestrial contact on Earth.

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:

let me see... did i ever say that??
humm... no.

Oh but I merely suggested a possibility that lends validity to the "you said so" -hypothesis.

no. you sugested an absurd generalization that never crossed my mind and was nowhere even hinted in my arguments.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:

and was nowhere even hinted in my arguments.

Yes it was:


it turns out that many of these mountain/pyramids were in fact artificial constructions

And do you yet have a link to that THEMIS image or did you "make" it yourself?

[R.A.F.]

I find most of the woo woo things you promote to be as unscientific as they come and...

either you dont realize that inserting the "woo woo" in this sentence is character assassination or you're doing it purposefully.

Archer did not call you a woowoo. He called the "things you promote", woowoo. There is a difference. To refer to that as "character assassination" is an unreasonable assumption.


...either way its highly desingenious of you but again, totaly expected. sad thing, this is your argumentation at its best.

....and you use that "unreasonable assumption" as an excuse to make "snide" comments.

Is that your personal example of "argumentation at it's best"?

[N C More]

Ok, this is getting nowhere fast. How about we go back to the root of the problem?

Outcast and A.DIM please go here. (http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-notes.html) Now scroll down apx. half way until you reach a comparative table entitled; A Comparison of Critical and Uncritical Thinking. Now, in all honesty, take a long, hard critical look at the manner in which you are thinking about this subject.

Isn't it possible that you are employing some wishful or dogmatic thinking as well as a great many qualitative errors?

After the first Viking images I, too, was at the place you currently are. However, with the advent of updated images my position has changed accordingly. Now, nothing is life is 100% certain (I'll concede that) but we have to go with probability and logical, critical thinking in order to function in a reasonable manner.

Everyone is free to think as they choose. But, if it's your desire to influence the thinking of others (especially scientists) then you'll need something more than, "it looks like a face", creative math and a NASA conspiracy to cover all the loose ends. Do you see what I mean?

[Nereid]

did you even read the content, and i mean READ the content of the "catbox" page? do you even understand what is being discussed in there?

i dont think you do or that you did. first, no .gif image was used
(From http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm) Image PIA01236.gif as downloaded from the JPL web site.
[...] Below is an enhancement of the raw MGS image(my bold). Clearly I missed the part on that page where Fleming states that the format of the "raw" image is NOT the .gif mentioned immediately above the sentence containing "raw".
Flemming [sic] explains the process here:
"VGL enhancement (raw image was first processed using a LISP program to remove some of the vertical streaks caused by variations in the sensitivity of the MGS camera's CCD elements and reduced to 17.3% to match the size of the "Catbox". "

probably you just dont know that usualy the MGS raw images are presented in tiff and qed format, one of which was suposedly readily available in the JPL page.

besides, the reason why jpgs are presented in those pages is the same as a for anyother website in the internet: to save download time.
Indeed. And remind us all again .... how are the photons from Mars detected? How does the (CCD) detector convert to an output (presumably a bit stream?)? How does the MGS convert that, and transmit it? How is the signal received here or Earth (or is it via TDRS)? How is the raw image reconstructed from the received signal? How is it converted to the formats (.jpg, .tiff, .qed, FITS, .gif, whatever) used for posting on the website?

None of the aspects appears to be covered on the Fleming [one 'm'] page, yet he goes on to say:
The Catbox was the product of excessive filtering of the raw image, giving the Face a nearly-flat appearance (another nickname for the Catbox is the "Footprint"). Rather than removing or suppressing the vertical streaking , this artifact of the MGS camera was exaggerated, resulting in the broad light stripe running down the image's center.
Surely Fleming is sufficiently familiar with the details of how incident photons (on the CCDs) become converted to pixels in a .gif file to be able explain the difference between what one sees in a .gif file and the data itself? And to explain that ALL images (from the MGS, the HST, that astrophoto taken with your backyard telescope, ...) involve processing? If he feels that the 'filtering' and 'exaggerating' of any particular image is extraordinary, then isn't it up to him to demonstrate that, quantitatively? And surely the only way to do that properly includes comparison (with other released images, taken under comparable circumstances)?

Did Fleming do any of this? I have no idea!

Did this particular webpage of his say that he'd done any of this? No.
And the websites seem to be undated, so are we reading stuff that's current, or stuff that's >~5 years' old? BTW, this question seems still to be open.

[Nereid]

Thought I'd re-post some questions of mine that don't appear to have been addressed yet, by Outcast, A.DIM, or any other proponent
But the most amazing things to me, on a first read of these [Fleming] sites, are:
* some folk have actually gone to the trouble of doing some real analyses, (apparently) using the real, source data (this is quite a contrast to what I'm used to) Applause
* where are the controls? what is being tested? I mean, all this effort on one or a half dozen landforms, but (apparently) no effort to check the extent to which these are representative (or not) of others, either on Mars or on Earth or on the Moon, [...]
Seems there were TWO questions/issues in the OP:
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"

To address the first, don't we need to establish (hopefully objective) criteria by which "artificiality of origin" can be determined?

As to the second, well excuse me if I'm really in the slow class today, but:

a ) did NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?

b ) are Börner, Fleming, Outcast (?), A.DIM (?), et al. getting hot&bothered over a PR, or over 'the real McCoy' (is that the right expression?) - the actual data?

I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis. Afterall, and I've said this before, the assumption that Life IS out there underlies most of our space endeavors. Mars is the most earthlike, having a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present.

In my mind, if there were any chance of discovering intelligent life in our solar system, Mars would be the place to look.
Kinda begs the question, doesn't it, "what is 'intelligent life'?" And, why Mars?
How did you get from "lifelike" and "Life IS out there" to "artificiality hypothesis"?
So, how do you get from "a tilted axis, seasons, and an apparent history of massive amounts of water present" to "intelligent life"?




And yet, the very idea brings out the "skeptics" in droves to "debunk" the whole notion.Perhaps I am a 'skeptic', perhaps not.

Irrespective of what I 'am', do you consider it good science to ask the kind of questions I've been asking so far?Irrespective of it being "good science," I think asking questions of any sort is good. IMO, there are no "bad" questions.Are you sure?

In any case, since this is the ATM section of the BA forum website, is there any good way to go about answering questions than an approach that is atune with "good science"?

What is this [ETH] hypothesis?

[Nereid]

Continuing this line of questions:
I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance to the ETH and the artificiality hypothesis.

More basically, what is 'the artificiality hypothesis'??Umm, the hypothesis that there are artificial structures on the surface of Mars.
Thank you.

Now, how would you go about testing this "artificiality hypothesis" (as defined)?

Presumably you would first need to determine what characteristics a 'structure on the surface of Mars' would need to have for you to consider it 'artificial', wouldn't you? You would also need to determine the extent to which your criteria were capable of being met, objectively, wouldn't you?

Has any 'face' proponent - here in this thread - done either of these things?

[Archer17]

You know Outcast, I was willing to walk away from this thread, but not under fire. Let's get something straight: I know we have a history.oh, you're under fire? weird, i thought you were the one taking pot shots at me and A.dim. get one thing straight in you head my friend, we do not have a "history". your posts are filled with self aggrandizement, (ex: opinion as fact, an "history"??) but the fact is i've seen no science coming from you.We do have a history that goes back years. I'm the fly in your woo woo ointment, remember? Regarding you not seeing science, you have yet to show you even understand real science.

I find most of the woo woo things you promote to be as unscientific as they come and... either you dont realize that inserting the "woo woo" in this sentence is character assassination or you're doing it purposefully. either way its highly desingenious of you but again, totaly expected. sad thing, this is your argumentation at its best.I haven't called you a woo woo Outcast. Promoting woo is what you do and there's no real way to sugar-coat it .. even if I wanted to.

whether you like it or not, I'll continue to rebut your ideas and the methods you employ to try to make them sound credible.i dont need nor do i try to make my ideas sound credible, that is your distorted vision of those you do not agree with. besides, the credibility of what i post is supported by the credibility of my sources and by my own research. there isnt much more to it.heh .. there's nothing to it Outcast. Your sources and research are non-mainstream. That's a synonym for woo woo BTW. What's sad is that you just don't get it. It's a shame that you continue to ignore an opportunity to actually learn something and instead respond with woo woo-board rhetoric and a martyr complex.

If that's considered a personal attack by you, so be it.no, this is considered an attack by any discussion standards. just dont think i'll let your attacks slip through uncommented.Do what you think you have to do, but if rejection of your ideas and methods are considered an "attack" by you, that's your problem.

I've actually been measured in my responses to your constant provocative innuendos, not because I'm afraid to fight, but because addressing your spiel doesn't require it and is against the FAQ of this board at any rate. =D>
you're certainly at least the king of rhethoric but certainly not of measured speech, im sure.
you accuse me of throwing innuendos and yet you keep constantly calling me a woowoo and stating that my opinions are spiel. it appears you have no moral for accusing me of such things while you keep doing the same.Trust me, my responses have been measured. I could have a field day with some of the things you have posted here if so inclined. I say you promote woo woo ideas Outcast, not that you are woo woo. Do you know what "spiel" means? Would "nonsense," "bunk," or "hokum" be any more aesthetically pleasing?

You want to fight?jeesus, you're self centered. i couldnt care less, besides you're sounding trolish by the minute. lighten up.Nice snip Outcast. Since your posts are frequently laced with provocative rhetoric meant to provoke, I figured I'd give you a chance to go a few rounds in another venue. It is you that needs to "lighten up." If you don't want to fight, quit trying to start one.

"Woo woo" and Hoagland go hand in hand when it comes to the spiel of Martian artificiality. Calling them straw men is a non-sequitur.do you realize that the Cydonia artificial proposal came before Hoagland set his hands on the subject? if you dont understand the historical unfolding of this issue then do not make uninformed statements.That was pretty lame, but you get even worse as we'll see. Regarding this snippet, what you posted above, even after breaking up my post as you did, doesn't hide the fact that what you wrote has nothing to do with what I said. Who said anything about historical context? :roll: The Hoagland-Cydonia connection is obvious to everyone but you it seems.

Without Hoagland, the Face and all other claims of Cydonian artificial structures wouldn't have been an issue. Blaming the lack of credibility for his claims on ridicule and peer-pressure, while ignoring the consequences to this woo woo claim by the follow-up images is refusing to face reality, plain and simple.Hoagland is a science fiction writer. the people that initialy researched the Cydonia area are competent specialists, ranging from geologists to technical computer experts, some of them have even been subcontracted by NASA. your woowoo dismissals wont work in this case no matter how you twist the issue.The citations you and A.DIM constantly rely on are not very objective and this thread is no exception. The sad thing is that you two have had to "accidentally" run across some genuine scientific sources from time to time during your cherry-picking, but they are anathema to y'all. Refusing to accept reality to keep a dogma alive is a genuine shame.



You do frequently cast doubts on NASA and other facets of the "mainstream" Outcast. It's what you do. It's what you need to do. How else could you promote nonsense like artificiality on Mars, flying saucers, the pyramid/ancient astronaut corollary, and Sitchin on this board?oh, now you're pulling "other facets" of the mainstream that i suposedly also cast doubts upon. and what relevance does that have for this particular discussion? let me answer that: nothing.
by the way, i suggest you spare me your phsycological shenanigans.It's funny Outcast. You ask for examples of where you cast doubt on the mainstream and when I provide cited examples and mention that this tack has been a consistent part of what you bring to the BABB in general, you simply act like we can't read regarding the former and say the latter is irrelevant.you know whats funny? funny is the fact that you willingly misunderstand what im saying to you and you even twist your own statements as you go along. let me try this again: half way through this thread, where i had probably half a dozen posts on varied topics of the discussion, you claimed that i FREQUENTLY cast doubts at NASA. you obviously were not refering to this particular thread, so do not try to twist what you said! you were trying to infer that my presence in this forum has been rigged with overt attacks at NASA, which is not true.
i bet you went searching for the "NASA" word in all my posts at this forum and came back rather frustrated. that is the reason why you keep dodging my request to show my frequent attacks at NASA, this thread not withstanding. [-X This is a rather bizarre thing to post. Are you aware that other people are able to go back and read what we both posted? Want to talk about trying to "twist" things Outcast? You stating that:
you obviously were not refering to this particular thread, so do not try to twist what you said is the lamest thing I ever saw from you. I even went so far as to bold some of those instances in this thread. Should I use another font color? I'll say this again since you missed it. You can't have things both ways. You can't make claims that NASA "doctors" images without "casting doubt" on that agency and denying it won't change things.

Actually you reveal a lot about yourself with this statement. Most people do have convictions, don't you? Isn't what people believe their opinion? Is the fact that I will tell people that there's no artificially at Cydonia or that NASA isn't covering up evidence really "ridiculous?" I don't think so.
would spare me the phsychological shenanigans?
besides, this has nothing to do with "convictions". my convinctions do not become fact just because they're convinctions and i've never stated that my opinions are fact, YOU DID. now, thats ridiculous!
telling people that you believe that there's no artificiallity at Cydonia given the available evidence is expressing an opinion, claiming its a fact is a falsehood.First of all, Cydonian artificiality is a falsehood. Second of all, I don't subscribe to expressing my opinions as 50-50 propositions. Like I said before, how I state my opinions is not relevant to this discussion. I say there is no artificially and base it on photographic evidence.. if you don't like it, tough. I'm not going to alter my posts to please you and give life to a dead concept.

Do you believe in elves Outcast? I'd also tell people that elves don't exist and state it as fact. I base both statements on the fact that there's no real evidence for either myth.ok, now we're jumping from Mars to a redutio ad absurdum in one gentle stroke. nice touch... not. actually thats Socrates logic gimmick of the parallel analogies trick. but i'll play game, a possible answer to your question is in dr. Richard Thompson's book "Alien Identities".Spare me the "Soup two-step" and answer the question. You and A.DIM claim me and those that share my POV are "pseudoskeptics" just because we don't "suspend judgement" all the time, so .. do elves exist Outcast? :-k

Do you "suspend judgment" on elves too? I think that if, in order for your arguments to be considered credible, everyone else must "suspend judgment" and avoid stating their own "convictions" as being factual, then your arguments are too weak.excuse me? do you really think that what you said above made any sense, if it did it must be some twisted logic im not aware of? #-o stating convictions as fact is a fallacy per se, that is my only argument regarding this issue.Stating convictions as fact is the way of life Outcast. Don't you ever make up your mind about anything? :roll: People do change their minds but generally believe something is either true or not and don't preface everything with "maybe" or "I allow the possibility." Like I said numerous times now, how we state our opinions shouldn't be an issue. It is with you and A.DIM because you don't want to read "you are wrong." You prefer the touchy-feely "'maybe you are wrong" or "it's possible" just to give unjustified credibility to what makes your own clocks tick. I don't play those games. I don't subscribe to your beliefs and won't coddle them. Neither one of you two have made anything approaching a credible case for NASA subterfuge or artificiality on Mars. How many pages is this thread now? How many converts did you make here Outcast?

I read what A.DIM linked to regarding Fleming and read two of Hoagland's Cydonia books so I know what's being proposed.you've read two of Hoagland's Cydonia books? im only aware of one book by Hoagland addressing the Cydonia issue, care to tell us which is the other one?Heritage of Mars. I also read the 5th edition of Monuments of Mars which was released a couple years ago. Does that count as 2 1/2? :wink:

Ignoring things might explain why you believe what you do, but it won't work here Outcast.i believe you make too many assumptions, read my posts above for a simple explanation. ah, and im the one accused of pseudo science. sad...What's sad is that you think you're being sarcastic here.

[Gillianren]

Also the silence on Gillianren's question is deafening - come on guys - time it was answered.

the silence is defeaning? boy, you do have a trait for over statements... i didnt even see Gillianren's post, it was burried somewhere 3 or 4 pages back.

anyway...

okay, I have to step in and be low-level offended, here--I read every one of your posts, even when you're just saying the same thing over and over again (most of them). if I remember properly, you posted on the same page as I. we certainly talked about my question for several posts. (not you and I, I and several others. but still.) and you didn't see it? interestingly selective vision, there.



okay, I have one question I would like answered re: NASA coverup.

if NASA was going to take the time to cover up the "face," why did they release the initial picture?


what NASA, more especificaly JPL, did was damage control. i dont think they ever thought they would pick up a face like formation in their Cydonia imaging, and at first, that single image didnt seem that important. as A.dim stated, the reason for these photos was aerial reconnaissance for possible landing areas.

okay, but I have a distinct memory of a picture of someone holding up the picture during a press conference. basically saying, "hey, this looks like a face! isn't it neat!" this is not merely releasing the picture, but releasing it with bells on. anyway, if they'd never released it, why would they need to do damage control? this does not answer my question.


if DiPietro, Molenaar and Carlotto didnt inspect the area and found the other unsuspected features, like the D&M pyramid for example (named after DiPietro and Molenaar), in close vicinity to the suposed face then the whole subject would have been buried much quicker. i've said this before, in my opinion, the important thing about Cydonia is not the "face" per se, but the fact that so many anomalous terrain features are present in the same area.


and this doesn't answer my question, either, but seems to be further dodging it. if there are so many "anomalous" terrain features, why are the pictures of them released? surely they could have just pretended a camera malfunction or something, right? question not answered, ergo any further information irrelevant. answer the question.

[Alan G. Archer]

Hoagland is a science fiction writer.

Hoagland is a science writer. His science isn't good, but he writes about it. His good friend ( :wink: ), Sir Arthur C. Clarke, is more of a science fiction writer.

[Alan G. Archer]

if DiPietro, Molenaar and Carlotto didnt inspect the area and found the other unsuspected features, like the D&M pyramid for example (named after DiPietro and Molenaar), in close vicinity to the suposed face then the whole subject would have been buried much quicker. i've said this before, in my opinion, the important thing about Cydonia is not the "face" per se, but the fact that so many anomalous terrain features are present in the same area.

I'm curious, is there an international scientific body responsible for the naming of extraterrestrial geologic features? Is the "D&M pyramid" recognized by anyone other than Cydonian enthusiasts?

[01101001]

I'm curious, is there an international scientific body responsible for the naming of extraterrestrial geologic features?
USGS Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature (http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/) (in cooperation with the International Astronomical Union, IAU) (http://www.iau.org/)


Is the "D&M pyramid" recognized by anyone other than Cydonian enthusiasts?
I don't see it.

[Alan G. Archer]

I'm curious, is there an international scientific body responsible for the naming of extraterrestrial geologic features?
USGS Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature (http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/) (in cooperation with the International Astronomical Union, IAU) (http://www.iau.org/)


Is the "D&M pyramid" recognized by anyone other than Cydonian enthusiasts?
I don't see it.

Thanks, 01101001.

[Outcast]

did you even read the content, and i mean READ the content of the "catbox" page? do you even understand what is being discussed in there?

i dont think you do or that you did. first, no .gif image was used
(From http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm) Image PIA01236.gif as downloaded from the JPL web site.
[...] Below is an enhancement of the raw MGS image(my bold). Clearly I missed the part on that page where Fleming states that the format of the "raw" image is NOT the .gif mentioned immediately above the sentence containing "raw".

clearly... in fact, you missed the most important part on that page. if you do not understand the process involved then you cannot have an objective opinion, now can you?

here's how it worked: the "gif" image was taken from the JPL website, they presented and manufatured that image from the raw data which is obviously the only way. the raw data was first processed then filtered and distorted, the image data suffered a high pass filter before being converted to the final gif format. Fleming used no gif images in his processing and only the original raw image. i hope this makes it clear for you.


Indeed. And remind us all again .... how are the photons from Mars detected? How does the (CCD) detector convert to an output (presumably a bit stream?)? How does the MGS convert that, and transmit it? How is the signal received here or Earth (or is it via TDRS)? How is the raw image reconstructed from the received signal? How is it converted to the formats (.jpg, .tiff, .qed, FITS, .gif, whatever) used for posting on the website?

and the relevance of those questions is ... ?

(i believe the answer to those questions are available in the JPL or the MSSS websites but that is besides the point)

the point is that the "cat box face" image is a distorted product and you can check the raw image yourself to confirm this. even the jpg available from JPL clearly shows that the original image data has nothing to do with the "cat box face" image. if you think this is "standard procedure" i dare you to find anyother MGS image present at the PDS with a imaging process equal to the one employed on the "cat box face" image.


Surely Fleming is sufficiently familiar with the details of how incident photons (on the CCDs) become converted to pixels in a .gif file to be able explain the difference between what one sees in a .gif file and the data itself?

humm... are you trying to impress someone with the technical jargon?

anyway, i would like to correct a previous statement of mine, the raw data of the MOC images is provided in JPLs proprietary format: .IMQ

the gif image is an indexed colored format with no visible compression artifacts because it uses a lossless compression algorithm. since the MOC images are grayscale, compressed gifs with 256 color images are used to present the data in the PDS online catalogues. the gif images are still a more faithfull rendition of the original raw data in the .imq format than jpgs, for example.


And to explain that ALL images (from the MGS, the HST, that astrophoto taken with your backyard telescope, ...) involve processing?

are you confusing processing with compression?


If he feels that the 'filtering' and 'exaggerating' of any particular image is extraordinary, then isn't it up to him to demonstrate that, quantitatively? And surely the only way to do that properly includes comparison (with other released images, taken under comparable circumstances)?

the "filtering" and "exaggerating" is so obvious that you can just go to the PDS image galleries and see for yourself. besides, in case you didnt notice the whole point of Fleming's article was to show you a simple comparison that precisely proves the point.

[Outcast]

Also the silence on Gillianren's question is deafening - come on guys - time it was answered.

the silence is defeaning? boy, you do have a trait for over statements... i didnt even see Gillianren's post, it was burried somewhere 3 or 4 pages back.

anyway...

okay, I have to step in and be low-level offended, here--I read every one of your posts, even when you're just saying the same thing over and over again (most of them). if I remember properly, you posted on the same page as I. we certainly talked about my question for several posts. (not you and I, I and several others. but still.) and you didn't see it? interestingly selective vision, there.

you're free to think whatever you want. i have no intention, nor had any intention of "offending" you. there are lots of posts that i do not care to answer to, either because they're not worthy of an answer or just because i do not have the time to answer each and everyone of them.


okay, but I have a distinct memory of a picture of someone holding up the picture during a press conference. basically saying, "hey, this looks like a face! isn't it neat!" this is not merely releasing the picture, but releasing it with bells on. anyway, if they'd never released it, why would they need to do damage control? this does not answer my question.

the group who proposed the artificiality hypothesis for the Cydonia area had a press conference where they showed the most proeminent features, including obviously, the face. is this what you're talking about? i have no recollection of a NASA press conference disclosing the face. Hoagland also appeared in national television with a picture of the face promoting it.


and this doesn't answer my question, either, but seems to be further dodging it. if there are so many "anomalous" terrain features, why are the pictures of them released? surely they could have just pretended a camera malfunction or something, right? question not answered, ergo any further information irrelevant. answer the question.

it doesnt answer your question? i think it does. JPL is under contract by NASA, NASA is funded by the american public (through the Government of course) thus JPL images are under public domain and they are also obligated to perform targeting of public/scientific interest areas. that doesnt mean that they cannot or have not engaged in less than licit tactics to divert the artificiality issue. as Professor McDaniel testified:


As my study of the work done by the independent investigators and NASA's response to their research continued, I became aware not only of the relatively high quality of the independent research, but also of glaring mistakes in the arguements used by NASA to reject this research. With each new NASA document I encountered, I became more and more appalled by the impossibly bad quality of the reasoning used. It grew more and more difficult to believe that educated scientists could engage in such faulty reasoning unless they were following some sort of hidden agenda aimed at suppressing the true nature of the data

McDaniels efforts were fundamental i forcing the reimaging of the Cydonia area more than 20 years later. thats how long Nasa's silence endured only to be broken with the release of the "cat box face" image.

[Outcast]

We do have a history that goes back years. I'm the fly in your woo woo ointment, remember? Regarding you not seeing science, you have yet to show you even understand real science

no, actualy it seems that you think that you're in some sort of crusade against the "infidels" and i, obviously considered to be one of them, should somehow regard you as some kind of modern day "maintream" inquisition and fear you to death. its not gonna happen. to me you're just a remarkable troll who for strange reasons got to have 3000 posts, i suspect the only reason why you achieved this without being banned for misconduct was because you're singing with the choir.


I haven't called you a woo woo Outcast. Promoting woo is what you do and there's no real way to sugar-coat it .. even if I wanted to.

oh brother. #-o


heh .. there's nothing to it Outcast. Your sources and research are non-mainstream. That's a synonym for woo woo BTW. What's sad is that you just don't get it. It's a shame that you continue to ignore an opportunity to actually learn something and instead respond with woo woo-board rhetoric and a martyr complex.

im not here to convince you of anything mister. besides, how can anyone convince you anything... you're the one whose opinions are "fact", you've allready convinced yourself you're right. your "woowoo" remarks and "non-mainstream" strawmen are inconsequential, you add nothing to the debate except vitriol and personal innuendos.


Nice snip Outcast. Since your posts are frequently laced with provocative rhetoric meant to provoke, I figured I'd give you a chance to go a few rounds in another venue. It is you that needs to "lighten up." If you don't want to fight, quit trying to start one.

jeesus, you've been provoking me and A.dim from the start with provocative rethoric yourself. its what you do, its the nature of your debate "tactics". you're not interested in debate anyway, your little request for a fight is a perfect example of that. do you really think i'll keep fueling your trollish behaviour, do you think i'll get down to that level? no, it ends now. i'll ignore your posts from now on, please extend me the same courtesy.

[Alan G. Archer]

McDaniels efforts were fundamental i forcing the reimaging of the Cydonia area more than 20 years later. thats how long Nasa's silence endured only to be broken with the release of the "cat box face" image.

Not bad for a philosopher, but is "forcing" too strong a term?

Do you think I could persuade the good professor to publish a report on Hoagland's medal?

[frogesque]

Guys, can we stick to answering the topic please? This is starting to get OTT and personal.

A lot of years ago people believed 'canali' on Mars were water chanels or canals. Later research has proved that view to be incorrect. Early pictures from Mars showed a formation that some fancifully have seen as artificial. Subsequent data has given clear indication that they are fairly normal and rather uninteresting scientifically (compared to other formations and ice lakes) so there is no great reason to keep on investigating that particular area at the moment. High res orbiters will however map the whole planet in great detail in due course and landers will continue to search for elusive signs of any life past or present. These are not solely NASA missions.

I would apreciate it if anyone can direct me to where any conspiracy lay to suppress photographs or scientific data.

My thinking goes along the lines of:

a) Mars is a cold dead world unable to support life - boring usless endevour - cut funding and have a tax break before the next election. Heck! We can 'sell' this and get elected!

b) We have some fantastic pics of Mars that show intellegent life exists/existed there, we have to have $zillions funding for more probes and maned missions, the safety of planet Earth depends on it. Heck! We can 'sell' this and get elected!

There is no viable evidence (of inteligent life) at the moment and NASA funding at present is in jeaopardy. a) and b) above give a realistic (if somewhat cynical) view of how the real world works.

Edit: sp & typo

[Alan G. Archer]

From the first page of this thread, ToSeek answers A.DIM (in bold type):

OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later.

Unfortunately, thanks in large part to shuttle development, there was no money for another Mars mission until Mars Observer in the early 90's. I think also the negative results of the Viking life science experiments greatly diminished any interest in further exploration.

So was the so-called "public outcry" (i.e., Stan McDaniel, et al.) largely an irrelevant factor when it came to the planning of NASA's Mars missions?

[Fram]

okay, but I have a distinct memory of a picture of someone holding up the picture during a press conference. basically saying, "hey, this looks like a face! isn't it neat!" this is not merely releasing the picture, but releasing it with bells on. anyway, if they'd never released it, why would they need to do damage control? this does not answer my question.

the group who proposed the artificiality hypothesis for the Cydonia area had a press conference where they showed the most proeminent features, including obviously, the face. is this what you're talking about? i have no recollection of a NASA press conference disclosing the face. Hoagland also appeared in national television with a picture of the face promoting it.



From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_on_Mars) article about the Face on Mars (emphasis mine):

The Face on Mars is a large feature on the surface of the planet Mars located in the Cydonia region. It measures approximately 3 km long and 1.5 km across and lies some 10 degrees North of the Martian equator. It was first photographed on July 25, 1976 by the Viking 1 space probe orbiting the planet at the time. It was brought to the attention of the public in a NASA press release of the photo six days later.

A very strange way of hiding evidence of alien intelligence...

[R.A.F.]

McDaniels efforts were fundamental i forcing the reimaging of the Cydonia area more than 20 years later. thats how long Nasa's silence endured only to be broken with the release of the "cat box face" image.

You make it sound like there is something "suspicious" about the 20 year delay. It simply took that long to send another spacecraft that could image the area...


to me you're just a remarkable troll who for strange reasons got to have 3000 posts...

From the FAQ...

What should I do about a troll?
A troll is someone who posts abusively, or posts an advertisement without permission, or posts in some sort of provocative manner just to seek a response. As a board about rational thinking, Bad Astronomy gets its share of trolls. If you see a post that you think is trolling, don't reply to it. This is called "feeding the trolls" and simply encourages them. So don't reply back calling them a troll, or starting a countdown (as in, a countdown to banning or deletion of the thread), or anything. When you suspect a post is from a troll, simply tell me! I will go through the person's posting history and decide if action needs to be taken or not. You can send me a private message through the board, or email me. Either way is fine, though I prefer email. I respond to it more quickly. Believe me, I hate trolls as much as the next person, and will deal with them accordingly.

Looks like you need to contact the BA...then again, (after reading the following), perhaps not.


i suspect the only reason why you achieved this without being banned for misconduct was because you're singing with the choir.

So Trolls are allowed to post here just as long as they "agree" with the mainstream??? Good luck "selling" that one to the BA. :lol:


I would apreciate it if anyone can direct me to where any conspiracy lay to suppress photographs or scientific data.

That's the problem...the only evidence for any "suppression conspiracy" comes directly from the "face believers". There is no objective evidence that would support the idea that photographs have been suppressed...yet for some reason, we keep hearing about the "catbox"...go figure.

[Alan G. Archer]

Hoagland wants the Face on Mars resolved with cameras to the point where he can see the girders ( :o ) that the arcology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology) ( :o :o ) was constructed with.

If he or his fellow travelers get what they want, or think they got what they wanted, they will no doubt keep harping about the "catbox." I think it's in their nature to behave that way.

[algorithms]

RAF: "That's the problem...the only evidence for any "suppression conspiracy" comes directly from the "face believers". There is no objective evidence that would support the idea that photographs have been suppressed...yet for some reason, we keep hearing about the "catbox"...go figure."

The problem is that its a religion and people with strong religious beliefs will compose any justification they can to protect their beliefs. Think about it. How can anyone logically examine the following picture and still think its an artifically created "face.?"

http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/moc_5_24_01/face/face_e03-824_proc_i.gif

That there are still those who do illustrates my point. It looks nothing like a "face" yet there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who still see a "face." The process is no different than what happens with faith healers and people speaking in tongues. Its the power of belief working to overcome common sense, logic and the obvious.

[Nereid]

did you even read the content, and i mean READ the content of the "catbox" page? do you even understand what is being discussed in there?

i dont think you do or that you did. first, no .gif image was used
(From http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm) Image PIA01236.gif as downloaded from the JPL web site.
[...] Below is an enhancement of the raw MGS image
(my bold). Clearly I missed the part on that page where Fleming states that the format of the "raw" image is NOT the .gif mentioned immediately above the sentence containing "raw".
clearly... in fact, you missed the most important part on that page. if you do not understand the process involved
So, would you please walk me through the process? Please be sure to explain all the relevant steps between image acquisition and the release of the data, with particular attention to what constitutes a 'raw' image.
then you cannot have an objective opinion, now can you?
This is true. And it's also why I'm asking you to provide sufficient detail of your (actually Fleming's) case.

BTW, I'm a little upset that you responded in this way - so far all I've done is ask you (and A.DIM) to clarify what you (and Fleming, and the folk who wrote the webpages to which you've provided links) have said.
here's how it worked: the "gif" image was taken from the JPL website, they presented and manufatured that image from the raw data which is obviously the only way.
Why (is it 'the only way')?

How did they (JPL?) 'manufature' the "gif" image?
the raw data was first processed then filtered and distorted, the image data suffered a high pass filter before being converted to the final gif format.
How do you know this?
Do you have 'the raw data'?
What form is it in?
Fleming used no gif images in his processing and only the original raw image.
This may be so.

However, Fleming does not actually say what 'the original raw image' is, or where he got it from; rather, his webpage is worded in such a way that it lead me to conclude that he used the .gif image he posted as 'the original raw image'.

Where can one obtain 'the original raw image'?
i hope this makes it clear for you.
Thanks for your efforts.

As you will see from my response (above), it clarifies things only a little.

Indeed. And remind us all again .... how are the photons from Mars detected? How does the (CCD) detector convert to an output (presumably a bit stream?)? How does the MGS convert that, and transmit it? How is the signal received here or Earth (or is it via TDRS)? How is the raw image reconstructed from the received signal? How is it converted to the formats (.jpg, .tiff, .qed, FITS, .gif, whatever) used for posting on the website?
and the relevance of those questions is ... ?

(i believe the answer to those questions are available in the JPL or the MSSS websites but that is besides the point)
Well, from my POV, these are extremely important questions!

If Fleming seeks to make a strong case, I would expect - at the very least - a set of detailed references where one can go to get answers to all these questions (and more).

I would also have expected a summary of the relationship between the pixel brightness scale and something 'real' concerning photons detected by an MGS instrument (as well as stuff such as geometric distortion across the image). IOW, for the severity of the accusations being made (or the importance of the observations, take your pick), to ask the researcher to do the minimum of what is expected of any professional is entirely reasonable, n'est pas?
the point is that the "cat box face" image is a distorted product and you can check the raw image yourself to confirm this.
And where can I get this 'raw image'?
even the jpg available from JPL clearly shows that the original image data has nothing to do with the "cat box face" image.
How does it show 'clearly'?

'has nothing to do with' is an extraordinarily strong claim - taken literally it means there is no correspondence at all!! Did you exaggerate, perhaps?
if you think this is "standard procedure" i dare you to find anyother MGS image present at the PDS with a imaging process equal to the one employed on the "cat box face" image.
Now we're getting somewhere! :D

First though, since you are making the claim, it is up to you to answer questions about it, to defend the claim, etc.

Second, without the 'raw image', how can anyone assess the validity of your claim (or Fleming's)?

Third, without a quantitative description of the claimed unusual/extraordinary/whatever processing, there is no way to tell.

Surely Fleming is sufficiently familiar with the details of how incident photons (on the CCDs) become converted to pixels in a .gif file to be able explain the difference between what one sees in a .gif file and the data itself?
humm... are you trying to impress someone with the technical jargon?

anyway, i would like to correct a previous statement of mine, the raw data of the MOC images is provided in JPLs proprietary format: .IMQ
OK, so where is the 'raw data' in the .IMQ format? And how did Fleming get it?
the gif image is an indexed colored format with no visible compression artifacts because it uses a lossless compression algorithm. since the MOC images are grayscale, compressed gifs with 256 color images are used to present the data in the PDS online catalogues. the gif images are still a more faithfull rendition of the original raw data in the .imq format than jpgs, for example.
More 'faithfull' in what way?

What is the relationship between incident intensity (presumably number of photons detected, per read-out cycle) and (gif) greyscale? How are imager artifacts (e.g. CR hits, bad pixels, 'flatfielding') handled?

And to explain that ALL images (from the MGS, the HST, that astrophoto taken with your backyard telescope, ...) involve processing?
are you confusing processing with compression?
No.

Before I proceed, I guess it would be a good idea to check how familiar you are with the underlying physics of CCDs (assuming that they are the photon detectors employed in the MGS imager) and the processes used by CCD cameras to produce output signals (I've briefly touched on this - 'bad pixels' for example - but unless we're on the same page here, we could go on for dozens of pages and get nowhere). What would you say your level of understanding of how (astronomical/planetary probe) CCD cameras produce images is?

If he feels that the 'filtering' and 'exaggerating' of any particular image is extraordinary, then isn't it up to him to demonstrate that, quantitatively? And surely the only way to do that properly includes comparison (with other released images, taken under comparable circumstances)?
the "filtering" and "exaggerating" is so obvious that you can just go to the PDS image galleries and see for yourself. besides, in case you didnt notice the whole point of Fleming's article was to show you a simple comparison that precisely proves the point.
Er, with respect, that's not at all what I read. For starters:
1 ) no 'raw image' (data) provided - so no way to independently validate his claim
2 ) no comparisons with MGS images (other than of the catbox) taken under comparable circumstances - so no way to test the 'extraordinary' claim
3 ) nothing quantitative (just visual images).

[algorithms]

Nereid,

I had posted earlier what is the simple and straightforward explanation for the so-called "catbox" image. Its simply a minimally processed and unrectified image. It was the very first image made available to the public. It was presented this way in order to meet a public commitment NASA made to make the "face" image available to the public as fast as possible and with as little processing as possible.

I should also note the feature was imaged from a highly oblique angle on a day with the martian skies over Cydonia were hazy.

In reality, Fleming has made NASA's earnest effort simply to make the "face" image available as fast as possible into a silly conspiracy.

What makes it even sillier is that just a couple hours later, a better processed and properly rectified image was produced and published.

Fleming's claims that the "catbox" was deliberately intended to deceive the public do not add up given the sequence of events. It was produced and made public during the day, around 3:00 pm EST. The better processed image was then made available in time for the evening news and was used from that point forward in NASA publications. If NASA had really intended the "catbox" to be used to deceive the public, why didn't they just hand out that one until prime time was well over?

Regards,
Algorithms

[algorithms]

I think that perhaps this website best explains how the image was actually made and processed:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/index.html

There's no mystery or conspiracy here. Mr. Fleming has made a mountain out of a molehill - so to speak.

[Nereid]

Nereid,

I had posted earlier what is the simple and straightforward explanation for the so-called "catbox" image. Its simply a minimally processed and unrectified image. It was the very first image made available to the public. It was presented this way in order to meet a public commitment NASA made to make the "face" image available to the public as fast as possible and with as little processing as possible.

I should also note the feature was imaged from a highly oblique angle on a day with the martian skies over Cydonia were hazy.

In reality, Fleming has made NASA's earnest effort simply to make the "face" image available as fast as possible into a silly conspiracy.

What makes it even sillier is that just a couple hours later, a better processed and properly rectified image was produced and published.

Fleming's claims that the "catbox" was deliberately intended to deceive the public do not add up given the sequence of events. It was produced and made public during the day, around 3:00 pm EST. The better processed image was then made available in time for the evening news and was used from that point forward in NASA publications. If NASA had really intended the "catbox" to be used to deceive the public, why didn't they just hand out that one until prime time was well over?

Regards,
Algorithms
Hi Algorithms,

I saw your post, and thought it a good one.

However, Outcast, A.DIM, (and, indirectly, Fleming) are making some claims here, and I want them to answer at least some very elementary questions about those claims. In view of the 'strength' (shall we say) of those claims - by strength here I mean things like the volume, the number of times superlatives are used ('extraordinary', for example) - I had an expectation that they would be able to defend their claims with at least the degree of rigour that is demanded of folk who submit papers for publication in peer reviewed journals.

I believe it is important to insist that these claims be defended (by their porponents) to at least this extent. If proponents are not able to provide answers to the simple questions I have asked, let alone defend the claims against the challenges I'd really like to make, then I feel a very useful outcome from this thread will be possible - a clear demonstration of the emptiness of the claims, for example, or perhaps the recognition (by Outcast and A.DIM) that a great deal of work needs to be done.

Kind Regards
Nereid

[Nereid]

I think that perhaps this website best explains how the image was actually made and processed:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/index.html

There's no mystery or conspiracy here. Mr. Fleming has made a mountain out of a molehill - so to speak.
Now you see? algorithms has provided a webpage which describes much of what I asked Outcast about.

So, here's the curious thing - how come Fleming didn't give us at least a link to this sort of material (or, better still, create a page similar to this, as an 'attachment' to his page)?

More curious, how come A.DIM and Outcast didn't find this page for us?

Finally, it seems there is an answer to my earlier question ("[D]id NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?"), as follows (my bold):
Note: The MOC images are made available in order to share with the public the excitement of new discoveries being made via the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. The images may be reproduced only if the images are credited to "Malin Space Science Systems/NASA". Release of an image does not constitute a release of scientific data. An image and its caption should not be referenced in the scientific literature. Full data releases to the scientific community are scheduled by the Mars Global Surveyor Project and NASA Planetary Data System. Typically, data will be released after a 6 month calibration and validation period.
How come A.DIM or Outcast didn't answer my question?

[Eye-Zee]

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone's likely to get Fleming himself to weigh in on this. The Mars section of VGL hasn't been updated in over three years.

This horse died a long time ago, yet it gets exhumed and beaten with some regularity.

[algorithms]

Nereid: "How come A.DIM or Outcast didn't answer my question?"

Because its easier to believe in something without having to explain it. Most folks who believe in the kind of junk put out by people like Mr. Fleming are too lazy to critically evaluate and decipher real facts, data and information. They prefer to have their beliefs dished up to them like a baby gets spoon fed from a bowl of mashed steamed carrots.

Mr. Fleming began his "analysis" with the premise that the "face" was really a face. He was a believer to begin with. He also believes there are alien monuments on the moon as well. His "paper" was merely his way to justify holding onto his belief - its a reconciliation of his cognitive dissonance between his preset belief and the fact that the thing doesn't look at all like a face.

Don't expect either Outcast or A.DIM to do any better. They both suffer from a similar malady. I am not saying that to be mean or rude, just merely pointing out a fact.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how effective your arguement is, these folks believe as an article of faith.

Belief is a powerful force - difficult to unbuckle once it takes hold. Witness how easy it is for islamic fundamentalists to recruit willing suicide bombers who believe unequivocally their actions will carry them into the arms of 72 beautiful virgins in heaven. If human beings are capable of believing something that extreme, just imagine how easy it is to believe a mound of dirt on Mars is face.

[Swift]

Nicely written algorithms. You don't happen to have a cousin named Jay who calls Utah home? :D

[Van Rijn]

okay, but I have a distinct memory of a picture of someone holding up the picture during a press conference. basically saying, "hey, this looks like a face! isn't it neat!" this is not merely releasing the picture, but releasing it with bells on. anyway, if they'd never released it, why would they need to do damage control? this does not answer my question.

the group who proposed the artificiality hypothesis for the Cydonia area had a press conference where they showed the most proeminent features, including obviously, the face. is this what you're talking about? i have no recollection of a NASA press conference disclosing the face. Hoagland also appeared in national television with a picture of the face promoting it.



From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_on_Mars) article about the Face on Mars (emphasis mine):

The Face on Mars is a large feature on the surface of the planet Mars located in the Cydonia region. It measures approximately 3 km long and 1.5 km across and lies some 10 degrees North of the Martian equator. It was first photographed on July 25, 1976 by the Viking 1 space probe orbiting the planet at the time. It was brought to the attention of the public in a NASA press release of the photo six days later.

A very strange way of hiding evidence of alien intelligence...

I may have mentioned this on the BABB before, but I remember when the "face" was made public. I was very interested in the Viking life science experiments and one night in '76, while listening to the radio, I heard this (paraphrased) in the news break: "Evidence of life on Mars found? News later."

I broke the light barrier to reach the TV. While scanning through all 5 channels we could receive, I was dismayed to find no news special. I was convinced they had gotten a strong positive on the life science experiments.

Finally, when the 11:00pm news came on, very near the end (where they reserve the fluff bits) they had a few second piece showing where the Viking orbiter had taken a picture of a rock formation that looked like a face from that angle. Clearly this was the cause of the local radio news promo I'd heard earlier.

Understand that at that age, I was much more accepting of UFO stories than I am now (goes with experience). Even so, I was terribly disappointed. My father had been a geologist and I'd picked up a few things. This didn't impress me.

The face was also in the newspaper the next day, and when Hoagland started with his stories, I knew what he was referring to. NASA did not hide the "face." If anything, it got more attention than it deserved.

[Outcast]

So, would you please walk me through the process? Please be sure to explain all the relevant steps between image acquisition and the release of the data, with particular attention to what constitutes a 'raw' image.

Nereid, if you're just going to take my attempted answers and return them back at me in the form of questions then i dont think we're really having a dialog. i think i've explained and expressed to the best of my english speaking abilities the point in Fleming's article, besides i really think its that obvious. if you keep asking for me to "walk you through the process" over and over again then we're going nowhere fast.

like i said before, the detailed explanations for the orbiters imaging process is, or at least was since i've not looked into this for a long time, available in the MSSS and JPL websites. im not going to search this out for you and copy paste it in here because i dont see the point given what Fleming is discussing in his article.


BTW, I'm a little upset that you responded in this way - so far all I've done is ask you (and A.DIM) to clarify what you (and Fleming, and the folk who wrote the webpages to which you've provided links) have said.

well, the reason i replied in that way is because i dont really see the relevance of your questions. do i or anyone else for that matter have to know or provide a detailed and technical explanation of the inner workings of a CCD camera just to recognize the nature of a digital image? i dont think so.
i've been working with digital images and image editing software for years in a professional level, not in a scientific level as Fleming but i still can recognize a filtered image when i see one.


Why (is it 'the only way')?

because the raw compressed data format is produced and sent by the camera itself. why do you ask this? do you know of anyother way in which the digital image data is available?


How did they (JPL?) 'manufature' the "gif" image?

the gif image has to be produced from the original raw data set since the camera itself does not produce gif encoded image formats. by the way, nice touch in keep pointing out my typos. you know what a typo is, dont you? unless there is a subreptitious intention in there... hhummm. just let me know, im not in the mood for games.


How do you know this?

see above. besides the process of image acquisition is explained in the websites allready cited.


Do you have 'the raw data'?
What form is it in?

is this suposed to be a trick question?
i dont know where the raw image is for this particular image. i havent searched for the file and its not available from the JPL source link anymore.


However, Fleming does not actually say what 'the original raw image' is, or where he got it from; rather, his webpage is worded in such a way that it lead me to conclude that he used the .gif image he posted as 'the original raw image'.

the JPL webpage that Fleming cites suposedly had a full resolution, TIFF formatted version of the raw image. i dont know what gave you the impression that Fleming used the processed and filtered gif file as the original raw image since the gif image in question is this:

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.jpg

and the raw image produced the following:

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/vglface.jpg

i dont know where Fleming got the raw image but you can ask him if you want. besides the PDS is public, the number of the image is available and with a little work i bet its possible to get a copy.


Quoting Outcast: "
if you think this is "standard procedure" i dare you to find anyother MGS image present at the PDS with a imaging process equal to the one employed on the "cat box face" image. "

Now we're getting somewhere!

First though, since you are making the claim, it is up to you to answer questions about it, to defend the claim, etc.


are you asking me to prove a negative? sorry, that is highly unreasonable.


Second, without the 'raw image', how can anyone assess the validity of your claim (or Fleming's)?

you keep asking the same thing. the time you took to write your post you could have spent it finding the image yourself. heres a little help: PIA01236

[Alan G. Archer]

Author Herbie Brennan, in the epilogue of his 1998 book, "Martian Genesis: The Extraterrestrial Origins of the Human Race," wrote that the "enhanced" version of the 1998 MGS "Face on Mars" image "...looked less like a face in blow-up than it did when reduced." And because the "Face" proponents believe the sculpture to be immensely old, its features, like the weathered and damaged Great Sphinx at Giza, "...might actually look less like a face the closer in you got to it."

Brennan continues: "...the case for Martian intelligence did not rely on the "Face" alone. There were the other structures at Cydonia to consider and the relationships between them."

He concluded his book by stating that during the upcoming full-scale mapping of Mars, "...we may yet learn the truth about the "Face on Mars.""

Indeed.

[Outcast]

I saw your post, and thought it a good one.

However, Outcast, A.DIM, (and, indirectly, Fleming) are making some claims here, and I want them to answer at least some very elementary questions about those claims. In view of the 'strength' (shall we say) of those claims - by strength here I mean things like the volume, the number of times superlatives are used ('extraordinary', for example) - I had an expectation that they would be able to defend their claims with at least the degree of rigour that is demanded of folk who submit papers for publication in peer reviewed journals.

what an interesting statement. neither i nor Fleming, and i believe A.dim also, ever used 'extraordinary' as a superlative in our dialogs, so i wonder where you found such "volumes' of superlatives besides your own posts where you indeed applied the 'extraordinary' word. is that false statement suposed to imply Sagan's 'extraordinary' claims require 'extraordinary' evidence diversionary tactic?

besides, the idea of asking for the same rigourous degree used in scientific or theoretical peer review journals, which i do not object unless the medium is the one we're dealing with here, should be applied to both sides of the equation.

[frogesque]

Alan G. Archer wrote:


... He concluded his book by stating that during the upcoming full-scale mapping of Mars, "...we may yet learn the truth about the "Face on Mars.""

Indeed.

Indeed! And if it proves to be a natural feature ...?

I don't buy any of these face/catbox/kittylitter delusions that are sold to the gullable and nothing in this thread has altered my view. Produce some real evidence and I might look at it seriously but it has to better evidence than enhanced fuzzy digital images. At the moment this debate is sterile and circular so I leave you gentle people to contemplate the meaning of life and its origins.

Edit: I do however still believe that this thread belongs in ATM and not in a factual forum about Mars.

[Alan G. Archer]

Alan G. Archer wrote:


... He concluded his book by stating that during the upcoming full-scale mapping of Mars, "...we may yet learn the truth about the "Face on Mars.""

Indeed.

Indeed! And if it proves to be a natural feature ...?

Nature wins!

[Outcast]

I think that perhaps this website best explains how the image was actually made and processed:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/index.html

There's no mystery or conspiracy here. Mr. Fleming has made a mountain out of a molehill - so to speak.

Fleming is right, there are people that will, no matter what, refuse to see any wrong doing in Nasa's dealings with this subject.


I had posted earlier what is the simple and straightforward explanation for the so-called "catbox" image. Its simply a minimally processed and unrectified image. It was the very first image made available to the public.

interesting how the requests for rigorous degrees of scientific work are quickly forgoten when the objective justify the means. besides, i would only qualify as "minimally processed" the contrast enhanced version of the raw image presented at the MSSS article and not the highpass filtered "cat box" image.

this is particularly obvious when one understands the differences between the "cat box" image and the images that were presented two months later in the MSSS article. the "cat box" image is devoid of contrast and the terrain is featureless giving the illusion of a flat area, this was achieved by applying highpass filtering which enhances the edges by sharpening and reduces contrast. it served its purpose nonetheless and that was to show that the three dimensionality of the Viking images was not real, this same objective was attempted later with the presentation of bogus Mola data.

i keep hearing that a second image was presented a few hours later but the MSSS article with the data presented is dated to the 4th of June of 1998, two months later than the "cat box" image. the MSSS article even states that: "The images shown here were subsequently processed at MSSS.". why would a scientfic institute produce such a shoddy piece of work?

now, addressing the processing done to these later images i wonder what "filters" (sic) were applied to enhance details (allthough less information destructive) and why exactly did they felt compeled to present a map projected, geometrically warped, version of the image which is a known distorted format as aknowlledged in the article itself.

sometimes you dont need an entricate conspiracy, just a number of geologists and operatives who dont like to answer questions or face (no pun intended) a reality that goes beyond their interests.

[Outcast]

I think that perhaps this website best explains how the image was actually made and processed:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/index.html

There's no mystery or conspiracy here. Mr. Fleming has made a mountain out of a molehill - so to speak.
Now you see? algorithms has provided a webpage which describes much of what I asked Outcast about.

So, here's the curious thing - how come Fleming didn't give us at least a link to this sort of material (or, better still, create a page similar to this, as an 'attachment' to his page)?

More curious, how come A.DIM and Outcast didn't find this page for us?

Finally, it seems there is an answer to my earlier question ("[D]id NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?"), as follows (my bold):
Note: The MOC images are made available in order to share with the public the excitement of new discoveries being made via the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. The images may be reproduced only if the images are credited to "Malin Space Science Systems/NASA". Release of an image does not constitute a release of scientific data. An image and its caption should not be referenced in the scientific literature. Full data releases to the scientific community are scheduled by the Mars Global Surveyor Project and NASA Planetary Data System. Typically, data will be released after a 6 month calibration and validation period.
How come A.DIM or Outcast didn't answer my question?

you must be joking, right? right?
christ... #-o

[Outcast]

Nereid: "How come A.DIM or Outcast didn't answer my question?"

Because its easier to believe in something without having to explain it. Most folks who believe in the kind of junk put out by people like Mr. Fleming are too lazy to critically evaluate and decipher real facts, data and information. They prefer to have their beliefs dished up to them like a baby gets spoon fed from a bowl of mashed steamed carrots.

then if you're implying that you're the one that can see through Fleming's bunk with real facts and their decipherment then please show me with facts and data what exactly is wrong with Fleming's parameters and work here: http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html

we can go through each step of Flemings work and you'll present the data that contradicts it, if you wish. but please, no more rethoric.


Mr. Fleming began his "analysis" with the premise that the "face" was really a face. He was a believer to begin with. He also believes there are alien monuments on the moon as well. His "paper" was merely his way to justify holding onto his belief - its a reconciliation of his cognitive dissonance between his preset belief and the fact that the thing doesn't look at all like a face.

Don't expect either Outcast or A.DIM to do any better. They both suffer from a similar malady. I am not saying that to be mean or rude, just merely pointing out a fact.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how effective your arguement is, these folks believe as an article of faith.

no, you're pointing out your opinion and preconceived notions about what another person or persons might or might not "believe". do you even understand the difference between opinion and fact? apparently not.

you speak of "belief" like its a dirty word, you seemingly imply the existence of a quasi religious notion or "faith" which, according to you, clouds the mind and racional judgement as long as the proposal appears outrageous to your own liking, yet you fail to recognize the same problems in your own speech and position.

then you throw in a non sequitor in the form of religious fanatism just to build up a strawman. unsensical.

Description of Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

congratulations, algorithms.

[Swift]

I saw your post, and thought it a good one.

However, Outcast, A.DIM, (and, indirectly, Fleming) are making some claims here, and I want them to answer at least some very elementary questions about those claims. In view of the 'strength' (shall we say) of those claims - by strength here I mean things like the volume, the number of times superlatives are used ('extraordinary', for example) - I had an expectation that they would be able to defend their claims with at least the degree of rigour that is demanded of folk who submit papers for publication in peer reviewed journals.

what an interesting statement. neither i nor Fleming, and i believe A.dim also, ever used 'extraordinary' as a superlative in our dialogs, so i wonder where you found such "volumes' of superlatives besides your own posts where you indeed applied the 'extraordinary' word. is that false statement suposed to imply Sagan's 'extraordinary' claims require 'extraordinary' evidence diversionary tactic?

besides, the idea of asking for the same rigourous degree used in scientific or theoretical peer review journals, which i do not object unless the medium is the one we're dealing with here, should be applied to both sides of the equation.
I'll take your word that neither you, nor Fleming, nor A.Dim used the word "extraordinary". But whether you used the word or not, that is exactly what these claims are. The claims that either (1) there was an intelligent civilization on Mars that built these massive structures or (2) that NASA is covering up evidence of this, are extraordinary claims.

Second, the rigorous degree of proof does not have to be applied to both sides. You (or Fleming) are claiming extraordinary things. It is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims. You may not believe it, but that is the way science works. For example, at one time, the idea that continents drifted around the Earth was an extraordinary claim. It was not up to established geology to prove their side, it was up to the proponents of the new theory to prove their case. Eventually they did (don't take this example as proof that all or even many extraordinary claim are eventually proven).

[Fram]

i keep hearing that a second image was presented a few hours later but the MSSS article with the data presented is dated to the 4th of June of 1998, two months later than the "cat box" image. the MSSS article even states that: "The images shown here were subsequently processed at MSSS.". why would a scientfic institute produce such a shoddy piece of work?


As can be seen here (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/), the MIPL image was released on april 6 1998 1:45 PM PDT, and the TJP image on april 6 1998, 5:45 PM PDT.
So, a second processed image was presented a few hours later. (The raw image was released the same day at 10:30 AM PDT). Not very hard to find, in fact...
Conclusion: they released the raw image immediately, a first processed image (probably a bad one) some three hours later, and a much better one again four hours later. Would it have been better if they hadn't released the first one? Perhaps, sometimes errors get made in haste (like with the claim that planet ten couldn't be bigger than the moon, which turned out to be based on human error), even in the best circumstances or with the best intentions. But to claim this to be the biggest scientific hoax since the Piltdown man when it wasn't a hoax, lasted only four hours and was corrected by the very same people is ridiculous.
Fleming (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox2.htm):

f the Face ultimately is proven to be artificial, the Catbox will certainly come to be regarded as the greatest, most malicious, and most destructive scientific hoax since the Piltdown Man, and perhaps of all time.

[Nereid]

In view of the 'strength' (shall we say) of those claims - by strength here I mean things like the volume, the number of times superlatives are used ('extraordinary', for example) - I had an expectation that they would be able to defend their claims with at least the degree of rigour that is demanded of folk who submit papers for publication in peer reviewed journals.
what an interesting statement. neither i nor Fleming, and i believe A.dim also, ever used 'extraordinary' as a superlative in our dialogs, so i wonder wher you found such "volumes' of superlatives
Let's see now ...

* link supplied by A.DIM (http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html) (in the OP, my bold): "As a direct consequence of this act [release of the 'catbox' picture], it has become extraordinarily difficult to get material on this subject considered in the scientific community"

* a key Fleming page we're discussing (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm) (my bold): "The MGS image shows a mesa-like formation, but one that is extraordinarily regular and linear in outline for a true mesa"

* from A.DIM's OP (quoting from the Börner webpage, my bold): "For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public"

* A.DIM (my bold): "I don't really understand why there remains such vehement resistance"

* A.DIM (my bold [my comments]): "And IMHO, "the face" is too symmetrical to be of geologic origin. Likewise the pyramids of Elysium are far from "clearly non artificial;" The D&M pyramid too.

The fact that Cydonia rests on an ancient "shoreline" and has produced these amazingly "natural" formations should warrant "extraordinary investigation" should it not?

You know, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" .... requires extraordinary investigation.
Have we seen such?
I think not. [This is extraordinary - the claim that the features are artificial is the 'extraordinary claim', yet here A.DIM seems to be saying that the boot should be on the other foot!]"
Quite the contrary, and back to topic, NASA has seemingly ignored Cydonia while looking for microbial life in some craters elsewhere.
Nevermind that it was once a primary target; until "the face" pic was released, that is. "

I think I'll stop here.

[Nereid]

I do however still believe that this thread belongs in ATM and not in a factual forum about Mars.
the idea of asking for the same rigourous degree used in scientific or theoretical peer review journals, which i do not object unless the medium is the one we're dealing with here, should be applied to both sides of the equation.
the rigorous degree of proof does not have to be applied to both sides. You (or Fleming) are claiming extraordinary things. It is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims. You may not believe it, but that is the way science works.
I've PMed the BA, asking him to move this thread to ATM.

The rules for discussion of topics in ATM are posted in this forum's FAQ (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0). The relevant one is:
"4. If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend those arguments. People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science. If it appears to me that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will get banned. I will warn you first, but only once."

If this thread is moved to ATM, I think we can have an interesting and rewarding discussion; if not, then I feel we've gone about as far as we can here.

[PhantomWolf]

I always thought that in science, the simplest explanation was the default one until such time as it had been proven false. Since the theory that the hill is natural is the simplest, then it has to be falsified prior to a more complex explaination being required. As of yet I haven't seen anything that would falsify it being natural and so any idea of Artificiality requires the proof that it isn't natural. Unless they pro-artifical groups can provide proof that it can't be natural, their claims are worthless. Saying it could be isn't enough, afterall, Mt Everest -could- be artifical.

[Swift]

I always thought that in science, the simplest explanation was the default one until such time as it had been proven false. Since the theory that the hill is natural is the simplest, then it has to be falsified prior to a more complex explaination being required. As of yet I haven't seen anything that would falsify it being natural and so any idea of Artificiality requires the proof that it isn't natural. Unless they pro-artifical groups can provide proof that it can't be natural, their claims are worthless. Saying it could be isn't enough, afterall, Mt Everest -could- be artifical.
It is called Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

The simplest explanation is the best.
When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

[PhantomWolf]

It is called Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).
I already know this, I was wondering if Outcast, A.DIM and co did.

They seem to be doing the same thing that the Apollo HBs do, wanting to set their own theory as the default one and force others to prove that they are wrong.

That's the wrong way around. It's not up to us, or NASA or anyone to prove that the hill isn't artifical. It's up to the pro-artifical crew to show why it can't possibly be natural. They don't want to do that though, they'd rather just put forward the claim that it is artifical and then demand that we either have to disprove it or we have to accept it.

[Swift]

It is called Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).
I already know this, I was wondering if Outcast, A.DIM and co did.

They seem to be doing the same thing that the Apollo HBs do, wanting to set their own theory as the default one and force others to prove that they are wrong.

That's the wrong way around. It's not up to us, or NASA or anyone to prove that the hill isn't artifical. It's up to the pro-artifical crew to show why it can't possibly be natural. They don't want to do that though, they'd rather just put forward the claim that it is artifical and then demand that we either have to disprove it or we have to accept it.
I figured you did, just thought I'd throw in a reference.

I think it is also a worse case than "they don't want to do that" (prove it is artificial). I do not think it is possible to do that with any amount of photo "analysis". One would need to actually go there and do some physical archeology. Even given extremely compelling evidence (and I don't think there is any evidence), a field trip is not likely in the near future.

[Nereid]

I think it's a good idea to remind ourselves of A.DIM's OP, and the questions he (she?) posed. My summary (back on p14, 9 August):
Seems there were TWO questions/issues in the OP:
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"

To address the first, don't we need to establish (hopefully objective) criteria by which "artificiality of origin" can be determined?

As to the second, well excuse me if I'm really in the slow class today, but:

a ) did NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?

b ) are Börner, Fleming, Outcast (?), A.DIM (?), et al. getting hot&bothered over a PR, or over 'the real McCoy' (is that the right expression?) - the actual data?
With regard to #2, algorithms has provided some pretty unequivocal material to show that the data from the MGS is publicly available (and Outcast's answer to my questions re the Fleming et al. claim re 'processing' is (I paraphrase) 'here are a few .gif images, they look different, don't they?').

With regard to #1, there is some discussion in some of the webpages which various folk have provided us links to, on 'symmetry', and varying amounts of photointerpretation (things like 'if you look at this image, you will see that it looks like {x}'). However, no proponent has (AFAIK) presented objective criteria for "artificiality of origin". Nor have they presented any discussion of controlled, quantitative analyses of images (e.g. frequency with which features on Mars with characteristics {X, Y, Z, ...} occur in MGS images).

I guess we're doing OK? I mean, p18 and we've answered one of the two questions posed by the OP! =D>

And we've got at least some discussion going on how to establish criteria by which we could begin to answer the other!! 8-[

[algorithms]

I think this topic is about played out. I am wondering how many times we can debate and redebate exactly the same points over and over again.

The bottom line is that the "face" doesn't even remotely resemble a face. So why are A.DIM and Outcast continuing to tilt at windmills here? Even if it were true that NASA bungled the release of the April, 1998 image, one basic fact remains - its not a face, its a butte - and a rather ugly one at that. #-o

[jt-3d]

Earthdonia (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.880357,-107.229765&spn=0.023219,0.041503&t=k&hl=en)? Clearly artificial and built by a people who worshipped lions. Obviously Earth was inhabited at one time. Sure it's worn down now because of the weather but clearly at one time it looked exactly like a lion face. Let me get started on my book.

[Outcast]

Earthdonia (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.880357,-107.229765&spn=0.023219,0.041503&t=k&hl=en)? Clearly artificial and built by a people who worshipped lions. Obviously Earth was inhabited at one time. Sure it's worn down now because of the weather but clearly at one time it looked exactly like a lion face. Let me get started on my book.

do you really think this formation shares any resemblance with the Mars "face" image?

i do not think so, but maybe you can come up with the same geometrical patterns:

http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/mars/face_w_lines.jpg

http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/mars/face_no_lines.jpg

having gone through all the uncalled for bickering and even some revolting personal attacks, i would like to say again that i dont think the artificiality hypothesis is in anyway proven or disproven by the available images and data. Mars is an alien planet where strange and little understood weathering patterns and natural forces are at work. i've seen some crazy things in Mars imagery, some really looked like artificial buildings (the Mars "graveyard" for example) and were later dismissed by the better resolution images. i would have no problem dismissing for good the artificiality idea from the Cydonia area if only there could be 100% certainty and the only way to achieve this is by sending people to investigate on location. to me, even if im not convinced that those formations are artificial, the question still stands. i think its a valid question, even if the possible artificial formations stand in the sands of Mars.

in my opinion, the "face", even in the better resolution images with light coming straight down, still has the same traces that were present in the Viking images. the D&M pyramid still looks like a pyramid. the "city" area has some weird formations. are all these things ancient artificial constructions covered by the dust of millenia or just an interesting geological area? i really dont know, im not convinced either way but i do think that the artificiality hypothesis still has a foot in the door.

finnaly 18 pages latter i see the first aknowlledgements that maybe, just maybe, Nasa did a "mistake" in presenting bogus and convoluted data. why some cannot fathom the implications of such diversionary tactics from an agency which should have upheld the most rigorous scientific standards at all times is probably a problem for psychological and sociological examination.

i for one, remain unconvinced by either side of the argument.

[Outcast]

Second, the rigorous degree of proof does not have to be applied to both sides. You (or Fleming) are claiming extraordinary things. It is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims. You may not believe it, but that is the way science works. For example, at one time, the idea that continents drifted around the Earth was an extraordinary claim. It was not up to established geology to prove their side, it was up to the proponents of the new theory to prove their case. Eventually they did (don't take this example as proof that all or even many extraordinary claim are eventually proven).

i disagree. i think that both sides should strive to present a rigorous degree of investigation on this matter. swift (no pun intended) desmissals and opinionated authoritative reviews, from either side of the fence, are not going to shed light on the issue.

do we at least agree that the tools that would enable a concise investigation of the issue are, at this present time, in JPL's hands (specialy since ESA isnt making any efforts to use their high definition camera to image the area)?

[Outcast]

Let's see now ...



what i really would like to see is what really is your point... that people use adjectives to express their ideas? that superlatives are used to emphasize ideas and concepts?

so what? we're all guilty of that, but im not convinced that your accusation about the use of "volumes" of "extraordinary" superlatives holds much water or that it proves something.




I think I'll stop here.



good.

[Outcast]

I think this topic is about played out. I am wondering how many times we can debate and redebate exactly the same points over and over again.

The bottom line is that the "face" doesn't even remotely resemble a face. So why are A.DIM and Outcast continuing to tilt at windmills here? Even if it were true that NASA bungled the release of the April, 1998 image, one basic fact remains - its not a face, its a butte - and a rather ugly one at that. #-o

so, since you now admit that NASA "bungled" 1998 image release will you now tackle the MOLA data issue?

[Yorkshireman]

Outcast, can you spot the flaw in your logical reasoning here?


Even if it were true that NASA bungled the release of the April, 1998 image, one basic fact remains - its not a face, its a butte - and a rather ugly one at that. #-o


[so, since you now admit that NASA "bungled" 1998 image release will you now tackle the MOLA data issue?

Have a look at this fictional exchange between some unlucky punter and a traffic cop:


Look, even if it were true I had ignored the red light like you insist, I still wasn't doing 20 over the speed limit!

So! you admit you ignored the red light!

This is why people are getting tired of debating you.

[Fram]

ALready on page 1, A.DIM said this:



And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public? And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?
,
and he was swiftly enlightened by ToSeek as to where he could find that second image and its history. Then Outcast comes again, asking where the second, better image after the catbox one is, as he has heard about it but can't find it. So I give him the link again.
I also give him a rather revealing Fleming quote (remember, this thread was supposed to discuss Fleming's claims). This gets strangely ignored, and the goalposts shifted. The only conclusion outcast gets out of this is 'you see, NASA bungled it', which is debatable, and is certainly far removed from the cries that NASA lied and that NASA celiberately withheld information (because, well, you know, scientists and engineers are scared of aliens).

[algorithms]

Outcast: "so, since you now admit that NASA "bungled" 1998 image release will you now tackle the MOLA data issue?"

No. I did not "admit" anything. I simply explained that it doesn't matter if they did or didn't, the "face" is still just a butte. That point makes Fleming's MOLA "analysis" superfluous as well.

I should also note that your efforts to find symmetry in this geologic feature is superfluous as well. Terrestrial geology, especially eolian geology, is replete with symmetry and regular geometric shape. Take a look sometime at the "Devils Marbles" of Australia, or the "Devils Postpile" of California. The former are large spherical boulders. The latter are nearly perfect hexagonal basalt columns. And I can find you literally hundreds of geologic features that look like faces, cars, submarines, pyramids, giant stars, coffee pots. You name it, we can find a rock or a mound or a butte that looks like it.

Given that, there is no particular reason to think, or even suggest, that the so-called "face" is artificial.

Even more important is what the science of Mars tells us about its geophysical history. Knowing this science, which goes well beyond drawing little red lines on satellite images downloaded off the internet, makes it physically impossible for Mars to have once been home to some kind of intelligent civilization capable of building large monuments out of mountains. Given what we know of this science, we'll be damn lucky if simple microbial life ever got started there.

[jt-3d]

Hey looky, I can draw lines based on what I see too and other than a broken straight line, there's nothing to see here.

http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/face.jpg

[R.A.F.]

jt-3d...that looks like the "face" of Frankenstein's Monster. :)

[jt-3d]

Oops, I missed my assignment. Geometric? Sure thing. Unfortunately all I have is paint right now so I freehanded it.

http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/facetoo.jpg

http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/new_face.jpg

[N C More]

Let's face it folks, jt-3d's example is just as "artificial looking" as the Martian "cat box face"! What we're looking at are examples of mesa formation...geological in origin.

If you want aliens then I'd say your best bet would be to focus on all of the extra-solar planets that are being discovered. In my opinion, the most advanced life Mars has ever had (if it had any at all) probably wasn't much more than bacteria.

[Nereid]

what i really would like to see is what really is your pointThank you for asking.

I think it's a good idea to remind ourselves of A.DIM's OP, and the questions he (she?) posed. My summary (back on p14, 9 August):
Seems there were TWO questions/issues in the OP:
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"

To address the first, don't we need to establish (hopefully objective) criteria by which "artificiality of origin" can be determined?

As to the second, well excuse me if I'm really in the slow class today, but:

a ) did NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?

b ) are Börner, Fleming, Outcast (?), A.DIM (?), et al. getting hot&bothered over a PR, or over 'the real McCoy' (is that the right expression?) - the actual data?
With regard to #2, algorithms has provided some pretty unequivocal material to show that the data from the MGS is publicly available (and Outcast's answer to my questions re the Fleming et al. claim re 'processing' is (I paraphrase) 'here are a few .gif images, they look different, don't they?').

With regard to #1, there is some discussion in some of the webpages which various folk have provided us links to, on 'symmetry', and varying amounts of photointerpretation (things like 'if you look at this image, you will see that it looks like {x}'). However, no proponent has (AFAIK) presented objective criteria for "artificiality of origin". Nor have they presented any discussion of controlled, quantitative analyses of images (e.g. frequency with which features on Mars with characteristics {X, Y, Z, ...} occur in MGS images).
My point is that having answered A.DIM (the OP)'s original question #2, we are still waiting for input from a proponent (Outcast*? A.DIM?) on objective criteria for establishing "artificiality of origin".

Absent such input, my point is that this thread

... has passed on! it is no more! it has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the ATM it'd be pushing up the daisies! its metabolic processes are now 'istory! it's off the twig! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT (er, thread)! (thank you Mr Cleese and Mr Palin)

*If a proponent states "but i do think that the artificiality hypothesis still has a foot in the door", then is it unreasonable to ask the proponent to provide at least the outline of how such a hypothesis may be tested, objectively (other than by going there with dynamite and shovels)?

[Nereid]

Second, the rigorous degree of proof does not have to be applied to both sides. You (or Fleming) are claiming extraordinary things. It is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims. You may not believe it, but that is the way science works. For example, at one time, the idea that continents drifted around the Earth was an extraordinary claim. It was not up to established geology to prove their side, it was up to the proponents of the new theory to prove their case. Eventually they did (don't take this example as proof that all or even many extraordinary claim are eventually proven).

i disagree. i think that both sides should strive to present a rigorous degree of investigation on this matter. swift (no pun intended) desmissals and opinionated authoritative reviews, from either side of the fence, are not going to shed light on the issue.

do we at least agree that the tools that would enable a concise investigation of the issue are, at this present time, in JPL's hands (specialy since ESA isnt making any efforts to use their high definition camera to image the area)?
Hmm ... suppose I claim that the spirits of dead pets in my neighbourhood become instantiated in the shapes of clouds that we can see here - Joan's dead cat Tiddles in this cloud, Jack's dead dog Phydeau in that. The 'other side' claims it's just water droplets, condensed out of saturated air, with apparent shapes governed by viewing angles, microdrafts, winds, etc.

Adopting your approach, Outcast, I could insist that 'both sides should strive to present a rigorous degree of investigation on this matter. swift (no pun intended) desmissals and opinionated authoritative reviews, from either side of the fence, are not going to shed light on the issue.' I should start a website, and demand that NOAA devote equal resources to investigating this exceedingly important, potentially mind-blowing claim as they devote to understanding the formation of hurricanes and predicting their paths (say).

Of course, I'm not serious; however, it's relatively easy to understand why, at 50,000', the approach that swift describes is the one used in science, not Outcast's.

[N C More]

... has passed on! it is no more! it has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the ATM it'd be pushing up the daisies! its metabolic processes are now 'istory! it's off the twig! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT (er, thread)! (thank you Mr Cleese and Mr Palin)



Well, ya know when some people really latch onto something they just can't accept death. (http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/)

[PhantomWolf]

i would have no problem dismissing for good the artificiality idea from the Cydonia area if only there could be 100% certainty

But this is an unreasonable amount of proof. You're saying that as long as it can't be proven 100% that it is natural that the claim that it's artifical is still valid. That's the cart before the horse. Even if we do send people there and they investigate, the best they can do is say that to the best of our current knowledge it's natural. That's not 100% proof, it still might not be natural, it might just be too hard to determine if it isn't. The only thing we could do is prove that it's not natural by finding something that it obviously not natural (thus falsifying the Natural claim.) We can't ever prove that it's not artifical because there is always the possiblilty that we just missed the clue to show it was (and thus it isn't falsifiable.) This is the thing about these claims, whether it's the face on mars or Apollo hoax claims, they always want their claim to have equal standing with the default and then have the default theory prove itself beyond doubt (not just beyond reasonable doubt) rather than accepting the burden of proof for their claims. This allows them to say that because the default theory can't be proven beyond a doubt, their claims must be accepted. Science doesn't work that way. If it did I could claim that the "face" was really an interdemensional portal that looked like whatever the viewer wanted to see, prove me wrong. Unless you can prove 100% that it's not an interdemensional portal my claim should have as much validity as anything else. Right? Wrong. The simpliest and thus default theory is that it is natural, to have my claim, or the claim that it's artifical become worthy of merit then it has to be shown that it's not natural (falisfying it,) and then proof needs to be given that supports the given claim (supporting it and providing a way to falsify the claim.) At that point, and only at that point, the claim can be held up as having a foot in the door and worthy of merit. Currently it hasn't achieved that and so isn't worth the mud on my boot.

edited to fix metaphor.

[algorithms]

Outcast: "i would have no problem dismissing for good the artificiality idea from the Cydonia area if only there could be 100% certainty"

In Mr. Outcast's case, then, everythng and anything must be true. For example, I cannot dismiss the idea that Mr. Outcast cheats on his wife because I can't be 100% certain that he doesn't. And since, according to his own standards, any claim must be treated as equal to any other claim, my accusation about him here must be regarded as valid as any denial he might make.

Of course, we know that's silly. In science, much like the law, one is obligated to prove an assertion (or "accusation") is true beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least by a preponderance of the evidence (in the case of civil proceedings).

Outcast, if you wish to claim there is veracity to the so-called "artificiality hypothesis," you must be able to offer evidence that reasonable minds can find compelling. Harping about NASA cover-ups and conspiracies and drawing red lines on digital images doesn't even come close. But if you are going to continue to accuse NASA of things for which you have no proof, perhaps we can accept people accusing you of things for which we have no proof as well. Its your standard of evidence. We may as well apply it equitably.

[Hans]

To show that the Cydonia mesa is "unusual" and not natural would be to do an exhaustive and complete analysis off all known earth mesas'. By building up a data base on the parameters of natural hills you could then compare them to mesas' that are known to be artifical (city mounds in Mesopotamia etc). By comparing this data you might get an indicator (and just an indicator) of artificality.

I believe such a study was done of mounds in Mesopotamia/Syrian in the 1950/60s but cannot recall the author or details.

I conducted a survey for bronze age sites in Cyprus using British Aerial photography. Even when the visual data was compelling we found over 40% of the sites we thought were artifical turned out to be natural. Less than 2% of sites we considered natural turned out to artifically modified.

Sneaky that mother nature.

[Swift]

i disagree. i think that both sides should strive to present a rigorous degree of investigation on this matter. swift (no pun intended) desmissals and opinionated authoritative reviews, from either side of the fence, are not going to shed light on the issue.

Ok, you can disagree, but it won't change the scientific process. Nereid's comments about clouds and NOAA are exactly right. Frankly, I don't think there is a serious question here that needs to have light shed on it.


do we at least agree that the tools that would enable a concise investigation of the issue are, at this present time, in JPL's hands (specialy since ESA isnt making any efforts to use their high definition camera to image the area)?
No I don't think we agree. As I've stated several times, I do not believe that any amount of photo analysis could ever prove something was artifical, only a physical exam could do that (IMHO). Do I think there is enough in these photos to warrant such an exam... no, not even close. I would love to see a human exploration of Mars, but I won't waste my time or money here. Let's go look at some ancient seabeds for signs of microbes.

[Outcast]

To show that the Cydonia mesa is "unusual" and not natural would be to do an exhaustive and complete analysis off all known earth mesas'. By building up a data base on the parameters of natural hills you could then compare them to mesas' that are known to be artifical (city mounds in Mesopotamia etc). By comparing this data you might get an indicator (and just an indicator) of artificality.

I believe such a study was done of mounds in Mesopotamia/Syrian in the 1950/60s but cannot recall the author or details.

I conducted a survey for bronze age sites in Cyprus using British Aerial photography. Even when the visual data was compelling we found over 40% of the sites we thought were artifical turned out to be natural. Less than 2% of sites we considered natural turned out to artifically modified.

Sneaky that mother nature.


even so, it appears there is a favourable degree of success in aerial surveys because the process is still being used. even if there was only 1% of discovery rate, if the process presents a chance to find artificial areas where none were thought to exist then there is validity to it.

but i agree that an exhaustive, complete analysis and a comparison between artificial, natural and the Cydonia mounds would be a step into formulating a valid answer.

by the way, i believe the study you're refering to was done by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

[Outcast]

Oops, I missed my assignment. Geometric? Sure thing. Unfortunately all I have is paint right now so I freehanded it.

http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/facetoo.jpg

http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/new_face.jpg

you know, allthough you felt compeled to make fun of my request the fact is that those crude lines you made do show an interesting symmetrical characteristic which the "face" also shares. to me that does indeed raise the possibility for natural causes, of course assuming that the "google butte" is also 100% natural.

the anonymity of the internet is such a great medium, im saying this ironicaly of course, i bet if we all were face to face talking and discussing subjects like grown ups there would be much more respect for each others intelligence, as it stands we all act like bullies and this is very unfortunate.

[Outcast]

Outcast: "i would have no problem dismissing for good the artificiality idea from the Cydonia area if only there could be 100% certainty"

In Mr. Outcast's case, then, everythng and anything must be true. For example, I cannot dismiss the idea that Mr. Outcast cheats on his wife because I can't be 100% certain that he doesn't. And since, according to his own standards, any claim must be treated as equal to any other claim, my accusation about him here must be regarded as valid as any denial he might make.

Of course, we know that's silly. In science, much like the law, one is obligated to prove an assertion (or "accusation") is true beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least by a preponderance of the evidence (in the case of civil proceedings).

Outcast, if you wish to claim there is veracity to the so-called "artificiality hypothesis," you must be able to offer evidence that reasonable minds can find compelling. Harping about NASA cover-ups and conspiracies and drawing red lines on digital images doesn't even come close. But if you are going to continue to accuse NASA of things for which you have no proof, perhaps we can accept people accusing you of things for which we have no proof as well. Its your standard of evidence. We may as well apply it equitably.

you know, your post is downright offensive, and you're right, its silly that people should resort to this sort of veiled ad hominen just to make their points. did i ever used you or make any references to your personal details just to make an argument?
i dont believe so.

whats next? you're going to accuse me of molesting children?

you know, i get the feeling that most of you (at least those that like to attack me personaly) are not in this forum because you're truly skeptics and like to find explanations for anomalous claims but because you just want to persecute and demean other people. armchair skepticism at its worse. very, very sad.

[Outcast]

what i really would like to see is what really is your pointThank you for asking.

I think it's a good idea to remind ourselves of A.DIM's OP, and the questions he (she?) posed. My summary (back on p14, 9 August):
Seems there were TWO questions/issues in the OP:
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"

To address the first, don't we need to establish (hopefully objective) criteria by which "artificiality of origin" can be determined?

As to the second, well excuse me if I'm really in the slow class today, but:

a ) did NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?

b ) are Börner, Fleming, Outcast (?), A.DIM (?), et al. getting hot&bothered over a PR, or over 'the real McCoy' (is that the right expression?) - the actual data?
With regard to #2, algorithms has provided some pretty unequivocal material to show that the data from the MGS is publicly available (and Outcast's answer to my questions re the Fleming et al. claim re 'processing' is (I paraphrase) 'here are a few .gif images, they look different, don't they?').

With regard to #1, there is some discussion in some of the webpages which various folk have provided us links to, on 'symmetry', and varying amounts of photointerpretation (things like 'if you look at this image, you will see that it looks like {x}'). However, no proponent has (AFAIK) presented objective criteria for "artificiality of origin". Nor have they presented any discussion of controlled, quantitative analyses of images (e.g. frequency with which features on Mars with characteristics {X, Y, Z, ...} occur in MGS images).
My point is that having answered A.DIM (the OP)'s original question #2, we are still waiting for input from a proponent (Outcast*? A.DIM?) on objective criteria for establishing "artificiality of origin".

Absent such input, my point is that this thread

... has passed on! it is no more! it has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the ATM it'd be pushing up the daisies! its metabolic processes are now 'istory! it's off the twig! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT (er, thread)! (thank you Mr Cleese and Mr Palin)

*If a proponent states "but i do think that the artificiality hypothesis still has a foot in the door", then is it unreasonable to ask the proponent to provide at least the outline of how such a hypothesis may be tested, objectively (other than by going there with dynamite and shovels)?

objective criteria... i've seen very little objectivity coming from you since you go off on tangents which have little or no bearing to the issues. but maybe we just have different concepts of what exactly is being objective.

to me, the following is an example of objective research into planetary SETI done by scientists, research which might one day be used to screen far away planets in search for civilizations, contrary to what some "enlightened" ones say who consider the whole issue to be a "waste of time". fortunately not every scientist thinks like these hard core skeptoids and new discoveries are still at the grasp for the human kind.

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/arkhipov3.htm

[Fram]

to me, the following is an example of objective research into planetary SETI done by scientists, research which might one day be used to screen far away planets in search for civilizations, contrary to what some "enlightened" ones say who consider the whole issue to be a "waste of time". fortunately not every scientist thinks like these hard core skeptoids and new discoveries are still at the grasp for the human kind.

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/arkhipov3.htm

Objective research? Then why is his description of the pictures so far removed from what I can see in them? I don't have the feeling this is the way we should follow (and no, that doesn't mean that I believe everything is discovered or no alien civilizations can exist anywhere). Wishful thinking isn't the best basis for science.

[Van Rijn]

Outcast, you seem to have repeatedly read things into statements that weren't there, and seem to miss things that are. You do that with forum participants and you do it with sources you have referenced.

jt-3d showed an example on Earth very similar to your Mars example. How is this "making fun" of anything? The point to me is obvious: Just because a formation looks a bit like a face it doesn't mean anything. It is not evidence.

algorithms demonstrated other uses of your "I'll only dismiss an assertion if there is 100% certainty it isn't true" argument. Obviously it is ridiculous. That is the point. It was meant to show the error in your argument. I saw no ad hominem.

Nereid has asked you to present objective criteria for your artificiality argument. This seems to be a reasonable request. At this point, my impression is that your criteria for artificiality are "because it looks like it to me and I don't believe NASA." Why are you so opposed to actually stating your criteria? Is it that you don't have any, you don't want to admit what they are, or you honestly don't understand that without objective criteria, it isn't science at all?

And will you actually answer any of this, or will you again complain about how mean we are for not agreeing with you, then slap the catbox cage around a bit and mention the argument's beautiful plumage?

[N C More]

Van Rijn is the voice of reason here...would be wise to consider what he's saying.

Just to add, I still don't see what's wrong with my explanation (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=504449#504449) way back here on page 8. Perhaps that's the problem, it became lost in antiquity! :wink: Impressive, though, 19 pages about igneous landforms on Mars!

[Hans]

The only path left for the face believers is the one I posted above - an exhaustive study. As I said before I believe such a study has been done, the fact that it hasn't been placed up as evidence means either:

1. I'm mistaken and no such study exists
2. The study doesn't support the artifical theory and is therefore ignored.

Outcast you need more facts - right now your arguments have run dry.

[Yorkshireman]

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/arkhipov3.htm

:lol: I just snorted my coffee on reading that paper.
I think this should be added to the Woo Woo credo (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html), or I might call it Yorkshireman's 1st' Law of Woo:

Irrespective of the scale or resolution of the photograph, the artificial object is always about the same size as the limiting resolution of the image.

[Hans]

by the way, i believe the study you're refering to was done by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Er so...why haven't you found it? It would seem if you were that interested in this subject that you'd make a beeline to such a study....

[PhantomWolf]

While after dealing with my share or HBs in the various Apollo fourms I shouldn't be surprised, or upset about being ignored by Outcast, I did notice that he uses exactly the same tactics as them. Totally ignore any post that undermines your points because if you ignore it, it doesn't exist. Then seek out any possible attack from your opposition, even if it's not really an attack, and complain about that as if terribly wounded by their Ad Hominem attacks. Finally, repeat your orignial claims as if it is the very first time and also the only proof you ever need to make your point. Wash, rince, repeat.

[R.A.F.]

While after dealing with my share or HBs in the various Apollo fourms I shouldn't be surprised, or upset about being ignored by Outcast, I did notice that he uses exactly the same tactics as them. Totally ignore any post that undermines your points because if you ignore it, it doesn't exist.

I'm also a "member" of the "posters who Outcast ignores" club. I believe we're up to 3 or 4 "members" now. :)

Perhaps Outcast needs to re-read the FAQ for this board.

[N C More]

by the way, i believe the study you're refering to was done by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Er so...why haven't you found it? It would seem if you were that interested in this subject that you'd make a beeline to such a study....

Well, here's their website. (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/OI_TOC.html)

[R.A.F.]

to me, the following is an example of objective research into planetary SETI done by scientists...

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/arkhipov3.htm

That's your example of objective research???

Posting a link to Meta research does not help your "argument".

[Nereid]

objective criteria... i've seen very little objectivity coming from you since you go off on tangents which have little or no bearing to the issues. but maybe we just have different concepts of what exactly is being objective.
My apologies for not making my position sufficiently clear to you.

Earlier in this thread (here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22637&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=429)), I wrote:

I do however still believe that this thread belongs in ATM and not in a factual forum about Mars.
the idea of asking for the same rigourous degree used in scientific or theoretical peer review journals, which i do not object unless the medium is the one we're dealing with here, should be applied to both sides of the equation.
the rigorous degree of proof does not have to be applied to both sides. You (or Fleming) are claiming extraordinary things. It is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims. You may not believe it, but that is the way science works.
I've PMed the BA, asking him to move this thread to ATM.

The rules for discussion of topics in ATM are posted in this forum's FAQ. The relevant one is:
"4. If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend those arguments. People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science. If it appears to me that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will get banned. I will warn you first, but only once."

If this thread is moved to ATM, I think we can have an interesting and rewarding discussion; if not, then I feel we've gone about as far as we can here.
So, to re-iterate: I feel the only way we can continue to have a decent discussion of the first claim ("whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered") is if we adopt a ground rule, similar to the BA's for ATM ideas, for our discussion.

In this regard, my position is that folk who wish to defend A.DIM's assertion must respond to questions, challenges and even attacks on that assertion.

Let me ask you: do you agree that this is a good basis for continuing discussions? If you don't, would you be so kind as provide us with what, in your view, would be a basis for further discussion that has a reasonable chance of being productive?
to me, the following is an example of objective research into planetary SETI done by scientists, research which might one day be used to screen far away planets in search for civilizations, contrary to what some "enlightened" ones say who consider the whole issue to be a "waste of time". fortunately not every scientist thinks like these hard core skeptoids and new discoveries are still at the grasp for the human kind.

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/arkhipov3.htm
Thank you.

Can you provide us with a link to "2. A.V. Arkhipov, Preliminary Search For Ruin-Like Formations on the Moon, Meta Research Bulletin, 8, No. 4, 49-54", where the algorithms used in the document you cite are described?

Are you claiming that these algorithms, applied to images of Mars from MGS, would identify 'the face' as 'ruin-like'?

[algorithms]

Outcast: "you know, your post is downright offensive, and you're right, its silly that people should resort to this sort of veiled ad hominen just to make their points. did i ever used you or make any references to your personal details just to make an argument?"

Mr. Outcast, I made no such "ad hominen." I used the example to show the folly of demanding 100% proof that something isn't true. I could never prove with 100% certainty that you don't cheat on your wife. Neither could you. That's why, in a court of law in this country people are innocent until proven guilty. Were we to use your standard of evidence you could darn well lock up just about anyone for just about anything.

Science works in similar fashion. It is the obligation of someone advancing an idea or theory to make their case with a preponderance of the evidence. If you fail to do that, there's no reason anyone should take you seriously, just as no one should take me seriously if I accused you of cheating on your wife.

Your visceral reactions shows that I got your attention. Now please process the point as it was intended.

And, by the way, Mr. Outcast, just as you are rightfully indignant about someone accusing you of doing something you didn't do, so too should the good people of NASA, JPL and MSSS be rightfully indignant about you accusing them of something they didn't do.

Think about it.

[A.DIM]

So I suffered a muscle spasm some 12 days ago which immobilized my left arm by aggravating the brachial plexus nerve bundle in the shoulder, causing excrutiating pain and numbness from neck and shoulder to thumb and index finger. The thing is, I can't entirely rule out its cause as being this thread. :D
Nonetheless, I'd wanted to be finished here prior to my spasm. heh...

The point of this thread was to suggest that "the face" and artificiality issues persists partly due to NASA's own behavior toward it and Cydonia, not to prove artificiality. I can't, and never claimed I would. Fleming's arguments, to me, seemed reasonable, regardless if I can't explain why NASA would release the damning evidence in the first place; Though, "desensitizing" comes to mind as a reason, but that's my opinion.


And so now I'll profer Geomorphology at Cydonia (http://www.greatdreams.com/geology.htm), where a geologist questions the "differential erosion" explanation given (and apparently readily accepted by many here?) for the structures there.

"Conclusion

The above-discussed Cydonia landforms are but a few of the problematic landforms in this area. To lessen their possible significance by explaining them as erosional remnants of a preexisting surface, without supporting evidence, is clearly not a rigorous scientific approach. To the contrary, what exactly is needed are "more rigorous geologic evaluations" to determine the origins of these controversial landforms.

This review has pointed out inconsistencies in previous geologic arguments and indicates, at the very least, that geologic generalizations are not an acceptable method to explain surface features in Cydonia, enigmatic or not. Such "ballpark" solutions add little to the resolution of the landforms under study. The Cydonia landforms may ultimately turn out to be no more than an odd assortment of enigmatic natural features, formed by random geologic processes, but they may as well turn out to have significant implications for humanity. An unbiased approach assumes neither, but strives for the truth."


I'm no geologist but this work appears correct and once again NASA's conduct appears counter to the true spirit of scientific exploration in regards to Cydonia. Their "explanations," whether through mistatements, incompetence, generalizations, or what have you, are in my mind,
scientifically inadequate and certainly conducive to conspiracy theories.

I stand firm in my position that the question is yet unanswered.

[Nereid]

I stand firm in my position that the question is yet unanswered.
Which question?

Your OP contains two, quite separate questions/assertions (neither were, in fact, questions):
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"

[R.A.F.]

The point of this thread was to suggest that "the face" and artificiality issues persists partly due to NASA's own behavior toward it and Cydonia, not to prove artificiality.

emphasis mine...

Your "suggestion" has been noted and found wanting.


Fleming's arguments, to me, seemed reasonable, regardless if I can't explain why NASA would release the damning evidence in the first place; Though, "desensitizing" comes to mind as a reason, but that's my opinion.

Your desensitizing "opinion" is an excuse not a reason, though I know you don't see it as such...


And so now I'll profer Geomorphology at Cydonia (http://www.greatdreams.com/geology.htm), where a geologist questions the "differential erosion" explanation given (and apparently readily accepted by many here?) for the structures there.

I googled James L. Erjavec and all the "hits" were from "woowoo" sites. If this geologist's findings are so conclusive, then why does he feel the need to express these findings on Woowoo sites??? It certainly doesn't help his credibility to be appearing on the Laura Lee show. :roll:


...once again NASA's conduct appears counter to the true spirit of scientific exploration in regards to Cydonia. Their "explanations," whether through mistatements, incompetence, generalizations...

Ya know, I'm really getting sick and tired of you and Outcast continually bashing Nasa/JPL. You do realize, don't you, that there are former and present members of these organizations that post here? Every time you or Outcast say something about "NASA's conduct", it's an indirect "slap in the face" to those who actually do the work. So show us the evidence that your statements are true. The handwaving and woowoo links are getting OLD.

[Eye-Zee]

... regardless if I can't explain why NASA would release the damning evidence in the first place; Though, "desensitizing" comes to mind as a reason, but that's my opinion.
Perfect! So if I don't release data immediately if not sooner, I'm conspiring to withold evidence, and if I do, I'm intentionally desensitizing you. Win/win for the conspiracists.



And so now I'll profer Geomorphology at Cydonia (http://www.greatdreams.com/geology.htm), where a geologist questions the "differential erosion" explanation given (and apparently readily accepted by many here?) for the structures there.

The latest published reference listed in that article is from 1993. It references only Viking frames, and shows no quantitative analysis of any kind. It talks about what might be quantitative data and gives a few numbers, but doesn't show study areas, distributions or any other hard data.

Over a decade has passed since this article was published with several major missions and new imagery of the area in question. To say that this (self described as "preliminary") article is outdated and incomplete is a severe understatement.



I'm no geologist but this work appears correct and once again NASA's conduct appears counter to the true spirit of scientific exploration in regards to Cydonia.


Even a rank amateur can recognize the near-decade that has passed since Erjavec's article, and peruse the literally hundreds of articles on Martian geomorphology and evolution published in that time. The data are in the public domain, being digested by hundreds, if not thousands of individuals looking for discovery and to uncover the history of Mars. It is not "NASA's conduct" that is lacking here.

[ToSeek]

I think an argument can be made that NASA has handled the "Face" situation badly:

- Saying that there were other photos when there weren't
- Providing an extremely low quality image from MGS early on (though I blame the Face proponents for this as well)
- Claiming before MGS that all attempts to image Cydonia would be announced in advance and then not following through
- Claiming (at one point) that there was a high-resolution image and anaglyph of the Face on the web several weeks before it was actually posted

However, I think this is more due to NASA personnel not taking the Face at all seriously (and in some cases resenting the interest it was receiving) rather than a cover-up or anything else nefarious.

[N C More]

And so now I'll profer Geomorphology at Cydonia (http://www.greatdreams.com/geology.htm), where a geologist questions the "differential erosion" explanation given (and apparently readily accepted by many here?) for the structures there.



Notice the date on this article (bolding is mine):


GEOMORPHOLOGY AT CYDONIA


By James L. Erjavec


Copyright © 1996 by James L. Erjavec


(Notes and editing by Stanley V. McDaniel, author of The McDaniel Report)



This article was written before the newer images (http://www.the-planet-mars.com/face-on-mars/high-resolution-picture.html) were available.

[A.DIM]

I stand firm in my position that the question is yet unanswered.
Which question?

Your OP contains two, quite separate questions/assertions (neither were, in fact, questions):
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"


Indeed, and from the OP, the point of this whole thing was, "So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?"

So the "unanswered" part would be the artificiality hypothesis. I stated before that, IMO, mere pictures alone won't answer that question. Others have said as much, but without the vehement resistance given me.

As for NASA's conduct? Well, I see that according to most here, it is wrong to agree that they've acted peculiarly on the matter.
:wink:

[R.A.F.]

This article was written before the newer images were available.

Yikes! I did not notice that...nice "catch", N C.
=D>

[A.DIM]

I think an argument can be made that NASA has handled the "Face" situation badly:

- Saying that there were other photos when there weren't
- Providing an extremely low quality image from MGS early on (though I blame the Face proponents for this as well)
- Claiming before MGS that all attempts to image Cydonia would be announced in advance and then not following through
- Claiming (at one point) that there was a high-resolution image and anaglyph of the Face on the web several weeks before it was actually posted

However, I think this is more due to NASA personnel not taking the Face at all seriously (and in some cases resenting the interest it was receiving) rather than a cover-up or anything else nefarious.

Thanks, ToSeek.
I think it's admirable of you to acknowledge NASA's own behavior as partly responsible for the perpetual conspiracy theories.

[Gillianren]

ah, but will you in turn concede that, had it not gotten such attention, NASA might've been able to act in a more reasonable manner? if I accept that NASA or JPL was in any way at fault, I would also postulate that, were people like the gentlemen (yes?) here pressuring them so, they might've handled it in a more scientific way, though of course we can never be sure.

and add me to the "Outcast ignores me" club. not only does he ignore me, he ignored a whole page's discussion about one of my points, and still hasn't really answered my question.

[Nereid]

So the "unanswered" part would be the artificiality hypothesis. I stated before that, IMO, mere pictures alone won't answer that question. Others have said as much, but without the vehement resistance given me.
Thanks.

But we are left all a-puzzled, are we not? [-X

What objective criteria could be used to assess any claims of 'artificiality'?

Without some agreed basis for determining 'artificiality', surely your (Fleming's? Outcast's?) contention can never be evaluated!

Once we do have something we can sink our teeth into re 'artificiality', we would also - in principle - be able to assess whether your assertion that the catbox (batbox?) is somehow deserving of special attention. Who knows; we may find that - under the agreed, objective criteria for determining 'artificiality' - some features on Venus, or the Sun, are much, much more deserving of our attention. We may even find that the most compelling case to go investigate is Nereid's - Joan's cat Tiddles' soul shaped the clouds over Vostok today; Jack's dog Phydeau's soul shaped those over Pitcairn. :o

[The Bad Astronomer]

However, I think this is more due to NASA personnel not taking the Face at all seriously (and in some cases resenting the interest it was receiving) rather than a cover-up or anything else nefarious.

I have received quite a bit of static from scientists when I ask about Mars, because they think the whole face issue is a waste of time. I agree, up to a point. :-) Other are ticked at me because I took on Hoagland, saying that by doing so I elevated his status. I cannot seem to convince them that he was already popular with the conspiracy crowd, and it was time for someone to put him in his place.

[begtets]

You can only do what strikes you as "the right thing" at that time.
To sit and stew and apply hindsight is not helpful. (The hindsight charge is not directed at you Phil, anybody who has been around here long enough knows that is not applicable to you)
To apply a blanket ban on talking to errrr.....ummmm...mavericks(lol) is a double edged sword. OK you don't give them any recognition but they then turn it around and say that you are scared of entering into a discussion, you can't win. The "big hitters" in this game have too much invested to retract anything they have said even if the truth came up and slapped them! but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't take them on.
You will never appease everbody Phil but then i kind of think you already know that 8)

Regards
Mark

[A.DIM]

... regardless if I can't explain why NASA would release the damning evidence in the first place; Though, "desensitizing" comes to mind as a reason, but that's my opinion.
Perfect! So if I don't release data immediately if not sooner, I'm conspiring to withold evidence, and if I do, I'm intentionally desensitizing you. Win/win for the conspiracists.



And so now I'll profer Geomorphology at Cydonia (http://www.greatdreams.com/geology.htm), where a geologist questions the "differential erosion" explanation given (and apparently readily accepted by many here?) for the structures there.

The latest published reference listed in that article is from 1993. It references only Viking frames, and shows no quantitative analysis of any kind. It talks about what might be quantitative data and gives a few numbers, but doesn't show study areas, distributions or any other hard data.

Over a decade has passed since this article was published with several major missions and new imagery of the area in question. To say that this (self described as "preliminary") article is outdated and incomplete is a severe understatement.



I'm no geologist but this work appears correct and once again NASA's conduct appears counter to the true spirit of scientific exploration in regards to Cydonia.


Even a rank amateur can recognize the near-decade that has passed since Erjavec's article, and peruse the literally hundreds of articles on Martian geomorphology and evolution published in that time. The data are in the public domain, being digested by hundreds, if not thousands of individuals looking for discovery and to uncover the history of Mars. It is not "NASA's conduct" that is lacking here.

Terrific!
Since I'm apparently less than a "rank amateur" could you kindly provide some info regarding these "thousands" of studies?
Surely if they're so plentiful, I'd have found more than I did when researching "Mars, geomorphology, Cydonia."

While there are plentiful sources for "martian geomorphology" pointing out the likely role massive amounts of water played in producing the many formations, certain few I found actually dealt with Cydonia.

Thanks.

[A.DIM]

And so now I'll profer Geomorphology at Cydonia (http://www.greatdreams.com/geology.htm), where a geologist questions the "differential erosion" explanation given (and apparently readily accepted by many here?) for the structures there.



Notice the date on this article (bolding is mine):


GEOMORPHOLOGY AT CYDONIA


By James L. Erjavec


Copyright © 1996 by James L. Erjavec


(Notes and editing by Stanley V. McDaniel, author of The McDaniel Report)



This article was written before the newer images (http://www.the-planet-mars.com/face-on-mars/high-resolution-picture.html) were available.

Thanks, NC but the MOC images' resolution, is "too low to tell much about the geomorphology of the Cydonia region," as stated on Malin Space Science Systems (http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_5_00_cydonia/) itself.

So I don't see how that changes anything.

Nonetheless, the image you provided is breathtaking, no?

The symmetry is amazing!

:D

[Nereid]

[snip]the literally hundreds of articles on Martian geomorphology and evolution published in that time. The data are in the public domain, being digested by hundreds, if not thousands of individuals looking for discovery and to uncover the history of Mars
[snap]
could you kindly provide some info regarding these "thousands" of studies?
Surely if they're so plentiful, I'd have found more than I did when researching "Mars, geomorphology, Cydonia."

While there are plentiful sources for "martian geomorphology" pointing out the likely role massive amounts of water played in producing the many formations, certain few I found actually dealt with Cydonia.
So, I went to Google Scholar, entered "Mars geomorphology", and got 1,350 results.

As for Cydonia, well, we're back to the 'why Cydonia?' question, aren't we?

Certain folk think it worth investing a lot of effort to investigate, because of its possibly 'artificial' origin (not in any way quantified; no objective criteria for selecting this rather than any other part of Mars, etc); other folk don't.

Why is Cydonia more important to study, in detail, than any other part of Mars? If it's because it 'might have an artificial orgin', then how do you test - objectively - 'artificiality'? Unless and until we have an answer to this question, there are - I contend - no grounds for selecting this region for study, over any other region (except pure, subjective speculation).

Would it help if I were to provide another 'pets and clouds' analogy, A.DIM?

[A.DIM]

ah, but will you in turn concede that, had it not gotten such attention, NASA might've been able to act in a more reasonable manner? if I accept that NASA or JPL was in any way at fault, I would also postulate that, were people like the gentlemen (yes?) here pressuring them so, they might've handled it in a more scientific way, though of course we can never be sure.

I suppose, but more revealing here is that you can recognize now that either way, "a more scientific way," as it were, is influenced; though I don't imagine whatever "woowoos" pressures there were to have as much clout as say, government and DoD pressures.

I'd like to think that Science is immune to such things, but there is ample evidence that it is not.


and add me to the "Outcast ignores me" club. not only does he ignore me, he ignored a whole page's discussion about one of my points, and still hasn't really answered my question.

From my standpoint, it could be said that many "skeptics" here have ignored points made in order to portray Outcast, or myself, even scientists cited, as mere woowoos and HBs and conspiracists out to defame NASA.

[A.DIM]

However, I think this is more due to NASA personnel not taking the Face at all seriously (and in some cases resenting the interest it was receiving) rather than a cover-up or anything else nefarious.

I have received quite a bit of static from scientists when I ask about Mars, because they think the whole face issue is a waste of time. I agree, up to a point. :-) Other are ticked at me because I took on Hoagland, saying that by doing so I elevated his status. I cannot seem to convince them that he was already popular with the conspiracy crowd, and it was time for someone to put him in his place.


I'm curious, Phil, how do your colleages feel about Cydonia in general?

And you?

It was once a primary target for investigation because of its enigmatic geological formations, thought to be a suitable site for evidence of water or even microbial life as it rests on what is thought to be an ancient shoreline.

Are the present rover sites that much more interesting geologically?

Also, do you know of any particular geomorphology studies on Cydonia?

Is the "differential erosion" a sufficient explanation, in your mind?

Thanks.

[R.A.F.]

And you?

As the BA is fond of saying, there is a website attached to this board...your answer is there...

[Van Rijn]

From my standpoint, it could be said that many "skeptics" here have ignored points made in order to portray Outcast, or myself, even scientists cited, as mere woowoos and HBs and conspiracists out to defame NASA.

I, for one, did not ignore you. This reference in the opening post:

http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html

is called, after all, "NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars." Not, for instance, "A Geological study of Mars and suggestions of criteria for evaluation of artificiality." Let's go back to a portion that you specifically quoted (I've highlighted gems that caught my eye):


Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public.

And you said of this article:


To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

This is, after all, about an assertion that there is significant evidence for artificial ET structures and a government conspiracy. The astonishing thing to me is that you presented this right at the start, but you seem surprised at the response. Every reference that I followed up made similar assertions without evidence, often showing contempt for NASA, often suggesting cover-ups. I did not see any serious scientific papers that would lend support to your position.

You were not ignored. Rather, your own words destroyed your arguments.

[A.DIM]

[snip]the literally hundreds of articles on Martian geomorphology and evolution published in that time. The data are in the public domain, being digested by hundreds, if not thousands of individuals looking for discovery and to uncover the history of Mars
[snap]
could you kindly provide some info regarding these "thousands" of studies?
Surely if they're so plentiful, I'd have found more than I did when researching "Mars, geomorphology, Cydonia."

While there are plentiful sources for "martian geomorphology" pointing out the likely role massive amounts of water played in producing the many formations, certain few I found actually dealt with Cydonia.
So, I went to Google Scholar, entered "Mars geomorphology", and got 1,350 results.

Oh? Did you find any of the alleged "more recent" studies on Cydonia? After all, this is the argument being used to counter Erjavec's work: "it's almost 10yrs old," right?

As it turns out, I had in "martian geomorphology" rather than "Mars geomorphology" and it produced some 10,400 results.

Does this matter to you? The number of results?

If so, then a search on "geomorphology Mars Cydonia" produces a meager 236 results.

Hmmm.... :-?


As for Cydonia, well, we're back to the 'why Cydonia?' question, aren't we?

Certain folk think it worth investing a lot of effort to investigate, because of its possibly 'artificial' origin (not in any way quantified; no objective criteria for selecting this rather than any other part of Mars, etc); other folk don't.

Why is Cydonia more important to study, in detail, than any other part of Mars? If it's because it 'might have an artificial orgin', then how do you test - objectively - 'artificiality'? Unless and until we have an answer to this question, there are - I contend - no grounds for selecting this region for study, over any other region (except pure, subjective speculation).

So what you're saying here then, is that those scientists, Sagan included, who initially thought of Cydonia as a primary target for a Viking mission were working on "pure, subjective speculation?" :-?


Would it help if I were to provide another 'pets and clouds' analogy, A.DIM?

Not necessary, Nereid.
Keep your "pets and clouds," that's not science.

Apparently even the "differential erosion" seen in the area isn't geologically interesting to you. Nevermind too, that it sits on the shore of an ancient ocean, and with such apparent erosional history looks like a good place to look for microbial life. After all, it is in the exposed, eroded stratum that evidence for Life can be found, no? Just as it is here on Earth.

[N C More]

I believe that there are plently of speculative articles about the face but what about articles from a strictly scientific perspective?

Take a look at this article. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm) Here's a bit from Jim Garvin, an actual scientist for NASA's Mars exploration program:



What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa -- landforms common around the American West. "It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Garvin. "That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars."

Cydonia is littered with mesas like the Face, but the others don't look like human heads and they've attracted little popular attention. Garvin and other members of the MGS Science Team have studied them carefully, however, using a laser altimeter called "MOLA" on board Mars Global Surveyor.

MOLA can measure the heights of things with a vertical precision of 20 to 30 cm (its horizontal resolution is 150m). "We took hundreds of altitude measurements of the mesa-like features around Cydonia," says Garvin, "including the Face. The height of the Face, its volume and aspect ratio -- all of its dimensions, in fact -- are similar to the other mesas. It's not exotic in any way."

[Gillianren]

ah, but will you in turn concede that, had it not gotten such attention, NASA might've been able to act in a more reasonable manner? if I accept that NASA or JPL was in any way at fault, I would also postulate that, were people like the gentlemen (yes?) here pressuring them so, they might've handled it in a more scientific way, though of course we can never be sure.

I suppose, but more revealing here is that you can recognize now that either way, "a more scientific way," as it were, is influenced; though I don't imagine whatever "woowoos" pressures there were to have as much clout as say, government and DoD pressures.

I'd like to think that Science is immune to such things, but there is ample evidence that it is not.

er . . . not sure what you think I'm saying, here. once again, an "if" has been ignored. I didn't say that I do accept it, note. I said if I did. also, remember that NASA is Your Tax Dollars At Work; ergo, the public gets more of a say than is generally recognized. let's not forget why NASA didn't put out a debunking-the-Moon-Hoax book, after all--the public wanted them to spend their money on space. alas, in this instance, the public seems to have preferred sound bites to science, so further pictures were taken and shown off at the earliest opportunity. thanks, Hoagland; that's what I care about--making sure fuzzy images that vaguely look like they're artificial aren't.


From my standpoint, it could be said that many "skeptics" here have ignored points made in order to portray Outcast, or myself, even scientists cited, as mere woowoos and HBs and conspiracists out to defame NASA.

yes, but you haven't satisfactorily answered my question, either.

let's look at this in the light of pure logic for a minute, shall we?

according to you, NASA was covering something up. at least, that's what can easily be inferred from your posts. if that isn't what you mean, I think you need to reconsider your posting style to include "I don't believe this" a lot more frequently; merely saying "it may or may not be true" sounds like a dodge, and further arguing the point makes it fairly clear on which side you're dodging.

anyway. so press conference is held. "look!" they say. "it looks like a face!" someone a few pages back cited the specifics of the press conference; I have faith in everyone's skills of skimming past pages so that they can find them, and therefore won't repeat them here.

headlines, cover stories, etc., follow, as why wouldn't they? "look!" the media says. "it looks like a face!"

now, do correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe NASA ever said it was a face, merely that it looked like one. as has been shown repeatedly, there are blurry features on the Earth and the Moon that look kinda like faces, too. however, some people are not capable of making the distinction between "it looks like" and "it is," so the bandwagon starts up and all kinds of people leap on it.

at this point, NASA's in a bit of a bind. they have more reasons to believe it isn't a face than they do to believe that it is, and apparently, there are interesting . . . well, not geological, obviously, but you know, features about the region even if the thing hadn't looked like a face. so they take more pictures. thanks to certain people who've already been mentioned yet make certain other people really touchy when they are, there's an awful lot of publicity. so they promise a better picture when new probes are sent.

well, of course, the usual procedure is to take a little bit of time before releasing images, due to a whole list of reasons. however, I'm sure the fine people at JPL knew that, should "usual procedure" occur, Certain People would cry foul--they were taking extra time so's they could doctor the images, obviously. so they release a picture that isn't quite to their usual standards to shut people up. almost immediately after (the timeline on this has also been posted a few pages ago), they release a better picture, but that's obviously been doctored, on account of it took extra time.

this is, as far as I'm concerned, a perfectly reasonable train of events. oh, sure, there's human error in it. why? because it deals with humans. (no evidence that it deals with aliens.) but let's look at the same facts from the "eeeevil NASA's covering things up" angle, shall we?

Voyager (which one, btw?) does its little swing past Mars, and, lo and behold, there's a face there. dangdedest thing, really. so, of course, in an effort to appease the masses, they release the picture, saying, "it looks like a face!" (place one where I want motivation behind the decision.)

now, we can't be having with people knowing it's a face, even though we (assuming we are all NASA/JPL stooges, now) were the ones to release it in the first place. so let's take more pictures. (place two where I want motivation behind the decision.) and when they return, instead of following normal procedure, which doesn't look suspicious to anyone who isn't determined to find something suspicious, we rush something out that's not up to our usual standards, then release a better picture later the same day, having apparently taken the time to doctor picture #3 (the Voyager picture's number one) instead of just waiting a day and never releasing picture #2 in the first place. (place three where I want motivation behind the decision.)

so, kids. this is where Mr. Logic steps in. unless answers living up to his exacting standards can be brought forth, I'm going with scenario #1 as infinitely simpler and more logical.

and, sure, human error is always possible in scenario #2. however, that strikes me as an awful lot of error.

[Outcast]

I think an argument can be made that NASA has handled the "Face" situation badly:

- Saying that there were other photos when there weren't
- Providing an extremely low quality image from MGS early on (though I blame the Face proponents for this as well)
- Claiming before MGS that all attempts to image Cydonia would be announced in advance and then not following through
- Claiming (at one point) that there was a high-resolution image and anaglyph of the Face on the web several weeks before it was actually posted

However, I think this is more due to NASA personnel not taking the Face at all seriously (and in some cases resenting the interest it was receiving) rather than a cover-up or anything else nefarious.

thank you for those points, ToSeek.

i've been trying to get people's attention to some of the "mistakes" that Nasa did on this issue to no avail. it took 18 pages for some to tacitly agree that the "cat box" image was a "bungle". the MOLA data issue is still ignored while woowoo innuendos are sent Flemming's way. and yet, some around here complain that i "ignore" them or their "questions". maybe if they focused more on the issues at hand instead of on what i believe or what my psychological profile might be... again, remember one thing, the internet is an anonymous medium and in fact you know nothing about me.

im tired of seeing my words getting twisted and my person being the focus of unfunded innuendos and accusations.
scientists do not attack each other (at least they shouldnt allhtough it happens more times than it should) because, suposedly, science should focus objectively on the arguments instead of the person presenting them. there are some in here who pretend to be speaking in the name of science or have that word on their lips frequently who do like to resort to character assassination and thats mainly their "arguments". i dont really care to discuss anything with such figures so i wont.

interestingly enough ToSeek's post got little attention, i bet if i had posted such speculation i would be attacked from all sides and even accused of cheating on my wife. i guess this is life when you dont "belong" in the club. or maybe i should start singing with the choir just to be abble to, once i a while, be allowed to make a more speculative post.

[Fram]

Outcast (and A.DIM), if you were as fast to acknowledge posts that went against your point of view as you are to recuperate those that agree with some part of your argument, you would perhaps get more respect.

Fleming is not saying that NASA hasn't acted professionally with the catbox image and made some errors. Fleming is saying that it is probably the biggest hoax in history and part of a government conspiracy. That is the reason people here consider him an adherent of a woo-woo theory, and as long as you and A.DIM keep blindly supporting him (e.g. by using outdated or fairly unscientific papers), I'll think the same about you two. It doesn't matter to me if you are a mass murderer or a saint in real life, I judge you on your actions here.

[Outcast]

ah, but will you in turn concede that, had it not gotten such attention, NASA might've been able to act in a more reasonable manner? if I accept that NASA or JPL was in any way at fault, I would also postulate that, were people like the gentlemen (yes?) here pressuring them so, they might've handled it in a more scientific way, though of course we can never be sure.

and add me to the "Outcast ignores me" club. not only does he ignore me, he ignored a whole page's discussion about one of my points, and still hasn't really answered my question.

i believe i've answered your question(s). if you do NOT accept my answer then that is really your problem, isnt it? the way i see it, with you now constantly complaining about being "ignored", i dont think that you're going to accept anything i send your way.

allthough... it seems that, in a subtle way, you are agreeing that Nasa behaved in a less than scientific way. which i agree.

if you have anyother particular question in mind let me know and i'll try to answer to the best of my knowlledge. you might allways disagree with my answer, but hey, at least you'll not get ignored.

[Outcast]

Outcast (and A.DIM), if you were as fast to acknowledge posts that went against your point of view as you are to recuperate those that agree with some part of your argument, you would perhaps get more respect.

Fleming is not saying that NASA hasn't acted professionally with the catbox image and made some errors. Fleming is saying that it is probably the biggest hoax in history and part of a government conspiracy. That is the reason people here consider him an adherent of a woo-woo theory, and as long as you and A.DIM keep blindly supporting him (e.g. by using outdated or fairly unscientific papers), I'll think the same about you two. It doesn't matter to me if you are a mass murderer or a saint in real life, I judge you on your actions here.

excuse me Fram, but i read that question in another way, and i believe according to Flemming's point of view. IF Cydonia's artificiality is ever proved to be true THEN the "cat box" fiasco is going to be looked as one of the greatest hoaxes in history.

actually this is what Flemming said literally:

The Catbox is not a "poor" enhancement, as it is often called; it is a crude but very effective fraud perpetrated by employees or contractors to the United States government. Even if the Face is proven to be completely natural, this is inexcusable misconduct and a gross abuse of power. If the Face ultimately is proven to be artificial, the Catbox will certainly come to be regarded as the greatest, most malicious, and most destructive scientific hoax since the Piltdown Man, and perhaps of all time.

which is quite different from Flemming outright stating that as it stands the "cat box" face issue is an "historical fraud". it isnt, allthough its an example of unscientific practice and abuse of power.

talking about judging others actions in here, you would also deserve more respect if you did not tag with the party line and did not misrepresent what others have said while twisting the meaning of their words like you purported to do with Flemming. besides the reason why Flemming, a credited engineer with a Bachelor degree on Science, is packed with the woowoo crowd derives more from the fact that he stings where it hurts than anything else.

[Van Rijn]

[According to Fleming] IF Cydonia's artificiality is ever proved to be true THEN the "cat box" fiasco is going to be looked as one of the greatest hoaxes in history [snip]
which is quite different from Flemming outright stating that as it stands the "cat box" face issue is an "historical fraud". it isnt, allthough its an example of unscientific practice and abuse of power.


Oh, come on. Even in your own quoted material he said:



The Catbox is not a "poor" enhancement, as it is often called; it is a crude but very effective fraud perpetrated by employees or contractors to the United States government.


And from

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox.htm

Fleming also said (bolding added for emphasis):


The "Catbox" is undoubtedly the shoddiest piece of image processing work released in the 40-year history of the space program. Why did they do it? Unless JPL permitted complete incompetents to run loose in their lab, the only reasonable conclusion is that the MGS image was deliberately doctored for public consumption in order to kill public interest in the subject of planetary SETI in general and Cydonia in particular.
[snip]
According to some apologists for the JPL, since the MGS image doesn't look like a Face - in their personal opinions - then it is irrelevant whether or not the Catbox was fraudulent. Such assertions are an affront to anyone who puts any faith in the process of scientific inquiry. Personal opinions can never justify sloppy and dishonest work.
[snip]
And if its true appearance really is so unremarkable, why then were these unknown people at JPL so in fear of the public seeing it that they released the Catbox instead?

The Catbox was almost certainly a highly unethical (and highly successful) attempt to manipulate public opinion to serve someone's private agenda. It was, however, not a "cover-up" in the X-Files sense of the word. With sufficient influence over the news media, much can be very effectively hidden in full view.


He is saying it was fraud. He is saying there was a cover-up and an conspiracy. He is saying NASA was trying to kill interest in Cydonia. Hello? You can't weasel out of it, Outcast. Honestly, how do you read so selectively? The guy is a grade-A woo-woo.

[Fram]

I couldn't have said it better.